Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ created other worlds besides ours. Do those other worlds get a "millennium" like us?

[AngelLily]

Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ created other worlds besides ours. Do those other worlds get a "millennium" like us?  I'm just curious.

[InCognitus]

38 minutes ago, AngelLily said:

Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ created other worlds besides ours. Do those other worlds get a "millennium" like us?  I'm just curious.

Moses 1:30–35:

Quote

30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?
31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

In other words, God hasn't told us the answer to your question.   

[rongo]

I agree with Brigham Young that each earth has its own savior and tempter. That just makes sense to me. I think the pattern of how things have been done continues, so there is likely to be millennia on those earths as well, in my view. 

[strappinglad]

32 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

there are many worlds that have passed away

we are not the first, nor will we be the last. 

[The Nehor]

I suspect many worlds are the Millenium full time until celestialization.

[Stargazer]

On 12/15/2020 at 8:01 PM, rongo said:

I agree with Brigham Young that each earth has its own savior and tempter. That just makes sense to me. I think the pattern of how things have been done continues, so there is likely to be millennia on those earths as well, in my view. 

Brigham might be wrong about own savior.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Brigham might be wrong about own savior.

He might indeed. I don't think salvation hinges on whether we believe other worlds have saviors, though (or whether we believe that they don't). 

It makes a lot more sense to me for each world to have its own savior and tempter, as Brigham taught. Orson Pratt (who disagreed with Brigham on a number of things) also taught along these lines in his assigned talk announcing polygamy (before going on an assigned tour of the East preaching it. B.H. Roberts wrote in CHC about how the public preaching of polygamy back east was a shot in the arm that reactivated many lapsed members who didn't live in Utah. Everyone knew about it, and there was pride and relief when the Church was open and official about it). It's the talk right after the most famous Adam-God Brigham Young talk (around Journal of Discourses 1:50). Pratt draws attention to D&C 76:24 and emphasizes that spirit children are "begotten sons and daughters unto God" (as opposed to of God), and teaches that the firstborn spirit son of each wife was a savior. 

I like this idea because it reconciles our exaltation with the Sermon in the Grove, which, along with the King Follett Discourse, teaches that Elohim was and had to be a Savior. Since this is very small company (none of us are or will be saviors), our godhood consists of participating in creation, and providing spirit children for our "file leader" (Jehovah, in our case). Some LDS don't like this, because they believe that Elohim was a "regular guy" like us, and want the same to apply to us, but it doesn't bother me a bit. It makes more sense to me. 

Again, something which won't cause the faithful to lose their exaltation or salvation over if they are wrong. But something it's fun and interesting to speculate about in light of what Brigham and Joseph taught. 

[Stargazer]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

He might indeed. I don't think salvation hinges on whether we believe other worlds have saviors, though (or whether we believe that they don't). 

Thank goodness. I'd hate to be held responsible for doctrine that hasn't been ratified by the church and isn't taught.

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

It makes a lot more sense to me for each world to have its own savior and tempter, as Brigham taught. Orson Pratt (who disagreed with Brigham on a number of things) also taught along these lines in his assigned talk announcing polygamy (before going on an assigned tour of the East preaching it. B.H. Roberts wrote in CHC about how the public preaching of polygamy back east was a shot in the arm that reactivated many lapsed members who didn't live in Utah. Everyone knew about it, and there was pride and relief when the Church was open and official about it). It's the talk right after the most famous Adam-God Brigham Young talk (around Journal of Discourses 1:50). Pratt draws attention to D&C 76:24 and emphasizes that spirit children are "begotten sons and daughters unto God" (as opposed to of God), and teaches that the firstborn spirit son of each wife was a savior. 

If things were as Brother Brigham taught it wouldn't bother me. I think there are a lot of true things, knowledge of which is unnecessary for our salvation, that are otherwise than what we might suppose.

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I like this idea because it reconciles our exaltation with the Sermon in the Grove, which, along with the King Follett Discourse, teaches that Elohim was and had to be a Savior. Since this is very small company (none of us are or will be saviors), our godhood consists of participating in creation, and providing spirit children for our "file leader" (Jehovah, in our case). Some LDS don't like this, because they believe that Elohim was a "regular guy" like us, and want the same to apply to us, but it doesn't bother me a bit. It makes more sense to me. 

The message contained in the 76th section of the Doctrine and Covenants seems to contradict this, however.

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Again, something which won't cause the faithful to lose their exaltation or salvation over if they are wrong. But something it's fun and interesting to speculate about in light of what Brigham and Joseph taught. 

Indeed.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

and teaches that the firstborn spirit son of each wife was a savior. 

Foreordained (meaning he might fail even if highly, highly unlikely) or predestined (no choice in the matter)?

[rongo]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Foreordained (meaning he might fail even if highly, highly unlikely) or predestined (no choice in the matter)?

Well (and this is speculative, obviously), I strongly believe that there has to be a chance for failure for it it be a true victory. But, those chosen as saviors (including our Savior) are the very best and most worthy of our faith, trust, and confidence. These also happen to be the firstborn, so there appears to be a connection between order of spirit creation and "quality" of intelligence (for lack of a better term). 

We know from D&C 93 that intelligence (the part of us that is us) is not and cannot be created and is eternal. We also know from the Book of Abraham that there is a spectrum of "quality" among this uncreated intelligence, with Christ being universally known and recognized as the best. Extrapolating this to other wives and other firstborns, the same would apply. 

The other extreme is interesting as well. Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball (his counselor in the FP) taught that outer darkness and the ultimate fate of the sons of perdition would be the complete undoing of physical matter from spirit matter, and spirit matter from intelligence. They start all over from the very beginning, since neither intelligence, nor spirit nor physical matter can be created or destroyed. But, since this intelligence just is at its essence, this inherent (uncreated) evil is always there, and thus there will always be those to fill the role of the adversary necessary to the plan that has always been done. 

I was just talking with someone about this this week. He asked if I thought, under this idea, that the devils could choose otherwise and break the cycle. I said that I like to think this is possible, but we don't know how immutable this intelligence "default setting" is. There is a lot --- a whole lot --- we don't and won't know until we are able to learn about it in the herafter.