Ahab Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: ... 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? Think about it some more, then. The reason for sharing is so they can all be joint-heirs of all that our Father has.
JulieM Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 14 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." Do you believe God has his own world? Is it the use of the word "own" too that you object to (along with the word "planet")? How would you phrase it differently (that we can become Gods and Goddessses and populate and be responsible for or over a world(s)?
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: Think about it some more, then. The reason for sharing is so they can all be joint-heirs of all that our Father has. I get that. I think of it like this. God becomes God and organizes worlds and populates them with spirit children. Spirit children then progress to be joint heirs and become gods. The issue of being a joint heir doesn't necessarily mean that new gods are co-dependent or subjugated to old Gods. So the new gods organize worlds and universes and populate them with spirit children, thus becoming like God. But they don't remain in God's nuclear household. Instead, the new Gods move out and create their own household. Old God will always be the father, even after the new God has created a new household/planet/universe/world but that doesn't mean that the new god must always share the same space. Sharing worlds seems untenable. There would be multi-generational gods all within the same household. Instead, I think of it as the new gods progressing, moving out of God's house, creating their own house, but always being connected to old God, just as we grow, move out, start our own households, yet always remain connected to our parents. ETA- the way you are presenting it is like our God must still live with his parent, grandparent, great-grandparent gods all within the same sphere, never truly becoming independent or supreme because our God would never have his own household/world/planet/universe. If we won't have those things, it must also mean that our God doesn't have those things. This makes for a very weak and unsupreme God. Edited March 23, 2017 by HappyJackWagon
rongo Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Instead of "get your own planet" change it to "Create worlds". That, I'll agree with. Like Rain, I agree that the part that seems foreign to me is "my own" rather than "planet." I also agree that the Ed Decker stuff from the 1980s probably drives this question and frames the wording. That exalted people will help create worlds is definitely mainstream. It's probably a fool's errand to try to fight against the connotations of the wording while not looking like a Baghdad Bob. Tough needle to thread. A corollary is probably the "celestial sex" angle. While we don't know anything about the mechanics of spirit children creation, I think objecting to the wording is analogous to objecting to the "own planet" wording. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, rongo said: That, I'll agree with. Like Rain, I agree that the part that seems foreign to me is "my own" rather than "planet." I also agree that the Ed Decker stuff from the 1980s probably drives this question and frames the wording. That exalted people will help create worlds is definitely mainstream. It's probably a fool's errand to try to fight against the connotations of the wording while not looking like a Baghdad Bob. Tough needle to thread. A corollary is probably the "celestial sex" angle. While we don't know anything about the mechanics of spirit children creation, I think objecting to the wording is analogous to objecting to the "own planet" wording. I agree about the corollary of celestial sx. In some instances leaders talk bout begetting spirit children while on the other hand we have scripture talking about how intelligences are co-eternal with God and He "organizes" them. There is a lot we do not know. Yet we often act like we have it all figured out. For example: SSM couldn't possibly work in eternity because how would SS couples ever procreate spirit children. The question presumes a need to procreate spirit children in a sxual sense. However, if that isn't necessary and God is organizing pre-existing intelligences, then that whole conversation shifts. Therefore, if we don't know how spirit children come in to being in eternity, how can we make claims about mortal practices based on a an unknown immortal/eternal paradigm. The wording and supposition about how eternal families are created and operate drives current policies, practices, and ideas (that are currently being taught as doctrine). 1
JulieM Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 14 minutes ago, rongo said: That, I'll agree with. Like Rain, I agree that the part that seems foreign to me is "my own" rather than "planet." I also agree that the Ed Decker stuff from the 1980s probably drives this question and frames the wording. That exalted people will help create worlds is definitely mainstream. It's probably a fool's errand to try to fight against the connotations of the wording while not looking like a Baghdad Bob. Tough needle to thread. A corollary is probably the "celestial sex" angle. While we don't know anything about the mechanics of spirit children creation, I think objecting to the wording is analogous to objecting to the "own planet" wording. I agree. The whole concept of becoming Gods and populating worlds for those that are not members, does translate to many that we will have our own worlds. It's understandable they see it that way too. 1
Ahab Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I get that. I think of it like this. God becomes God and organizes worlds and populates them with spirit children. Spirit children then progress to be joint heirs and become gods. The issue of being a joint heir doesn't necessarily mean that new gods are co-dependent or subjugated to old Gods. So the new gods organize worlds and universes and populate them with spirit children, thus becoming like God. But they don't remain in God's nuclear household. Instead, the new Gods move out and create their own household. Old God will always be the father, even after the new God has created a new household/planet/universe/world but that doesn't mean that the new god must always share the same space. Sharing worlds seems untenable. There would be multi-generational gods all within the same household. Instead, I think of it as the new gods progressing, moving out of God's house, creating their own house, but always being connected to old God, just as we grow, move out, start our own households, yet always remain connected to our parents. ETA- the way you are presenting it is like our God must still live with his parent, grandparent, great-grandparent gods all within the same sphere, never truly becoming independent or supreme because our God would never have his own household/world/planet/universe. If we won't have those things, it must also mean that our God doesn't have those things. This makes for a very weak and unsupreme God. 1. Being supreme or the Supreme being doesn't equate to there being only one supreme person. All who are perfect and perfectly good are supreme, and the more the merrier. 2. You don't yet comprehend ALL that our Father has, and when you eventually do understand that you will understand that he has EVERYTHING, at least in regard to material possessions. And he always will. So it would be impossible for anyone to get anything that our Father does not have. Thus there is no way for anyone to be totally independent from him. Even we are his, as his children, and all of our children will always be his too because they will come through us just as we have come through him to be whatever or however we/they turn out to be as people. 3. Right, we will not be limited to living on the same planet our Father lives on, or the many he lives on, or the many he personally visits. But every planet will still be his regardless of who lives on it. Because our Father has all and the most we can hope for is to be able to share everything with him.
CV75 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 55 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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? The guidance isn’t about changing the questions through dialogue; it’s about taking them at face value in a way that addresses opinion leaders', media reporters' (and in some cases, members') immediate purposes in asking them. 47 minutes ago, JulieM said: Do you believe God has his own world? Is it the use of the word "own" too that you object to (along with the word "planet")? How would you phrase it differently (that we can become Gods and Goddessses and populate and be responsible for or over a world(s)? For the purposes of this thread, I’m more interested in discussing the exaggerated perceptions of insincerity, avoidance, vagueness, equivocation, evasiveness, dishonesty, etc. put forth in the OP. Exploring a doctrinal question mentioned in the leaked document might be better served by a thread of its own, and I might be inclined to participate in such a discussion.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: 1. Being supreme or the Supreme being doesn't equate to there being only one supreme person. All who are perfect and perfectly good are supreme, and the more the merrier. 2. You don't yet comprehend ALL that our Father has, and when you eventually do understand that you will understand that he has EVERYTHING, at least in regard to material possessions. And he always will. So it would be impossible for anyone to get anything that our Father does not have. Thus there is no way for anyone to be totally independent from him. Even we are his, as his children, and all of our children will always be his too because they will come through us just as we have come through him to be whatever or however we/they turn out to be as people. 3. Right, we will not be limited to living on the same planet our Father lives on, or the many he lives on, or the many he personally visits. But every planet will still be his regardless of who lives on it. Because our Father has all and the most we can hope for is to be able to share everything with him. 1- When I use the term "supreme" I'm equating it with omnipotence. I don't comprehend how there can be multiple omnipotent beings. Can one really be ALL powerful or supreme if others are just as powerful and supreme? You seem to be claiming a plenipotent God. One who is powerful, but still subservient to a higher power. That higher power might be a council of gods or merely God's parent gods. Do you claim an omnipotent God or a plenipotent god? 2- I agree that I don't comprehend All that our father has. Do you? 3- So if we are living in our own household on a different planet than God, wouldn't it be a reasonable to conclude that we get our "own planet"? Of course the planet we live on wouldn't really be his either because he would be a joint heir with his god who is joint heir with his god etc. to infinity. So what you're describing logically becomes more of a godly commune where we jointly participate as god with an infinite number of other gods. Is that correct?
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: ...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? Guessing here, from admittedly-myopic mortal experience : Perhaps because collaboration, mentoring, and teamwork can be quite fun...and can produce a more meaningful, well-rounded result than a solo effort? That process together could define much of the joy. Edited March 23, 2017 by probablyHagoth7
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: The guidance isn’t about changing the questions through dialogue; it’s about taking them at face value in a way that addresses opinion leaders', media reporters' (and in some cases, members') immediate purposes in asking them. For the purposes of this thread, I’m more interested in discussing the exaggerated perceptions of insincerity, avoidance, vagueness, equivocation, evasiveness, dishonesty, etc. put forth in the OP. Exploring a doctrinal question mentioned in the leaked document might be better served by a thread of its own, and I might be inclined to participate in such a discussion. It's difficult to discuss the merits of the answer if we don't discuss the doctrine behind it, don't you think? As I've already stated, the church leaders seem to be following instructions to downplay and normalize many of the unique church teachings as to not ruffle feathers or draw attention to the unique doctrines. They do this by providing answers that skirt the questions.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: Guessing here, from admittedly-myopic mortal experience : Perhaps because collaboration, mentoring, and teamwork can be quite fun...and can produce a more meaningful, well-rounded result than a solo effort? That process together could define much of the joy. Possibly, but that space sure gets busy with an infinite number of co-gods intermingling with billions of spirit children. That doesn't sound particularly fun Edited March 23, 2017 by HappyJackWagon
probablyHagoth7 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Possibly, but that space sure gets busy with an infinite number of co-gods intermingling with billions of spirit children. That doesn't sound particularly fun I'm guessing that's what a multiverse is for. 1
CV75 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: It's difficult to discuss the merits of the answer if we don't discuss the doctrine behind it, don't you think? As I've already stated, the church leaders seem to be following instructions to downplay and normalize many of the unique church teachings as to not ruffle feathers or draw attention to the unique doctrines. They do this by providing answers that skirt the questions. I think if the opinion leaders and news reporters (and in some cases, members) asking the questions wanted to discuss the merits of the answer they receive from a GA who has read this guidance, there would be opportunity to arrange that and delve into the canon and correlated materials. They can also obtain that information independently from several Church venues (that is what good opinion leaders and reporters do). Where are the instructions to downplay, normalize and skirt unique Church teachings, and who have you seen following them?
Ahab Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 1- When I use the term "supreme" I'm equating it with omnipotence. I don't comprehend how there can be multiple omnipotent beings. Can one really be ALL powerful or supreme if others are just as powerful and supreme? Yes, as long as everyone can do everything that one can do as though the actions of the many are equal to the actions of the one. 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 2- I agree that I don't comprehend All that our father has. Do you? Only as far as I have already told you. 12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 3- So if we are living in our own household on a different planet than God, wouldn't it be a reasonable to conclude that we get our "own planet"? Of course the planet we live on wouldn't really be his either because he would be a joint heir with his god who is joint heir with his god etc. to infinity. So what you're describing logically becomes more of a godly commune where we jointly participate as god with an infinite number of other gods. Is that correct? No, because what you call "our own" IS also his, too. However many planets there are, or how many universes there are, all are his as well as those who are joint-heirs of all that he has. You don't seem to understand that yet.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think if the opinion leaders and news reporters (and in some cases, members) asking the questions wanted to discuss the merits of the answer they receive from a GA who has read this guidance, there would be opportunity to arrange that and delve into the canon and correlated materials. They can also obtain that information independently from several Church venues (that is what good opinion leaders and reporters do). Where are the instructions to downplay, normalize and skirt unique Church teachings, and who have you seen following them? Are you thinking of opinion leaders as being media types? While they would be included, there are many other opinion leaders beyond that so claiming that a good opinion leader will do certain things seems a little simplistic. Quote Definition. An opinion leader is a well-known individual or organization that has the ability to influence public opinion on the subject matter for which the opinion leader known. Opinion leaders can be politicians, business leaders, community leaders, journalists, educators, celebrities and sports stars. Really, an opinion leader is anyone who influences others. Opinion leaders first must develop their own opinions and that can happen in many ways. There is not one way to do it. But if someone is trying to form their own opinion by asking questions of a church authority, but gets watered down, milk-down sound bites for answers, then the church really isn't doing a very good job of informing opinion leaders.
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: Yes, as long as everyone can do everything that one can do as though the actions of the many are equal to the actions of the one. Only as far as I have already told you. No, because what you call "our own" IS also his, too. However many planets there are, or how many universes there are, all are his as well as those who are joint-heirs of all that he has. You don't seem to understand that yet. I understand what you are describing but I simply don't find it to be a very inspiring eternity. Again, joint heirs with every god (future or past) throughout eternity sounds unattractive and unworkable. But we're just spinning our wheels here. No need to continue but thanks for the discussion.
Ahab Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I understand what you are describing but I simply don't find it to be a very inspiring eternity. Again, joint heirs with every god (future or past) throughout eternity sounds unattractive and unworkable. But we're just spinning our wheels here. No need to continue but thanks for the discussion. Not every person who is God. Only those who are joint-heirs with our Father and are as perfect as him. You won't be required to be one of those people. But you can be if you will work at it. Edited March 23, 2017 by Ahab
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Not every person who is God. Only those who are joint-heirs with our Father and are as perfect as him. You won't be required to be one of those people. But you can be if you will work at it. Every god in eternity is connected in some way to every other god as joint heirs. Thanks for allowing for the possibility that I too could be a God if I work at it
Ahab Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Every god in eternity is connected in some way to every other god as joint heirs. Thanks for allowing for the possibility that I too could be a God if I work at it You are already God by being the same kind of being our Father is. You're just not as perfect as he is, and you are not a joint-heir with him of all that he has. You are simply one of the many that belong to him, as I am. But I am working to become more than that. Edited March 23, 2017 by Ahab
HappyJackWagon Posted March 23, 2017 Author Posted March 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, Ahab said: You are already God by being the same kind of being our Father is. You're just not as perfect as he is, and you are not a joint-heir with him of all that he has. You are simply one of the many that belong to him, as I am. But I am working to become more than that. Side note. I don't like that phrasing of "belong to him". It doesn't work in marriage and I don't think it works that way in eternity either. 1
cinepro Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 2 hours 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." Here you go: Quote [Exalted people] will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted. https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-fundamentals/chapter-36-eternal-life?lang=eng (emphasis added) For those who aren't familiar with the "Gospel Fundamentals" manual, it says this in the introduction: Quote This book will help you learn and teach the basic principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Knowing these principles will help you understand the purpose of life and how to be truly happy. The principles explained in this book are true. As you study these principles and ponder and pray about them, you will come to know for yourself, and the Holy Ghost will bear witness to you, that they are true. https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-fundamentals/preface?lang=eng Edited March 23, 2017 by cinepro 3
Ahab Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Side note. I don't like that phrasing of "belong to him". It doesn't work in marriage and I don't think it works that way in eternity either. You're his child. There, is that better? I have a wife and she has me as her husband, too. See? Just some of the many ways that we can belong to those who we belong to.
CV75 Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, cinepro said: Here you go: LOL -- not even close to "getting you own planet." 54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Are you thinking of opinion leaders as being media types? While they would be included, there are many other opinion leaders beyond that so claiming that a good opinion leader will do certain things seems a little simplistic. Really, an opinion leader is anyone who influences others. Opinion leaders first must develop their own opinions and that can happen in many ways. There is not one way to do it. But if someone is trying to form their own opinion by asking questions of a church authority, but gets watered down, milk-down sound bites for answers, then the church really isn't doing a very good job of informing opinion leaders. I think you're getting too far afield from your OP. But good opinion leaders, like good news media representatives (e.g. news reporters) -- and no, I do not think of opinion leaders as the same as news types (though there may be exceptions, depending on the circumstances and semantics) -- do their homework and arrange for ways to get answers to their questions to their satisfaction. I use those terms because they are used in the guidance to identify the context of the sample questions. Remember, the guidance is not for them, but for the GAs.
JulieM Posted March 23, 2017 Posted March 23, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, CV75 said: LOL -- not even close to "getting you own planet." Again, what if you substitute "world" or "worlds" for the word "planet"? Can you please phrase what you think is correct when stating we can become Gods and populate worlds with our offspring and become God of that world? Edited March 23, 2017 by JulieM
Recommended Posts