So Do We Officially Believe In Populating Planets In The Afterlife Or Not?

[Senator]

I've come to the conclusion that the LDS church hardly believes anything "officially" at all

 

 

 

Actually we do!

 

ehm.......just don't quote me on that. 

[CA Steve]

Perhaps creating and populating our own worlds will soon be a concept too sacred to talk about.

 

Today’s caricatures look very much like yesterday’s doctrine.

[Gray]

It's been taught many times officially, but it's so speculative that it's hardly worth worrying about too much.

[Senator]

 

I understand that this might come from the idea of orthopraxis over orthodoxy

 

I think you've hit upon a good point here.

 

I think an argument could be made, that as a people we are more concerned, and have exhibited greater consistency with what we are busily engaged in compared to what we readily believe.

[The Nehor]

Still believe it. I am glad they are backing off from teaching about it as much. It was becoming loaded with theoretical bits people have added on. Time to clean that off and believe what was taught by prophets and throw out the silly bits we and our enemies have added on.

As to moving into days filled with "I don't know." I am kind of excited about it. I think it means God wants his saints to buckle down and become prophets unto themselves.

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..."

I disagree that nothing seems to be official. It is just that we tend to talk less about those things. To have fun with a caricature this is how to address people who suggest we know nothing.

Is there a God? You will have to figure that out on your own. The church does not have a stance on that issue.

Is Jesus the Christ? Possibly but we leave that up to individual interpretation.

Are Joseph and his successors prophets? No idea.

Is the Priesthood real? Some think so.

What ordinances and actions qualify someone for eternal life? You will have to figure that out on your own. No one in the Church will answer that.

Are we children of God? The Church takes no stand on that question.

Will we be physically resurrected? Outlook unclear, ask again later.

How do we become forgiven from the sins we commit? We leave that up to your own conscience.

Should one pay a tithe? Totally up to you.

Does God care if we have sex outside of marriage? Will you stop asking all these questions? We don't know!!!!!

[MiserereNobis]

I think you've hit upon a good point here.

 

I think an argument could be made, that as a people we are more concerned, and have exhibited greater consistency with what we are busily engaged in compared to what we readily believe.

 

Mark made that point to me a couple of different times and it really seems to fit and make sense.  Of course, the humorous part is that it seems many Mormons would disagree with that statement, too

[thesometimesaint]

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..."

 

If you want to know what we believe just ask us. We love to tell others about ourselves.

 

We take the Lord's simple injunction that to obey him is to love him. That what we do reflects not only our love for him, but our love for our fellow man.

 

Whatever method God used to have the virgin Mary give birth to Jesus it was in a totally natural way. The prophet Brigham Young, the originator of the natural way statement, was fully aware and accepted the virgin birth of Jesus. It is unfortunate that some outside and some inside the Church feel the need to speculate on that method without fully understanding the doctrine.

 

We are just like other religious people, and just as unfortunately love to speculate on everything including religion. Doctrinally, we have no expectation of infallibility of any mortal, except Jesus the Christ, along with anything mortals have had a hand in. Yet we sometimes act as if we are infallible. However we do have a well and long established method for determining what our doctrine is, and random statements even by a Church leader doesn't make it doctrine.

 

We do have unique doctrines that is that makes us whom we are. Every sect of every religion has its own unique doctrines. No rational person wants to look strange, but let's face it. Turning a unsympathetic critical eye to any sect/religion can make it look strange.

 

I can't say that we have had any crappy Apostles, though we did have one that was famous for his "colorful" language, but undoubtedly we have had some that were more influential than others. I have no idea as to when Jesus is going to come back, but I do know the name of the Church and seriously doubt it will take another thousand years.  

[thesometimesaint]

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???

 

 

 

Less entertaining and more doctrinally correct.

[The Nehor]

 I can't say that we have had any crappy Apostles, though we did have one that was famous for his "colorful" language, but undoubtedly we have had some that were more influential than others.

J Golden Kimball was actually a Seventy. Common misconception.

[thesometimesaint]

J Golden Kimball was actually a Seventy. Common misconception.

 

You are right. My bad.

[MiserereNobis]

If you want to know what we believe just ask us. We love to tell others about ourselves.

 

 

I understand this.  If someone wants to know what *I* believe they should ask me.  But it is certainly possible (and likely, humans being what they are) that I hold some beliefs that are at variance with the Catholic Church.  If someone asked me what the Catholic Church believes, I would do my best to explain it to them but then I would also point to the official doctrinal pronouncements of the Church, in particular the Catechism, which allow someone to find out what the official stance is.

 

We see on this board how varying the beliefs are in Mormonism by the lay members, so it seems appropriate to go to the official sources, such as leaders and prophets.  The disagreement over what constitutes Mormon doctrine is very clear on this board, so by asking one member what they believe I would only get that member's view.  This is one reason why non-members look to your leaders, especially since you place so much emphasis on the president being a prophet.  It makes more sense to look to the prophets to see what the Mormon church believes than just an individual member.

 

We take the Lord's simple injunction that to obey him is to love him. That what we do reflects not only our love for him, but our love for our fellow man.

 

This seems to fit in with the idea of orthopraxy over orthodoxy.

 

random statements even by a Church leader doesn't make it doctrine.

 

The problem is that with many controversial doctrines, the statements aren't random.  Brigham Young systematically and for a very long time taught doctrines that are now disavowed.  He wasn't making a random off-the-cuff statement.  He was the prophet and repeated things over and over, which were then re-emphasized by succeeding prophets.

 

The idea of these controversial ideas just being "random" doesn't sit well with people who have seen quote after quote, teaching after teaching, etc.  It comes off as trying to have it both ways.

 

We do have unique doctrines that is that makes us whom we are. Every sect of every religion has its own unique doctrines. No rational person wants to look strange, but let's face it. Turning a unsympathetic critical eye to any sect/religion can make it look strange.

 

Absolutely!  I think the issue lies with the fact that you place yourselves in the Christian camp, yet the basic doctrines are quite different from mainstream Christianity and the controversial ones are quite extreme, in relation to mainstream Christianity.  The doctrines of Hinduism are quite extreme in relation, too, but Hindus aren't placing themselves in Christianity, so when they talk of Kali Ma and Shiva it doesn't strike a Christian ear as strange as when LDS talk of God and Jesus, yet say things very different about them.

 

I can't say that we have had any crappy Apostles

 

Weren't there a bunch of apostles excommunicated in the early days of Joseph Smith?

 

I have no idea as to when Jesus is going to come back, but I do know the name of the Church and seriously doubt it will take another thousand years.  

 

Hopefully things will be clearer for all of us when that happens.  Until then, may God bless us with faith and sanctity and, as my name asks, have mercy on us all

[thesometimesaint]

I understand this.  If someone wants to know what *I* believe they should ask me.  But it is certainly possible (and likely, humans being what they are) that I hold some beliefs that are at variance with the Catholic Church.  If someone asked me what the Catholic Church believes, I would do my best to explain it to them but then I would also point to the official doctrinal pronouncements of the Church, in particular the Catechism, which allow someone to find out what the official stance is.

 

We see on this board how varying the beliefs are in Mormonism by the lay members, so it seems appropriate to go to the official sources, such as leaders and prophets.  The disagreement over what constitutes Mormon doctrine is very clear on this board, so by asking one member what they believe I would only get that member's view.  This is one reason why non-members look to your leaders, especially since you place so much emphasis on the president being a prophet.  It makes more sense to look to the prophets to see what the Mormon church believes than just an individual member.

 

 

 

This seems to fit in with the idea of orthopraxy over orthodoxy.

 

 

 

The problem is that with many controversial doctrines, the statements aren't random.  Brigham Young systematically and for a very long time taught doctrines that are now disavowed.  He wasn't making a random off-the-cuff statement.  He was the prophet and repeated things over and over, which were then re-emphasized by succeeding prophets.

 

The idea of these controversial ideas just being "random" doesn't sit well with people who have seen quote after quote, teaching after teaching, etc.  It comes off as trying to have it both ways.

 

 

 

Absolutely!  I think the issue lies with the fact that you place yourselves in the Christian camp, yet the basic doctrines are quite different from mainstream Christianity and the controversial ones are quite extreme, in relation to mainstream Christianity.  The doctrines of Hinduism are quite extreme in relation, too, but Hindus aren't placing themselves in Christianity, so when they talk of Kali Ma and Shiva it doesn't strike a Christian ear as strange as when LDS talk of God and Jesus, yet say things very different about them.

 

 

 

Weren't there a bunch of apostles excommunicated in the early days of Joseph Smith?

 

 

 

Hopefully things will be clearer for all of us when that happens.  Until then, may God bless us with faith and sanctity and, as my name asks, have mercy on us all

 

EVERYTHING said on this MB is our own opinions, So take everything I and anyone else as just that. I guess I should have added that if you want what the Church actually teaches you have to go to our Scriptures. However I do strive to accurately present our doctrine when asked about it.

 

We LDS have no expectation of infallibility of anyone, other than Jesus the Christ. We all fall far short of the glory of God, including prophets.

 

God doesn't make sock puppets in our religion. BY had one of the longest running Presidency's in Church history. Those early Saints wouldn't have survived without his strong brave leadership. By our modern day(2014) standards he was authoritarian, and would gladly give voice to his own opinions on subjects great and small. There is a reason we have so little of his ideas canonized. It is they don't meet the requirements to be there. Unanimous agreement by all members of the Church in our General Conferences. I don't know the exact process Catholic's use for determining what your doctrines are but would assume that it must come through your magisterium to be actual Catholic doctrine.

 

Our orthodoxy informs our orthopraxy. So I wouldn't say that one is over the other in any meaningful way. IOW To be in the world but not of the world.

 

Every sect/religion wants to define its own doctrines. That is to be expected until we all come to a unity of faith.

 

We are Christians. We believe in, testify of, follow, teach our children to follow Jesus the Christ.

SEE The Testimony of Apostles:

As we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ two millennia ago, we offer our testimony of the reality of His matchless life and the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice. None other has had so profound an influence upon all who have lived and will yet live upon the earth.

He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New. Under the direction of His Father, He was the creator of the earth. “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). Though sinless, He was baptized to fulfill all righteousness. He “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38), yet was despised for it. His gospel was a message of peace and goodwill. He entreated all to follow His example. He walked the roads of Palestine, healing the sick, causing the blind to see, and raising the dead. He taught the truths of eternity, the reality of our premortal existence, the purpose of our life on earth, and the potential for the sons and daughters of God in the life to come.

He instituted the sacrament as a reminder of His great atoning sacrifice. He was arrested and condemned on spurious charges, convicted to satisfy a mob, and sentenced to die on Calvary’s cross. He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind. His was a great vicarious gift in behalf of all who would ever live upon the earth.

We solemnly testify that His life, which is central to all human history, neither began in Bethlehem nor concluded on Calvary. He was the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Redeemer of the world.

He rose from the grave to “become the first fruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20). As Risen Lord, He visited among those He had loved in life. He also ministered among His “other sheep” (John 10:16) in ancient America. In the modern world, He and His Father appeared to the boy Joseph Smith, ushering in the long-promised “dispensation of the fulness of times” (Ephesians 1:10).

Of the Living Christ, the Prophet Joseph wrote: “His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

“I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father” (D&C 110:3–4).

Of Him the Prophet also declared: “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

“For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

“That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God” (D&C 76:22–24).

We declare in words of solemnity that His priesthood and His Church have been restored upon the earth—“built upon the foundation of . . . apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20).

We testify that He will someday return to earth. “And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (Isaiah 40:5). He will rule as King of Kings and reign as Lord of Lords, and every knee shall bend and every tongue shall speak in worship before Him. Each of us will stand to be judged of Him according to our works and the desires of our hearts.

We bear testimony, as His duly ordained Apostles—that Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of His Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come. God be thanked for the matchless gift of His divine Son.

 

I've never said we were "mainstream" Christians. With some 40,000 different sects of Christian in the US alone. What the heck does "Mainstream Christian" mean other than we're not their sect of Christian?

 

Yes some did. Jesus in his mortal ministry asked "Will ye also go away?" He also had his Judas. But that takes nothing away from his matchless love for us, or our testimony of him.

 

I ask for his mercies every day. I don't think I could make it through the day without it.

Edited February 28, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Ahab]

I officially do. If you don't do you officially don't?

[Ahab]

I officially do. If you don't do you officially don't?

[JLHPROF]

It's been taught many times officially, but it's so speculative that it's hardly worth worrying about too much.

 

I find very little speculative except the actual logistics.  We are taught in non-speculative doctrines that we can become like God, live as God lives, live where God lives, and obtain the title of "God".

 

I don't really see it as speculation to assume that in that state of existence we would be doing what God does, which is create worlds as part of the council of the Gods.

 

But you are right that it doesn't make much sense to worry about it.  We just need to do as Joseph Smith said and try to wrap our minds around those high mountains and low abysses.

[Gray]

I find very little speculative except the actual logistics.  We are taught in non-speculative doctrines that we can become like God, live as God lives, live where God lives, and obtain the title of "God".

 

I don't really see it as speculation to assume that in that state of existence we would be doing what God does, which is create worlds as part of the council of the Gods.

 

But you are right that it doesn't make much sense to worry about it.  We just need to do as Joseph Smith said and try to wrap our minds around those high mountains and low abysses.

 

Anything regarding life before or after death is, to me, speculative by definition - especially when we go into specifics. Just my view. 

Edited February 28, 2014 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

Anything regarding life before or after death is, to me, speculative by definition - especially when we go into specifics. Just my view. 

 

I have a hard time accepting that statement.  It seems remarkably lacking in faith, which I know from past conversations you are not.

 

If true, wouldn't that make pretty much everything in the gospel speculative?  The 3 Degrees, Resurrection, the Second Coming, the War in Heaven, Heavenly Father & a resurrected Christ's very existence.  These should not be speculative ideas to the faithful.

 

If it was revealed by God to a prophet I no longer consider it speculation (as long as you can be sure it was an actual revelation).  It's only speculation if nothing was demonstrably revealed by God - just my view.

[Ahab]

That makes me a little sad to think those days are gone...

They're not evrn though some people think they are. And God never said only the apostles and First Presidency receive revelation, including what to some people are a mystery.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I have to worry about even being worthy enough to achieve exaltation first before I can worry about what exaltation entails.

[Ahab]

I have to worry about even being worthy enough to achieve exaltation first before I can worry about what exaltation entails.

The more you know about it the more you know what you have to look forward to, though. But yes first things first. Edited February 28, 2014 by Ahab

[Gray]

I have a hard time accepting that statement.  It seems remarkably lacking in faith, which I know from past conversations you are not.

 

If true, wouldn't that make pretty much everything in the gospel speculative?  The 3 Degrees, Resurrection, the Second Coming, the War in Heaven, Heavenly Father & a resurrected Christ's very existence.  These should not be speculative ideas to the faithful.

 

If it was revealed by God to a prophet I no longer consider it speculation (as long as you can be sure it was an actual revelation).  It's only speculation if nothing was demonstrably revealed by God - just my view.

 

I'll repost something I wrote about personal revelation a few days back. This is how I approach all revelation:

 

My experience has taught me that personal revelation is not about concreteness. Revelations that are concrete don't seem to be reliable.  I used to pray and whatever notion came into my head I called revelation, but I don't think that's how it works. I don't think you can get a revelation about something you don't already know at some level - for example, predicting the future, or telling you what the afterlife will be like. I don't think that sort of revelation exists for anyone, but I could be wrong.

 

For me the purpose of what I'll call inspiration or communing with the divine (or if you like, feeling the Spirit) is to put us in a place where we can become more loving, where we can be more accepting of others, where we can have more forgiveness in our hearts. Less of a downloading of literal information and more about becoming one. Revelation seems to me to be about  personal transformation. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

True, I love what we have to look forward to. I get so excited thinking about exaltation and eternal families. Hopefully we can experience the same joy that God has.

[teddyaware]

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?

The God Jesus Christ was born, lived, died and was resurrected on this planet we call earth. He will also return to this planet during the millennium to live, rule and reign for a thousand years. We also know that God the Father, and the as yet unembodied Christ, also visited this planet prior to the fall. So why does the concept that other exalted beings who overcome and are given the right as joint heirs with Christ to sit crowned upon His very throne will also rule and reign on planets like our earth such a weird and unbelievable idea? Would creating earths like this one be so difficult a task for those who as joint heirs with Christ inherit all that the Saviour possesses.

One can just imagine the imagine what will happen if God ever again creates and similarly populates another planet somewhere within our infinitely vast universe. I can just visualize the uproar when prophets tell the people of that planet that God was born, lived, died and was raised from the dead on a rather small and seemingly insignificant orb called earth (read Kolob) that exists on the outer edge of a spiral galaxy called the Milky Way. I can just see all the hilarity, guffaws, taunting derision and crude caricatures as the unbelieving inhabitants of that planet laugh their prophets to scorn. The only way to avoid such an unpleasant possibility would be for God to never again create and populate another planet like this earth... What a waste of space!       

If we are not going to live on planets as exalted beings, then where are we going to live? Joseph Smith taught all spirit is matter, so according to Mormonism that means we are going to live in some real place made of matter. Call such a dwelling place made of matter what you will, it is still a real place and the word planet is as useful as any other to describe such a place where exalted beings dwell.

 

All knowledgeable Bible believing Christians believe the saved are going to live on this earth when it is transformed by God into a new earth, an exalted heavenly planet. So why is it so hard to believe exalted beings will yet live or are even now living on other exalted planets as well? If in the midst of a seemingly infinite universe the all wise God created this planet to be inhabited and subsequently glorified, why would this be the only one? Is it because He thinks He botched this one and will never take risk of creating and populating another earth again?

 

And so here are the big questions: If God is going to bless the exalted with all the power, knowledge and wisdom of Christ, as joint heirs with Him in all the Father possesses, why would it be too difficult for such beings to preside over and manage the affairs of an inhabited planet? If God gives to some mortal men the power and authority to preside over the very Church of Jesus Christ on earth, why is it so difficult to imagine such a man (especially after a glorious resurrection into the fullness of the glory of the Celestial Kingdom) would be ill equipped to preside over a planet? Is God's knowledge and transformative power too weak to enable a man to perform such a task? Of course not!

26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:

27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

28 And I will give him the morning star. (Revelation 2)

The only reason why the Church appears to be backing off on some of these deeper teachings is because this world that's ripening in iniquity is unworthy to receive them. The prophets have been commanded by the Lord Himself to not cast their pearls before swine.

Edited February 28, 2014 by teddyaware

[volgadon]

Interesting how it was only the boys who would 'someday' have that power.

It was probably only a group of boys playing when the remark was made.

[volgadon]

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.

 

 

It is far more ancient than that (I have the sources to prove it), and has nothing whatsoever to do with America or "property owning independent capitalist" ideas.