'Lazy learner'

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Keep reading several posts that the church has changed descriptions from years past about the beliefs of LDS becoming Gods and having their own planet. Here's a meme, sorry for it before hand. Don't hate me because I post meme's.

I don't really see "getting our own planet" as the same as "presiding over worlds and kingdoms."   My RS presides over our RS meeting but it's not her meeting, for example.  She's just in charge of, or oversees, it.  

That's how I see it anyway.

[HappyJackWagon]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't really see "getting our own planet" as the same as "presiding over worlds and kingdoms."   My RS presides over our RS meeting but it's not her meeting, for example.  She's just in charge of, or oversees, it.  

That's how I see it anyway.

"Getting our own planet" sounds a little silly when said that way which is why (I believe) people in the church reject the idea. Actually, I don't think they reject the idea, just the way that it's said. Sure, there could be some differences in "getting our own planet" and "preside over worlds", but not necessarily. It's a semantic argument.

I recall having a conversation with my father after that essay came out and he was quite upset about how he perceived the church sweeping away doctrine in an attempt to appeal to masses and appear more mainstream protestant.

BTW- whenever I see the "getting our own planets" I think of the song I Believe from the BoM musical. It's a pretty catchy tune.

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"Getting our own planet" sounds a little silly when said that way which is why (I believe) people in the church reject the idea. Actually, I don't think they reject the idea, just the way that it's said. Sure, there could be some differences in "getting our own planet" and "preside over worlds", but not necessarily. It's a semantic argument.

And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

D&C 84:38

Receiving all that the Father has and "getting our own planet" aren't really the same.  The ideas conveyed are more than just semantics.  One seems to mean ownership of a chunk of rock orbiting a sun somewhere.  I don't see that idea taught anywhere in the scriptures, while the other is in harmony with the scriptural teaching of becoming joint-heirs with Christ.

 

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"Getting our own planet" sounds a little silly when said that way which is why (I believe) people in the church reject the idea. Actually, I don't think they reject the idea, just the way that it's said. Sure, there could be some differences in "getting our own planet" and "preside over worlds", but not necessarily. It's a semantic argument.

I recall having a conversation with my father after that essay came out and he was quite upset about how he perceived the church sweeping away doctrine in an attempt to appeal to masses and appear more mainstream protestant.

BTW- whenever I see the "getting our own planets" I think of the song I Believe from the BoM musical. It's a pretty catchy tune.

It sounds silly and also has no actual doctrinal backing.  I do think it was a cultural belief that church members ran with for a long time, and that's a lot of momentum to try to stop all at once.    

 

[HappyJackWagon]

41 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

D&C 84:38

Receiving all that the Father has and "getting our own planet" aren't really the same.  The ideas conveyed are more than just semantics.  One seems to mean ownership of a chunk of rock orbiting a sun somewhere.  I don't see that idea taught anywhere in the scriptures, while the other is in harmony with the scriptural teaching of becoming joint-heirs with Christ.

 

When we consider "ALL" that the father hath, suggesting someone gets their own planet is quite limiting. Would it be more accurate to say people will "get their own planets/universes without end"?

Suggesting that someone will get one of God's limitless planets when they are promised all that he hath, isn't really a huge stretch, is it?

[bluebell]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

When we consider "ALL" that the father hath, suggesting someone gets their own planet is quite limiting. Would it be more accurate to say people will "get their own planets/universes without end"?

Suggesting that someone will get one of God's limitless planets when they are promised all that he hath, isn't really a huge stretch, is it?

For the record, I've never heard that taught (that we would get one of God's planets). 

That's a novel idea to me, and makes even less sense than the way I usually heard it, which was that once we became gods we would be able to create our own planets and populate them with our own spirit children having their own mortal experience.

And for the record, I don't think there is anything wrong with interpreting the scriptures that way--I don't think the scriptures preclude the idea--but I do think we need to remember that's exactly what it is.  An interpretation of one aspect of certain doctrine, and not doctrine itself.   There are other ways to interpret the doctrine that don't include that idea and those are equally valid as possibilities.

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Would it be more accurate to say people will "get their own planets/universes without end"?

The scriptures don't say that anyone gets their own chunk of the universe, or universe.  The Father is sharing all the He has with all of those who inherit the celestial kingdom.  I don't see anything about individual ownership of any part of that being taught by the scriptures or prophets.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't really see "getting our own planet" as the same as "presiding over worlds and kingdoms."   My RS presides over our RS meeting but it's not her meeting, for example.  She's just in charge of, or oversees, it.  

That's how I see it anyway.

Come on. The LDS Church has taught since the 1840s that humans can become gods and create and people worlds just like God does.  It is strange to see the dance around this.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The LDS Church has taught since the 1840s that humans can become gods and create and people worlds just like God does.

This is a much different teaching than "getting our own planet."

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This is a much different teaching than "getting our own planet."

I would not use the words getting my own planet but the concept is the same. Whose  planet is this one we reside on?  Does it belong to its creator?  If I am a god and create a world whose planet is it?

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This is a much different teaching than "getting our own planet."

It's really not that different at all. Your statement just gives some context to the how and why someone may "get" their own planet, whether that means creating a new planet as a god, or becoming the steward of one of God's existing planets.

 

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Come on. The LDS Church has taught since the 1840s that humans can become gods and create and people worlds just like God does.  It is strange to see the dance around this.

Yes- it is a strange dance.

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If I am a god and create a world whose planet is it?

If God the Father shares all that He has with His children whose planet is it?

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If God the Father shares all that He has with His children whose planet is it?

So are you arguing that exalted humans will not create and people worlds?  And that this is not a doctrine of the  LDS Church?

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So are you arguing that exalted humans will not create and people worlds?  And that this is not a doctrine of the  LDS Church?

No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that the idea that I will get my own planet is not a correct understanding.

Prophets, as well as the temple, teach that this world was created under the direction of the Father.  The actual agents in that creation are the Savior and Adam.  As Adam is used the the temple as a symbol for all mankind one could extrapolate that others were involved as well.  I would assume that any other worlds would be created using the same pattern.

Actual "ownership" (if that concept is even correct in the eternities) seems to being something shared by exalted beings.

Edited July 9, 2021 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Come on. The LDS Church has taught since the 1840s that humans can become gods and create and people worlds just like God does.  It is strange to see the dance around this.

We've got doctrine that allude to those things, but can you point to anything the church has consistently taught that says people will get their own worlds?  Members sure, but the church?

There's a "couplet" and a sermon that many members--including leaders--have interpreted in specific ways over the years and in some circles we have really run with those as if they were doctrine, no question.  But when we really stop and consider, where do those interpretations come from, are they actually doctrine?  Things get way more murky.

It it strange to constantly seeing people ignore all of that just because it doesn't work with the criticism they want to use against the church.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I would not use the words getting my own planet but the concept is the same. Whose  planet is this one we reside on?  Does it belong to its creator?  If I am a god and create a world whose planet is it?

Christ's probably.  Since He created it and redeemed it, though only under the direction of His Father and not as an exalted resurrected Being.  And the scriptures teach that it will be the celestial kingdom where the exalted live after its work is finished.

It's kind of hard to apply any of that to ourselves and what we will experience in the next life in any meaningful way though.

Edited July 9, 2021 by bluebell

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

No, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that the idea that I will get my own planet is not a correct understanding.

Prophets, as well as the temple, teach that this world was created under the direction of the Father.  The actual agents in that creation are the Savior and Adam.  As Adam is used the the temple as a symbol for all mankind one could extrapolate that others were involved as well.  I would assume that any other worlds would be created using the same pattern.

Actual "ownership" (if that concept is even correct in the eternities) seems to being something shared by exalted beings.

But if Ksfisher is the exalted being he would oversee the creation of new worlds, right? So would that be Ksfisher's world or someone else's?

You seem to be trying very hard to reject the notion of "getting" because you don't like the semantics. Regardless of mode of "get", whether it is created, or borrowed, or rented, or is a stewardship of an existing planet, whatever, it seems disingenuous to claim the gospel doesn't support the idea of individual exalted beings having autonomy over a measly little planet

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But if Ksfisher is the exalted being he would oversee the creation of new worlds, right? So would that be Ksfisher's world or someone else's?

You seem to be trying very hard to reject the notion of "getting" because you don't like the semantics. Regardless of mode of "get", whether it is created, or borrowed, or rented, or is a stewardship of an existing planet, whatever, it seems disingenuous to claim the gospel doesn't support the idea of individual exalted beings having autonomy over a measly little planet

Any chance he's trying very hard to reject your interpretation of that doctrine because he doesn't agree with it?  

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Christ's probably.  Since He created it and redeemed it, though only under the direction of His Father and not as an exalted resurrected Being.  And the scriptures teach that it will be the celestial kingdom where the exalted live after its work is finished.

It's kind of hard to apply any of that to ourselves and what we will experience in the next life in any meaningful way though.

But wouldn't Jesus, as an exalted being start the process anew by creating new worlds over which he is the supreme God?

Isn't that the general goal of exaltation to have life like God's.

When I moved out of my father's house and started my own family and bought my own home I continued to be my father's son, but even though I'm still connected to him, it is my home and it is my family. I don't see "getting my own planet" as being any more blasphemous or crazy than "getting my own home". I don't think most LDS people have a problem with it. It's just a matter of how the particular words sound. But I believe the concept is valid and doctrinal so when I see people fighting against it because it sounds embarrassing, I just have to scratch my head.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Any chance he's trying very hard to reject your interpretation of that doctrine because he doesn't agree with it?  

It is a very common LDS interpretation. I don't understand what you're saying. He's using the temple to bolster his argument about how this world was created for God but are you suggesting he's also trying to reject the argument that other exalted beings would do the same thing?

 

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But if Ksfisher is the exalted being he would oversee the creation of new worlds, right? So would that be Ksfisher's world or someone else's?

I'm not aware of any church doctrine that teaches that one person will own a planet.  What I see is the gospel teaching that the Father will share all that he has with those who are joint-heirs with Christ.  If that includes the creation of worlds in the future I would assume any ownership would be joint as well.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not aware of any church doctrine that teaches that one person will own a planet.  What I see is the gospel teaching that the Father will share all that he has with those who are joint-heirs with Christ.  If that includes the creation of worlds in the future I would assume any ownership would be joint as well.

 

Why are you so caught up on "own" or "get". You seem to be attempting to deflect from the actual concept of exalted beings creating and becoming like God. I can only assume it's because you think those words sound silly in a doctrinal context. But you are right that you are also assuming that "ownership would be joint as well."   I guess the point is that no one really has a clue. With that in mind, it's not outrageous to consider the possibility that exalted beings will have their own stewardships and "get" a planet or two  

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why are you so caught up on "own" or "get".

Because I believe both those words miss the mark and are used by church critics to belittle what members of the church believe about godhood.

 

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem to be attempting to deflect from the actual concept of exalted beings creating and becoming like God

I'm not attempting to deflect from this, as it is what I believe.  But I don't believe that God the Father "got his own planet" to paraphrase the meme that Tacenda posted.  The meme removes the context and the understanding of the gospel from those quotes in an attempt to discredit the church and belittle the beliefs of it's members.

 

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I can only assume it's because you think those words sound silly in a doctrinal context.

Those words sound silly because they are silly.  They don't come close to conveying the teachings of the church regarding exaltation and the nature of God.

 

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 I guess the point is that no one really has a clue

I believe we have some clues, but yes, in general much is yet to be revealed.

 

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

With that in mind, it's not outrageous to consider the possibility that exalted beings will have their own stewardships and "get" a planet or two  

Stewardship yes.  And as long as "get a planet or two" is followed by a smiley face I guess I can agree with that. 

Edited July 9, 2021 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But wouldn't Jesus, as an exalted being start the process anew by creating new worlds over which he is the supreme God?

Isn't that the general goal of exaltation to have life like God's.

 

I would assume so, but He is so different from us, in almost every way, that I'm not sure how much we can hold Him up for how it will work for the rest of us.  We will continue to be subordinate to Him I'm assuming, so that adds another level that we just don't understand enough to even guess on.

Quote

I don't see "getting my own planet" as being any more blasphemous or crazy than "getting my own home".

I don't think it is blasphemous at all.  And it could very well be exactly how it all works out.  I just don't believe there is anything we can point to to say that it is definitely how it's all going to work out.

Do you?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It is a very common LDS interpretation. I don't understand what you're saying. He's using the temple to bolster his argument about how this world was created for God but are you suggesting he's also trying to reject the argument that other exalted beings would do the same thing?

 

I guess I'm saying that it sounds like you keep repeating "no, this is what the church teaches and you just won't agree with me about it" as your whole argument against his beliefs, and that comes across a little...condescending.

Maybe kfisher isn't agreeing with you on it, not because he just won't admit you are right, but because, despite many members believing it, the church doesn't actually teach that specific interpretation as doctrine anywhere anymore.   And he has a different interpretation that he believes works better with the other doctrines we have.