VideoGameJunkie Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have written extensively on these same issues myself, but I always provide proper context. The questions are obviously intended to bait, and I recognize them as the lowbrow types of denigration deliberately engaged in by anti-Mormons. I might expect such silly questions from a four-year-old, but not from a serious adult. However, no matter how such questions are framed, they need to be answered with context and nuance, not by the sort of meat-before-milk approach you recommend. Most parents recognize the need to deal with sensitive subjects with some care, but you get annoyed by it. Why? Impatience is not a virtue. Please don't act like you're better than other people and high and mighty above them. It makes us fellow mormons feel embarrassed to watch this behavior of thinking others being anti mormons are below you. Please show respect for all of God's children.
omni Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 11 hours ago, rongo said: I disagree with you on the "Mormons will each have their own planet" thing. I, of all people, never shrink away from owning doctrine or practices that seem weird to others. While we believe that we will help create worlds and have our eternal posterity, I have actually never seen it taught that we will each "get our own planet." I've never heard this being discussed. This is simply an unknown, and I don't even hear any speculation about that, and I can move in speculative circles. The nature of godhood/exaltation, etc., sure. But the obsession with "getting our own planets" seems to be much more prevalent with non/ex-Mormons than with current ones. I agree with you on Garden of Eden/Missouri. I didn't like Mitt Romney running from this, and Church leaders seem the same way. I totally own this, and without any shame and embarrassment. I view you as a straight shooter, which is why I was surprised to read this. You've never heard this discussed? We discussed this topic all the time as children, teenagers, and missionaries. The question was never if it was actual doctrine, but what would our planet be like. I didn't grow up in some distant land where fringe doctrine could easily creep in and warp the minds of the faithful, no I grew up a few miles from SLC in a town that was 90% LDS. Was it a subject that was explicitly taught over the pulpit or in the company of non-LDS, of course not, but it was discussed relatively frequently in private or intimate settings. I realize "getting your own planet" is a bit of an oversimplification, but is it really that far off from "becoming gods", "creating worlds", and populating them with spirit children? Please don't take my little rant personal, this one is a bit of a pet peeve for me as I can say unequivocally that this belief was widely held (at least in my neck of the woods) and those beliefs don't just come out of thin air. 1
omni Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 5 hours ago, Ahab said: No, the answer is not Yes. Those who become joint-heirs with Christ don't get "their own" planets because everything they will get won't be "their own" but instead what they share in common with Christ. So to say Yes to that question would be to give a false answer, and future joint-heirs with Christ try to avoid giving false answers to questions. So we only get to share our planets? I'm sure that sounds way less weird to non-Mormons. 1
rongo Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 51 minutes ago, omni said: I view you as a straight shooter, which is why I was surprised to read this. You've never heard this discussed? We discussed this topic all the time as children, teenagers, and missionaries. The question was never if it was actual doctrine, but what would our planet be like. I didn't grow up in some distant land where fringe doctrine could easily creep in and warp the minds of the faithful, no I grew up a few miles from SLC in a town that was 90% LDS. Was it a subject that was explicitly taught over the pulpit or in the company of non-LDS, of course not, but it was discussed relatively frequently in private or intimate settings. I realize "getting your own planet" is a bit of an oversimplification, but is it really that far off from "becoming gods", "creating worlds", and populating them with spirit children? Please don't take my little rant personal, this one is a bit of a pet peeve for me as I can say unequivocally that this belief was widely held (at least in my neck of the woods) and those beliefs don't just come out of thin air. Not taken personally at all. That's the weird thing to me. I've been around, have lived in lots of different places, have held leadership positions. The "planet of your own" thing is completely foreign to me. Not that there hasn't been a lot of discussion/speculation about what godhood will entail, and creating things definitely is part of that. But I have never personally experienced much talk at all about what the planets we make will be like. Maybe this is indeed one of those "Utah Mormon" things?
Robert F. Smith Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Please don't act like you're better than other people and high and mighty above them. It makes us fellow mormons feel embarrassed to watch this behavior of thinking others being anti mormons are below you. Please show respect for all of God's children. Respect works both ways, VideoGameJunkie. We should all require high standards of each other, and such a demand should never be interpreted as being hoity toity -- as you seem to do here. By all means feel embarrassed for substantive reasons, but don't imagine that it is okay to insult and slight one person or group while another is somehow protected from the application of the same standards. That's called favoritism, and it is particularly beneath contempt in a religious context.
Calm Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 10 hours ago, cinepro said: Imagine asking anyone any question, and them starting the answer with "Strictly speaking..." "No, I don't need the 'strict' answer. Just give me the plain and generally understood answer. Then obfuscate after that." "Strictly speaking" is the conversational equivalent of shoveling horse droppings into a wheelbarrow. And notice how the "strictly speaking" answer to the previous question (about Jesus and Satan being brothers) is "Yes!", but for that question they had to take a different approach to try and throw up a smokescreen. I read "strictly speaking" as "if we speak with precision". It comes across to me as a short way of saying, "well, there are things we have speculated a lot about, but if we limit our answer to what we actually know, this is it...." 1
Calm Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 10 hours ago, churchistrue said: I concur with this logic. The problem is that Adam is in Missouri at all. Regardless of whether that be the Garden of Eden, or where they moved to. If it is just as silly to say, then it would seem that the answer isn't constructed to avoid awkwardness or to make Mormons appear less silly or strange than we are. So it may just be trying to be accurate in telling what is actual doctrine.
Calm Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) The whole our own planet thing kind of self destructs in the context of we are all one with God in exaltation. And the whole Law of Consecration. Family. Sounds to me the ideal of exaltation is working and living together, not going off and doing our own thing along, but doing our thing with everyone else. Edited March 23, 2017 by Calm
churchistrue Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, Calm said: If it is just as silly to say, then it would seem that the answer isn't constructed to avoid awkwardness or to make Mormons appear less silly or strange than we are. So it may just be trying to be accurate in telling what is actual doctrine. I'm fine with that. I'm not bent out of shape as to whether that document is a sign of PR slyness or not.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 14 hours ago, Darren10 said: Good grief, ya'll need ro stick to scripture. The eternities are so much clearer when we do. They are making these claims based on scripture. I'll also note that most of our understandings of scripture come through interpretations passed on by others, like church leaders in general conference or church publications. So "sticking to scriptures" really isn't all that helpful either. Remember, "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose." Shakespeare (The Merchant of Venice) There seems to be very little in either written or spoken word that we should accept as reliable as eternal truth. What is taught and understood as doctrine today will one day be dismissed as speculation and opinion.
CV75 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) @HappyJackWagonWhy would someone, in reading the leak, see the following and get upset? “They are simply guidelines when short responses are required, and should not be considered as formal, official statements that must be used word-for-word. They may be updated from time to time.” This was written in 2012. What does the 2017 version say? Also, why would anyone get upset when the points are clearly organized with a "Primary message" and "Support" bullet points that any GA can research on his own? And, why would anyone get upset if the GA follows the Spirit in his response (D&C 84:85, 100:6)? “…treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meted unto every man.” “…speak the thoughts that I shall put into your hearts, and you shall not be confounded before men; For it shall be given you in the very hour, yea, in the very moment, what ye shall say.” Edited March 23, 2017 by CV75
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have written extensively on these same issues myself, but I always provide proper context. The questions are obviously intended to bait, and I recognize them as the lowbrow types of denigration deliberately engaged in by anti-Mormons. I might expect such silly questions from a four-year-old, but not from a serious adult. However, no matter how such questions are framed, they need to be answered with context and nuance, not by the sort of meat-before-milk approach you recommend. Most parents recognize the need to deal with sensitive subjects with some care, but you get annoyed by it. Why? Impatience is not a virtue. I can't tell if you're calling me anti-Mormon and childish or if you're referring to the original questions for which the GA's are given answers. Either is dismissive. Keep in mind that this entire document is written by the church so it's not like someone else was asking these questions, but they are anticipating that they are the types of questions they will receive. Why? Because they are legitimate questions and just because a person doesn't know how to fully and properly frame the question for LDS sensitivities, it doesn't mean the answers should be disingenuous half-truths. You are right that I don't have much patience for inaccurate or deceptive answers. The church is answering in what they think is a PR appropriate way so they don't look silly to others instead of simply answering the questions posed. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 10 hours ago, rongo said: Not taken personally at all. That's the weird thing to me. I've been around, have lived in lots of different places, have held leadership positions. The "planet of your own" thing is completely foreign to me. Not that there hasn't been a lot of discussion/speculation about what godhood will entail, and creating things definitely is part of that. But I have never personally experienced much talk at all about what the planets we make will be like. Maybe this is indeed one of those "Utah Mormon" things? I'm not a Utah Mormon and I'm shocked you've never experienced this either. If you search this topic a bit you'll find a plethora of sources where this has been taught in the church.
CV75 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I can't tell if you're calling me anti-Mormon and childish or if you're referring to the original questions for which the GA's are given answers. Either is dismissive. Keep in mind that this entire document is written by the church so it's not like someone else was asking these questions, but they are anticipating that they are the types of questions they will receive. Why? Because they are legitimate questions and just because a person doesn't know how to fully and properly frame the question for LDS sensitivities, it doesn't mean the answers should be disingenuous half-truths. You are right that I don't have much patience for inaccurate or deceptive answers. The church is answering in what they think is a PR appropriate way so they don't look silly to others instead of simply answering the questions posed. The leaked material identifies opinion leaders and news media (as of 2012) as the primary focus in preparing for these kinds of questions and answers. But if you personally have a question, I’m sure you would go about asking and seeking differently than an opinion leader or news reporter, and having the opportunity to ask a GA, I’m sure he might minister to you differently as well, depending on the circumstances, as "when short responses required," or especially when not.
CV75 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm not a Utah Mormon and I'm shocked you've never experienced this either. If you search this topic a bit you'll find a plethora of sources where this has been taught in the church. Please provide a source where the Church explicitly teaches (as in canon or correlated material) that we will have our own planet.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Calm said: The whole our own planet thing kind of self destructs in the context of we are all one with God in exaltation. And the whole Law of Consecration. Family. Sounds to me the ideal of exaltation is working and living together, not going off and doing our own thing along, but doing our thing with everyone else. That's a good point but it means we don't have a very good/clear/accurate understanding of who our God is or how he operates. What is taught as doctrine about God, eternity, exaltation etc. seems to collapse under the weight of our ignorance. No one, not even the prophets apparently, know how any of this works. Which is why, among other reasons, church policies based on the dogmatic claims of absolute truth and testimony just don't mean much. These things are often described as "the mysteries" that we simply cannot know, but it really only takes a dive down a couple of levels into the doctrine to see that it contradicts itself.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, CV75 said: Please provide a source where the Church explicitly teaches (as in canon or correlated material) that we will have our own planet. I've already stated (from the very beginning) that "own planet" is a simplification of the doctrine of creating worlds. Would you like me to supply references about teachings for how exalted beings will create/organize and populate new worlds as gods?
CV75 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I've already stated (from the very beginning) that "own planet" is a simplification of the doctrine of creating worlds. Would you like me to supply references about teachings for how exalted beings will create/organize and populate new worlds as gods? No--my question was an "explicit" teaching, to which "having our own planet" is diametrically opposed.
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm not a Utah Mormon and I'm shocked you've never experienced this either. If you search this topic a bit you'll find a plethora of sources where this has been taught in the church. I wasn't a Utah Mormon either for most of my life. In part due to that, I can say that the "get your own planet" meme was an exaggerated myth manufactured by Ed Decker to make our beliefs seem more outlandish and arrogant. Since his views got more play outside of Utah, wouldn't that explain why non-Utah Mormons are sometimes more familiar with that caricature/distortion of our beliefs than others? Edited March 23, 2017 by probablyHagoth7 1
JulieM Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, CV75 said: No--my question was an "explicit" teaching, to which "having our own planet" is diametrically opposed. People get hung up on the use of the word "planet". Change that to "world" or "worlds" and those are the words used in the teachings from past leaders. Edited March 23, 2017 by JulieM 1
Rain Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: I wasn't a Utah Mormon either for most of my life. In part due to that, I can say that the "get your own planet" meme was an exaggerated myth manufactured by Ed Decker to make our beliefs seem more outlandish and arrogant. Since his views got more play outside of Utah, wouldn't that explain why non-Utah Mormons are sometimes more familiar with that caricature/distortion of our beliefs than others? I don't ever remember hearing about it tI'll I went on my mission to Houston (The Godmakers was quite popular in some of my areas). Now some of that may be because I lived for the most part in Utah, but some may be because I just wasn't exposed to that kind of thing till after my mission, but I think you may be right.
Rain Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, JulieM said: People get hung up on the use of the word "planet". Change that to "world" or "worlds" and those are the words used in the teachings from past leaders. For me it is not "planet", but "our own". And I'm not really hung up on it. It just doesn't really convey the limited understanding I have of it all. That isn't to say I would just outright deny what was asked in the question, but I wouldn't start with "yes..." because I don't believe it really would convey the meaning of what I understand. Edited March 23, 2017 by Rain 1
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, CV75 said: No--my question was an "explicit" teaching, to which "having our own planet" is diametrically opposed. I don't think I understand you. Now it sounds like you're asking for a reference of an explicit teaching against the "planet" doctrine. I'm not sure why you would ask me to supply that. I apologize. I'm sure I'm missing something here.
CV75 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 33 minutes ago, JulieM said: People get hung up on the use of the word "planet". Change that to "world" or "worlds" and those are the words used in the teachings from past leaders. Maybe some do get hung up on the word "planet" but the guidance is not intended for those who are hung up. And the question is phrased, "...get your own planet..." which is both conceptually and colloquially foreign to the teachings from past leaders. 18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't think I understand you. Now it sounds like you're asking for a reference of an explicit teaching against the "planet" doctrine. I'm not sure why you would ask me to supply that. I apologize. I'm sure I'm missing something here. I was requesting you provide a source where the Church explicitly teaches (as in canon or correlated material) that we will have our own planet. You conveyed that you cannot, and explained that instead you have been sharing revelations about what exalted beings do. What you have shared is diametrically opposed to "getting [y]our own planet." Edited March 23, 2017 by CV75 1
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, CV75 said: Maybe some do get hung up on the word "planet" but the guidance is not intended for those who are hung up. And the question is phrased, "...get your own planet..." which is both conceptually and colloquially foreign to the teachings from past leaders. I was requesting you provide a source where the Church explicitly teaches (as in canon or correlated material) that we will have our own planet. You conveyed that you cannot, and explained that instead you have been sharing revelations about what exalted beings do. What you have shared is diametrically opposed to "getting [y]our own planet." How is creating worlds diametrically opposed to getting your own planet. Again, I understand the planet meme is oversimplified. I'm not arguing against that, but claiming it is diametrically opposed isn't accurate at all. Instead of "get your own planet" change it to "Create worlds". Despite what some have claimed on this thread, I think it is generally viewed that exaltation will involve exalted beings presiding as supreme beings within their own sphere of creation. So the idea of "own" versus "shared" rarely enters the thought process because why would a god, supreme over his creations share a world/universe/duplex/whatever with other gods?
Recommended Posts