thatjimguy Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Why I brought the question up.... http://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/mormons-get-own-planet-not-so-fast-church-n40591 & https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng So is this another denouncement, like the recent crack down on teachings about blacks and the Priesthood?
Popular Post JLHPROF Posted February 28, 2014 Popular Post Posted February 28, 2014 Why I brought the question up.... http://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/mormons-get-own-planet-not-so-fast-church-n40591 & https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng So is this another denouncement, like the recent crack down on teachings about blacks and the Priesthood? I don't think these articles denounce the idea at all. They denounce the oversimplification of the idea and the "cartoonish" portrayal of it.They haven't denounced the doctrines at all - we still teach principles of eternal increase, becoming like God eventually, and if we become like God then creating worlds is just part of the job. There has been no denouncing of that in the article that I see. 6
halconero Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 "While few Latter-day Saints would identify with caricatures of having their own planet, most would agree that the awe inspired by creation hints at our creative potential in the eternities." car·i·ca·ture noun \ˈker-i-kə-ˌchu̇r, -ˌchər, -ˌtyu̇r, -ˌtu̇r, -ˈka-ri-\: a drawing that makes someone look funny or foolish because some part of the person's appearance is exaggerated: someone or something that is very exaggerated in a funny or foolish way 4
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 I still think if you achieve exaltation you get to create planets and live the kind of life God lives. How else could you live it?
Robert F. Smith Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 I still think if you achieve exaltation you get to create planets and live the kind of life God lives. How else could you live it?Sounds like a reasonable conclusion, but I have never heard the caricatured version of that preached at an LDS Church. NBC News and Matt Bowman got it right in that respect. It is mostly anti-Mormons who thrive on the caricature in an effort at parody. And typically get some key aspect of it wrong in the moment of parody. For example, NBC News said that Kolob was the residence of God, which is a frequent error of those who obviously don't read Abraham Facsimile 2:1-2 carefully. Moreover, it is very risky for those who have not yet mastered the basics to go off on tangents into the mysteries. 2
Storm Rider Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 The caricature is what I detest; the concept of being united with the Godhead; becoming one with them is what I believe is exaltation. Trying to define what that will be like is beyond comprehension or explanation. I don't think of God as functioning solely in a creative process; he is all-encompassing. I do appreciate a lot of the writing of the Eastern Orthodox in their attempt to explain Theosis. It think they have done a better job of it in many ways or maybe it is that it has not been caricatured and they have gone farther in trying to explain it. 2
thesometimesaint Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Caricatures are fun until the one making them is shown in caricaturization.
BCSpace Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) Planets? More likely we will get two branes to smash together and create our own universe. Just think of all the fun you can have by fiddling with the gravitational constant or making all the atoms in someone's underwear simultaneously jump 2 feet to the right on a random basis. Edited February 28, 2014 by BCSpace
Alan Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) I have never believed this rather silly idea.I believe our exaltation results in us joining the family business as described in Moses 1:39. Therefore we may well get involved in creative enterprises, but "having our own planet" is a very American property owning independent capitalist kind of idea. We won't have anything in the life to come, but at the same time we will have everything, because the Father will share it with us. Edited February 28, 2014 by Alan 1
Spammer Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Growing up in Utah, I used to have lots of fun with church friends speculating, kind of like in BCSpace's post, about what we would do once we acquired the power to smash atoms and create planets. I liked the idea of the bad guy in Time Bandits. Forget butterflies and daffodils. Start off with lasers and spaceships. Or donut-shaped planets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlJaIREGnaM In hindsight, I agree the teaching is probably getting at something more like what Alan is saying about joining the family business, like it says in my patriarchal blessing. If faithful, I will be "tutored by the Lord himself in the creation of worlds".
Senator Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) If our teachings about Adam are any indication, then it would appear that we may have already participated in world building. The question you ask is simply sensing the change in eras. The glory days of the church, when prophets confidently proclaimed the answers to the mysteries, are over it would seem. Now it seems we live in an age of, we don't know. Edited February 28, 2014 by Senator 2
JLHPROF Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) If our teachings about Adam are any indication, then it would appear that we may already have at least participated in world building. The question you ask is simply sensing the change in eras. The glory days of the church, when prophets confidently proclaimed the answers to the mysteries, are over it would seem. Now it seems we live in an age of, we don't know. That makes me a little sad to think those days are gone... Edited February 28, 2014 by JLHPROF
cdowis Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Do the Evangels think that they will get a halo and a harp when they go to heaven? Are there different sizes and colors of halos, should they take harp lessons here on earth? This is the cartoon view of religion. Mocking rather than respect. 1
Tacenda Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Do the Evangels think that they will get a halo and a harp when they go to heaven? Are there different sizes and colors of halos, should they take harp lessons here on earth?This is the cartoon view of religion. Mocking rather than respect.Exactly, and on occasion have heard this sentiment come out of LDS mouths on this board. 1
Popular Post David T Posted February 28, 2014 Popular Post Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) Remember last year's manual? Not the caricature of "getting" one's own planet, but one can acknowledge the authoritative teaching upon which that speculation and simplification is based. President Snow said: ‘Wait a moment, President Brimhall, I want to see these children at work; what are they doing?’ Brother Brimhall replied that they were making clay spheres. ‘That is very interesting,’ the President said. ‘I want to watch them.’ He quietly watched the children for several minutes and then lifted a little girl, perhaps six years of age, and stood her on a table. He then took the clay sphere from her hand, and, turning to Brother Brimhall, said: “‘President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods’” (Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, 658–59). Edited February 28, 2014 by David T 5
thesometimesaint Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 That makes me a little sad to think those days are gone... It might have been more interestingly entertaining.. But not more correct doctrinally.
bluebell Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 Remember last year's manual? Not the caricature of "getting" one's own planet, but one can acknowledge the authoritative teaching upon which that speculation and simplification is based. President Snow said: ‘Wait a moment, President Brimhall, I want to see these children at work; what are they doing?’ Brother Brimhall replied that they were making clay spheres. ‘That is very interesting,’ the President said. ‘I want to watch them.’ He quietly watched the children for several minutes and then lifted a little girl, perhaps six years of age, and stood her on a table. He then took the clay sphere from her hand, and, turning to Brother Brimhall, said: “‘President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods’” (Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, 658–59). Interesting how it was only the boys who would 'someday' have that power.
ALarson Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) Remember last year's manual? Not the caricature of "getting" one's own planet, but one can acknowledge the authoritative teaching upon which that speculation and simplification is based. President Snow said: ‘Wait a moment, President Brimhall, I want to see these children at work; what are they doing?’ Brother Brimhall replied that they were making clay spheres. ‘That is very interesting,’ the President said. ‘I want to watch them.’ He quietly watched the children for several minutes and then lifted a little girl, perhaps six years of age, and stood her on a table. He then took the clay sphere from her hand, and, turning to Brother Brimhall, said: “‘President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods’” (Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, 658–59). I vividly remember being taught that if we were faithful, etc., we would one day be a God and create our own earth to populate with our celestial wife (wives). This was taught. I think it's still taught but this new essay has just stated it in a more vague manner. Am I wrong? Edited February 28, 2014 by ALarson
Spammer Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 It was definitely taught. In gospel doctrine, in seminary, in sacrament meeting, along with supporting quotes from church presidents .
strappinglad Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 I've got enough trouble keeping my yard organized. Maybe in a couple of million years I could handle a decent sized Garden, but an entire world no. Then again scientists keep finding lots of uninhabitable planets out there. Practice ,practice, practice... 3
Freedom Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 As Alan points out, it is a council and not an individual that creates worlds. God was one of many who was involved in our creation.
thesometimesaint Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 I vividly remember being taught that if we were faithful, etc., we would one day be a God and create our own earth to populate with our celestial wife (wives). This was taught. I think it's still taught but this new essay has just stated it in a more vague manner. Am I wrong? Sort of. We don't know what exactly it is that God does have in store for us. Other than we can become like him. Beyond that it is speculative Gospel Rumor.
MiserereNobis Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 I've come to the conclusion that the LDS church hardly believes anything "officially" at all I understand that this might come from the idea of orthopraxis over orthodoxy and the idea of an open canon (though it does seemed quite closed for a long time), and that some folk, like mkbukowski, think this is a wonderful strength of Mormonism. I hope, though, that you can see it from an outsider's point-of-view. Past leaders, apostles, and prophets (emphasis!) have written and talked about these controversial issues, in official church publications, and in general conference no less. Members talk about them all time. People post about them here (the recent threads concerning Jesus Christ's physical/sexual creation comes to mind). Yet when an outsider points these things out, the quick response is: that's not Mormon doctrine, it's just speculation. This really comes off as avoiding the issue and it seems like the avoidance is because of embarrassment over the uniqueness of the ideas. Now, I could understand if it was just one or two fringe folk saying these things, but it's not. It's prophets. It's members. It's a long history of Mormons proclaiming these teachings. It really seems like you are trying to have it both ways: 1) the belief in unique doctrines and, 2) not wanting to look strange because of that belief. The phrase "that's not official doctrine" seems to be the bridge between those two, but it somehow feels, well, like an artificial construct, like you really are trying to have it both ways. I think this is why some people charge the LDS church with hiding facts and beliefs, because with this "bridge" you can honestly say that there is no official doctrine on the creation of planets/worlds, or why blacks were denied the priesthood, or how the BoA was translated, or how Jesus is actually the *literal* son of God, etc, etc, but then when people look more closely (now thanks to the internet) they find so much information from seemingly official sources (church publications, apostles, prophets, general conference), and also so much information from members (discussion boards, etc) that it doesn't feel right. I guess I'm trying to explain why an outsider would come to the conclusion that you are avoiding and/or hiding these issues so that you can understand that point-of-view and not quickly dismiss it as just "anti-Mormon." I'm by no means anti-Mormon -- I think you Mormons are genuine and nice people, and you sure give me lots to think about but what I describe above is a slight nagging feeling that sticks with me. But then again, your church is very young. Maybe in 1000 years it'll be like the Catholic Church, where we say, "yeah, we had crappy Popes who did terrible things, and we've always had heresies to deal with, but with the grace of God, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and ecumenical councils, we always seem to make through. The gates of hell shall not prevail, etc..." 2
Senator Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) It might have been more interestingly entertaining.. But not more correct doctrinally. Would you say we are more doctrinally correct now? If so, on what do you base that on? .......and if our teachings were more "interestingly entertaining" back then, what would that make our teachings now??? Edited February 28, 2014 by Senator
Senator Posted February 28, 2014 Posted February 28, 2014 We don't know what exactly it is that God does have in store for us. Pres. Snow appears to have had a pretty good idea.
Recommended Posts