Mormons "getting Their Own Planet" (Merged)

[ERayR]

On the contrary, I'm endeavoring to remain true to scripture and authoritative doctrine and to avoid flying off into fits of imagination and speculation, which so often results in folklore and false doctrine. In short I'm insisting on remaining responsible, factual and accurate.

 

Fanciful speculation and imaginings do not equate to doctrine. Being conservative and responsible about what can be drawn from scripture is better than planting false perceptions in the eyes of the outside public. That's how this whole "get your own planet" meme originated. Can we not learn from past experience?

 

And I still maintain that you do a grave injustice to the concept of inheriting all that the Father has by dismissing it and associated doctrines as "empty platitudes."

 

Given the Law of Consecration I am not at all sure there is ownership at all but more like all things in common with assigned stewardship's.

[JLHPROF]

Given the Law of Consecration I am not at all sure there is ownership at all but more like all things in common with assigned stewardship's.

 

This...and given there is an eternity of matter available I doubt that our stewardships are in any way limited.

[LittleNipper]

As a Christian, I believe Jesus is the Word that became flesh and dwelt among men. That Word that was fulfilled was the Old Testament. The New Testament reveals in Christ the promises of the Old Testament through the life Jesus lead and his teachings. I place no other book above the Bible. And I certainly do not imagine that the Bible is inferior to the "revelation" of any latter day prophet. Contradictions discovered between the Bible any ANYOTHER book only enforces the inferiority of the other book. The Bible is the Christians standard.

[JLHPROF]

As a Christian, I believe Jesus is the Word that became flesh and dwelt among men. That Word that was fulfilled was the Old Testament. The New Testament reveals in Christ the promises of the Old Testament through the life Jesus lead and his teachings. I place no other book above the Bible. And I certainly do not imagine that the Bible is inferior to the "revelation" of any latter day prophet. Contradictions discovered between the Bible any ANYOTHER book only enforces the inferiority of the other book. The Bible is the Christians standard.

 

And this is based on what?  You claim the Bible's perfection based on what?  You claim the Bible's infallibility based on what?

I'd like some kind of reason/reference why I should put the Bible above the books rejected from the Bible or revealed to later prophets.

 

The Bible isn't the keystone of Christianity.  It didn't even exist for the first few centuries of Christianity.

Edited September 16, 2014 by JLHPROF

[DonBradley]

Of course we don't believe we'll get our own planet. Why would we be limited to just one?

 

Latter-day Saints believe we will become like God and thus be creators ourselves. Whether one conceives of this as "getting one's own planet" or not seems to me to be a red herring from that reality.

 

Don

[ERayR]

Of course we don't believe we'll get our own planet. Why would we be limited to just one?

 

Latter-day Saints believe we will become like God and thus be creators ourselves. Whether one conceives of this as "getting one's own planet" or not seems to me to be a red herring from that reality.

 

Don

 

I am thinking some kind of United Order.

[LittleNipper]

The Old Testament existed, as it does today, at the time of Jesus. It is the very same as was read in the Temple at Jerusalem. Ask a rabbi or even a Christian Bible historian. Consider II Timothy 3:16. There was no Pearl of Great Price nor Book of Mormon. It was the Old Testament and any writings the early Church had from the disciples under Christ's tutelage.

Edited September 16, 2014 by LittleNipper

[Ahab]

Given the Law of Consecration I am not at all sure there is ownership at all but more like all things in common with assigned stewardship's.

Yeah the idea of ownership can seem like it's too much of a claim on things we couldn't earn or somehow get on our own, but our Lord is the one who said it in the oath and covenant of the priesthood. All we have to do to receive all that our Lord and our Father have is to receive all that they desire to give us, which is everything, as long as we show that we are good stewards over all that we have and all that he gives us.

[JLHPROF]

The Old Testament existed as it does today at the time of Jesus. It is the very same as was read in the Temple at Jerusalem. Ask a rabbi or even a Christian Bible historian.

 

Yes, it was the law that Christ came and fulfilled.  It was the law he was in trouble with the Pharisees for breaking all the time.

 

I mean really, come on.  You cannot possibly claim a Biblical standard for Christianity when it didn't exist as a whole book at the time of Christ, when the part that did exist (the OT) Christ taught he was more important than and ignored parts of, and when the NT didn't exist.

 

The Bible is true, but it is no more true than any other word of God.  It's just the bits that man selected, not God.

[ERayR]

The Old Testament existed as it does today at the time of Jesus. It is the very same as was read in the Temple at Jerusalem. Ask a rabbi or even a Christian Bible historian.

 

Whether it is or not, why is that significant to the topic?  Are you using the King James version? 

[LittleNipper]

The King James is a good translation, particularly of the Old Testament. The NIV is a very good translation of the New Testament. I also like the American Standard, and Young's Literal Translation. The topic is that of Mormons getting their own planet. I do not see that as a topic God considers discussing and foreign to the Gospel message, if not quite pagan.

[JLHPROF]

The King James is a good translation, particularly of the Old Testament. The NIV is a very good translation of the New Testament. I also like the American Standard, and Young's Literal Translation. The topic is that of Mormons getting their own planet. I do not see that as a topic God considers discussing and foreign to the Gospel message, if not quite pagan.

 

Well since this is a Mormon board you don't get to decide that.

Fortunatley, God gave us Mormons more information on "the gospel" than is contained in the Bible... .  So we'll continue to discuss our extra information and you don't need to worry about it.

[halconero]

The Old Testament existed, as it does today, at the time of Jesus. It is the very same as was read in the Temple at Jerusalem. Ask a rabbi or even a Christian Bible historian. Consider II Timothy 3:16. There was no Pearl of Great Price nor Book of Mormon. It was the Old Testament and any writings the early Church had from the disciples under Christ's tutelage.

 

Mmmmmmm...not entirely true. The "canon" in Jesus' time was no nearly so solid as you imagine it to be. Also, when you say "early Church" do you mean proto-Orthodoxy, Gnostic Christianity, Marcionite Christianity, Ebionites, or what? You speak as though the Jesus groups which sprouted up following the Resurrection had a plurality of writings available to them.

 

Instead, it was like the Wild West of theology out there, with various local Christian cults adhering to one book of canon, be it Matthew, Mark, Thomas, John or whatever. And they used these not in a unified manner, but to bash each other into believing doctrines ranging from adoptionism, docetism, the keeping of Torah law, etc. It is evident that the Jerusalem apostles, and Paul with his proselytes, attempted to maintain unity, but you present a unity of both canon and ecclesiarchy which simply didn't exist.

 

By the way...you know how you said "ask a....Christian Bible historian?" Guess what my degree is in...

[VideoGameJunkie]

Little Nipper exaltation is even discussed in the Bible. What do you think exaltation consists of?

[halconero]

The King James is a good translation, particularly of the Old Testament. The NIV is a very good translation of the New Testament. I also like the American Standard, and Young's Literal Translation. The topic is that of Mormons getting their own planet. I do not see that as a topic God considers discussing and foreign to the Gospel message, if not quite pagan.

 

The King James is an English Literary masterpiece with beautiful language, and a brilliant history. Unfortunately, it's translation sources weren't the greatest, and the shift in word definition means that we often misread what appears to us to be even a plain verse. The NIV is not the best translation either, as it has had very significant modifications done to it in order to conform with a specific theology, here is a list of deliberate mistranslations on the part of the NIV: http://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/.

 

Also, the doctrine of exaltation as taught in Mormon theology would have been foreign to pagans. Did mortals sometimes transcend and become deified? Sure, but what that means to Greco-Romans and what that means to even the modern non-Mormon Christian are very different things. 

[halconero]

As to the original topic. I have no problem with the concept. I see it as a natural extrapolation of what is taught in text: that there exists a plurality of eternities, the inhabitants and materials of which are subject to those who are exalted. Where the issue lies is when opponents of the Church and the Gospel emphasize dominion over a planet as though it were a) an explicitly taught doctrine, b) the selfish, main motivating factor for those seeking to attain exaltation or c) that it means the displacement of Heavenly Father as our God and King.

Edited September 16, 2014 by halconero

[Storm Rider]

Run 'Pell Mell'? no

Organize your own planets? - yes

 

"by yourself" is also of importance.  "By yourself" does not exist in the temple or in any of our teachings. 

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

This is like running one's head into a wall.  You are creating a disagreement that does not exist.  Nothing I have said conflicts with eternal increase; becoming like our Father in Heaven.  Your condescending attitude does not enhance your position; it does not make you right; it doesn't even make you sound intelligent.  

 

Yes, little johnny, I have been sealed in the temple; I have served in the temple; in fact, I have served in numerous capacities in the temple.  Does that somehow make me right and you wrong?  Well, not exactly, but it should serve as a notice that you should not attempt to judge anyone on this Board when you are so completely ignorant of the people with whom you are talking.  

 

Let's not be stupid; go back and read every one of my posts and try to understand what my points were. They have flown completely above that pointed thing on your shoulders. 

[LittleNipper]

To be exalted (to a Biblical Christian) is to be eternally sealed and forever to be in the glorious presence the Lord, in a permanent body as that of Jesus upon His resurrection. The only canon of any repute would have been that as found in the Temple of Jerusalem. The early church would have likewise consisted of those which Paul wrote to. The Church is always the universal body of all believers in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation.

[JLHPROF]

"by yourself" is also of importance.  "By yourself" does not exist in the temple or in any of our teachings. 

 

God didn't create this world by himself.  Nobody is saying that we will create worlds by ourselves either.  But just as this world is our Heavenly Father's someday there will be worlds over which we are Heavenly Father's and Mothers.  But we will still have someone overseeing us too, just as Heavenly Father does.

[Storm Rider]

I still don't understand the difference between "getting out own planet" and "creating worlds" other than the former is more informal or flippant.

I don't need the "milk" phrases such as "we will be like our Heavenly Father" or we will be "joint heirs". What does this mean? I'm not an investigator, give me the meat! Will we be gods over planets we created and populated with our progeny?

 

What does getting our own planet mean in the creative context of this earth?  What does it mean as being God?  Do you get any inkling that it is only you?  That is my main objection to this silly trite phrase that anti-Mormons love and, ....I have no clue what to call those of you that want to wear this shallow belief system as a badge of honor.

 

If we take what is learned in the temple the creative process was not achieved by a single individual.  There was one giving direction and a host of others that were contributing. 

 

If what you are saying is that you will have glory; there is a degree of truth, but it is simply not the whole truth.  Does glory to you as a god somehow indicate that you in turn do not glorify the Father for eternity?  When is it just you and God is done away with?  That does not exist and has never been taught by any church leader, ever.  

 

These are just some of the problems that I have with these trite phrases that are used to summarize our beliefs.  They become like creeds and small minds grasp them and never go further; the heavens become closed and all need for revelation ends.  

[Calm]

As the fundamental part of exaltation, we become one with God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit and they will share all that they have with us.  How then would we withhold anything from them?  The universe will belong to the Family of God as one.

[LittleNipper]

For by Him and Him alone were all things, worlds, powers, and principalities that ever existed and do exist and will exist created --- both seen and unseen. And without God was there nothing created that ever existed, exists or will exist. God is the only God. There are no others.

[Storm Rider]

I don't know about you, but I'm excited about the concept of exaltation and will take whatever it entails. But it would be nice to know for certain what exactly it entails. There seems to be some disagreement from members about it.

 

I don't sense disagreement so much as there are some who want to think that all has been answered and there is nothing else to say.  I don't believe that; I believe there is a lot left unanswered and instead of spouting off with incomplete understanding I choose to be more circumspect.  Some have chosen to call it milk, incomprehension of scripture, etc.  Having a small degree of understanding of the temple I don't believe that anything I have stated or said conflicts with what is taught in the temple.  I believe that our Father's stated goal is to make us like him.  Those that enter into exaltation will have an eternity of being one with him to learn exactly what that means in its fullness.  As of now, we see darkly and we possess only limited understanding of what it means to be a joint-heir with Christ. 

[Storm Rider]

Absolutely not.  But the idea of "being one with God and Christ" does not prevent progression, learning, and growth.

I believe exactly what is taught in the King Follett discourse (whether canon or not).

That we will ALWAYS answer to our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, but that they will progress higher and we will take their place doing what they do now.

It's speculation if you don't believe the KFD to be the word of God.  I 100% believe every word of it to be from God and so consider this no speculation at all.

 

The time will come when as described the Council of the Gods will call the next worthy God to go down and have their own creation.  Presumably the Savior would be the next in line for our eternal family.  But yes, I fully anticipate a time when I will create my own world for my own posterity UNDER THE ABSOLUTE DIRECTION OF GOD AND CHRIST, not of my own desire to bend the cosmos.  I believe that our Heavenly Father is operating under the absolute direction of HIS FATHER in the running of this creation.  And I believe as D&C 130 & the KFD tells us that eventually Heavenly Father will progress to a higher order of Kingdoms and we will answer to him in the council of the God's as we create our creations.

 

It may be "speculation" officially but I believe it to be the ultimate truth of the restoration and Joseph Smith's crowning teaching, and it may not be spelled out in scripture but there is nothing in scripture to teach otherwise either.  It is just our protestant culture bleeding into mormonism.

 

Great; I am glad you believe it 100%.  

 

For me it is different. I have received no witness that the KFD is true and I tend to follow the direction of the Church; it is not canon for a reason.  I would also, and have, taught others to beware of running after the dictates of their own heart.  Stand on the truths of the Church. If you seek to understand the mysteries of God then do so strictly with and by the guidance of the Spirit.  Once having learned the mysteries of the God you will have done so for your own edification and have no authority or right to set yourself of as the purveyor of the deeper mysteries of God to the saints.  We have prophets and apostles to delineate doctrine for the saints and it is extremely unwise to assume that because we think we know some truth we need to shout it from the roof tops.