Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Mormons "getting Their Own Planet" (Merged)


Recommended Posts

Posted

I was told we get worlds plural, not just one planet to populate with our posterity. This is the kingdoms that are talked about in D&C 132 when it says they shall inherit kingdoms, thrones, principalities, etc.

Posted

I was told we get worlds plural, not just one planet to populate with our posterity. This is the kingdoms that are talked about in D&C 132 when it says they shall inherit kingdoms, thrones, principalities, etc.

 

Yeah.  One finite rock is rather small potatoes compared to being "joint heirs with Christ", the fullness of creation, etc.

Posted

I was told we get worlds plural, not just one planet to populate with our posterity. This is the kingdoms that are talked about in D&C 132 when it says they shall inherit kingdoms, thrones, principalities, etc.

 

 

Do you get your "own" ?

 

-stephen

Posted

The key lies not in the part where Joseph Smith said that God "was once a man like us,"  but in the words immediately following, in which Joseph Smith said, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did."

 

The fact is that our Father in heaven dwelt on an earth and led a sinless life, the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and He was the Savior of that world, which is how He became the Father. Those who were worthy of celestial glory in that world were His seed, and our present earth has been populated by their spirit children.

 

It will happen all over again when Jesus Christ becomes the Father and we, as His seed, populate a world in which His First Born in the spirit will become the Only Begotten in the flesh and be the Savior of the earth that we populate. He will do as the Father (Jesus Christ) did.

 

This is not theory. It is basic doctrine.

 

Tell that to Marion G. Romney.

 

-stephen

Posted

I was told we get worlds plural, not just one planet to populate with our posterity. This is the kingdoms that are talked about in D&C 132 when it says they shall inherit kingdoms, thrones, principalities, etc.

 

Yeah.  One finite rock is rather small potatoes compared to being "joint heirs with Christ", the fullness of creation, etc.

 

I don't know why this is such a bugaboo topic except that it offends our traditional Christian brothers and sisters.

I find it really very simple to follow if you understand Brigham's Adam-God teachings and the Temple Endowment.

 

Christ and those who are exalted to Godhood will continue the same work as all Gods before them - creating earths and creating more Gods.

 

And just as OT Jehovah (who I don't believe was Christ) oversaw Adam/Michael in the creation of this world at the instruction of the Eloheim council so it will be in future creations.  (Very clear in the temple).

 

And so our Jehovah (Christ - D&C 110:3) who will inherit/adopt us and be our Father instead of our Elder Brother (see Adam-Ondi-Ahman teachings/Alma 11:38-39 for just a few examples) will oversee all exalted Gods from his generation (us hopefully) as Adams/Michaels (temple) in the future creation of our worlds.  He may even go first that we may imitate him.

 

And our Father Adam and his Jehovah will either continue in this work as part of the Eloheim council or they will by virtue of having already exalted worlds without number move on to a higher order of kingdoms than Celestial (D&C 130:10).

 

It's eternal progression in all its beauty.  Even if it isn't currently taught by the Church.  (King Follett Discourse)

Posted

It is all about the Son becoming the Father, and we are His seed because he has spiritually begotten us. It is the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and there is nothing speculative about it. 

 

I've heard many times on this board (and elsewhere) that it is speculation.  In other words, that while it may make sense based on other doctrines, it is not official doctrine.

 

So, what is it?  Speculation or official doctrine?

Posted

I've heard many times on this board (and elsewhere) that it is speculation.  In other words, that while it may make sense based on other doctrines, it is not official doctrine.

 

So, what is it?  Speculation or official doctrine?

 

Without having more than a superficial understanding it makes little difference.  You are not going to understand it.

Posted

I've heard many times on this board (and elsewhere) that it is speculation.  In other words, that while it may make sense based on other doctrines, it is not official doctrine.

 

So, what is it?  Speculation or official doctrine?

 

There is an entire archive on Deification discussions:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/forum/76-deification/ 

 

There is also a good apologetic resource on the subject here:  http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Deification_of_man/Gods_of_their_own_planets

Posted

Without having more than a superficial understanding it makes little difference.  You are not going to understand it.

 

Oh, c'mon now, don't treat me like that :)

 

I am a very intelligent person who has studied Mormonism quite a bit.  Try me.  Is what Tony Frank saying speculation or official doctrine?  He claims it is official -- my experience with Mormons and Mormonism is that it is speculation.

 

What do you think it is and why?

 

I promise you, if you give reasonable answers I'll be able to understand it :)

Posted (edited)

There is an entire archive on Deification discussions:  http://www.mormondialogue.org/forum/76-deification/ 

 

There is also a good apologetic resource on the subject here:  http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Deification_of_man/Gods_of_their_own_planets

 

I assume this means, like ERayR,  you don't want to answer my question.  That's fine, I suppose.  I was only wondering how many people agree with Tony Frank, because he was claiming very boldly that it was core doctrine, while in my experience most Mormons say it is speculation.

 

ETA: I already know many of the issues.  I'm not asking for an explanation of exaltation.  Instead, I'm asking about Tony Frank's claims.  That's all.

Edited by MiserereNobis
Posted (edited)

Oh, c'mon now, don't treat me like that :)

 

I am a very intelligent person who has studied Mormonism quite a bit.  Try me.  Is what Tony Frank saying speculation or official doctrine?  He claims it is official -- my experience with Mormons and Mormonism is that it is speculation.

 

What do you think it is and why?

 

I promise you, if you give reasonable answers I'll be able to understand it :)

 

You have been around Mormons enough to know that if there is something they don't like they label it as not doctrine.

 

The whole get your own planet mantra is nothing but an attention grabber.  The doctrine is (put in the common vernacular) we become part of the family venture.  Once we have passed all the tests and become joint heirs with Christ we are given assignments in the business of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Edited by ERayR
Posted

I assume this means, like ERayR,  you don't want to answer my question.  That's fine, I suppose.  I was only wondering how many people agree with Tony Frank, because he was claiming very boldly that it was core doctrine, while in my experience most Mormons say it is speculation.

 

ETA: I already know many of the issues.  I'm not asking for an explanation of exaltation.  Instead, I'm asking about Tony Frank's claims.  That's all.

 

Come on give me a chance to answer before declaring me forfeit.

Posted (edited)

I don't know why this is such a bugaboo topic except that it offends our traditional Christian brothers and sisters.

I find it really very simple to follow if you understand Brigham's Adam-God teachings and the Temple Endowment.

 

Christ and those who are exalted to Godhood will continue the same work as all Gods before them - creating earths and creating more Gods.

 

And just as OT Jehovah (who I don't believe was Christ) oversaw Adam/Michael in the creation of this world at the instruction of the Eloheim council so it will be in future creations.  (Very clear in the temple).

 

And so our Jehovah (Christ - D&C 110:3) who will inherit/adopt us and be our Father instead of our Elder Brother (see Adam-Ondi-Ahman teachings/Alma 11:38-39 for just a few examples) will oversee all exalted Gods from his generation (us hopefully) as Adams/Michaels (temple) in the future creation of our worlds.  He may even go first that we may imitate him.

 

And our Father Adam and his Jehovah will either continue in this work as part of the Eloheim council or they will by virtue of having already exalted worlds without number move on to a higher order of kingdoms than Celestial (D&C 130:10).

 

It's eternal progression in all its beauty.  Even if it isn't currently taught by the Church.  (King Follett Discourse)

 

Well, the problem with this theory is that it means that we are up for TWO ROUNDS of MORTALITY.  The one we are in now and then again as Adam or Eve of another world. There is not much scripture to support that idea. 

 

Furthermore, haven't we partaken of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil?  This theory means that we would have to partake of the that fruit again!

 

If Adam and Eve already had bodies, then why did God create their physical tabernacles "from the dust". 

 

Remember that glorious resurrection where the body is to never again be separated from the spirit?  Well ... this theory does away with it.

 

That is probably why the Adam-God theory has lost favour amongst the brethren/leaders of the LDS church and also the church at large.

 

-stephen

Edited by stephenpurdy
Posted

I've always assumed we'll be populating and looking after worlds, because I mean, what else do exalted people do to pass the eternity? We're promised all these things in the temple during the marriage ceremony by the sealer. I love hearing the promises. It fills me with such excitement for what exaltation will actually entail with a spouse by your side.

Posted

Well, the problem with this theory is that it means that we are up for TWO ROUNDS of MORTALITY.  The one we are in now and then again as Adam or Eve of another world. There is not much scripture to support that idea. 

 

Furthermore, haven't we partaken of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil?  This theory means that we would have to partake of the that fruit again!

 

That is probably why the Adam-God theory has lost favour amongst the brethren/leaders of the LDS church and also the church at large.

 

-stephen

 

Either that or the protestant influence was just too much.

Posted

I've always assumed we'll be populating and looking after worlds, because I mean, what else do exalted people do to pass the eternity? We're promised all these things in the temple during the marriage ceremony by the sealer. I love hearing the promises. It fills me with such excitement for what exaltation will actually entail with a spouse by your side.

 

You should be looking at it the way God does ". . . to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man".  That sounds more like what we can give not what we can get.

Posted

Oh, c'mon now, don't treat me like that :)

 

I am a very intelligent person who has studied Mormonism quite a bit.  Try me.  Is what Tony Frank saying speculation or official doctrine?  He claims it is official -- my experience with Mormons and Mormonism is that it is speculation.

 

What do you think it is and why?

 

I promise you, if you give reasonable answers I'll be able to understand it :)

 

I answered.  Did you read it?

Posted

Mortality is hard and painful enough, I wouldn't want to go through with it twice. Reincarnation does not appeal to me. I'd rather stay resurrected as body and flesh in perfect form and feel no more physical pain or illness. What appeals to me so much about the afterlife is the end of physical pains forever.

Posted

I assume this means, like ERayR,  you don't want to answer my question.  That's fine, I suppose.  I was only wondering how many people agree with Tony Frank, because he was claiming very boldly that it was core doctrine, while in my experience most Mormons say it is speculation.

 

ETA: I already know many of the issues.  I'm not asking for an explanation of exaltation.  Instead, I'm asking about Tony Frank's claims.  That's all.

 

Oh for heaven's sake...  I was genuinely helping you get up to speed on the LDS discussion and thoughts on the matter of Deification.  

 

My personal belief is we are destined to be joint heirs with Christ, and all that implies.

 

The King Follet sermon is a very good look into our beliefs.  And while not canonical doctrine it is very inspired and a foundation of many LDS beliefs.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...