President Nelson and "Getting our own planet."

[CA Steve]

Wouldn't "getting our own planet" tie into what many think Brigham Young was teaching with Adam-God?

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I have always understood that we will not just get our own planet but that we will create our own universes, full of galaxies and planets:.
I have some quotes from past church leaders:

President Spencer W Kimball:
"The real life we’re preparing for is eternal life. Secular knowledge has for us eternal significance. Our conviction is that God, our Heavenly Father, wants us to live the life that He does. We learn both the spiritual things and the secular things 'so we may one day create worlds [and] people and govern them' (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball)

"Desirable as is secular knowledge, one is not truly educated unless he has the spiritual with the secular. The secular knowledge is to be desired; the spiritual knowledge is an absolute necessity. We shall need all of the accumulated secular knowledge in order to create worlds and to furnish them, but only through the 'mysteries of God' and these hidden treasures of knowledge may we arrive at the place and condition where we may use that knowledge in creation and exaltation" (Spencer W. Kimball, Conference Reports, October 1968, p.131).

President Joseph Fielding Smith:
“The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48)

President Brigham Young:
"All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions on millions of others." (Journal of Discourses 17:143)

Patriarch Eldred G. Smith:
“And so through the power of the priesthood the man has the opportunity of obtaining that degree of perfection by which he may create worlds and populate them with his own offspring” (Patriarch Eldred G. Smith, BYU Speeches of the Year, March 10, 1964, p.7).

Joseph Smith said that men may go "...from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation ... until (they) arrive at the station of a God." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

Statements on this subject are very few and far between.  I believe they reflect personal opinions of those who want to encourage us on to eternal life and exaltation. They are based on scriptures like the following:

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:16-17)

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (Psalms 82:6)

While they might be true doctrines, we simply don't know enough about these principles to be able to comprehend them right now, and therefore cannot declare them as "official" church doctrines to the entire world; nor do we say much about them in our church meetings on Sunday. At the moment they still remain pretty much a mystery to us but may be included in the "things" the Apostle Paul talks about:

"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him," (1 Corinthians 2:9). 

Whenever I thought about these old teachings that seem to mostly be questioned, ignored, or rejected now I got frustrated.  So we're here to become like God who is God over many worlds, and galaxies with countless inhabited planets.  If we do attain godhood then we too can do as he has done--kabillions of worlds each filled with many billions of people most of whom will not become gods but will inhabit some form of hell (because it used to be described that if you don't inherit all then you have been consigned to some kind of hell wherein you can't progress any longer).  And, on top of that many of the billions from one world will be sent to outerdarkness for eternity.  And we do this, only to repeat the cycle over and over for forever.  It all makes it sound as unappealing and pointless as sitting around peeling potatoes for eternity to me.  Why create when most of those created inherit hell?  I suppose we can counter that and say well most will inherit a kingdom of glory.  ok.  but some will be sent to the eternal abyss of nothingness and pain.  And if many of the billions never reach their potential of godhood, is there not sadness to that?  Is there not disappointment?  

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I always appreciate your perspectives.

Would this mean that those who become gods will be "little g" gods? Not almighty Gods? Will we be managers.

I think this gets to the heart of why many Christians don't consider Mormons Christian. It's about the nature of God. Is there a universal, eternal, all powerful God or is it a polytheistic pantheon of gods? Is our God THE God, or is he just a god? If we are to become like him, and we are only going to be assigned a temporary stewardship over worlds and kingdoms, then it would imply that our God is really just a (g)of who likewise is only a temporary steward over worlds and kingdoms. If that's the case, then who is THE GOD over all other gods?

That's what I've always assumed, gods with a little g.  

But I don't see that as meaning that God the Father must be a god with a little g.  For example, I believe that Christ is subordinate to God the Father and always will be, but I do not consider him a little g god.  And we might someday be Gods to our spirit children but still be gods compared to our Father in Heaven.  

We know practically nothing when it comes to anything outside of our relationship with God the Father and Jesus Christ.  I don't think we have enough information to say that any doctrine implies anything about how other relationships work.

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Whenever I thought about these old teachings that seem to mostly be questioned, ignored, or rejected now I got frustrated.  So we're here to become like God who is God over many worlds, and galaxies with countless inhabited planets.  If we do attain godhood then we too can do as he has done--kabillions of worlds each filled with many billions of people most of whom will not become gods but will inhabit some form of hell (because it used to be described that if you don't inherit all then you have been consigned to some kind of hell wherein you can't progress any longer).  And, on top of that many of the billions from one world will be sent to outerdarkness for eternity.  And we do this, only to repeat the cycle over and over for forever.  It all makes it sound as unappealing and pointless as sitting around peeling potatoes for eternity to me.  Why create when most of those created inherit hell?  I suppose we can counter that and say well most will inherit a kingdom of glory.  ok.  but some will be sent to the eternal abyss of nothingness and pain.  And if many of the billions never reach their potential of godhood, is there not sadness to that?  Is there not disappointment?  

Perhaps some,  but they do have their agency to choose to do what's right or wrong which determines where they end up.  And the way I understand it those who inherit any other lower kingdom of glory will be happy where they are, not sad.  It will be the best fit for them. 

[Maidservant]

6 hours ago, Lucian Hodoboc said:

Who is President Nelson? 😕

The current prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

= = = = = = = =

Human beings, primarily, and all beings, secondarily, are THE alpha and omega of the universe. (I have no doubt that my bunny that died some years ago is ahead of me in the embodying of love, for example.)  I would say 'God' but that is an English word with a sketchy etymological history that seems to obscure and confuse far more than it clarifies and reveals.  For me, to say 'God' is to say almost nothing except, 'something really good and powerful--the height of ecstasy' or something along that lines.  We don't know always what it is ontologically, we can quibble endlessly about the bits, but at least it has to be All That.  And we have to smoke some of That--whatever the best way we get told to and agree to.

Joseph Smith, when you strip down everything to it's final nugget, said, you know that All That? That we are trying to get ahold of, get approved of, talk to, bow down to even?  That's basically -- US.  All of us.  Each of us.  "God", "Heavenly Father" is one of us, we are one of him.  By any word or name.  A tiny babe that gets born, gets crucified, and rises.  That's all of us.  As the song lyrics go: "What if God was one of us, just trying to make his way home." 

So we basically have a universe full of US--but we are all in different parts of the journey.  We are independent in this journey--that is, we choose.  We have chosen every portion of our journey, and are choosing in this moment.  We are planting our seeds and getting our harvest.  Our journey didn't start on this third rock from the sun, and it won't end here.  We each chose to come here for our own purposes, whatever we knew we needed or wanted in terms of our own progression.  No doubt that this particular planet and world (not the same thing!) is being tended by those who are full of love, capacity, knowledge, and authority and came to be shepherds, or are shepherds from outside the timelines.  Thank you, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Thank you, Bonaventure.  Thank you, Santa Claus.  Thank you, Lord Krishna.  Thank you, Jesus.  Thank you, little JJ, who did not have a full mind, but had a full spirit, who gave me all those hugs when he was two years old at the lowest point of my life.  They do it for their own progression, and also because at a certain point of progression, you simply stop caring for yourself and figure out 'where it's all at' and become a Fisher of Men.  (Thank you "Groundhog Day" with Bill Murray--only scripture you'll ever need.)

The destiny of each being in the multimetaverse is to 1) become independent, with all things subject to them, and subjected by nothing; that is, true freedom and integrity; and 2) full and complete union with all (NOT just singular husbands and wives and a set of kids you possess). I would say 'all who know how to be in that union' but those who understand and have entered the state of union are in union even with the noobs and demons who may not know yet that someone--a bunch of someones--are loving them like crazy, yes even right now while they are throwing others into the fire, or picking their nose.

Knowing how to build a planet really isn't that hard.  We built this one, didn't we?  Clue: We did.  We've known how to build a planet long before we hit this town.  Not to mention that it's all done by algorithm anyway, the coding for this kind of shiz was done a long time ago and now all One has to do is push Play.

But to build a WORLD--to be Fisher of Men, a lover of mankind, a suffering servant, to bake bread and give it to your neighbors (brothers! your work!), to change flat tires on the side of the highway for a stranger (sisters! your work!), TO FORGIVE THEM ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING--honestly, you got your world the day you were born.  Here you go, this is it--build your world.  Build what will surround you.  Rescue and touch those around you.  Whatever YOU build will be YOURS and will be WHO YOU ARE.  There is no OTHER law in the universe.

You are not as small and as young as you think you are.  You are old--aeons old!  This is not new to you!  We just forgot!  The amnesia drug really worked!  Because we made sure it did, because it's easy to remember!  It takes a lot of energy to keep us IMMERSED!  That's the hard part!

The easy part is going home.

The easy part is that we never left.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Maidservant

[hope_for_things]

22 hours ago, cinepro said:

Over the years, an awkward teaching for the Church PR group to deal with has been the idea that righteous LDS will be rewarded with "their own planets."  This even made it to the Church newsroom website, where they try and moderate such ideas about LDS teachings:

 

On Sunday, President Nelson taught:

It is my impression that the plain meaning of President Nelson's statement is that "presiding" over a world would be understood as "getting your own planet."  If this isn't what he meant, what do you think he did mean?

If this is what he meant, did he teach something that isn't doctrinal, or is the Church newsroom mistaken?

Good call out, I hadn't picked up on this.  It is an interesting conundrum.  The modern church seems to want to cosy up to Evangelicals and be considered more mainstream, so they continue to try and walk back from the more unique and peculiar theology of Mormonism.  Yet today we have a leader in President Nelson who I would say is kind of a throw back and more like a McKonkie or Joseph Fielding Smith in his thinking.  

Its really quite an interesting and odd time right now.  

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Whenever I thought about these old teachings that seem to mostly be questioned, ignored, or rejected now I got frustrated.  So we're here to become like God who is God over many worlds, and galaxies with countless inhabited planets.  If we do attain godhood then we too can do as he has done--kabillions of worlds each filled with many billions of people most of whom will not become gods but will inhabit some form of hell (because it used to be described that if you don't inherit all then you have been consigned to some kind of hell wherein you can't progress any longer).  And, on top of that many of the billions from one world will be sent to outerdarkness for eternity.  And we do this, only to repeat the cycle over and over for forever.  It all makes it sound as unappealing and pointless as sitting around peeling potatoes for eternity to me.  Why create when most of those created inherit hell?  I suppose we can counter that and say well most will inherit a kingdom of glory.  ok.  but some will be sent to the eternal abyss of nothingness and pain.  And if many of the billions never reach their potential of godhood, is there not sadness to that?  Is there not disappointment?  

Of course there’s sadness.  Of course there’s disappointment.  The scriptures teach that God weeps...for us.  And if we are joint heirs with Christ and choose to do God’s work we will no doubt weep as He does as the work continues with other spirit children on other worlds.

Frankly, that’s why the idea of God’s children becoming like Him and doing His work is so misunderstood.  Think of it this way.  Our final judgment is likely to be an extension of the choice Christ gave to the man who asked him “what lack I yet?”  Christ said you can choose to keep your nice material things and your comfortable life or you can give them up and come join me in my work.  If our choice is between a “lesser” kingdom which we be the equivalent of eternity on a beach on Maui or doing God’s work filled with the sadness, disappointment and weeping you describe, which will we choose.

The scriptures teach us all will confess God’s judgments are just.  That is true because God knows perfectly the desire of our heart and our eternal life will match perfectly that desire.  The suffering of those in outer darkness or on the beach in Maui will have the same source...a  perfect understanding of God’s love for them and a heart unwilling to “keep up” with what He desires for them.

So those who view this “get your own planet” thing as some self aggrandizing concept, an eternal vacation where others worship us as we bask in that ubiquitous adoration, fundamentally misunderstand  God, His work, and our work, if we choose to join Him.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The big problem with trying to equate it to presiding over a ward or stake is, of course, members of that ward or stake know their is someone above the bishop and SP and in many cases can interact with those.  In terms of world, God is the top.  We can't see or know of anything beyond.  And even knowing him is most difficult.  

Also, to add, since someone brought up the FAIR response to this question.  Here's FAIR:

I don't like FAIR"S tactic of bringing up the questioners motive. Anyone can ask or talk about getting their own planet and never aim to disrespect nor marginalize.  What utter nonsense.  Cinepro's not doing that.  

I’m hard-pressed to find a non-LDS explanation of the doctrine of exaltation that seeks to understand it correctly rather than to mock it. 

Ever see CARM, CRI, The God Makers parts 1 and 2, Temple of the God Makers, or Book of Mormon: The Musical, et al.?

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Of course there’s sadness.  Of course there’s disappointment.  The scriptures teach that God weeps...for us.  And if we are joint heirs with Christ and choose to do God’s work we will no doubt weep as He does as the work continues with other spirit children on other worlds.

The problem I still forsee then is weeping for them is eternal.  There will always be nothing but spirits whimpering in outerdarkness and there'll be nothing but more joining them.  The saved sadness and weeping only grows for eternity.  Thus weeping is eternal.  It'd be hard to find peace and comfort in those who make it when there remains so many who don't.  

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Frankly, that’s why the idea of God’s children becoming like Him and doing His work is so misunderstood.  Think of it this way.  Our final judgment is likely to be an extension of the choice Christ gave to the man who asked him “what lack I yet?”  Christ said you can choose to keep your nice material things and your comfortable life or you can give them up and come join me in my work.  If our choice is between a “lesser” kingdom which we be the equivalent of eternity on a beach on Maui or doing God’s work filled with the sadness, disappointment and weeping you describe, which will we choose.

Sitting on a beach while kabillions are organized into neat little packaged hellish eternities, would suck.  Sitting around miserable for eternity because so many are lost would suck too.  I don't know if I'd choose any.  I'd probably be happiest in outerdarkness, because it all sucks anyways.  

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

The scriptures teach us all will confess God’s judgments are just.  That is true because God knows perfectly the desire of our heart and our eternal life will match perfectly that desire.  The suffering of those in outer darkness or on the beach in Maui will have the same source...a  perfect understanding of God’s love for them and a heart unwilling to “keep up” with what He desires for them.

That's a fine assumption for many I suppose.  for me it just means we're all pretty selfish.  I think I'd rather take the place of an eternal sufferer.  

6 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

So those who view this “get your own planet” thing as some self aggrandizing concept, an eternal vacation where others worship us as we bask in that ubiquitous adoration, fundamentally misunderstand  God, His work, and our work, if we choose to join Him.

Ok.  if you say so.  

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Heaven is called the "Beatific Vision" in that one has a perfect "vision" of God. The relationship with God is no longer mediated, no longer limited, no longer based on faith and reason, but is instead direct and perfect. It is the perfect mystical experience; we are, in a sense, one with God, and thus have perfect joy. It is the ultimate end of our creation, so when we attain there is nothing left to attain.

Here's the intro from Wikipedia:

 

Does the vision forever remain mystical or does it become reality once it is obtained? What else do the blessed do? What is the state of those who participate?

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

to change flat tires on the side of the highway for a stranger (sisters! your work!),

Would not recommend sisters stopping on a road to assist a stranger. https://www.arrivealive.mobi/road-safety-for-women-driving-alone

Edited December 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Does the vision forever remain mystical or does it become reality once it is obtained? What else do the blessed do? What is the state of those who participate?

 

I'm using "mystical" in the technical sense, in which case there is no separation between mystical and reality. A mystical experience gives us deeper insight into reality. The beatific vision would give us absolute reality as we are unified with God, the ground of all being.

I view heaven as a state of being, not a state of doing and not a location. The blessed in heaven are perfectly united with God and thus perfectly united with each other. It's the Mystical Body of Christ. We are all part of the same body. In this current life, that union is hidden from us (through a glass darkly and all that). In heaven, in the state of perfect union, we will perfectly experience it.

The mystics tell us that mystical experience is a peek at what it's like. We can slightly experience here what will be the complete experience in heaven. In mystical experience we aren't really doing anything, we are being, and we experience our being's unity with God.

That's my take, anyway, backed up with Catholic theology, Catholic mystics, and my own mystical experiences.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a terrible straw man of the Catholic/Christian view of heaven. It is pretty equivalent to someone saying that the LDS believe in "getting your own planet."

Didn't direct it at the Catholics.  In fact, I deliberately limited it to "Those who limit their reward..."  Are you one of those who do this?  If you thought I was directing this at you, please disabuse yourself of that thought. Yet there are some who do limit their reward.  Get saved, go to heaven.  What for?  Just so you can live eternally in joy with no other goal in end? 

I was using the same method Paul used when he faced heresy in Corinth, coming from those who denied the reality of the resurrection.  He wrote in 1 Cor 15:

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

If all we have hope of in the next life is some kind of eternal rest with nothing much else to do, then how long until boredom sets in?  Is heaven really that purposeless?  Why would God go to the trouble of creating us if all He wanted to with us in the end is let us sit around feeling good about ourselves?  

The Latter-day Saints say that God created us to raise us up. Not only in the resurrection, but as His sons and daughters.  When Jesus said "I do what I have seen the Father do," was that not a big enough clue that our Father and our God wishes to add to us His glory, if we are worthy of it (especially in light of John's statement that we will be like Him).  And of course, since we LDS preach what the Bible clearly teaches on the subject (I think I cited the particular verses, if I'm not thinking of another thread), our enemies are pleased to call us "The Godmakers."  Except we are not the Godmakers.  It's only God who can do that.  At His good pleasure.

What does God intend to do with you, if you are faithful and are valiant in the testimony of Jesus?  Do you know?  Is it part of Catholic doctrine?  Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (SJ) worked to extend the idea of "Christ in us" to an amazing degree in The Divine Mileu, in which he introduced the idea of "Christogenesis".  He was censured by his order and the Church at the time (for that and for other things), but in recent years his work has found a bit of approval.  Pope Benedict XVII even praised Teilhard in his book, Spirit of the Liturgy. Teilhard stops short of the Latter-day Saint position (by a good mile and a half), but you can see in his work glimmers of "theosis" as understood by us. Of course, there are still those who bitterly oppose Teilhard, as well they might, and probably for good reason.

No, I'd shocked and surprised to discover that you thought your goal was to play a harp while floating in the clouds.  But I think there are some people whose idea of eternal existence may go not much further.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Heaven is called the "Beatific Vision" in that one has a perfect "vision" of God. The relationship with God is no longer mediated, no longer limited, no longer based on faith and reason, but is instead direct and perfect. It is the perfect mystical experience; we are, in a sense, one with God, and thus have perfect joy. It is the ultimate end of our creation, so when we attain there is nothing left to attain.

Here's the intro from Wikipedia:

 

The Beatific Vision strikes me as in some respects being similar to the Latter-day Saint concept of divine exaltation. No?

Edited December 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Beatific Vision strikes as in some respects being similar to the Latter-day Saint concept of divine exaltation. No?

Yes, it's the western version of the eastern idea of theosis. I'd say the difference is that we are subsumed into God, not a separate God (but then again, I don't know too much about the specifics of LDS exaltation).

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, it's the western version of the eastern idea of theosis. I'd say the difference is that we are subsumed into God, not a separate God (but then again, I don't know too much about the specifics of LDS exaltation).

I would not object to the terminology “subsumed into God” being applied to the Latter-day Saint concept of deification or theosis, given our understanding of the perfect divine unity that will exist between God and those who receive exaltation. 

In fact, the reason I am uncomfortable with the “get your own planet” cliche is that it seems to imply a separate state of godhood as opposed to the perfect unity I believe one will have with the Father and the Son. 

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, blueglass said:

Mormon gods will “frame earths”, "form and create worlds”, "organize matter into worlds”, “have jurisdiction over worlds”, and people them “by our own offspring”

The phrase "worlds for all of us" by president Spencer Kimball turns up 4 hits from lds.org from gen conf, ensign, new era, and doc and cov student manual.

The question is really over how independent this is, not whether we're involved with such things. Indeed it's a common folk belief that we were all involved in the creation of this one. I'm definitely involved with peopling it.

If we have spirit children, which is common in most LDS theology, then obviously they have to live somewhere given our materialism. The only real question is over independence. Which most of the quotes raised including those in the 19th century don't address.

14 hours ago, juliann said:

I do think that is a teaching....but it is worlds, not "a planet." The meaning is different. It didn't take much study to find the council of the gods idea in the creation stories. That is how I have interpreted this. Yes, long ago, I used to hear the planet thing or like unto it....but oh, my, did I hear a lot of things we backed off from in that era. 

Julianne's point is important. I'd just add that in scripture the word often translated as world is "laz" and frequently has a meaning more akin to land although clearly in some cases it's the whole planet. (Although the pre-Ptolemaic Hebrews didn't conceive of it in that way) While that doesn't do much for how 19th century figures interpreted all this, it suggests we should be careful.

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't see it as much of a perk that prophets, seers, and revelators can't agree about what exaltation means. If they can't agree on the nature of G(g)of and what it means to be like H(h)I'm, then there seems to be a giant hole in theology which prophets are supposedly in place to help fill. Their disagreement simply adds confusion and illustrates that no one really knows anything so acting like we have a handle on eternal truth and destiny is foolishness.

That's silly. You can know some things without knowing everything. While prophets help fill holes, it's abundantly clear in our theology we see through a glass darkly and that there's much still to be revealed. To say that because they disagree on something means no one knows anything is a ridiculous argument. By analogy scientists disagree on many things but that doesn't mean in the least they don't know anything.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

If all we have hope of in the next life is some kind of eternal rest with nothing much else to do, then how long until boredom sets in?  Is heaven really that purposeless?  Why would God go to the trouble of creating us if all He wanted to with us in the end is let us sit around feeling good about ourselves?

For Catholics, heaven is a state of being, not doing. There will be no boredom -- that would suggest lack and in heaven there is no lack. We are in perfect union with God and are perfectly fulfilled. The end of our creation has been met; there is no more to be done, because it is not doing, it is being. It is not purposeless, it is purpose fulfilled. 

We're not sitting around "feeling good about ourselves", our being is fully united to God and to all others in heaven. It is the Mystical Body of Christ, fully realized. Of course this will bring perfect joy and love and peace.

You seem to view heaven as a better version of life on earth, like being in heaven is like having a better job or something. I view it is a completed state of being. Maybe that's where our disagreement lies, in the starting premise.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm using "mystical" in the technical sense, in which case there is no separation between mystical and reality. A mystical experience gives us deeper insight into reality. The beatific vision would give us absolute reality as we are unified with God, the ground of all being.

I view heaven as a state of being, not a state of doing and not a location. The blessed in heaven are perfectly united with God and thus perfectly united with each other. It's the Mystical Body of Christ. We are all part of the same body. In this current life, that union is hidden from us (through a glass darkly and all that). In heaven, in the state of perfect union, we will perfectly experience it.

The mystics tell us that mystical experience is a peek at what it's like. We can slightly experience here what will be the complete experience in heaven. In mystical experience we aren't really doing anything, we are being, and we experience our being's unity with God.

That's my take, anyway, backed up with Catholic theology, Catholic mystics, and my own mystical experiences.

Thank you for the explanation. I am not familiar with the Catholic terminology, so it’s a bit difficult to understand how a state of being would not involve doing something.  I assume there would be a vastly increased sense of awareness. Would we be in a physical resurrected state? Disembodied spirits? Absorbed into the Being or Mind of God? Would we retain our individual identity or personal awareness?

Edited December 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

For Catholics, heaven is a state of being, not doing. There will be no boredom -- that would suggest lack and in heaven there is no lack. We are in perfect union with God and are perfectly fulfilled. The end of our creation has been met; there is no more to be done, because it is not doing, it is being. It is not purposeless, it is purpose fulfilled. 

We're not sitting around "feeling good about ourselves", our being is fully united to God and to all others in heaven. It is the Mystical Body of Christ, fully realized. Of course this will bring perfect joy and love and peace.

You seem to view heaven as a better version of life on earth, like being in heaven is like having a better job or something. I view it is a completed state of being. Maybe that's where our disagreement lies, in the starting premise.

Would “the perfect union” with God or “perfect fulfillment” involve participating with Him in His work, whatever that might be? 

[Storm Rider]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

For Catholics, heaven is a state of being, not doing. There will be no boredom -- that would suggest lack and in heaven there is no lack. We are in perfect union with God and are perfectly fulfilled. The end of our creation has been met; there is no more to be done, because it is not doing, it is being. It is not purposeless, it is purpose fulfilled. 

We're not sitting around "feeling good about ourselves", our being is fully united to God and to all others in heaven. It is the Mystical Body of Christ, fully realized. Of course this will bring perfect joy and love and peace.

You seem to view heaven as a better version of life on earth, like being in heaven is like having a better job or something. I view it is a completed state of being. Maybe that's where our disagreement lies, in the starting premise.

Yet, I don't think of God as simply an omnipotent being of existence; rather I see him as a being in the act of creation. I think LDS tend to focus on that active force when we think of heaven/Exaltation. Given that we are one with Christ and the Father, we are involved in what they do. 

It is this doing where descriptions of participating in creation develop. 

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would we be in a physical resurrected state? Disembodied spirits? Absorbed into the Being or Mind of God? Would we retain our individual identity or personal awareness?

All of the above 😄

Resurrection, for most, doesn't occur until judgement day. Until then, we are disembodied spirits. We are subsumed by God, yet we retain our individual identity and awareness.

Mystical experience is ineffable, so it's hard to nail down what exactly the mystics are saying about the experience of heaven. The Mystical Doctor of the Church, St. John of the Cross, explained his experiences through poetry and paradox, which is normal when mystics report on their experiences.

It's intriguing talking about this, because ultimately we don't know what it will be like. We have hints and intimations and the Catholic Church has spoken in broad and general terms, but it seems like until we are there we won't know much more, I think.

I remember one poster years back saying that he imagined doing laundry and cleaning the kitchen in the celestial kingdom. Seemed quite odd that he'd want something like that  

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Would “the perfect union” with God or “perfect fulfillment” involve participating with Him in His work, whatever that might be? 

Yes, that makes sense, especially when we consider the Saints. They are in heaven, unified with God, which is why we ask their intercession -- they are right there (metaphorically speaking) with Him. So when they put it a good word for us, they are participating in His work.

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Yet, I don't think of God as simply an omnipotent being of existence; rather I see him as a being in the act of creation. I think LDS tend to focus on that active force when we think of heaven/Exaltation. Given that we are one with Christ and the Father, we are involved in what they do. 

It is this doing where descriptions of participating in creation develop. 

I can understand that point-of-view. Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

All of the above 😄

Resurrection, for most, doesn't occur until judgement day. Until then, we are disembodied spirits. We are subsumed by God, yet we retain our individual identity and awareness.

Mystical experience is ineffable, so it's hard to nail down what exactly the mystics are saying about the experience of heaven. The Mystical Doctor of the Church, St. John of the Cross, explained his experiences through poetry and paradox, which is normal when mystics report on their experiences.

It's intriguing talking about this, because ultimately we don't know what it will be like. We have hints and intimations and the Catholic Church has spoken in broad and general terms, but it seems like until we are there we won't know much more, I think.

I remember one poster years back saying that he imagined doing laundry and cleaning the kitchen in the celestial kingdom. Seemed quite odd that he'd want something like that  

I believe that if we Latter-day Saints are honest with ourselves, we likewise must acknowledge that there is much about the afterlife that we don’t know or understand and will not until later. Hence, we get silly speculations like “get your own planet” that open us up to ridicule from outsiders.