'Lazy learner'

[Teancum]

On 7/9/2021 at 4:13 PM, bluebell said:

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.

 

There are a plethora of teachings, sermons, statements in books, etc about this topic from LDS leaders. Lesson manuals as well. I don't know how old you are and I will agree that this teaching has been down played more and more since the late 90s or early 2000s.  But it seems that the idea of being a god and creating and populating worlds just like God does is pretty well established in LDS teachings and doctrine. Start with  the King Follet Discourse. I don't have the energy to go back and provide the references for you. I am not sure why the church and seemingly you and others want to discount this. It was one of the unique doctrines of the church.

[secondclasscitizen]

On 7/9/2021 at 10:56 AM, ksfisher said:

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.

The scriptures may not say it but Spencer W Kimball sure did at a priesthood session of conference. Is he wrong?

“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000.

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1975/10/the-privilege-of-holding-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Edited July 11, 2021 by secondclasscitizen

[california boy]

I think things started to change the Gordon B. Hinkley was asked about the couplet  "As man is, God once was.  As God is, man may become". Maybe on public TV it sounded jsut a little too far out there even for the Church.  I remember being totally shocked he would say that the Church doesn't really teach that.  And it seems from then on, the Church really did stop teaching it.  

I am curious now.  Do members still believe this statement?  Or is it completely gone from Church teachings.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think things started to change the Gordon B. Hinkley was asked about the couplet  "As man is, God once was.  As God is, man may become". Maybe on public TV it sounded jsut a little too far out there even for the Church.  I remember being totally shocked he would say that the Church doesn't really teach that.  And it seems from then on, the Church really did stop teaching it.  

I am curious now.  Do members still believe this statement?  Or is it completely gone from Church teachings.

I believe in exaltation but I think the couplet was just an imperfect way to express that idea, not doctrine and in and of itself.

I'm agnostic on the idea that each of us will someday be a god in the exact same way that Heavenly Father and Christ are (which is how the couplet was/is often interpreted).

I mean, was Jesus Christ ever like you or me?  No. I'm flawed and weak and sinful.  I need a Savior and the Atonement to be saved.  He was perfect, with no need for a Savior, fully justified on His own merits, with a divine Father and a mortal mother.  We have a few general similarities but not that many. 

A straightforward interpretation of the couplet (as man is, God once was....) falls a part right there.  As Christ is, no other man ever has  been or will be.  Therefore, it stands to reason that we could ask, does that also mean that as God is, man may....someday share a few general similarities with?  A god but not God?

Maybe so.  After all, both the president of the church and also the president of the deacon's quorum are each legitimate presidents.  But though they share a title and some aspects of authority, they share little else.  The shared title does not automatically mean they are equal.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2021 by bluebell

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

There are a plethora of teachings, sermons, statements in books, etc about this topic from LDS leaders. Lesson manuals as well. I don't know how old you are and I will agree that this teaching has been down played more and more since the late 90s or early 2000s.  But it seems that the idea of being a god and creating and populating worlds just like God does is pretty well established in LDS teachings and doctrine. Start with  the King Follet Discourse. I don't have the energy to go back and provide the references for you. I am not sure why the church and seemingly you and others want to discount this. It was one of the unique doctrines of the church.

I'm 44.

From my perspective, the teaching hasn't been downplayed as much as it's interpretation has changed/become less strict.

Exaltation is very well established in LDS teachings and doctrine.  Exactly what the means is much less established.  I don't know of anyone that is discounting the doctrine of exaltation.  That's certainly not what I am doing on this thread.

It's a specific interpretation of what exaltation must mean that the church and many members have moved away from.

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I believe in exaltation but I think the couplet was just an imperfect way to express that idea, not doctrine and in and of itself.

I'm agnostic on the idea that each of us will someday be a god in the exact same way that Heavenly Father and Christ are (which is how the couplet was/is often interpreted).

I mean, was Jesus Christ ever like you or me?  No. I'm flawed and weak and sinful.  I need a Savior and the Atonement to be saved.  He was perfect, with no need for a Savior, fully justified on His own merits, with a divine Father and a mortal mother.  We have a few general similarities but not that many. 

A straightforward interpretation of the couplet (as man is, God once was....) falls a part right there.  As Christ is, no other man ever has or will be.  Therefore, it stands to reason that we could ask, does that also mean that as God is, man may someday become...a god but not God in the way that Christ is God? 

Maybe so.  After all, both the president of the church and also the president of the deacon's quorum are each legitimate presidents.  But though they share a title and some aspects of authority, they share little else.  The shared title does not automatically mean they are equal.

 

 

Thanks for your response.  Do you have any idea how members in general feel about this?  Or is it just never brought up any longer 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for your response.  Do you have any idea how members in general feel about this?  Or is it just never brought up any longer 

I honestly don't know. 

Exaltation is brought up fairly often but it is rarely defined or discussed in any amount of detail in a church setting.  The idea that we could someday have spirit children, or create worlds, for example, is not shunned or ignored, but it is often brought up in a very nuanced way, with an acknowledgment of the giant gaps that exist in our understanding on that topic.

Where it used to be very straightforward (especially as it was taught to the youth), it's not presented in such a straightforward way anymore.  Not in my experience at least.

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm 44.

From my perspective, the teaching hasn't been downplayed as much as it's interpretation has changed/become less strict.

Exaltation is very well established in LDS teachings and doctrine.  Exactly what the means is much less established.  I don't know of anyone that is discounting the doctrine of exaltation.  That's certainly not what I am doing on this thread.

It's a specific interpretation of what exaltation must mean that the church and many members have moved away from.

Another example of the Church moving away from what prior apostles and prophets taught. On this particular subject why do you think it has/is changing?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Another example of the Church moving away from what prior apostles and prophets taught. On this particular subject why do you think it has/is changing?

Because we all learn precept by precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.  And that God reveals doctrine but does not always (often?) clarify exactly how that doctrine is to be understood, or what it means for us in depth in the eternities.

That is my perspective anyway.

 

[Teancum]

Just now, bluebell said:

Because we all learn precept by precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.  And that God reveals doctrine but does not always (often?) clarify exactly how that doctrine is to be understood, or what it means for us in depth in the eternities.

That is my perspective anyway.

 

But this seems to be backing off from what God allegedly reveled. Did the prior prophets get it wrong?  If interested here is a 9 minute video that reviews some of what has been taught on this topic.

 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

But this seems to be backing off from what God allegedly reveled. Did the prior prophets get it wrong?  If interested here is a 9 minute video that reviews some of what has been taught on this topic.

 

I watched it part of it.  In what I did watch, I didn't see anything contradicting anything that is currently being taught.  Especially the first quote by Pres. Nelson, used to show that what the church is publishing on its own site contradicts what the prophet is actively teaching, is really reaching.

The teaching is the same, the interpretation has morphed a bit.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I watched it part of it.  In what I did watch, I didn't see anything contradicting anything that is currently being taught.  Especially the first quote by Pres. Nelson, used to show that what the church is publishing on its own site contradicts what the prophet is actively teaching, is really reaching.

The teaching is the same, the interpretation has morphed a bit.

If the Church no longer teaches that exalted beings can create and people worlds that "interpretation" has change quite a bit.  Ant to say we believe the same thing that other Christians do about becoming like God is totally disingenuous.  

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

If the Church no longer teaches that exalted beings can create and people worlds that "interpretation" has change quite a bit.

I believe that the church does teach that exalted being will create worlds and have posterity (this is taught in the temple).

The point that I have been trying to get across is that the church and the scripture do not teach that each exalted being will get their "own planet."

The distinction seems both fairly simple and significant.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

If the Church no longer teaches that exalted beings can create and people worlds that "interpretation" has change quite a bit.  Ant to say we believe the same thing that other Christians do about becoming like God is totally disingenuous.  

I think kfisher explained it well.

But I do agree with you that implying that we believe we will become joint-heirs with Christ in the same way that other Christian religions believe it isn't an accurate implication.  I think they (whoever they are) should have been more careful to specify that though we all believe those verses, our interpretation of them is not all exactly the same.  

Edited July 12, 2021 by bluebell

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

If the Church no longer teaches that exalted beings can create and people worlds that "interpretation" has change quite a bit.  Ant to say we believe the same thing that other Christians do about becoming like God is totally disingenuous.  

Ok, I had to go back and read what the church actually said about it and I think we've both been harsher than was warranted.  It doesn't say that we believe the same as other Christian churches, but it does say that we believe what is written in the bible--which is true.

The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “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). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

We interpret those verses differently than other Christian religions but that doesn't mean that our beliefs aren't biblical.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 7/9/2021 at 6:39 PM, bluebell said:

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.

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?

I totally agree. We don't know. Nobody does. I'm merely taking issue with those who act offended about "getting a planet". While I accept that those words sound trite and lack depth and context, I find it disingenuous for people to absolutely dismiss it because...nobody knows.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 7/9/2021 at 6:43 PM, bluebell said:

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.

I must have been unclear. I am not attempting in any way to proclaim that this particular understanding is absolutely correct. I'm simply suggesting that there is enough by way of teachings and tradition to believe that the idea of getting a planet is not an uncommon or inappropriate understanding, even if some people don't like the way it sounds.

[Esrom]

On 7/11/2021 at 2:09 PM, bluebell said:

Because we all learn precept by precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.  And that God reveals doctrine but does not always (often?) clarify exactly how that doctrine is to be understood, or what it means for us in depth in the eternities.

That is my perspective anyway.

 

True!  I notice frequently those outside the church, and some inside, consider any progression of thought or new nuance on a subject to mean whatever was before must have been in error, and then critics jump to the conclusion of "see the leaders were wrong".  It can be very frustrating to debate that line of reasoning.  Yet Paul said we see through a glass darkly.  For me the planet thing seemed off and a bit " sci-fi" until someone on this forum mentioned how "world" was a different concept entirely.  That really expanded it for me.  I also felt stupid that I'd really never thought of it that way.  And those I was debating with couldn't grasp the difference either, preferring to stay with the planet franchise caricature for effect.

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, Esrom said:

True!  I notice frequently those outside the church, and some inside, consider any progression of thought or new nuance on a subject to mean whatever was before must have been in error, and then critics jump to the conclusion of "see the leaders were wrong".  It can be very frustrating to debate that line of reasoning.  Yet Paul said we see through a glass darkly.  For me the planet thing seemed off and a bit " sci-fi" until someone on this forum mentioned how "world" was a different concept entirely.  That really expanded it for me.  I also felt stupid that I'd really never thought of it that way.  And those I was debating with couldn't grasp the difference either, preferring to stay with the planet franchise caricature for effect.

There is the scripture/scriptures that if a prophet prophesies something and it doesn't come to pass they are false prophets. That sits with me all the time. How do we get around that one?

[bluebell]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There is the scripture/scriptures that if a prophet prophesies something and it doesn't come to pass they are false prophets. That sits with me all the time. How do we get around that one?

Consider the definition of the word prophesy.  Not every teaching, concept, or belief that comes out of a prophet's mouth is a prophecy, right?

Also, that scripture causes some problems for the bible, even for Christ Himself, if we misuse it.  

[Tacenda]

Here's a c/p that is sattire, that I wonder if it will happen, since it's happened pretty much with the teaching of becoming Gods/Goddesses and having your own worlds

Exmos in 2025: “I was required to wear garments every day!”

TBMs: “You must have had a bad bishop. We’ve never taught that.”

LDS Newsroom: “This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture; this misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of doctrine.”

Edited July 16, 2021 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Consider the definition of the word prophesy.  Not every teaching, concept, or belief that comes out of a prophet's mouth is a prophecy, right?

Also, that scripture causes some problems for the bible, even for Christ Himself, if we misuse it.  

The challenge is that Joseph taught "a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such."
We use this as an out.

If an apostle declares something in the name of the Lord then he IS acting as a prophet.
Which is why I think they are much more careful to invoke the name of the Lord.  "I tell you in the name of the Lord that..."  Don't hear that much these days.
Because Tacenda is right.  False prophecies = false prophets.

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The challenge is that Joseph taught "a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such."
We use this as an out.

If an apostle declares something in the name of the Lord then he IS acting as a prophet.
Which is why I think they are much more careful to invoke the name of the Lord.  "I tell you in the name of the Lord that..."  Don't hear that much these days.
Because Tacenda is right.  False prophecies = false prophets.

I agree.  And if JS was correct in his teaching, then it is correct of us to use it as an out too.  Otherwise, fallible people would hardly ever be fit to speak in the name of the Lord.

I also think that sometimes we have a tendency to misinterpret prophecies (or just misunderstand them), and then judge the prophet based on our ideas of the prophecy and not the prophecy itself.

[smac97]

On 7/12/2021 at 7:03 AM, Teancum said:

If the Church no longer teaches that exalted beings can create and people worlds that "interpretation" has change quite a bit. 

"If" being the key word there.  First establish everything that comes after it, then we can talk.

I don't think you'll be able to do it.

On 7/12/2021 at 7:03 AM, Teancum said:

And to say we believe the same thing that other Christians do about becoming like God is totally disingenuous.  

Who has said that?  CFR, if you please.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

"If" being the key word there.  First establish everything that comes after it, then we can talk.

I don't think you'll be able to do it.

Who has said that?  CFR, if you please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Seems to me that the church is down playing the teaching that we can create and people worlds.  We even see it on this board.

 As for your CFR:

11. Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?

Latter-day Saints believe that is God’s purpose to exalt us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “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).

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/frequently-asked-questions

 

To say LDS believe is no different than biblical teaching is quite a stretch and represent a disingenuous portrayal of the LDS teachings on exaltation to the outside world.