Our Own Planets?

[thesometimesaint]

You seem to be trying to bury your  head in the sand, bro.  Some things are just obvious to anyone who knows what a Father is and how someone becomes a Father.  Sure, you can imagine that our Father may have had us as his children out of wedlock, or that he somehow created us without a woman.  Or that he was born without both a Father and Mother to give birth to him.  But why waste your time thinking silly thoughts like that?  And why keep deluding yourself into thinking my thoughts are only speculation?

 

I know what LDS doctrine claims and what you are claiming isn't it.

 

I have three children of my own. I know how it is done. I also have friends that have adopted children. They are no less their children than those that were created by others.

 

I never said that we are children out of wedlock. Just that we have no doctrine concerning God the Fathers' marital status.

 

I never said that God created us without a woman. Just that we have no doctrine concerning her.

 

I never said that God the Father didn't have a father. Just that we have no doctrine concerning him.

 

I don't find it a waste of time, and even if I did, it is my time to waste. Personally I have more than enough problems to deal with in the second half of that couplet than getting overly concerned with what God the Father may or may not have done.

[Tacenda]

TSS and others,

 

I distinctly remember a GD lesson last year, before my calling in Primary, where the sub teacher said the words "when we become Gods".  I was taken back, because in my memory I really hadn't heard that said in a GD class before.  But I'm always in and out of Primary callings too.  So I think it is spoken of apparently, even in the last year or so.

 

Do the leaders of the church need to make it understood better that we aren't to speculate on this matter, if indeed that is the case.  Just Pres. Hinckley mentioning that we don't know about it, isn't enough.  If we are not supposed to even speculate, then we should make it known.  The church needs to fine tune what we believe "now", if our prophet gets revelation.  We need to know what is believed in the church, so members don't spread false belief one way or the other.  If the KFD isn't true, we need to know about it.  If it is, we need to know about it.

 

I know the church is changing constantly.  But don't we also believe God never changes?  Is that contradictory?  Maybe it's just the church leader's ideas that change.  And they believe they are guided to change.  But if we don't really believe in the whole KFD, why is it that we perform it for thousands to see it in Nauvoo?             

[thesometimesaint]

TSS and others,

 

I distinctly remember a GD lesson last year, before my calling in Primary, where the sub teacher said the words "when we become Gods".  I was taken back, because in my memory I really hadn't heard that said in a GD class before.  But I'm always in and out of Primary callings too.  So I think it is spoken of apparently, even in the last year or so.

 

Do the leaders of the church need to make it understood better that we aren't to speculate on this matter, if indeed that is the case.  Just Pres. Hinckley mentioning that we don't know about it, isn't enough.  If we are not supposed to even speculate, then we should make it known.  The church needs to fine tune what we believe "now", if our prophet gets revelation.  We need to know what is believed in the church, so members don't spread false belief one way or the other.  If the KFD isn't true, we need to know about it.  If it is, we need to know about it.

 

I know the church is changing constantly.  But don't we also believe God never changes?  Is that contradictory?  Maybe it's just the church leader's ideas that change.  And they believe they are guided to change.  But if we don't really believe in the whole KFD, why is it that we perform it for thousands to see it in Nauvoo?             

 

LDS Christianity is based on the knowledge that we someday can become like God. To be crowned with Crowns of Righteousness and sit on Gods' Throne with Christ. That belief comes from the Bible. Theosis should be of no surprise to any LDS Christian.

 

We don't believe that we know everthing that God has yet to reveal. So we are open to new revelation.

 

Speculation is a very human thing to do. "What if" questions and answers(Often the wrong answer) have been with us since the beginng. I'm not knocking anyone for doing it. Though sometimes I do disagree with where that speculation leads.  It is just the reality of life. 

 

I believe the KFD has many elements within that are true. Just like there are many elements with the Scriptures that are true. That being said; somethings in both are not true, or that we have no further light and knowledge about them. I  generally take a wait and see position except where it comes to demonstrable facts. IE; Bats are not birds, dinosaurs were not contemporaries of man, a Pi isn't equal to exactly 3.

 

Depends on how you define "Change". He doesn't change in his goal, or in his love for us. But it is inarguable that he has changed in what he demands of us. IE; We haven't been commanded to build Arks out of Gopherwood for a long time now.

 

I personally deeply admire JS, the Scriptures he brought forth, and I even love him for his many faults and foibles. Those faults and foible make him more accessable, and more human than the rigid, dogmatic, selfrighteous, fool that some of our detractors make him out to be. I love the KFD. It says to me that as flawed and imperfect as I am, I with Gods' help, can become like God himself. That there is yet more to learn, to do, and to become. Yes I still have plenty of questions for which God knows the answer to, but that we don't fully know yet.

 

Take what is good and true and improve upon that. I don't get concerned a bit about what God may have, or may have not, done at some time in the distant past. IF it turns out that God the Father has a Father, ad infinitum. That is fine with me, but at the present time we have no doctrine concerning such.

[Ahab]

I know what LDS doctrine claims and what you are claiming isn't it.

 

I have three children of my own. I know how it is done. I also have friends that have adopted children. They are no less their children than those that were created by others.

 

I never said that we are children out of wedlock. Just that we have no doctrine concerning God the Fathers' marital status.

 

I never said that God created us without a woman. Just that we have no doctrine concerning her.

 

I never said that God the Father didn't have a father. Just that we have no doctrine concerning him.

 

I don't find it a waste of time, and even if I did, it is my time to waste. Personally I have more than enough problems to deal with in the second half of that couplet than getting overly concerned with what God the Father may or may not have done.

Again with the word "doctrine".  Sheesh.  Truth doesn't need to be doctrine to be true.

[juliann]

We have always believed that God's business is creation.  That is what he and anyone involved in his business does, that is what being "god" is.  Even the temple ceremony makes it clear that the creation story isn't the first go round.  So the idea of a "planet" sounds cartoonish,  which I think is the only point of using that word.   At the very least, it would be universes.   I do remember more speculative gospel doctrine talk about us being "gods" while I was growing up in SLC but that was a really long time ago.   I can't remember the last time I have heard anything like that. 

[Ahab]

We have always believed that God's business is creation.  That is what he and anyone involved in his business does, that is what being "god" is.  Even the temple ceremony makes it clear that the creation story isn't the first go round.  So the idea of a "planet" sounds cartoonish,  which I think is the only point of using that word.   At the very least, it would be universes.   I do remember more speculative gospel doctrine talk about us being "gods" while I was growing up in SLC but that was a really long time ago.   I can't remember the last time I have heard anything like that. 

The universe is the one place where everything is.  That's what the "uni" refers to.

 

Just edit where you said universes changing that word to "galaxies" and then realize there are planets in them.

 

What is ours will still be our Father's, though.  We'll always be sharing with him, and he'll be sharing what he has with us too.

[thesometimesaint]

Again with the word "doctrine".  Sheesh.  Truth doesn't need to be doctrine to be true.

 

There are many things that are true that aren't doctrine. I've never said otherwise. TBS everything said about doctrine. or claimed about doctrine is not automatically true or doctrine.

[Bart Burk]

Admittedly, this is one part of LDS theology that I am not knowledgeable, mostly because I fear doing anything to offend Heavenly Father, the one that has been so loving to me. In my scant 2+ years of exposure to the church, I have come only a little way.  This is one where my husband would need to quiet me, and for once I would do it, um if I had one, that is. 

 

http://www.upworthy.com/its-ok-to-not-understand-these-pictures-our-brains-werent-built-to-handle-them-2?c=ufb1

I suspect if the LDS idea of continuing to have seed forever and ever is true that exalted humans will continue to have human children in much the same way we currently have human children.  The difference will be that childbirth will be painless and children will not be tempted by Satan though they might sin of their own weakness as part of their learning process.  That sin would be covered by Christ's atonement just like ours is.  We won't be talking about ruling planets, but of continuing to expand families who worship our God and Father through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost just like we do. 

[Ahab]

There are many things that are true that aren't doctrine. I've never said otherwise. TBS everything said about doctrine. or claimed about doctrine is not automatically true or doctrine.

I'm just interested in knowing the truth.  You can keep everything else you know to yourself.

[Ahab]

I suspect if the LDS idea of continuing to have seed forever and ever is true that exalted humans will continue to have human children in much the same way we currently have human children.  The difference will be that childbirth will be painless and children will not be tempted by Satan though they might sin of their own weakness as part of their learning process.  That sin would be covered by Christ's atonement just like ours is.  We won't be talking about ruling planets, but of continuing to expand families who worship our God and Father through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost just like we do. 

We'll have our own bad children, too, just like our Father did, though.  We or our children may not refer to that child as "Satan" but there's going to be at least one of our kids who will do what he did, and still does.  And our children will still need to go through what our Father's children are going through now, or what they have gone through, or what they will be going through later. It really is the best way for children to grow up and become what we can become otherwise our Father would have come up with another way to do it with his own children.

[juliann]

The universe is the one place where everything is.  That's what the "uni" refers to.

 

Just edit where you said universes changing that word to "galaxies" and then realize there are planets in them.

 

What is ours will still be our Father's, though.  We'll always be sharing with him, and he'll be sharing what he has with us too.

You completely missed my point.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm just interested in knowing the truth.  You can keep everything else you know to yourself.

 

I'm interested in facts as well as truth.

[Ahab]

I'm interested in facts as well as truth.

It's a fact that some people think some things that aren't true are true, and vice versa.  I'd rather just cut straight through to the truth.

[Ahab]

You completely missed my point.

Did you get mine, though?  That is what is important around here.

[Ahab]

Since it's kina related to the topic of this thread:  Can someone tell me why I have a star by my name? 

 

I don't see anyone else with a star by their name on this board.  Am I special or something?

 

It looks like this:  Ahab*

 

I think it means I'm special.

[EllenMaksoud]

Did you get mine, though?  That is what is important around here.

I'm going to step in here. The other day you were quite pointed with me, just like her.  Do you have something going on you'd like to talk about?

[Ahab]

I'm going to step in here. The other day you were quite pointed with me, just like her.  Do you have something going on you'd like to talk about?

Hmm. Well.  Sometimes I feel misunderstood around here.  Do you think you can help me with that?

 

Tell me what you mean, and I'll tell you what I mean, and I'll do my best to try to understand you.

[Calm]

Since it's kina related to the topic of this thread:  Can someone tell me why I have a star by my name? 

 

Don't see it.

[Lightbearer]

We have no doctrine as to what God the Father did before he was God the Father. Speculation on it is just that.

 

President Hinckley was correct when he said he didn't know much about the first part of that sonnet. I assume he knows more about than anyone else in the Church.

 

I've always maintained that we are already Gods, and that we have, or will have, the opportunity to beome more like God our Heavenly Father. We will never be exactly like him, nor will we ever be in ascendance over him. We will always be his children, and subject to him.

So you do not believe that we are teaching doctrine when we teach this in Priesthood and Relief Society? My above post most definitely states that we WILL be exactly like Him in every particular. We will have the same knowledge, power, and love as He possesses. We will not be "student gods" or "lesser gods" we will be like HIm. We will not have "ascendance" because that was never promised. In fact in the KFD it says He will move up to a higher exaltation and glory as we are exalted. We become one with Him. We will receive all that He has, and as it states in the manual that means nothing will be with-held. We can receive a fullness. That is true doctrine, because it is something that is taught in the Church and has been since Joseph Smith's day. I would suggest you read post #169 again it gives a lot of scripture support for these ideas. You deny things that are clearly taught there, and a doctrine is something that is taught. So the statement that God once was as we are is definitely a teaching notwithstanding what people try to construe what President Hinckley meant when he said he did not think we taught that... Prehaps what he said could be considered an isolated statement and was not doctrine. Of course he made that statement before this manual was published, perhaps that was why it was published to correct a misstatement or misunderstanding of what he was saying to a "gentile" audience. How do you explain these two quotes from the manual if we do not indeed both believe and teach it?

"President Snow later recalled, “the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me. …

“As man now is, God once was:

“As God now is, man may be.”

Feeling that he had received “a sacred communication” that he should guard carefully, Lorenzo Snow did not teach the doctrine publicly until he knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught it. Once he knew the doctrine was public knowledge, he testified of it frequently...

Through a continual course of progression our Heavenly Father has received exaltation and glory and he points us out the same path and, inasmuch as he is clothed with power, authority and glory, he says, “walk ye up and come in possession of the same glory and happiness that I possess.”

… This is the high destiny of the sons of God, they who overcome, who are obedient to His commandments, who purify themselves even as He is pure. They are to become like Him; they will see Him as He is; they will behold His face and reign with Him in His glory, becoming like unto Him in every particular"

LIKE HIM IN EVERY PARTICULAR?

 

That is straight out of the PH/RS manual chapter 6. We use it to teach DOCTRINE...are you saying it is not doctrine? Again I am issuing a CFR that refutes these passages and consider the following:

 

"The Lord has placed before us incentives of the grandest character. In the revelations which God has given, we find what a person can reach who will travel this path of knowledge and be guided by the Spirit of God. I had not been in this Church [very long] when it was clearly shown to me what a man could reach through a continued obedience to the Gospel of the Son of God. That knowledge has been as a star continually before me, and has caused me to be particular in trying to do that which was right and acceptable to God. … It seems, after all the education that we had in things pertaining to the celestial worlds, that there are some Latter-day Saints who are so well satisfied with simply knowing that the work is true that when you come to talk to them of our great future they seem surprised, and think it has nothing to do particularly with them.

 

Do you deny that the above quotes are doctrine? If they are not why is speculation being taught in our Priesthood and Relief Society meetings? Or perhaps you just are unwilling to admit you are wrong?

[volgadon]

 

But if we don't really believe in the whole KFD, why is it that we perform it for thousands to see it in Nauvoo?    

 

To be fair, I had never heard of this before your post, but I find it really cool.

[volgadon]

Since it's kina related to the topic of this thread:  Can someone tell me why I have a star by my name? 

 

I don't see anyone else with a star by their name on this board.  Am I special or something?

 

It looks like this:  Ahab*

 

I think it means I'm special.

 

 

Do you have your settings to where you aren't listed as active when viewing the forums?

[mfbukowski]

We have always believed that God's business is creation.  That is what he and anyone involved in his business does, that is what being "god" is.  Even the temple ceremony makes it clear that the creation story isn't the first go round.  So the idea of a "planet" sounds cartoonish,  which I think is the only point of using that word.   At the very least, it would be universes.   I do remember more speculative gospel doctrine talk about us being "gods" while I was growing up in SLC but that was a really long time ago.   I can't remember the last time I have heard anything like that. 

There is a whole thread on the other board which completely misses this point, and they are saying that because we disagree with the idea that we will "get a planet" that we have now rejected exaltation.

 

It's truly amazing the lengths they will go to to distort and ridicule what is being said, it's quite sad actually.

 

Some have actually said that the scripture "worlds without number have I created..." indicates that we will have our own planet.

 

I guess they don't understand the difference between singular and plural.

[mfbukowski]

TSS and others,

 

I distinctly remember a GD lesson last year, before my calling in Primary, where the sub teacher said the words "when we become Gods".  I was taken back, because in my memory I really hadn't heard that said in a GD class before.  But I'm always in and out of Primary callings too.  So I think it is spoken of apparently, even in the last year or so.

 

Do the leaders of the church need to make it understood better that we aren't to speculate on this matter, if indeed that is the case.  Just Pres. Hinckley mentioning that we don't know about it, isn't enough.  If we are not supposed to even speculate, then we should make it known.  The church needs to fine tune what we believe "now", if our prophet gets revelation.  We need to know what is believed in the church, so members don't spread false belief one way or the other.  If the KFD isn't true, we need to know about it.  If it is, we need to know about it.

 

I know the church is changing constantly.  But don't we also believe God never changes?  Is that contradictory?  Maybe it's just the church leader's ideas that change.  And they believe they are guided to change.  But if we don't really believe in the whole KFD, why is it that we perform it for thousands to see it in Nauvoo?             

Uh, sometimes it is actually productive to read the scriptures.

 37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.37?lang=eng#36

[Tacenda]

Uh, sometimes it is actually productive to read the scriptures.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.37?lang=eng#36

Well gosh why didn't I think of that?

Why is this argument even on the table? It must be that we shouldn't even discuss planets since nowhere in scripture does it mention them. Thanks MF.

[boulder257]

We'll have our own bad children, too, just like our Father did, though.  We or our children may not refer to that child as "Satan" but there's going to be at least one of our kids who will do what he did, and still does.  And our children will still need to go through what our Father's children are going through now, or what they have gone through, or what they will be going through later. It really is the best way for children to grow up and become what we can become otherwise our Father would have come up with another way to do it with his own children.

 

Interesting. Never thought about it this way. Thanks for sharing that concept.