Mormons "getting Their Own Planet" (Merged)

[Storm Rider]

We've discussed in the past the idea that Mormons believe that we will get our "own planet".  This idea is still being portrayed to packed houses of theater goers in The Book of Mormon broadway musical, and there has been some debate on whether or not this is a valid representation of LDS belief.

 

I recently came across this quote which I had never seen before.  It's a teaching from President Lorenzo Snow, as published in this manual.

President Snow was visiting a Kindergarten with BY Academy President Brimhall when this happened:

 

 

So while I can understand that many LDS don't like the idea or are hesitant to admit it is a "church teaching", I don't think we can argue that anyone who says it is is being disingenuous.

 

I am one of those who says is not Church doctrine.  I don't think I have ever said it is not Church teaching, but I would probably say that it is.  Here is why:

1. It is not found in scripture.
2. It has never been recognized and accepted as revelation.  Why are some so quick to say it is Church doctrine and yet call other things policy?  When is something a policy and when is it doctrine?  It only become doctrine when it added to the Standard Works.
3. It is a over-simplification of a process.  Who created this world?  Did one person, individual, or entity? 

I don't think I am being disingenuous in my position, rather I am being consistent.  I don't mine the statements of leaders and then create a doctrine out of it and parade it before man as if it is a mighty doctrine that is shouted from rooftops.  How often do we hear about the value of a living prophet or distinguish between the importance of a living prophet versus a dead one?  

 

When is something a Church teaching?  Is it when it was taught 100 years ago or is it a church teaching if it is taught today?  

[Scott Lloyd]

Then get out of the heart of Zion.  It's false doctrine and I have NEVER heard those words in church once- just from anti Mormons

You don't commonly hear it in "Zion" (so-called) either, not in authoritative venues. That's a bad rap.

[Judd]

Who here when they were younger didn't discuss with their friends what "their planet" would be like?

Me, for one. I'd imagine growing up with a distorted view would make it easier to object to the idea when you come to discover that the distortion is an incorrect appraisal.

To phrase it as "getting your own planet" misses the mark entirely. I suppose that's by design.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Storm rider, what about the fact that exaltation and becoming gods are talked about in the Scriptures including Doctrine and Covenants? What do you think being a god consists of? It's talked about in doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

Storm rider, what about the fact that exaltation and becoming gods are talked about in the Scriptures including Doctrine and Covenants? What do you think being a god consists of? It's talked about in doctrine.

Right. The scriptures talk about inheriting thrones, kingdoms, principalities and powers, about being joint-heirs with Christ of all the Father has, about being one with the Father and the Son in the way that they are one with each other; that is, one in purpose, glory, divinity and dominion.

The phrase "getting your own planet" is juvenile. It marginalizes that grand and supernal concept -- which I'm sure is what the anti-Mormons and apostates are going for when they use it.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

Only one question, but why?  I know that I would never want this. 

 

Ummmm...wow....not sure. Become a Baptist I guess?

[The Nehor]

Right. The scriptures talk about inheriting thrones, kingdoms, principalities and powers, about being joint-heirs with Christ of all the Father has.

The phrase "getting your own planet" is juvenile. It marginalizes that grand and supernal concept -- which I'm sure is what the anti-Mormons and apostates are going for when they use it.

 

I prefer using the term "ruling the cosmos and bending it to my will". Less juvenile but more likely they will think you are a megalomaniac. It think it is a good tradeoff.

[strappinglad]

We are looking WAY beyond the mark. We must first learn to rule ourselves. When that is accomplished then maybe you can learn to rule a small group. I realized a long time ago that ruling myself is a long term battle and that it might take half an eternity to do so. And Videogamejunkie, if and when you have children, you will learn not only of the joy they bring, but also the pain and heartache. Imagine for a moment what it must be like for God to send His children into this lone and dreary and DEADLY world knowing that, in mortality at least, many will reject Him.

[Storm Rider]

Storm rider, what about the fact that exaltation and becoming gods are talked about in the Scriptures including Doctrine and Covenants? What do you think being a god consists of? It's talked about in doctrine.

 

What you or I or anyone else imagines has little, if anything, to do with reality or with Church doctrine.  At best this concept of "having your own planet" is a crass summation of what others in the church have expressed.  

 

You have gone to the temple; does anything expressed there give you the idea or the belief that you will run pell-mell out into the universe and create a planet all by yourself?  Of course not! 

 

We have but an inkling of an understanding of what it means to become joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.  It is my opinion that we will continue to serve our God, but do so in complete harmony with him because we will be one with him as the Son is one with him.  To attempt to belittle that concept down into such crass terms if offensive to me.  I honestly don't know what we will do in the eternities, but what we will do is be one with  our Father.  That is enough until such time as God chooses to speak in depth about the topic. 

[omni]

Sad to have spent more than 30 years in Zion and not to have read the scriptures.

 

Apparently I'm not the only one missing out on my scripture reading as the quote from President Snow stated what I have always been taught - that we will becoming gods, organize/create worlds, our posterity will inhabit these worlds, and we will rule over them.  I understand you don't like the phrase "get our own planet", which is understandable, but this is exactly what "anti-Mormons" and "apostates" picture when they read quotes like that in the OP.  Growing up or while discussing the subject on my mission (with friends and fellow missionaries) we used similar phraseology and meant no disrespect at all.

 

So I can be clear what the correct doctrine entails, specifically how are we misinterpreting President Snow's teaching?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We've discussed in the past the idea that Mormons believe that we will get our "own planet".  This idea is still being portrayed to packed houses of theater goers in The Book of Mormon broadway musical, and there has been some debate on whether or not this is a valid representation of LDS belief.

 

I recently came across this quote which I had never seen before.  It's a teaching from President Lorenzo Snow, as published in this manual.

President Snow was visiting a Kindergarten with BY Academy President Brimhall when this happened:

 

 

So while I can understand that many LDS don't like the idea or are hesitant to admit it is a "church teaching", I don't think we can argue that anyone who says it is is being disingenuous.

To be fair, it does say worlds. Not just a planet but lots of them and there is more to it than just "getting" a planet.

 

The main point is that while something like this has been taught it is not really official and even if it were, it is just an easy point to mock and ridicule.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Totally agreed.

 

But "getting my own world" sounds like you "get" to play games with all your little people toys and watch them jump around to your will.

 

"Organizing worlds", plural, has a totally different connotation.  You are giving organization and a plan to perhaps millions of people you can help to achieve exaltation.

 

One implies being a control freak, the other implies serving and helping as many people as you can.  I see that as a big difference.

You have correctly identified better than me, the point in how they ridicule it and the meaning behind "you believe you get your own planet".

 

To me that whole "you get your own planet" is a mischaracterization, and a short sighted way to malign our beliefs.

[mnn727]

But don't what prophets say count as scripture? I mean isn't General Conferences and stuff from Thomas S Monson modern day scripture?

 Only when moved upon by the Spirit, and when acting as a Prophet.

[mnn727]

It is implied by the Anti-LDS making this claim that we get our own planet right after we die.

Assuming we eventually at some far off future time become like God (a process that I assume takes a long long time after death) we still need to learn how to organize planets (Plural not singular) and populate them, something else that would take a very long time

See here

 

“Peter and John had little secular learning, being termed ignorant. But they knew the vital things of life, that God lives and that the crucified, resurrected Lord is the Son of God. They knew the path to eternal life. This they learned in a few decades of their mortal life. Their righteous lives opened the door to godhood for them and creation of worlds with eternal increase. For this they would probably need, eventually, a total knowledge of the sciences. But whereas Peter and John had only decades to learn and do the spiritual, they have already had nineteen centuries in which to learn the secular or the geology of the earth, the zoology and physiology and psychology of the creatures of the earth. Mortality is the time to learn first of God and the gospel and to perform the ordinances. After our feet are set firmly on the path to eternal life we can amass more knowledge of the secular things”

Edited September 15, 2014 by mnn727

[mnn727]

I am one of those who says is not Church doctrine.  I don't think I have ever said it is not Church teaching, but I would probably say that it is.  Here is why:

1. It is not found in scripture.
2. It has never been recognized and accepted as revelation.  Why are some so quick to say it is Church doctrine and yet call other things policy?  When is something a policy and when is it doctrine?  It only become doctrine when it added to the Standard Works.
3. It is a over-simplification of a process.  Who created this world?  Did one person, individual, or entity? 

 

 see D&C 132:19  

Also have you ever been sealed in the Temple and listened to the promises made?

[Scott Lloyd]

Apparently I'm not the only one missing out on my scripture reading as the quote from President Snow stated what I have always been taught - that we will becoming gods, organize/create worlds, our posterity will inhabit these worlds, and we will rule over them.  I understand you don't like the phrase "get our own planet", which is understandable, but this is exactly what "anti-Mormons" and "apostates" picture when they read quotes like that in the OP.  Growing up or while discussing the subject on my mission (with friends and fellow missionaries) we used similar phraseology and meant no disrespect at all.

 

So I can be clear what the correct doctrine entails, specifically how are we misinterpreting President Snow's teaching?

In your post you said that was the "only" way you had heard it taught in your 30-plus years of living in "Zion" (whatever that is intended to mean).

 

I was pointing out that if that's the "only" explanation one has received, one has apparently neglected to peruse the scriptures. In a post above, I summarized what the scriptures say as follows:

 

The scriptures talk about inheriting thrones, kingdoms, principalities and powers, about being joint-heirs with Christ of all the Father has, about being one with the Father and the Son in the way that they are one with each other; that is, one in purpose, glory, divinity and dominion.

The phrase "getting your own planet" is juvenile. It marginalizes that grand and supernal concept -- which I'm sure is what the anti-Mormons and apostates are going for when they use it.

 

[JLHPROF]

 see D&C 132:19  

Also have you ever been sealed in the Temple and listened to the promises made?

 

It also astonishes that considering we use God being the actual father of our spirits to differentiate ourselves from other Christian religions, but then balk at the idea that we will grow up to be exactly like our Father and do exactly the same things he does.

The whole "we will assist him but never do it ourselves" nonsense - definitely not scriptural.

[Thinking]

Anyone who thinks that "getting your own planet" is logically equivalent to "organizing worlds" gets an F in my logic class.

 

So... what does the "over which they shall rule as gods" part mean?

[Storm Rider]

mnn727, exactly how does D&C 132:19 conflict with anything I have stated?  There is no conflict.  This is just bizarre; are you actually reading what I write or just a knee jerk reaction.

[mnn727]

 

 

You have gone to the temple; does anything expressed there give you the idea or the belief that you will run pell-mell out into the universe and create a planet all by yourself?  Of course not! 

 

Run 'Pell Mell'? no

Organize your own planets? - yes

[Scott Lloyd]

So... what does the "over which they shall rule as gods" part mean?

See my last two posts above, numbers 57 and 66.

[mnn727]

mnn727, exactly how does D&C 132:19 conflict with anything I have stated?  There is no conflict.  This is just bizarre; are you actually reading what I write or just a knee jerk reaction.

It conflicts with everything you have stated - what do you think "eternal increase" means?

What do you think 'Becoming like our Father in Heaven" means. Does it mean just a little bit like Him or completely like Him?

Have you ever been sealed in the temple and do you remember the promises given?

Do you deny Temple Teachings as 'not being doctrinal'?

 

Don't worry if you don't understand it or are uncomfortable with the idea - you'll have aeons to come to terms and learn and grow, but please stop saying its not doctrinal.

[cinepro]

So... what does the "over which they shall rule as gods" part mean?

 

When it comes to something they don't want to believe, some LDS have terrible reading comprehension.

[JLHPROF]

When it comes to something they don't want to believe, some LDS have terrible reading comprehension.

 

And when forced to admit that a quote actually says what it says, it is amazing how quickly a quote becomes opinion/not official/speculative/just plain wrong...

[Ahab]

We've discussed in the past the idea that Mormons believe that we will get our "own planet". This idea is still being portrayed to packed houses of theater goers in The Book of Mormon broadway musical, and there has been some debate on whether or not this is a valid representation of LDS belief.

I recently came across this quote which I had never seen before. It's a teaching from President Lorenzo Snow, as published in this manual.

President Snow was visiting a Kindergarten with BY Academy President Brimhall when this happened:

So while I can understand that many LDS don't like the idea or are hesitant to admit it is a "church teaching", I don't think we can argue that anyone who says it is is being disingenuous.

Disingenuous? Why argue about that?

Lots of people sincerely believe whatever they believe, so shouldn't our focus be to find out what is true, and good?

Yes there will be some of us who will go on to create planets and people to populate them, but not every person will go that far so for them the idea is not true that they will go on and do that.

It should be noted though that whatever is ours will also belong to our Father, or at least everything good, so if we have or will ever have anything good it is and will always be not only ours but also our Father's.