So exalted Mormons don't get their own planets in the afterlife?

[consiglieri]

8 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Populating worlds with spirit children does sound much better than getting your own planet.

Only if you're a man.

[thesometimesaint]

17 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Only if you're a man.

Argument from ignorance.

[consiglieri]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Argument from ignorance.

LOL!!!

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

By the way, Elohim is Hebrew for Gods, and it applies to the Father because His excellence and majesty requires a plural noun, not because he represents a council of some sort.  He is still the single presiding authority of the universe, even if none may come to Him except through the Son.

I hope you will accept this in the spirit in which it is intended - I'm not being smart alicky. "Gods" is just an English appellation applied to Elohim and is not really reflective of what the title is. The idea that Elohim is a "majestic/royal plural" is false. It is an actual plural which is sometimes used as a singular much as our word family is. This is absolutely shown in its use in the Torah in which the followers of God are called Elohim. English scholars like to say that then it refers to judges or the like, which is again false.

Elohim is clearly used of Jesus/Yahoshuah in Hebrews quote of the Psalms:

Hebrews 1:8

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God[Elohim in Psalms], is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Also in the Torah:

Gen 3:22 And the Lord God[YHWH Elohim] said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: 

Here the plural is accurate because the verb used is plural so the correct pronoun is "us." 

The reason for all this becomes more clear when we understand what Elohim means. The English translators merely substituted the Germanic word for our pagan god Gott for Elohim. The Saxons were one of the "Germanic" tribes which conquered the Western Roman Empire, and they brought the word "Gott" with them. 

Elohim is the plural of Eloah/Eloh with the plural suffix "im." Eloah is a form of El which seems best to refer to "the power." It is much more commonly used in the Torah than is Eloah. Eloah is almost exclusively used in the Torah when referring to El as being the rock of Israel or the rock of our salvation. I believe the best translation for Elohim is something like the "family of stone/immovable force." I am the Lord/YHWH your God/Elohim becomes "I am the Word/Life of your Family of stone/immovable force." Thus, Elohim can be correctly used in a singular context when referring to God as our house or the house of God.

Further, I will say then that in this context when the word Gods is being used in D&C it is referring to Elohim or the house of God. In other words it is saying we will be the sons of God in His house - not that we will run off as God in our own right with our own planet "making spirit children." That idea is totally contrary to the scriptures. As LDS we should not accept that characterization when foisted upon us by critics, and we should be prepared to counter false videos of critics which lampoon us this way. We are really saying no different than Athanasius did when he said Jesus died for us so that we may become God. 

Edited January 20, 2016 by RevTestament
typo

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Methinks the Stargazer doth protest too much.

Meaning that I really was taught I'd get very own planet, and now I'm lying about having been taught it?

Sorry, nope!  

Although there may be a little of that which is true, since I happen to believe exalted beings create universes for themselves, and you know how it goes, if there's a bazillion planets, then there is one planet.  But they're ALL mine.

But still, "getting your own planet" is a mocking caricature.  Pretty much every time I hear it, the speaker is in fact mocking.

[Storm Rider]

 I fundamentally disagree with this type of deduction for what has been taught repeatedly by the Church leaders and what scripture supports.  At best it is a dull reflection of a true definition.  I have yet to see any statement by Church leaders that supports this type of limited belief for Exaltation....and yet critics have a field day with repeating this tripe and worse, some members parrot the critics (I am being kind using the term "critic", which is a term I respect and should be respected).  

Granted I grew up in the mission field, which is something I have never ceased from thanking God for such a blessing.  I was never, as in NEVER, taught such a ridiculous teaching or limitation of Exaltation.  I was taught that I may participate in the creative process without end and that all I would do in the eternities would glorify our God and Father.  

After I went through the temple I came to understand that the creative process is just that - a process completed by many.  Ex nihilo, was not the way of God - we organized what was.  

More importantly, I understood that the creative process was only one function of God.  Quantifying what God is and does is beyond any mortal.  Exaltation is being one with God and assisting him in all he does and as he sees fit to assign.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Instead of denying this teaching, the Church would be better served to acknowledge it and clarify it as it deems fit.

Denying it outright, as the Church has done, seems duplicitous.

I deny it and I verbal thrash the teaching in my Sunday School class when the topic comes up.  I don't think I could come up with a more offensive description of Exaltation than this Jack Chick type of cartoon tract.  It is not doctrine; it is not Mormonism; it is not the gospel.  

Why would I go out of my way to deny everything anti-Mormons - used in the correct way - state or bring up?  That is a foolish waste of time.  I think we need to continue doing what we do - teach the principle of Exaltation without limitation.  

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I hope you will accept this in the spirit in which it is intended - I'm not being smart alicky. "Gods" is just an English appellation applied to Elohim and is not really reflective of what the title is. The idea that Elohim is a "majestic/royal plural" is false. It is an actual plural which is sometimes used as a singular much as our word family is. This is absolutely shown in its use in the Torah in which the followers of God are called Elohim. English scholars like to say that then it refers to judges or the like, which is again false.

Elohim is clearly used of Jesus/Yahoshuah in Hebrews quote of the Psalms:

Hebrews 1:8

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God[Elohim in Psalms], is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Also in the Torah:

Gen 3:22 And the Lord God[YHWH Elohim] said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: 

Here the plural is accurate because the verb used is plural so the correct pronoun is "us." 

The reason for all this becomes more clear when we understand what Elohim means. The English translators merely substituted the Germanic word for our pagan god Gott for Elohim. The Saxons were one of the "Germanic" tribes which conquered the Western Roman Empire, and they brought the word "Gott" with them. 

Elohim is the plural of Eloah/Eloh with the plural suffix "im." Eloah is a form of El which seems best to refer to "the power." It is much more commonly used in the Torah than is Eloah. Eloah is almost exclusively used in the Torah when referring to El as being the rock of Israel or the rock of our salvation. I believe the best translation for Elohim is something like the "family of stone/immovable force." I am the Lord/YHWH your God/Elohim becomes "I am the Word/Life of your Family of stone/immovable force." Thus, Elohim can be correctly used in a singular context when referring to God as our house or the house of God.

Further, I will say then that in this context when the word Gods is being used in D&C it is referring to Elohim or the house of God. In other words it is saying we will be the sons of God in His house - not that we will run off as God in our own right with our own planet "making spirit children." That idea is totally contrary to the scriptures. As LDS we should not accept that characterization when foisted upon us by critics, and we should be prepared to counter false videos of critics which lampoon us this way. We are really saying no different than Athanasius did when he said Jesus died for us so that we may become God. 

I shan't argue with most of that, but if we are the sons of God in His house, and we are exalted, or in other words, inherit all that the Father has, why do we not do what He did?  You're trying to say that when it is said that we inherit all that the Father has, this means that we get everything, EXCEPT for that one thing?  When He said, "This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39), you are saying that we cannot ultimately be raised up to His power?  That we're eternal eunuchs?  Sorry, but I don't see that it is at all contrary to the scriptures, that we become Gods in our own right.

You're troubled by Athanasius, I see.  But I don't see the problem.  He is our Father, and because He raises us up we can never rise above Him, nor are we equal.  This would be impossible.  But we become partakers of His power, and if we do not become partakers of all of His power, then it isn't exaltation, and it isn't eternal life, which is in other words, God's life.  And the scriptures lie.

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

  Although there may be a little of that which is true, since I happen to believe exalted beings create universes for themselves, and you know how it goes, if there's a bazillion planets, then there is one planet.  But they're ALL mine.

But still, "getting your own planet" is a mocking caricature.  Pretty much every time I hear it, the speaker is in fact mocking.

Is it fair to say that the content of the statement is correct but the tone is mocking? Both seem to be true. Does it feel better if we say "exalted beings will create their own worlds" instead of "get their own planet?" It's essentially the same thing but by dismissing the caricature the church appears to be attempting to distance itself from the teaching...at least among those who don't really know.

 

[omni]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

People are really touchy about their beliefs.  They don't want them to sound weird and outlandish, so the way beliefs come off to others is very important to believers.

I learned it was much easier and felt much more honest to answer people's question about getting our own planets with a yes, rather than a no with a terrible explanation and leaving the hearer with confusion.  One day the Church will learn the same.  I don't think there's anything to hide.  Most members would say those who are exalted will help create and populate other worlds.  But then get all huffy if someone sees that as believing they will get their own planets?  Sheesh...conversation halts to a complete stall, sides are created and walls are built up to keep things just so neat.  What a waste of energy.  Have fun fellow LDS who want to deny everything in order to make sure everyone will say it just like you want.  It will never happen.  Loosen up and accept reality.  the build other words and populate them is essentially having your own planet.  I get my kid a bike and he gladly and shamelessly calls it his own, even if I remain his dad. 

 

I am still baffled every time this subject comes up.  From what I've been able to gather, if you substitute the "worlds" and "create" for "planets" and "get", it changes the commonly heard phrase from anti-Mormon caricature to doctrine.

[Zakuska]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Reminds me of a scene from Independence Day.

First thing I'm going to do when I get my planet is put up a no trespassing sign and place cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Zakuska

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, Traela said:

"We get our own planet" is just a simplification.  We know that we will have all the powers of God, but will still be under the authority of God.  And I for one can't imagine being in control of a galaxy, let alone a whole universe.  So imagining Heaven as a universe-sized neighborhood with each couple on their own planet makes sense.  In reality, it will probably be closer to a multiverse.

 

 

13 hours ago, Zakuska said:

So easy a child could understand...

On page 90 (chapter five) of the correlated manual titled Presidents of the Church Student Manual: Religion 345 (2004), under the subheading, “They Shall Organize Worlds and Rule Over Them,” it states:

“Only a short time before his death, President Snow visited the Brigham Young University [then Brigham Young Academy], at Provo. President Brimhall escorted the party through one of the buildings; he wanted to reach the assembly room as soon as possible, as the students had already gathered. They were going through one of the kindergarten rooms; President Brimhall had reached the door and was about to open it and go on when President Snow said: ‘Wait a moment, President Brimhall, I want to see these children at work; what are they doing?’ Brother Brimhall replied that they were making clay spheres. ‘That is very interesting,’ the President said. ‘I want to watch them.’ He quietly watched the children for several minutes and then lifted a little girl, perhaps six years of age, and stood her on a table. He then took the clay sphere from her hand, and, turning to Brother Brimhall, said: ‘President Brimhall, these children are now at play, making mud worlds, the time will come when some of these boys, through their faithfulness to the gospel, will progress and develop in knowledge, intelligence and power, in future eternities, until they shall be able to go out into space where there is unorganized matter and call together the necessary elements, and through their knowledge of and control over the laws and powers of nature, to organize matter into worlds on which their posterity may dwell, and over which they shall rule as gods.’ (Snow, Improvement Era, June 1919, 658–59).”

“We are the offspring of God, born with the same faculties and powers as He possesses, capable of enlargement through the experience that we are now passing through in our second estate… He has begotten us in His own image. He has given us faculties and powers that are capable of enlargement until His fullness is reached which He has promised — until we shall sit upon thrones, governing and controlling our posterity from eternity to eternity, and increasing eternally.” (Millennial Star 56:772, October 5, 1894)

“When two Latter-day Saints are united together in marriage, promises are made to them concerning their offspring that reach from eternity to eternity. They are promised that they shall have the power and the right to govern and control and administer salvation and exaltation and glory to their offspring, worlds without end. And what offspring they do not have here, undoubtedly there will be opportunities to have them hereafter. What else could man wish? A man and a woman, in the other life, having celestial bodies, free from sickness and disease, glorified and beautified beyond description, standing in the midst of their posterity, governing and controlling them, administering life, exaltation and glory worlds without end” (Deseret News, 13 Mar. 1897; quoted by Spencer W. Kimball in The Miracle of Forgiveness[1969], 246;  See also Lesson 10 of The Latter-day Saint Woman: Basic Manual for Women, Part A).

It sounds like way too much work for me!

[Mark Beesley]

"And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy."  D&C 130:2

I am unaware of any society on earth that functions fully with a single member.  Rather, we cooperate in building houses, streets, cities, and nations.  That same type of cooperation will likely persist in the eternities where those worthy of exaltation will work together to teach newly created spirit offspring, plan for their progression, and help in the formation of worlds whereon these may dwell.  My personal belief is that the peoples of this earth are literal spirit offspring of many different and diverse exalted beings, and that we are adopted by the Most High God for puposes of worship and salvation while yet in mortality.

But each exalted being having their "own" planet ... That concept is non-scriptural, and if any LDS General Authority has suggested as much, well, I do not believe in the infallibilty of any prophet or apostle in these latter-days.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

"And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy."  D&C 130:2

I am unaware of any society on earth that functions fully with a single member.  Rather, we cooperate in building houses, streets, cities, and nations.  That same type of cooperation will likely persist in the eternities where those worthy of exaltation will work together to teach newly created spirit offspring, plan for their progression, and help in the formation of worlds whereon these may dwell.  My personal belief is that the peoples of this earth are literal spirit offspring of many different and diverse exalted beings, and that we are adopted by the Most High God for puposes of worship and salvation while yet in mortality.

But each exalted being having their "own" planet ... That concept is non-scriptural, and if any LDS General Authority has suggested as much, well, I do not believe in the infallibilty of any prophet or apostle in these latter-days.

I never heard that one before.

So instead of a barn raising we'll have a world building in our galactic neighborhoods and then all send our children to the same world for school?

[Mark Beesley]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I never heard that one before.

So instead of a barn raising we'll have a world building in our galactic neighborhoods and then all send our children to the same world for school?

Well, I guess if you need an earthly type in order to comprehend that which occurs in the eternities, your limited barn raising analogy suffices to illustrate the salient point of eternal sociality.

[CA Steve]

So asking if we get our own planets is criticism but asking if we are going to create universes isn't?

 

Truly we are a strange people.

[thesometimesaint]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So asking if we get our own planets is criticism but asking if we are going to create universes isn't?

 

Truly we are a strange people.

 It is like asking do Catholic's believe in cannibalism? Taking the Eucharist Ceremony out of context gives a false positive. 

All religions are strange.                                                                                                                                                                                                       

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I never heard that one before.

So instead of a barn raising we'll have a world building in our galactic neighborhoods and then all send our children to the same world for school?

The old "colony of the Gods" teaching.  There is also a "colony of Adams" teaching that makes the rounds occasionally.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Well, I guess if you need an earthly type in order to comprehend that which occurs in the eternities, your limited barn raising analogy suffices to illustrate the salient point of eternal sociality.

This is a much more limited view of eternity than I think many LDS are expecting. But it's probably their fault for not paying close enough attention to what the prophets intended to say instead of what they actually said.

[Mark Beesley]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So asking if we get our own planets is criticism but asking if we are going to create universes isn't?

 

Truly we are a strange people.

At the outset, I would note that the mere act of "asking" should never be judged as criticism.  The accusation of criticism arises when one is not asking, but purports to tell us what our doctrine is.  That being said . . . 

"get our own planet" implies a single exalted being is off doing his thing and the only socialty is with his spouse and spirit children.  This is non-scriptural, and may be considered criticism if it asserted that such is LDS doctrine.

"we are going to create universes" is a lttle better, but not by much.  It leaves open the possibility of cooperation among many exalted being in the creative process, but it still attempts to ascribe to the Church a doctrine which is not scriptural.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Meaning that I really was taught I'd get very own planet, and now I'm lying about having been taught it?

Sorry, nope!  

Although there may be a little of that which is true, since I happen to believe exalted beings create universes for themselves, and you know how it goes, if there's a bazillion planets, then there is one planet.  But they're ALL mine.

But still, "getting your own planet" is a mocking caricature.  Pretty much every time I hear it, the speaker is in fact mocking.

You never studied.

Or you weren't paying attention.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I deny it and I verbal thrash the teaching in my Sunday School class when the topic comes up.  I don't think I could come up with a more offensive description of Exaltation than this Jack Chick type of cartoon tract.  It is not doctrine; it is not Mormonism; it is not the gospel.  

Why would I go out of my way to deny everything anti-Mormons - used in the correct way - state or bring up?  That is a foolish waste of time.  I think we need to continue doing what we do - teach the principle of Exaltation without limitation.  

The sources I and others have quoted are published by the LDS Church.

Do you consider that anti-Mormon?

[stemelbow]

Why are people worried about being mocked for their beliefs.  SOmeone says, "hey, so you're a Mormon huh?  You believe that you will get your own planet?" 
Doesn't sound like mocking to me, but it seems many LDS would respond with perhaps with some amount of defensive posturing, "no, I don't believe that".  and leave it at that.  Or perhaps they'll try to explain that LDS don't believe that only to confirm we believe the exalted will created worlds and populate them.  The listener will walk away confused about what we believe wondering why LDS are so touchy, it seems to me. 

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I shan't argue with most of that, but if we are the sons of God in His house, and we are exalted, or in other words, inherit all that the Father has, why do we not do what He did?  You're trying to say that when it is said that we inherit all that the Father has, this means that we get everything, EXCEPT for that one thing?  When He said, "This is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39), you are saying that we cannot ultimately be raised up to His power?  That we're eternal eunuchs?  Sorry, but I don't see that it is at all contrary to the scriptures, that we become Gods in our own right.

 

No, I'm not saying we cannot ultimately become just as Heavenly Father - I'm saying that is Jesus' right as the only begotten of the Father. You are saying we shall receive the glory of the Father, when scripture says He will give it to none other than His servant. Isaiah 42:

 6 I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for acovenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

 8 I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

See my prior post on this subject:

This is why the doctrine of the trinity is wrong, and is an "abomination unto God." It says God is "immutable" and that the Son will therefore be the Son forevermore. But God doesn't say that. God says His Son is His inheritor and shall inherit his holy mountains(Isaiah again). We are not this inheritor. We inherit all the Father hath only through Christ. "No man cometh to the Father except by me."  Christ does not say in the regeneration that we shall sit in His throne as the Eternal Father (Isaiah 9:6). That is His inheritance. What we inherit will be at His hand as our Father and we as His sons - at least those who follow Him. 

Quote

You're troubled by Athanasius, I see.  But I don't see the problem.  He is our Father, and because He raises us up we can never rise above Him, nor are we equal.  This would be impossible.  But we become partakers of His power, and if we do not become partakers of all of His power, then it isn't exaltation, and it isn't eternal life, which is in other words, God's life.  And the scriptures lie.

I'm not troubled by Athanasius at all. I usually disagree with him. However, he lived in the time of early Christianity when this truth was still recognized. The evolution of the doctrine of the trinity over the following millennium stamped out this truth. You say "nor are we equal, This would be impossible." To this I say, no it is not. Jesus, will become His equal, and no longer His servant. He will no longer be the Son of the Most High, but will be our Eternal Father. So, He is showing us that it is not impossible. Is that the Father "creating" another God? I say, no it is not. The father does not create another father, when His son becomes a father. Those words of Isaiah are just to let us know we are not to worship anyone else in this world as the Most High. There is only one who is El Elyon, the Most High Power, and He will not create another for us to worship. This is not Jesus. Even Jesus worships and honors Him. Jesus shows us the way because He is the Way. So the scriptures do NOT lie... I proffer man misunderstands them, and applies his one dimensional, earth-bound thinking to them. D&C teaches us the "promises" of "eternal lives."  Those who follow Jesus can be like Him - exactly as He is. Herein lies the oracles of God - not in marrying multiple earthly wives or in having "spirit babies in heaven."  Those things are not scriptural. Of course, I cannot stop you from believing them, but you should realize they are the beliefs of men, and not the words of God. God has NOT promised anything of the sort. Perhaps, reading the words of the King Follet discourse will be more poignant:

"I wish I had the trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) 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. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it.

Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves--to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power."

This is basically the last words of the prophet to us.

Here are the last words of McKonkie to us:

"Then, in a way incomprehensible to us, he took up that body which had not yet seen corruption and arose in that glorious immortality which made him like his resurrected Father." Bruce McKonkie 4/85

However, I say it is not incomprehensible at all. "The Son does nothing of himself, but that He seeth the Father do. And whatsoever, He seeth the Father do, He does likewise." It is really rather simple. Jesus plainly showed us the Father up on the tree. "The time cometh, when I will show you plainly of the Father." 

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Why are people worried about being mocked for their beliefs.  SOmeone says, "hey, so you're a Mormon huh?  You believe that you will get your own planet?" 
Doesn't sound like mocking to me, but it seems many LDS would respond with perhaps with some amount of defensive posturing, "no, I don't believe that".  and leave it at that.  Or perhaps they'll try to explain that LDS don't believe that only to confirm we believe the exalted will created worlds and populate them.  The listener will walk away confused about what we believe wondering why LDS are so touchy, it seems to me. 

Modifying one's beliefs to seem less foreign to the world is what Mormons have long taught characterized the Great Apostasy.