Mormons "getting Their Own Planet" (Merged)

[ERayR]

Oh brother!

 

Why waste any more time with this guy?

 

But he really thinks he has something nobody in the church has heard. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Li'l Nipster,

 

Now here's one for you (I won't be holding my breath; I'm sure you're just a drive-by troll: Why do you like trolling Mormons so much? )

I wondered how he managed to pick up six rep points.

 

So I looked into it. At least one of them came from you, Ken.

 

I wondered what got into you. Then, I checked further, and found I had given him one, back in March. Honestly, I don't remember doing it, but, oh well.

[LittleNipper]

My feeling is that Mormons think that they can come knocking at the door of anyone they wish via bicycle, and yet when they open a website and ask Evangelicals what they think, some Mormons actually don't wish to hear it. Heaven forbid anyone try to copy and paste the Bible.  I have often disagreed with various Christians over different doctrinal matters, but I find that mostly Mormons think that those that disagree with then are trolls.

 

It would seem from some of the comments that Mormons are not very comfortable with what they believe and that makes them rather defensive. They'd make very poor ducks. Anyway, a mutual admiration society is not what I'm about.

Edited September 17, 2014 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

I found this thread about owning one's own planet in the afterlife.  In a round about way I've tried to point out that the Bible mentions nothing about such things. Mormons tell me in so many words to go pound sand... They have other books that give them more information than what the Bible says --- and besides the Bible is only the work of men and is filled with mistakes and errors. Sounds like they sometimes consider not investigating what it has to say a virtue. But let's reason together (for a moment) and consider the fact that Jesus said that in his father's house are many mansions, if it were not so he would have said so. Now, it seems to me that owning a planet or creating one would be something Jesus would know about and wish to inform us of. I mean the whole mansion thing was certainly novel. So, if Jesus through the New Testament informs us that we get a mansion, why ponder living on a planet of your own making?  And if your added material really says this ---- you may just wish to consider why Jesus did not..

Edited September 17, 2014 by LittleNipper

[Tacenda]

I found this thread about owning one's own planet in the afterlife. In a round about way I've tried to point out that the Bible mentions nothing about such things. Mormons tell me in so many words to go pound sand... They have other books that give them more information than what the Bible says --- and besides the Bible is only the work of men and is filled with mistakes and errors. Sounds like they sometimes consider not investigating what it has to say a virtue. But let's reason together (for a moment) and consider the fact that Jesus said that in his father's house are many mansions, if it were not so he would have said so. Now, it seems to me that owning a planet or creating one would be something Jesus would know about and wish to inform us of. I mean the whole mansion thing was certainly novel. So, if Jesus through the New Testament informs us that we get a mansion, why ponder living on a planet of your own making? And if your added material really says this ---- you may just wish to consider why Jesus did not..

It's the "end all be all" in Mormonism. What would all the stars in the sky be for other than to become a world? I don't know if Joseph Smith answered that question himself or through divinity, but it does make you wonder.

And how did God begin? I know in my mind he'd have to be something beyond our imaginations, to create the Universe, and I like to think he uses angels to help the inhabitants on the planets, He needs them.

But where did He begin? It's all so incomprehensible. And the Christians don't have an answer, no one does. Who's right, who's wrong? No one really knows. I think from the dawn of time it's everyone's guess, and some writers may have made it up along the way. But I'm not there yet in my belief to know what took place. But why isn't it ok to be like the writers in the Bible? Be able to have the revelation in our time too? Through prophets and prophetesses, (in my dreams )?

Edited September 17, 2014 by Tacenda

[Vance]

I found this thread about owning one's own planet in the afterlife.  In a round about way I've tried to point out that the Bible mentions nothing about such things. Mormons tell me in so many words to go pound sand... They have other books that give them more information than what the Bible says . . .

So? There are a lot of things missing from the Bible.

--- and besides the Bible is only the work of men and is filled with mistakes and errors.

It is true that we don't worship the Bible.

Sounds like they sometimes consider not investigating what it has to say a virtue.

That is funny coming from a member of a group that gets their doctrine from a very few misinterpreted verses written by Paul while ignoring the rest of the NT.

But let's reason together (for a moment) and consider the fact that Jesus said that in his father's house are many mansions, if it were not so he would have said so. Now, it seems to me that owning a planet or creating one would be something Jesus would know about and wish to inform us of. I mean the whole mansion thing was certainly novel. So, if Jesus through the New Testament informs us that we get a mansion, why ponder living on a planet of your own making?  And if your added material really says this ---- you may just wish to consider why Jesus did not..

Lack of evidence is not proof of absence. There are a lot of things Jesus did and said that are not recorded in the Bible.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Act 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why do Mormons want to live on their own planet and create their own universes? Do they think that they can do a better job?

LN,

I am guessing you are probably not very old, and I don't mean that as a bad thing, but some of your posts appear to be very juvenile and short sighted. 

 

Put down your Jack Chick tract and try to actually learn something. You have a great opportunity to actually learn what the LDS believer don't waste it.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[LittleNipper]

God states in the Bible that He had no beginning and no end. I would say that God Himself created time for us to provide us with a sense of continuity. And I actually believe that God created the heavens so that man might be able to comprehend eternity, grandeur, and be amazed. Why does an artist paint a picture? I have done just that and more ---- and I did it to please myself. Selfish of me I know, but I imagine that God does things to express himself to us in a material/physical way. But I take what the Bible says seriously. Jesus spoke of Noah as though he knew him. Well, Jesus is God. And God told Noah to build the ark and God also shut Noah in. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well. And Jesus knew all about her. She was marveled. Jesus calmed the storms and walked on water. God explained to Joseph the meaning of various Dreams. Moses was given the commandments by God. The Bible says so. God walked among the flames in the fiery furnace and told to Daniel what Nebuchadnezzar dreamed. The Bible says so. The writers of the Bible didn't just write things down. That sort of thing is found in the Book of Mormon. That is just another reason I do not believe it, and likely a reason some Mormons think the Bible is just a lot of men writing stories. They imagine the Bible is just another version of the book of Mormon --- random tales with a morality play thrown in for good measure. The Bible is a living book. It is inspired of God. It is factual. And nothing that the Mormons here have said leads me to believe that they actually believe any of it. They are busy concocting notions all their own. I'm sorry I may seem so disagreeable. That is not my intent.  My prayer is that anyone reading this will consider if they really love God or just the idea that one may exist. Good-bye.

 

If you are leaving, I won't bother to ban you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Good-bye.

Thanks for the preaching, good bye. It really is a shame that you are wasting a golden opportunity and you have sorely misjudged us.

[Vance]

God states in the Bible that He had no beginning and no end.

Not that I disagree with God having no beginning and no end, but I would like you to provide the scriptural reference

So, consider this a CFR!

But I take what the Bible says seriously.

So do I. I just don't agree with your interpretation.

Jesus spoke of Noah as though he knew him. Well, Jesus is God. And God told Noah to build the ark and God also shut Noah in. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well. And Jesus knew all about her. She was marveled. Jesus calmed the storms and walked on water. God explained to Joseph the meaning of various Dreams. Moses was given the commandments by God. The Bible says so. God walked among the flames in the fiery furnace and told to Daniel what Nebuchadnezzar dreamed. The Bible says so.

Ok, so?

That sort of thing is found in the Book of Mormon.

I agree that The Book of Mormon is also scripture.

That is just another reason I do not believe it,

And that is why I do believe it. What I really suspect is that you haven't read it at all. You most likely don't even know what is in it.

and likely a reason some Mormons think the Bible is just a lot of men writing stories.

Of course it was written by men and they are telling their story. So, what is your point?

They imagine the Bible is just another version of the book of Mormon

It really is obvious that you don't even have a clue what we believe about the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

- random tales with a morality play thrown in for good measure.

Yup. You are clueless about what is even in the Book of Mormon. Spewing ignorant drivel doesn't make you look good.

The Bible is a living book.

I have not clue what you mean by that.

It is inspired of God.

I agree.

It is factual.

Even where it contradicts itself?

And nothing that the Mormons here have said leads me to believe that they actually believe any of it.

Humm.

Even when we use it to support our beliefs? You are just a troll.

They are busy concocting notions all their own.

More trollage.

I'm sorry I may seem so disagreeable.

No, you are not.

That is not my intent.

Yes, it is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Bible is a living book.

It is so alive that nothing has been added to it in about 2000 years. Rofl.

 

The bible is not living in any sense of the word.

[Tacenda]

It is so alive that nothing has been added to it in about 2000 years. Rofl.

The bible is not living in any sense of the word.

What? It's living when the reader lives the words spoken, that isn't too hard to get, even I grasped that one.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Now that Brother Nipper has left us we can get back to the topic on hand about controlling or assisting planets and our role in the cosmos and universe.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What? It's living when the reader lives the words spoken, that isn't too hard to get, even I grasped that one.

That requires more than just having a book with words in it, huh?

[Scott Lloyd]

Now that Brother Nipper has left us we can get back to the topic on hand about controlling or assisting planets and our role in the cosmos and universe.

As pleased as I am to see him go, one thing he did do is illustrate rather starkly the folly of reducing sublime doctrines such as theosis or deification to juvenile and flippant bumper-sticker phrases such as "getting your own planet."

Edited September 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

Now that Brother Nipper has left us we can get back to the topic on hand about controlling or assisting planets and our role in the cosmos and universe.

 

I'm pretty sure we've covered all available material on the subject (both canon and non-canon).

While I don't consider the concept to be speculative at all, (the prophets taught it too frequently and too clearly), guessing what the process is going to look like is speculation.  We can't even agree on how this earth was formed, let alone the next one.

[Ahab]

I'm pretty sure we've covered all available material on the subject (both canon and non-canon).

While I don't consider the concept to be speculative at all, (the prophets taught it too frequently and too clearly), guessing what the process is going to look like is speculation. We can't even agree on how this earth was formed, let alone the next one.

Speculation is fine. We'll eventually be able to do anything that is worth doing so we might as well do our best to think about the best way to do it.

I'm kinda thinking that one of the first things we'll need to understand how to do is how to form an atmosphere around a planet or huge hunk of matter in space, unless we're going to limit ourselves to planets that already have an atmosphere.

And one of the next things we'll need to know is how to position or move a planet into just the right place around a sun, unless we're going to limit ourselves to planets that are already in a good orbit.

And one of the next things we'll need to know is how to put certain kinds of elements on or into a planet that might not otherwise be there, unless we're going to limit ourselves to planets with all of the necessary elements for things like water and whatever else plants need to have to grow.

And then we'll be able to start transporting plants so they can start producing the air that other kinds of living beings need, with some of those plants also being good for the food of those beings.

And then we can start transporting bugs and bees and birds and all other kinds of life, gradually, as the planet we are creating is good for them as a home. Including some of our kind, after we create some nice gardens and parks.

I'm going to want to put a nice golf park in as soon as the planet can handle it, though, and without too much rain.

[Kenngo1969]

He's gone?

 

Awww ... I'm gonna miss The Nipster!

 

He was a fun little troll to play with!

[Scott Lloyd]

He's gone?

 

Awww ... I'm gonna miss The Nipster!

 

He was a fun little troll to play with!

In the end, he reminded me more of the garden gnomes in Harry Potter.

[stephenpurdy]

The scripture Joseph initially referenced concerning this topic is John 5:19:

"I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."

Joseph says, that (like Jesus) God the Father is an exalted man in form and appearance, "If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another."

Joseph was teaching that God was a man "like us" in the same sense that Jesus Christ was a man "like us". He said:

"we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did;"

John Chapter 5 verse 24-26 states:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself"

Now, Joseph Smith says this in the King Follett discourse:

"Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again."

Joseph also explained:

"What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children."

 

All of the LDS doctrine concerning the idea of God the Father once being a man who lived on an Earth originated from Joseph Smith, and any insight on detail was given by the King Follett discourse. And the King Follett discourse describes God the Father as having lived as Jesus Christ did - (Also described as Jesus as following the same path as God the Father.) So, any discussion on the matter should always be understood in that context, and originally from that source.


-Stephen

[stephenpurdy]

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Rev 3:21)

God gives the inheritance to this spiritual generation and is exalted by doing so. With those exalted, there is equality among those who inherit the kingdom, because everything is shared. That is what it means to be "joint heirs" with Christ.

And as Joseph Smith explained in my previous post, God the Father has kingdom added upon kingdom.

Certainly, there is a deeper and more detailed discussion concerning whether or not there is a difference between "gods by grace" and "Gods by nature".

 

The details are not clearly defined in LDS doctrine concerning how the organization of worlds, galaxies, universes holds together with exalted "gods" and those who, like Jesus, were naturally divine.

 

Saints can become "one with God even as Christ is one with the Father". Saints can become "like Jesus Christ, for we shall see him as he is." And if Jesus is the "exact imprint/image/expression of God the Father's person" (Heb 1:1-2), then, by logical inference, that also means that we can be like God the Father. We will "partake in the divine nature" and will be "gods" having received "eternal life" and even live the kind of life that God lives, including having spiritual children.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In my mind, the most consistent interpretation is this highly speculative viewpoint:

 

Jesus Christ would become the "God the Father" of a new creation (possibly a new universe) and he would be at the head of the "heavenly host" , who are "gods". Thus making him the "God of gods" and "Lord of lords" or "the Most High God" of the new universe. Or as Joseph taught, the "Head of the gods". (We would still have the same relationship with God the Father of our universe.) Again, our Christ would be "the Father" of the new universe (Note that the Book of Mormon calls Christ "the Father" when we are "born again" through Jesus, and in this sense, Jesus would always be considered "the Father" of our becoming "partakers of the divine nature". We would be "one" with Him in this endeavor. All of these exalted would share involvement in the spiritual creation - intelligences into spiritual bodies, who are the spiritual children of "Elohim" (plural).

Among the spiritual children of Elohim would be a perfectly and naturally divine spirit, who would be the new "Christ" of the new creation, and would then enact the physical creation, place spirits into bodies, and say "man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil" etc. etc. This seems consistent with LDS scripture to me, because God the Father is the Father of "worlds without number".

Granted, this includes speculation on my part, and there are complications and implications. For example, it could potentially mean that God the Father of this Universe is not actually the father of every spirit, at least not directly; but instead, spirits may be created from other couples. Not that there would be much of a difference (at least not to me), but that would be one of the implications to this theory which people may have difficulty with.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Ultimately, we do not know if each LDS couple would "get their own planet".  That is also a highly speculative assertion, one which I disagree with. 

 

-Stephen

[Tony Frank]

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Rev 3:21)

God gives the inheritance to this spiritual generation and is exalted by doing so. With those exalted, there is equality among those who inherit the kingdom, because everything is shared. That is what it means to be "joint heirs" with Christ.

And as Joseph Smith explained in my previous post, God the Father has kingdom added upon kingdom.

Certainly, there is a deeper and more detailed discussion concerning whether or not there is a difference between "gods by grace" and "Gods by nature".

 

The details are not clearly defined in LDS doctrine concerning how the organization of worlds, galaxies, universes holds together with exalted "gods" and those who, like Jesus, were naturally divine.

 

Saints can become "one with God even as Christ is one with the Father". Saints can become "like Jesus Christ, for we shall see him as he is." And if Jesus is the "exact imprint/image/expression of God the Father's person" (Heb 1:1-2), then, by logical inference, that also means that we can be like God the Father. We will "partake in the divine nature" and will be "gods" having received "eternal life" and even live the kind of life that God lives, including having spiritual children.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In my mind, the most consistent interpretation is this highly speculative viewpoint:

 

Jesus Christ would become the "God the Father" of a new creation (possibly a new universe) and he would be at the head of the "heavenly host" , who are "gods". Thus making him the "God of gods" and "Lord of lords" or "the Most High God" of the new universe. Or as Joseph taught, the "Head of the gods". (We would still have the same relationship with God the Father of our universe.) Again, our Christ would be "the Father" of the new universe (Note that the Book of Mormon calls Christ "the Father" when we are "born again" through Jesus, and in this sense, Jesus would always be considered "the Father" of our becoming "partakers of the divine nature". We would be "one" with Him in this endeavor. All of these exalted would share involvement in the spiritual creation - intelligences into spiritual bodies, who are the spiritual children of "Elohim" (plural).

Among the spiritual children of Elohim would be a perfectly and naturally divine spirit, who would be the new "Christ" of the new creation, and would then enact the physical creation, place spirits into bodies, and say "man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil" etc. etc. This seems consistent with LDS scripture to me, because God the Father is the Father of "worlds without number".

Granted, this includes speculation on my part, and there are complications and implications. For example, it could potentially mean that God the Father of this Universe is not actually the father of every spirit, at least not directly; but instead, spirits may be created from other couples. Not that there would be much of a difference (at least not to me), but that would be one of the implications to this theory which people may have difficulty with.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Ultimately, we do not know if each LDS couple would "get their own planet".  That is also a highly speculative assertion, one which I disagree with. 

 

-Stephen

 

You are definitely getting to the core of true doctrine. Those of us who receive celestial glory will populate a world in which Christ's First Born in the spirit will be the Savior.

 

In John 5:19, the Savior said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”

If the Son cannot do anything unless the Father has done it, and the Son overcame and was set down in his throne, then our Heavenly Father overcame and was set down in his throne. The Bible says so, and Jesus Christ said so. Christ will become the Father in the same way that our Heavenly Father became the Father.

 

If my first born in the spirit does as the father did, he will certainly not be fit to be the Savior of a world. Jesus Christ's First Born in the spirit will do as the Father (Christ) did, and he will be the Savior of a world, a world that we will populate with our spirit children.

 

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. 

[stephenpurdy]

You are definitely getting to the core of true doctrine. ....

 

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. 

 

Well, you will get LDS with conflicting theories.  Some , including a general authority that I can think of, believe that God was "a man like us" in the sense that God the Father was a saved sinner.

 

However, I think that does not fit with the context of the King Follett discourse that I provided in the previous post.

 

-Stephen

[stemelbow]

Well, you will get LDS with conflicting theories.  Some , including a general authority that I can think of, believe that God was "a man like us" in the sense that God the Father was a saved sinner.

 

However, I think that does not fit with the context of the King Follett discourse that I provided in the previous post.

 

-Stephen

Hey Stephen, which General Authority?

[Tony Frank]

Well, you will get LDS with conflicting theories.  Some , including a general authority that I can think of, believe that God was "a man like us" in the sense that God the Father was a saved sinner.

 

However, I think that does not fit with the context of the King Follett discourse that I provided in the previous post.

 

-Stephen

 

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.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Tony Frank