Zakuska Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) 10 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. What a great, Teaching moment. I'd say "and not just one but as many as the sands of the sea, too". Edited January 20, 2016 by Zakuska 1
stemelbow Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Modifying one's beliefs to seem less foreign to the world is what Mormons have long taught characterized the Great Apostasy. Well, that needs to be rethought anyways. Listening to "the world" may benefit LDS belief, at least at times. We should be judicious when ideas are out there being able to determine ideas on their own merits and embracing good no matter from whence it comes. The Apostasy needs to be left in the realm of leaders and keys were taken and lost and leave the evolution of belief out of the mix. 1
CA Steve Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 24 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said: 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. As evidenced by this very thread, there is a lot of disagreement even among members whether or not we will be creating planets, universes, and so on. If we as members cannot agree on what we believe, how can it be seen as criticism when a non believer makes a statement like "you get your own planet"? Rightly or wrongly there are members who believe it. The distinction you are trying to make between making and living on a single planet and the cooperation of many exalted beings in a creative process is not one, I believe that would make any difference in strangeness. What I believe is happening most times someone tries and tells us we believe we are getting our own planets is they simply fail to realize that we believe (or at least many of us do) not only are we getting own planets, we are getting our own universes, whether or not that is a creative process that involves one man and his family or multiple exalted LDS members does not make it any less strange to the rest of the world. Truth is stranger than fiction. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: But the Church denies us the ability to specify individuals due to its practice of late to release doctrinal statements and positions anonymously. The so-called "Church" does no such thing. Any anonymous documents may be cited by title, date, and URL. They may be compared with statements made by named individuals over time. Comments made by CES personnel (a de facto super-priesthood) can also be brought into play, along with any book, article, or blog comments by Mormons and non-Mormons. Patrick Mason's latest book does a much better job of assessing the nature of the Church as a community, as well as an organized religious hierarchy, with which we can compare the work of Mike Quinn, Jan Shipps, et al. We need even-handed analyses, Counselor.
consiglieri Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The so-called "Church" does no such thing. Any anonymous documents may be cited by title, date, and URL. They may be compared with statements made by named individuals over time. Comments made by CES personnel (a de facto super-priesthood) can also be brought into play, along with any book, article, or blog comments by Mormons and non-Mormons. Patrick Mason's latest book does a much better job of assessing the nature of the Church as a community, as well as an organized religious hierarchy, with which we can compare the work of Mike Quinn, Jan Shipps, et al. We need even-handed analyses, Counselor. I think much of what you say goes to the frequently made observation that determining what constitutes Church doctrine is like nailing jello to the wall. 2
Zakuska Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think much of what you say goes to the frequently made observation that determining what constitutes Church doctrine is like nailing jello to the wall. Especially when the teaching remains in "correlated" teaching manuals to this very day. Edited January 20, 2016 by Zakuska
RevTestament Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 25 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think much of what you say goes to the frequently made observation that determining what constitutes Church doctrine is like nailing jello to the wall. pot meet kettle unless you have a CFR in there somewhere I didn't see....
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 5 hours ago, Stargazer said: Well, it IS better, but I know you've been to the temple, and you might even have participated in sealing teams, where husbands are sealed to wives? If you have not, I highly suggest you do so. Listen very carefully to the words of the sealing ordinance. It is trying to convey something much, much higher and better and more glorious than "getting your own planet". But you still have to expand your mind in order to understand that no explanation of it can possibly hold a candle to the eventual reality. "Getting your own planet" is a mocking caricature of what it means to be exalted. I suppose that some leaders of the Church have tried to simplify it so people of immature understanding could comprehend it, but it is such a limited and lame analog to the real thing. I have done sealings, which increased my desire to be sealed from hearing what is said during the husband to wife sealings.
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 44 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think much of what you say goes to the frequently made observation that determining what constitutes Church doctrine is like nailing jello to the wall. Nah, determining doctrines are easy. The nailing jello part comes when trying to determine what still qualifies as "official". If a prophet of God taught it and claimed it was revelation or the word of the Lord, that's always been good enough for me. Joseph taught God was once a mortal man on an earth and that we can become Gods. Lorenzo Snow agreed. Brigham Young agreed. President Hinckley was less forthcoming. That's always been enough for me on that subject. What is official and what isn't might be jello, but Joseph's teaching sure wasn't. 2
Calm Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Stargazer said: Well, I applaud that you're thinking outside the box, Calm, but even though I think you may be picking up on some valuable nuances, much of what you've written here is wild speculation. 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 am not referrring to the usage of Elohim. Abraham states The Gods created the earth. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/4.27?lang=eng I agree that much I said is speculation on how it all fits. I did overstate "in all scripture", wasn't really thinking clearly at the time. The temple has multiple individuals involved, Abraham specifies "the Gods", Moses and Genesis though are singular until the creation of man, I believe. Edited January 20, 2016 by Calm 1
Calm Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: Only if you're a man. What makes you think that women wouldn't want to participate in raising a spirit family as well? 2
Ahab Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. The error is in the idea of getting "your own" planet, as if it is only yours and nobody else's. Any planet you get will still be what our Father has, too, and what Jesus has, too, and what everybody else also has who shares in all that our Father and Lord both have. Let it sink in!
JLHPROF Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 6 hours 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. CFR. Never heard anyone make that claim before. Joseph specifically taught that there was a council of the Gods. ". “The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand counsellors sat at the head in yonder heavens, and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time… In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.”
Zakuska Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Ahab said: The error is in the idea of getting "your own" planet, as if it is only yours and nobody else's. Any planet you get will still be what our Father has, too, and what Jesus has, too, and what everybody else also has who shares in all that our Father and Lord both have. Let it sink in! Will I be able to trespass on the planets you have created for your posterity or would that be considered a robber breaking down the hedge and spoiling your vinyard? Edited January 20, 2016 by Zakuska
The Nehor Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 5 hours ago, consiglieri said: Bingo! You have put your finger squarely on the problem. This is why somebody reputedly said, "Honesty is the best policy." Indeed, until they have read the standard works cover to cover, every conference from the beginning to the end and every church published book they must not be baptized. After all they may have missed something.
MorningStar Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 29 minutes ago, Calm said: What makes you think that women wouldn't want to participate in raising a spirit family as well? Ditto. Women here love to have babies even though we risk our lives and go through all sorts of misery. Why wouldn't we enjoy having spirit babies when there's no pain involved anymore? I'm sad I can experience the miracle of having a baby only five times. Nothing compares to it. 2
The Nehor Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. It would be better to say that we will become like God in every attribute.
The Nehor Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 3 hours 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 believe this is a distinct possibility though I go much farther down this rabbit hole.
The Nehor Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Modifying one's beliefs to seem less foreign to the world is what Mormons have long taught characterized the Great Apostasy. And mockery of their beliefs is why the apostles held many of those teachings close and did not distribute them generally.
RevTestament Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: CFR. Never heard anyone make that claim before. Joseph specifically taught that there was a council of the Gods. ". “The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand counsellors sat at the head in yonder heavens, and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time… In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.” It is a common explanation in the "scholarly world" and the "orthodox Christian" for the plural usage of Elohim in the scriptures. Some Jews will use it too. But "I am an El of Elohim" (Deut) and "Ye are Elohim (to the Israelites), all of you are children of the Most High" (Psalms 82) seem plain to me. Just to make a mess of things the Koran does use the majestic plural in reference to Allah. But the true scriptures do not use the majestic plural. As I have explained they do often use Elohim in a singular context, which I believe is the same as saying the word family or house in a singular context even though there are obviously multiple spirits involved. El is truly singular as is Eloah. Elim and Elohim are not. Scholars have simply applied trinitarian thinking to the scriptures to hide the true plural nature of these words. 1
Storm Rider Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: The sources I and others have quoted are published by the LDS Church. Do you consider that anti-Mormon? I don't recall seeing a single quote that said you will get your own planet in anything anyone has quoted - do you have the exact quote? 1
Guest Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Having or receiving one's own planet, does not seem like an "Eternal rest". But, we cannot and do not know all that "Eternal" means. We are taught by the Prophet that "Eternal" is another name for God. So "Eternal life" means God's life, or Eternal punishment is God's punishment, and so on. I guess once we can see all and know all as "God" (Eternal) does, then we can truly be as He is because we will see Him for what He is. Right now with a mortal mind, I grow tired just thinking about it.
The Nehor Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Just now, Pa Pa said: Having or receiving one's own planet, does not seem like an "Eternal rest". But, we cannot and do not know all that "Eternal" means. We are taught by the Prophet that "Eternal" is another name for God. So "Eternal life" means God's life, or Eternal punishment is God's punishment, and so on. I guess once we can see all and know all as "God" (Eternal) does, then we can truly be as He is because we will see Him for what He is. Right now with a mortal mind, I grow tired just thinking about it. Weariness is a human condition. Brigham Young taught that spirits do not weary in labor. I assume resurrected bodies do not either.
consiglieri Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 24 minutes ago, The Nehor said: And mockery of their beliefs is why the apostles held many of those teachings close and did not distribute them generally. Not according to the New Testament.
consiglieri Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: I don't recall seeing a single quote that said you will get your own planet in anything anyone has quoted - do you have the exact quote? This is the type of strained argument I often see when apologists are trying to make it look like the Church isn't speaking out of both sides of its mouth.
Recommended Posts