Our Own Planets?

[JDave]

I agree that for those who prefer the relative safety of an superficial grasp of foundational doctrinal principles such as we can have all that our Father hath that the King Follet Discourse is not doctrine.

 

However, for those who wish to find meaning, who seek out the enlightenment of the spirit and follow the guidance of the prophets to seek out knowledge and wisdom and understanding, then for us who seek to add depth and meaning to these foundational principles it becomes and individual doctrine of great worth. I have read it, studied, it and sustain it for my own cannon of doctrinal wisdom.  I think Joseph would approve.

I think Joseph would approve.  Not sure whether he would approve of it being treated as scripture, but I am sure he would approve of you gaining understanding from it.

 

I like what strappinglad said about the newsroom statement being a bit of a disclaimer.  It points to the scriptures as having the best set of tried and true doctrine, but even so the scriptures themselves have disclaimers that they are not necessarily devoid of mistakes.  Some people are much more concerned with orthopraxy and the intricacies of what exactly is doctrine really doesn't interest them much.  Others, of course, are VERY interested in where all the demarcations are located relative to 'truth', 'revelation', 'knowledge', 'doctrine', 'tradition', 'opinion', etc.  The church statement doesn't, and can't, pinpoint exact boundaries.  It points out that the more often something is stated the more likely it is to be considered doctrinal and perhaps even 'true'.

 

All of this is only necessary because we believe in ongoing revelation.  We actually believe that all those boundaries between 'doctrine' and 'opinion' are flexible and SHOULD change with time.  Many are uncomfortable with that thought, but that's the way it is.  I don't see any attempt to explain away the KFD or the doctrine that we can become like God.  I do see some effort to be more clear in expressing that we don't have clear details on what theosis entails.  I think the church's statement disclaiming 'get our own planet' stems partly from realizing that statements in this area are certainly fuzzy with respect to the 'doctrine/tradition' boundary, and partly from seeing usage of this 'own planet' terminology by critics to paint a crude and disparaging picture of our doctrine of theosis.

[SamIam]

I think Joseph would approve.  Not sure whether he would approve of it being treated as scripture, but I am sure he would approve of you gaining understanding from it.

 

All of this is only necessary because we believe in ongoing revelation.  We actually believe that all those boundaries between 'doctrine' and 'opinion' are flexible and SHOULD change with time.  Many are uncomfortable with that thought, but that's the way it is.  I don't see any attempt to explain away the KFD or the doctrine that we can become like God.  I do see some effort to be more clear in expressing that we don't have clear details on what theosis entails.  I think the church's statement disclaiming 'get our own planet' stems partly from realizing that statements in this area are certainly fuzzy with respect to the 'doctrine/tradition' boundary, and partly from seeing usage of this 'own planet' terminology by critics to paint a crude and disparaging picture of our doctrine of theosis.

 

I agree that there is some issue with how the enemies of the church use less mainstream elements of LDS doctrine as part of their undermining process.  However, if it was not this principle it would be another.  Still, as I stated in my earlier post, I think the conflation of the term planet as superior to the term kingdom is a mistake. Kingdom is the more accurate term and is less subject to the ridicule of those less informed on the subject.  

 

Love your avatar by the way...It reminds me of a former brief existence.

Edited August 25, 2013 by SamIam

[thesometimesaint]

I agree that for those who prefer the relative safety of an superficial grasp of foundational doctrinal principles such as we can have all that our Father hath that the King Follet Discourse is not doctrine.

 

However, for those who wish to find meaning, who seek out the enlightenment of the spirit and follow the guidance of the prophets to seek out knowledge and wisdom and understanding, then for us who seek to add depth and meaning to these foundational principles it becomes and individual doctrine of great worth. I have read it, studied, it and sustain it for my own cannon of doctrinal wisdom.  I think Joseph would approve.

 

The KFD has that God the Father has a father, whom has a father, etc., etc., etc.. We have nothing of the sort as doctrine. Our doctrine is God has been God the Father from before the foundations of the world. I'm not saying that JS was wrong. We just have no doctrine about it. 

 

BTW I know the doctrines of the Church as well or better than you do. JS never submitted the KFD as canon, nor has any other President of the Church.

[Storm Rider]

The KFD has that God the Father has a father, whom has a father, etc., etc., etc.. We have nothing of the sort as doctrine. Our doctrine is God has been God the Father from before the foundations of the world. I'm not saying that JS was wrong. We just have no doctrine about it. 

 

BTW I know the doctrines of the Church as well or better than you do. JS never submitted the KFD as canon, nor has any other President of the Church.

 

Sometimes individuals get a little carried away with their zealous support of the Church and they forget humility or the possibility they don't know quite as much as they think they do. It is best not to take anything they say personally.  You hit on one of the things that makes me look upon the KFD with reticence. It raises too many questions for some of the truths it teaches.  I can teach the same truths from the scriptures. 

[thesometimesaint]

I do try to not take things a personal affronts, as hard as it is sometimes. Part of disagreeing while not being disagreeable.

[rodheadlee]

You can't have this planet. I already have dibs on it. In fact in the brochure "Pick Your Planet Now While you Have a Chance" put out by the Church we picked ours a long time ago and you obviously picked the same one so we are going to be in a bind unless you want to "co-rule" with us!

 

Please......this seems so silly to me!

Hey no problem, you can have it, I'll just build another one.

Edited August 25, 2013 by rodheadlee

[Tacenda]

I think it strange that in our manuals it states that we will have worlds, not planets but same thing, and you all are kidding around as if it's not there.

[volgadon]

I think it strange that in our manuals it states that we will have worlds, not planets but same thing, and you all are kidding around as if it's not there.

 

 

Yes, it is there, and yes, I do find it beautiful theology.

[Storm Rider]

I think it strange that in our manuals it states that we will have worlds, not planets but same thing, and you all are kidding around as if it's not there.

What I say is that it is incomplete and limited. I think it is too narrow to encompass God and his glory; that is all.

[SamIam]

The KFD has that God the Father has a father, whom has a father, etc., etc., etc.. We have nothing of the sort as doctrine. Our doctrine is God has been God the Father from before the foundations of the world. I'm not saying that JS was wrong. We just have no doctrine about it. 

 

BTW I know the doctrines of the Church as well or better than you do. JS never submitted the KFD as canon, nor has any other President of the Church.

 

Let me clarify...Of all the things that B. H. Roberts wrote or said this one quote is the one that I am most reminded up from the Seventy's Course in Theology v.5 from the Introduction where he states far more eloquently that my pitiful effort before to capture the same sentiment. Underlining added for the portion I feel is most germane...

 

 

."Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine things. Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah's ravens and feed us without effort on our part. To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar—"Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther." Man cannot hope to understand the things of God, they plead, or penetrate those things which he has left shrouded in mystery. "Be thou content with the simple faith that accepts without question. To believe, and accept the ordinances, and then live the moral law will doubtless bring men unto salvation; why then should man strive and trouble himself to understand? Much study is still a weariness of the flesh." So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud "the simple faith;" which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand. And doubtless many good people regard this course as indicative of reverence—this plea in bar of effort—"thus far and no farther." "There is often a great deal of intellectual sin concealed under this old aphorism," remarks Henry Drummond. "When men do not really wish to go farther they find it an honorable convenience sometimes to sit down on the outmost edge of the 'holy ground' on the pretext of taking off their shoes." "Yet," he continues, "we must be certain that, making a virtue of reverence, we are not merely excusing ignorance; or under the plea of 'mystery' evading a truth which has been stated in the New Testament a hundred times, in the most literal form, and with all but monotonous repetition." (Spiritual Law, pp. 89, 90.)This sort of "reverence" is easily simulated, and is of such flattering unction, and so pleasant to follow—"soul take thine ease"—that without question it is very often simulated; and falls into the same category as the simulated humility couched in "I don't know," which so often really means "I don't care, and do not intend to trouble myself to find out."

 

My point is that what is doctrine officially by the church's standard is a simple unconstrained statement lacking in excessive effort to make a creed that bars individual thought and effort.  However, if you take a concept such as the KFD which you state is not doctrine then I beg to differ.  Not because I wish to stay with the safe "voted on by membership" position as you have posited as appropriate but because when I read scripture I can see the vestiges of material upon which Joseph makes his KFD observations.  He gives you several little tags to scriptural reference that are provided for you to consider as you make the same effort of gaining the same spirit that prompted him to make the observations he made.  My point is that it is impossible for those who will not seek the same spirit, to grasp the doctrine that Joseph expounded upon in the KFD. However for someone to put forth that they as an individual have greater capacity to judge what is doctrine and what is not than anything which Joseph Smith taught is in my mind the highest from of delusion.  Who could possibly take such  an audacious position and feel justified in the least. It is that attitude that I find so disconcerting and to a simple minded man such as myself it speaks volumes about what really is the issue.  

[thesometimesaint]

Samlam:

 

I think that you are overgeneralizing what I have said. I too have no wish to limit God or our possibility of becoming like God. What I am saying is that not everything is a matter of doctrine of the Church. Somethings we need further Revelation on before it can become doctrine. Other times it is a sincerely held personal interpretation of doctrine. While valuable, and possibly even true, the Church has no doctrine on it.

 

For example. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, but we also put in that as far as it is translated correctly. The Book of Mormon within itself says there are errors. I am not under any obligation, as a Church member, to believe anything that is in error or not doctrine. That goes for the KFD as well.

[Calm]

I think it strange that in our manuals it states that we will have worlds, not planets but same thing, and you all are kidding around as if it's not there.

The issue for me is when it is presented as if these will be our personal properties to do with what we want (as is implied when people start speculating in fun on creating something different on their planet than exists here on earth).

This is different then being delegated stewardship to hold under the direction of God. If we are one with God, sharing in his Glory, then surely he is sharing in ours. I see celestial life as more likely being like the Zion communities in the scriptures where it is taught all things were had in common among them.

[Stone holm]

The newsroom statement is nothing more than a disclaimer. It does not pinpoint a particular statement by a particular GA is being non doctrinal. It is, in general, correct in its assertions as to what is to be used to test doctrine, however, modern revelation can set aside ancient revelation, or what's a prophet for? Do statements by Paul regarding the place of women in the church hold sway in today's church ? Why not?

 

Well, yes and no, people are going to take a disclaimer as pointing towards something not be true.  Unfortunately, a lot of Christians including a few benighted Mormons take Paul's statements about women as doctrine -- part of the residue of that type of thinking can be seen in gender stereotyping.

[SamIam]

Samlam:

 

I think that you are overgeneralizing what I have said. I too have no wish to limit God or our possibility of becoming like God. What I am saying is that not everything is a matter of doctrine of the Church. Somethings we need further Revelation on before it can become doctrine. Other times it is a sincerely held personal interpretation of doctrine. While valuable, and possibly even true, the Church has no doctrine on it.

 

For example. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, but we also put in that as far as it is translated correctly. The Book of Mormon within itself says there are errors. I am not under any obligation, as a Church member, to believe anything that is in error or not doctrine. That goes for the KFD as well.

 

Well now here we go agreeing again...rare indeed...that is my point.  By taking advantage of items such as the KFD one can ponder and contemplate and seek additional light and knowledge thus my point of it becomes doctrine to some while outside of the basic standards of the foundational doctrines of the church. The revelational aspects some of us expound in our posts have taken on the same merit to us individually as doctrine collectively understood.  In two of my posts on this thread I have shared some inklings and have observed they mean nothing to anyone else.  However they represent hundreds of hours of consideration of such things and I have comfort that they are precepts upon precepts in the right direction.

 

My challenge is there are always some who have no interest other than undermining observations of others by minimizing, negating, redefining etc. and that bars the lines of dialogue and stops all learning.  Some always want to discourage the type of interactions that spawn new considerations. However as you graciously validate we agree  - outside of the basics of the church defined doctrine there is no other doctrine save that which is and should remain our personal understandings prompted by our personal interactions with the spirit.  Yet though they be personal does not mean they are not sharable when a receptive mind is entertained.

Edited August 26, 2013 by SamIam

[Storm Rider]

Well, yes and no, people are going to take a disclaimer as pointing towards something not be true.  Unfortunately, a lot of Christians including a few benighted Mormons take Paul's statements about women as doctrine -- part of the residue of that type of thinking can be seen in gender stereotyping.

 

...and the heresy is trying to make woman a man. She is not and nor should she be. Last night on BBC a reporter and his wife chose to live in Germany for a short period of time to gain an understanding of the German culture. The documentary showed how they adjusted to a different culture, worked at a factory, and tried to make friends. Though there were several interesting points made in the report that distinguished the German culture from the British, what the most uncomfortable point for the wife was that there were German women that were content to have children and then stay home to be mothers. This was inconceivable to her. For her, a woman needed to be in the work force making a "real" impact on society. The small fact that being a mom was wholly lacking in self-fulfillment or having any significant impact on society. Successful human families and children demand more than hiring a childcare worker to raise them and keep them intact. Being a successful couple and a successful family is contingent upon a deep understanding of the meaning of being a father and a mother. It is not a biological act, but a complete commitment to the "other" and a sacrifice of the self.

 

In our day and age there are economic necessities that have forced some wives and mothers to be in the workforce. That is the key to be forced to join the work force, to make an even greater sacrifice for the welfare of the family, rather than an escape from being a mother. No, a village does not raise a child, but a mother and father do.

[Ahab]

Samlam:

 

I think that you are overgeneralizing what I have said. I too have no wish to limit God or our possibility of becoming like God. What I am saying is that not everything is a matter of doctrine of the Church. Somethings we need further Revelation on before it can become doctrine. Other times it is a sincerely held personal interpretation of doctrine. While valuable, and possibly even true, the Church has no doctrine on it.

 

For example. We believe the Bible to be the word of God, but we also put in that as far as it is translated correctly. The Book of Mormon within itself says there are errors. I am not under any obligation, as a Church member, to believe anything that is in error or not doctrine. That goes for the KFD as well.

Just ask God whether or not the teachings are true, bro.   You don't really need to label something as "doctrine" to be able to find out if it is true, so stop quibbling over whether or not something that has been taught can be correctly labeled as "doctrine".

[thesometimesaint]

Just ask God whether or not the teachings are true, bro.   You don't really need to label something as "doctrine" to be able to find out if it is true, so stop quibbling over whether or not something that has been taught can be correctly labeled as "doctrine".

 

We are to think it out in our own minds then ask God. Apparaently the GA's have done this and the KFD still isn't doctrine.

[Ahab]

We are to think it out in our own minds then ask God. Apparaently the GA's have done this and the KFD still isn't doctrine.

Maybe what we need is an official declaration stating that something can be part of our doctrine without being specified in the standard works.

 

Hmm.  Or maybe we already have a declaration like that from our Church officials that states something like that.

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe what we need is an official declaration stating that something can be part of our doctrine without being specified in the standard works.

 

Hmm.  Or maybe we already have a declaration like that from our Church officials that states something like that.

 

I eagerly await the OD # 3.

 

Please show me where in my Quad I can find OD # 3.

[Ahab]

I eagerly await the OD # 3.

 

Please show me where in my Quad I can find OD # 3.

My point was that an idea can be true and come to us through revelation from God without being specified in the standard works.

 

You might as well say: A Quad! A Quad!  We already have a Quad, and when any idea is true it must be put into our Quad !!!

[Stone holm]

My point was that an idea can be true and come to us through revelation from God without being specified in the standard works.

 

You might as well say: A Quad! A Quad!  We already have a Quad, and when any idea is true it must be put into our Quad !!!

 

Agreed people have short memories...gave you a reputation bump on that one.

[Freedom]

My point was that an idea can be true and come to us through revelation from God without being specified in the standard works.

 

You might as well say: A Quad! A Quad!  We already have a Quad, and when any idea is true it must be put into our Quad !!!

It can be true for you, but an individual is not qualified to receive revelation on what is doctrine therefore such a revelation would never come. This has probably already been posted here, but here is the current official church position on the matter of planets:

""Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?

No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.ca/article/mormonism-101-faq#C14

[SamIam]

It can be true for you, but an individual is not qualified to receive revelation on what is doctrine therefore such a revelation would never come. This has probably already been posted here, but here is the current official church position on the matter of planets:

""Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?

No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.ca/article/mormonism-101-faq#C14

 

Actually, I think you each of you may be talking past each other for the cause of semantics. 

 

from this link:  http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine

 

...is a fine article that defines doctrine according to LDS standards.

MEANING OF DOCTRINE. The word "doctrine" in the scriptures means "a teaching" as well as "that which is taught." Most often in the Church it refers to the teachings or doctrine of Jesus Christ, understood in a rather specific sense. Scripturally, then, the term "doctrine" means the core message of Jesus Christ-that Jesus is the Messiah, the Redeemer. All other teachings are subordinate to those by which all people "know how to come unto Christ and be saved"-that is, to the "points of doctrine," such as faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. At one time, stressing the preeminence and foundational nature of this message, Jesus taught, "And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock" (3 Ne. 11:40).

 

 

Thus we have a very narrow and restricted perspective that some prefer.  However in the same article we a broader more expanded possibility that others may find just as reasonable:

 

In addition to its scriptural use, the word "doctrine" has a broad meaning in Mormon vernacular, where it is used to mean virtually everything that is, or has been, taught or believed by the Latter-day Saints. In this sense, doctrinal teachings answer a host of questions. Some relate closely to the core message of the gospel of Jesus Christ; others are farther removed and unsystematically lap over into such disciplines as history, psychology, philosophy, science, politics, business, and economics. Some of these beliefs qualify as official doctrine and are given to the Saints as counsel, exhortation, reproof, and instruction (2 Tim. 3:16). Continual effort is made to harmonize and implement these principles and doctrine into a righteous life. Other teachings, ones that lack official or authoritative standing, may also be widespread among Church members at any given time.

 

 

Finally, this quote brings the concept more fully to the point of individual concepts of doctrine being required and acceptable if one is to advance in the Gospel:

SOURCE OF DOCTRINE. God is the source of doctrine. It is not devised or developed by man. It is based on eternal truth and is revealed by God to man. It can be properly understood only by revelation through the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11-14; Jacob 4:8).

God dispenses eternal truths "line upon line, precept upon precept" (2 Ne. 28:30). At times, he has revealed the fulness of the gospel, and those who have accepted and lived it were received into his presence. When people have ignored or rejected his gospel, God has on occasion withheld his Spirit, and people have had to live in a state of spiritual darkness (see Apostasy).

 

 

So if one prefers the use of the term to refer to only those things that are specific to the salvific elements of the gospel as such as can be called the doctrine of Christ, that is certainly admissible.

 

If one prefers to see doctrine as additional points of revelation that an individual may class as the required doctrine or understandings necessary to bring one back into the presence of God that also should be a tolerated expectation when clarified as such.

 

The point for me is that if one is living by the spirit of revelation and one hopes to enter the presence of God, of necessity he will receive doctrine that is suitable for his heed and diligence which is not considered doctrine for those who are not willing to example the same levels of heed and diligence.

Edited August 26, 2013 by SamIam

[Ahab]

Actually, I think you each of you may be talking past each other for the cause of semantics. 

 

from this link:  http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine

 

...is a fine article that defines doctrine according to LDS standards.

 

Thus we have a very narrow and restricted perspective that some prefer.  However in the same article we a broader more expanded possibility that others may find just as reasonable:

 

 

Finally, this quote brings the concept more fully to the point of individual concepts of doctrine being required and acceptable if one is to advance in the Gospel:

 

So if one prefers the use of the term to refer to only those things that are specific to the salvific elements of the gospel as such as can be called the doctrine of Christ, that is certainly admissible.

 

If one prefers to see doctrine as additional points of revelation that an individual may class as the required doctrine or understandings necessary to bring one back into the presence of God that also should be a tolerated expectation when clarified as such.

 

The point for me is that if one is living by the spirit of revelation and one hopes to enter the presence of God, of necessity he will receive doctrine that is suitable for his heed and diligence which is not considered doctrine for those who are not willing to example the same levels of heed and diligence.

Thank you for that.   You made a lot of good points and I appreciate what you said.  My point, though, was that we shouldn't dwell so much on whether or not a teaching is included in our Church doctrine, as if that is the end all and be all of any concept of truth.

 

What matters is whether or not something is true, and whether you consider or call some aspect of truth our "doctrine", if it is true, then it's still true whether or not that truth can be classified as our Church doctrine.  We just need to know whether or not it is true.

[kassie]

I have a problem with this also. As a mother of nine children ages 4-18 (one died at age 2) I have always felt that being a mother was the best job in the world. I am also a tutor, having been a teacher in the classroom when my first four children were young but then it just became too much. We don't live a life of luxury that we would if I "went back to work" but on the other hand I have to think about our little people! They need their Mom! I know that some mothers work outside the home by choice and I say "more power to them!" Others stay at home to hold down the fort and I say "More power to them!" We each have to do what we feel Heavenly Father is asking us to do. When I left teaching full time I looked at my husband and said "Can we make it?" And he said..."Nope. Probably not. But God can get us through it." And we have......

Also, as far as feeling like a "second class citizen" as a stay at home mom, this really irks me. I was with a friend last year at the zoo with her five and my ...how ever many I had with me....and a perfectly strange woman walked up and asked us if we "were some kind of day care." I laughed and said, "oh no, these are all ours and there are some who aren't even here who are at school!" She was horrified. She said "Don't you people know anything about birth control?" I was dumbstruck. My friend never missed a beat. She said "Do you have children?" The woman said "Certainly not." My friend said "Don't you people know anything about infertility clinics?" The bottom line is to an LDS our family is a bit of the celestial kingdom here on Earth. I don't care if we get a planet, a galaxy, a universe, or live in Heavenly Father's presence. I'm going to leave it up to Him.

...and the heresy is trying to make woman a man. She is not and nor should she be. Last night on BBC a reporter and his wife chose to live in Germany for a short period of time to gain an understanding of the German culture. The documentary showed how they adjusted to a different culture, worked at a factory, and tried to make friends. Though there were several interesting points made in the report that distinguished the German culture from the British, what the most uncomfortable point for the wife was that there were German women that were content to have children and then stay home to be mothers. This was inconceivable to her. For her, a woman needed to be in the work force making a "real" impact on society. The small fact that being a mom was wholly lacking in self-fulfillment or having any significant impact on society. Successful human families and children demand more than hiring a childcare worker to raise them and keep them intact. Being a successful couple and a successful family is contingent upon a deep understanding of the meaning of being a father and a mother. It is not a biological act, but a complete commitment to the "other" and a sacrifice of the self.

 

In our day and age there are economic necessities that have forced some wives and mothers to be in the workforce. That is the key to be forced to join the work force, to make an even greater sacrifice for the welfare of the family, rather than an escape from being a mother. No, a village does not raise a child, but a mother and father do.