You get a World & You get a World & You get a World...oops, Not so Fast

[ZealouslyStriving]

18 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Excuse me?  Feeling testie today? Are you suggesting that these quotes are anti mormon?  Spencer W. Kimball would certainly disagree.

For the record, In preparing my OP, I did a deep search in TheChurchofJesusChrist.org but as you know the church has scrubbed virtually everything pre-1975.  My google search provided the above quotes.  They are not anti-mormon and I did cited every original source.

So whats your point exactly?  Some of the very best scholarship on Mormonism in the last 50 years has come from less flattering mormon sites.  Please attack the quotes if you will but not the collator of  the quotes. Seems petty.

Hope this helps...

https://scriptures.byu.edu

*Go to the 🔎 function*

Edited April 22, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Craig Speechly]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Don’t you mean MRM cited every original source?

Plagiarism includes using someone else’s work and acting as if it’s your own, even when that work is not original, but just collecting it all together. 
 

I never said the quotes were anti Mormon.  I said the site was. 

I remembered a word I hadn't thought of in a long time...

 

Pedantic /pə-dăn′tĭk/

 

adjective

1. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for academic knowledge and formal rules.
   "a pedantic attention to details."
2. Of or pertaining to a pedant; characteristic of, or resembling, a pedant; ostentatious of learning.
   "a pedantic writer; a pedantic description; a pedantical affectation."
3. Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes ok.

Sure. 

I agree. I am sure that it was a difficult transition especially for those who heard the 19th century leaders teach that plural marriage would never be done away with and that it was necessary for exaltation.  Then suddenly...poof...it wasn't.

 

Yes ok.  But can you understand why quite frankly, I find LDS leaders useless in trying to understand true doctrine.  We were taught that having prophets and apostles meant something. We emphasized, as a missionary, how unique Mormonism was because we had the truth and God directed his prophets just like Moses or Peter and so on.  We taught this to our investigators.  But really things are so fluid and things that actually were taught as doctrine and now relegated to speculation and such and really are not, or were not doctrine. Plural Marriage, the priesthood ban, becoming gods and creating worlds, the list goes on and on and on.

 

Honestly the church you believe in looks very little like the one I was taught to believe in.  But I do understand your view point.  But I was not taught that the LDS leaders saw things so darkly.  Benson's 14 fundamentals of a prophet was pretty much how we were taught to view the LDS leadership.

 

No actually as I explored that topic I understood that the change made was dramatic and could sym[athize how some groups rejected the abandonment of plural marriage.  I attended school with some kids from polygamist families and had one friend from such a family.

 

I was actually quite fine initially with modifying my thoughts on exaltation from the mid 90s to the 2010 or so.  But when I realized that the nothing is constant and LDS leaders get a lot wrong, well you know the rest of the story.

For the frequent and migrations and modifications on key doctrinal issues demonstrates to me the church most certainly is not any more true than any other man made religion or philosophy.  

I think one of the biggest differences between us is probably what we consider to be 'key doctrinal issues'.  Speaking only for myself, I can't think of anything that our leaders have taught as church doctrine*  that has any lasting impact on someone's salvation if they believed it along with the leaders but it was wrong.

 

*I can think of some things that leaders have taught personally that probably helped jerk members feel good in being a jerk, like stuff about the Catholics or black people or nonmembers, etc.

[Craig Speechly]

10 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Hope this helps...

https://scriptures.byu.edu

*Go to the 🔎 function*

Thank you

Edited April 22, 2024 by Craig Speechly

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I hardly think that the speakers of the sermons on this topic viewed their words as speculation. I think you and I were of the same era.  Did you think they were speculative when the leaders said the things they said about exaltation?  And were they speculative when such teachings were included in lesson manuals?

I am talking about the ones who originally spoke, not the ones who were sitting in the pews, heard it across the pulpit and therefore assumed it was revelation. 

My guess is some of the original speakers would if you sat down with them and explained how you saw them likely come up with the ideas (fill in the gaps in revelation by reason and wishes) recognize that is what they did, might take a bit of dissecting as in “where did this part come from” and “this one?” And the separation of those revealed ideas from the rest and then asking “okay, why did you add this to the revelation?” Etc. 

Others would assume that any stray thought was revelation or perhaps that anything that felt ‘right’, etc. 

I am looking forward to Ben Spackman’s dissertation on JFS and how certain fundamentalist ideas belonging to other faiths entered into LDS thought through him and became folklore ‘doctrine’ and even official if one defines doctrine as what is in our manuals (the OT institute manual*** proved to me we shouldn’t, lol, way back in the early 80s…I wish I had my own OT manual as mine was right before that one, would love to see how different it was, I did not get an antievolution talk from my professor that I remember) through him in what appears to me to be quite contrary to the process Joseph Smith started that has been refined over the years.   
 

***https://benspackman.com/2021/12/the-1980-old-testament-institute-manual-why-you-should-ignore-it-for-teaching-genesis/

Edited April 22, 2024 by Calm

[Craig Speechly]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am talking about the ones who originally spoke, not the ones who were sitting in the pews, heard it across the pulpit and therefore assumed it was revelation. 

My guess is some of the original speakers would if you sat down with them and explained how you saw them likely come up with the ideas (fill in the gaps in revelation by reason and wishes) recognize that is what they did, might take a bit of dissecting as in “where did this part come from” and “this one?” And the separation of those revealed ideas from the rest and then asking “okay, why did you add this to the revelation?” Etc. 

Others would assume that any stray thought was revelation or perhaps that anything that felt ‘right’, etc. 

I am looking forward to Ben Spackman’s dissertation on JFS and how certain fundamentalist ideas belonging to other faiths entered into LDS thought through him and became folklore ‘doctrine’ and even official if one defines doctrine as what is in our manuals (he proved we shouldn’t, lol, in my view) through him in what appears to me to be quite contrary to the process Joseph Smith started that has been refined over the years.   

Calm, Can you please fill in this gap for me...you seem to be quite knowledgeable. 

Quote

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" Spencer W. Kimball Conference Report, October 1968, pp. 127-131

and

Quote

"As our Father and God begat us, sons and daughters, so will we rise immortal, males and females, and beget children, and, in our turn, form and create worlds, and send forth our spirit children to inherit those worlds, the same as we were sent here, and thus will the works of God continue, and not only God himself, and His Son Jesus Christ have the power of endless lives",Discourse by Elder Orson Pratt, delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday, August 20, 1871.

 

Edited April 22, 2024 by Craig Speechly

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think if you go back in history you will find a plethora of LDS leaders teaching what they believed exaltation meant and it pretty much is similar to what you think is an anomaly of the 1960s and 1970s. 

But has it always been taught in the same way?  Has it always been couched in the language of planet ownership?  Of that, I'm not so sure.  Of that, I'd like to see a deeper dive into the literature about HOW the doctrine has been taught and presented and framed over the course of LDS history.  But knowing what I know about the zeitgeist of the 60s and 70s, it wouldn't surprise me if teachings during those decades had some framing that made the doctrine particularly loopy and spacey.  

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Excuse me?  Feeling testie today?

No more than usual.  I point out anytime I see a copy paste without a link.  I have a thing about not giving people credit for their work and taking it for oneself intentionally or not instead, even when it’s from a person I don’t like or I would prefer them not getting more attention.  Fair is fair though, if they did the work, give them the credit.

There are those I know well enough to know they just forgot the link the time I notice (I may just add the link for them), I do that myself from time to time.  Others appear to have a habit of doing it for whatever reason.  Some I expect don’t want to be dismissed as less than sincere because they used an antimormon site.   Some I haven’t made up my mind yet why they choose not to take the last easy step of providing a link and probably never will.  When I see one missing, I post the link at times and other times I ask for it, especially if they have the habit not including it.  Other times I will make a remark.

Sometimes the response provides useful info about the poster.  Sometimes not.

When it’s “oops, I forgot”, it gives a very different impression than a several post defense/justification/excuse.

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

46 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Thank you.  You've confirmed one of my points.  The church has moved away from this once cherished doctrine

No.  I've (maybe) confirmed that the Church has moved away from a conceptual framework that was prevalent in the 60s and 70s.  You have yet to prove that that the "planet ownership" framework was either doctrine or cherished.  

Again: I'm not claiming that planet ownership wasn't taught in the 30s, 40s, or 50s.  I just see no evidence in your post that such framing was prevalent prior to your collection of copy-pasted quotes.  I'd be open to seeing quotes from other eras in Church history that frame the doctrine of exaltation in the same way it was framed in the hippy-dippy, star-child era of the 60s and 70s.  

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

But has it always been taught in the same way?  Has it always been couched in the language of planet ownership?  Of that, I'm not so sure.  Of that, I'd like to see a deeper dive into the literature about HOW the doctrine has been taught and presented and framed over the course of LDS history.  But knowing what I know about the zeitgeist of the 60s and 70s, it wouldn't surprise me if teachings during those decades had some framing that made the doctrine particularly loopy and spacey.  

Anything is possible from the era that gave us My Turn on Earth and Saturday's Warrior.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

But has it always been taught in the same way?  Has it always been couched in the language of planet ownership?  Of that, I'm not so sure.  Of that, I'd like to see a deeper dive into the literature about HOW the doctrine has been taught and presented and framed over the course of LDS history.  But knowing what I know about the zeitgeist of the 60s and 70s, it wouldn't surprise me if teachings during those decades had some framing that made the doctrine particularly loopy and spacey.  

It does seem particularly suited to that era…my nonChurch friends were talking about becoming astronauts and going to the moon and exploring strange new worlds and at church we were talking about creating and owning them.  The few other sci-fi/fantasy enthusiasts I encountered during that time in the Church were like me, investing a lot of time in the details of what we would do when we got to that part…which was pretty much the same as what my nonmember friends who were sci fi/fantasy fans were creating in texts they were composing (I still have the beginnings of one my best friend, a Catholic, and I were putting together.  Never got past the world building to get on with the story.  )

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[Craig Speechly]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

No more than usual.  I point out anytime I see a copy paste without a link.  I have a thing about not giving people credit for their work and taking it for oneself instead, even when it’s from a person I don’t like or I would prefer them not getting more attention.  Fair is fair though, if they did the work, give them the credit.

There are those I know well enough to know they just forgot the link the time I notice (I may just add the link for them).  Others appear to have a habit of doing it for whatever reason.  Some I expect don’t want to be dismissed as less than sincere because they used an antimormon site.   Some I haven’t made up my mind yet and probably never will.  I post the link at times and other times I ask for it, especially if they have the habit not including it.  Other times I will make a remark.

Sometimes the response provides useful info about the poster.  Sometimes not.

smac97 , the king of Cut and Paste, has got to hate all of the needling you give him for his failure to provide any links to all of his cut and pastes, oh wait, you don't.  Never mind.

Edited April 22, 2024 by Craig Speechly

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

smac97 , the king of Cut and Paste, has got to hate all of the needling you give him for his failure to provide any links to all of his cut and pastes, oh wait, you don't.  Never mind.

Have you looked at his posts?  They are full of links.  No one loves a link like Smac does.  

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

So we do get to create and populate planets? 

There are extrapolated meanings given to the various scriptural references associated with exaltation.  

5 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Not according to Butler

A few thoughts:

First, here is the context of Prof. Butler's comments (adapted from the automated transcript on YouTube) :

• Interviewer: 12:01 But i' I've got to ask the question.  Is 12:04 it the desire of Latter-day Saints to 12:06 arrive at the Celestial Kingdom so that 12:08 they can progress eternally so that in 12:11 their Heavenly experience they're able 12:13 to be the god of their own planet 12:15 someday.  What are your thoughts on that?
• Butler: 12:17 I think that made for a great musical 12:20 on 12:23 Broadway.
• Interviewer: And define "great," meaning it 12:25 made a lot of money.
• Butler: {Laughing} Yeah, but I 12:30 think you're going too far.  {} Not you, but when 12:34 somebody says that, they're making 12:36 an implication based off what we talked 12:38 about in our last conversation that we 12:40 say God wants to help me to become like 12:43 He is.  Eternal life means the kind of 12:47 life that God lives.  And what does 12:50 that actually mean.  ... In 12:54 scripture we're taught that that part of 12:57 progression is included {} 13:00 {} {the} ability to have children. {} 13:04 {} But that's {} 13:06 as far as it goes it gets to that step 13:08 and then everybody will make an 13:10 implication based off of that as a 13:12 seminary and Institute teacher if anyone 13:14 ever like said, 'Man, one day when I 13:18 make a world I'm gonna like...' and I would 13:20 say 'Don't don't say weird things.   You're 13:23 gonna make someone make another musical.  13:25 {} 13:29 There have been past {} 13:31 writers and you know and who've just 13:34 explored the idea.  {} 13:37 {concluding that} it must mean this.  Could it be true what 13:40 those have said?  Sure.  Maybe.  {} But I 13:45 think {} we would go too far with 13:48 what we can say we know 13:50 scripturally or have evidence of 13:53 scripturally to say what does that 13:56 even what's that look like.

Second, the issue framed by the interviewer is mostly about popular expectations held in the hearts and minds of Latter-day Saints.  Having been a Latter-day Saint for most of my life, and having known many hundreds, even thousands, of other observant Latter-day Saints, I feel reasonably comfortable in stating that we do not, in the main, contemplate the blessings of eternity, of exaltation, etc., in terms of being "able to be the god of {our} own planet someday."  That's not to say that we don't subscribe to these things in the ultimate sense, but rather that our frame of reference is typically more focused on those aspects of the eternities for which we have more capacity to comprehend.  Eternal families and relationships.  I suppose something similar could be said about Heavenly Mother.  I think most of us believe, even strongly so, that She is there.  And the doctrines are there.  But we just don't know that much about Her, so we don't tend to elaborate and extrapolate much about Her.

Third, I think Prof. Butler is correct in characterizing the stated "desire" (regarding getting our own "planet," etc.) as "going too far" in terms of describing the perspective of most observant Latter-day Saints.  I think those of us to attend the temple, study the scriptures, etc., realize that Paul was quite correct when he said, in 1 Corinthians 2:9, that "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."  We only have small glimpses of a few pieces here and there.  And while such grand extrapolations have some place in our hearts and minds, I think most of us are more focused on day-to-day living, day-to-day faith, day-to-day repentance, day-to-day service, and so on.

Fourth, I also appreciate that Prof. Butler's comments were more attuned to not "trifl{ing} ... with sacred things" (D&C 6:12).  "Don't say weird things" on matters about which we know very little.  Do not make sacred matters points of casual or glib conversation.  Do not speak of them with irreverence or lightmindedness.

Fifth, Prof. Butler is, of course, not the final arbiter of the bounds of Latter-day Saint doctrine.  But even then, I don't see him "walking away from" doctrines regarding exaltation, as much as he is discouraging idle and uninformed speculation and commentary about it.  He is also quite correct in noting that we are not necessarily bound by every comment on the topic ever made by this or that Latter-day Saint leader.

Sixth, I think discussions of this sort are improved when 

• A) we examine our terminology to make sure we are on the same page (such as the definition of "exaltation");
• B) we rely principally on "primary sources" (the LDS scriptural canon and formal, repeated teachings from General Authorities, etc. - as Elder Neil A. Andersen put it: "The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.");
• C) we also look to reasonably reliable "secondary sources" (such as The Encyclopedia of Mormonism); 
• D) we focus on well-established, "core" doctrines of the Church, rather than esoteric topics; and
• E) we each assume the other is asking and answering questions in good faith (and behave in accordance with that assumption).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 22, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

smac97 , the king of Cut and Paste, has got to hate all of the needling you give him for his failure to provide any links to all of his cut and pastes, oh wait, you don't.  Never mind.

I am fairly fastidious in my posts.  When I quote something, I make it clear that I am quoting it.  I cite a reference, put it in quotes (or in a quotation box), provide a link, and often do all three of these things.

I includes quotes when they substantiate a point I am making.  I do not try to pass them off as my own writing or ideas.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

53 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

But has it always been taught in the same way? 

I think so but I would have to double check. 

53 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Has it always been couched in the language of planet ownership?  Of that, I'm not so sure. 

I don't think is has ever been  "ownership" but rather creator of worlds.

53 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

 

Of that, I'd like to see a deeper dive into the literature about HOW the doctrine has been taught and presented and framed over the course of LDS history.  But knowing what I know about the zeitgeist of the 60s and 70s, it wouldn't surprise me if teachings during those decades had some framing that made the doctrine particularly loopy and spacey.  

What is the zeitgeist of the 60s and 70s? I lived them. Are we similar in age?

[let’s roll]

My initial impression of the OP was that it was a bit of a straw man so wasn’t planning on spending much time in what has turned out to be a fast-growing thread, but ended up reading through it and enjoying the high level of civility in most of the back and forth.  Kudos.

My approach to this is straightforward.

*The doctrine entails the concept of joint heirs with Christ/inheriting all the Father has and the concept of joining Deity in their work.

*Attempting to explain to mortals the work of God requires using language and concepts familiar to mortals and such attempts  should be given and received with the understanding that as mortals we are able to comprehend and articulate only a portion of what is encompassed in Deity.  Thus leaders speaking of exalted sons and daughters organizing worlds for their spiritual offspring was, and is, a reasonable articulation of at least one role available to the exalted.

*That said, it may not be the only role as, as in mortality, we will do the will of the Father for eternity.  Thus while I don’t consider any of the quotes from Church leaders to be inaccurate, I understand, and concur with, the desire to make it known that God will decide and that explanations of one possible choice don’t purport to limit the depth or breadth of His choices.

Edited April 22, 2024 by let’s roll

[Teancum]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Anything is possible from the era that gave us My Turn on Earth and Saturday's Warrior.

Hey!  Thems fighten words. 😁😉

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

This is a fair and reasonable post.  But it does seem that the church does not really emphasize what exalted beings will be doing. At least not like many leaders used to.  Do you disagree with that? 

Growing up in the Church I don't recall much emphasis on "what exalted beings will be doing."  See, for example, this quote from Chapter 47 of the Gospel Principles manual:

Quote

Exaltation

• What is exaltation?

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, to live with our Heavenly Father in eternal families. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give His children (see D&C 14:7).

Blessings of Exaltation

• What are some blessings that will be given to those who are exalted?

Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).

2. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).

3. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.

4. They will receive a fulness of joy.

5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

I don't know the particulars of what this all means.  I do acknowledge that there seems to be some tension or inconsistency with the FAQ you quoted:

Quote

12. Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?

No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).

... and this excerpt from Chapter 36 of the Church's "Gospel Fundamentals" manual:

Quote

Where will we go to live after the Final Judgment?

We Will Each Go to the Place for Which We Have Been Prepared
Jesus taught that our Father in Heaven has prepared many places for us to live. Each of us will be assigned to one of four places, according to how faithful to Jesus Christ we were. We will go to the kingdom we have prepared for by the choices we have made. These four places are the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, the telestial kingdom, and outer darkness.

The Celestial Kingdom
This is the place where our Father in Heaven and Jesus live. It is a place where people will be happy, and it will be more beautiful than we can imagine. The people who will live in this kingdom will love our Father in Heaven and Jesus and will choose to obey Them. They must have repented of all their sins and must have accepted Jesus as their Savior.

They must have been baptized and received the gift of the Holy Ghost. They must have a testimony from the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Savior. To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation* or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They 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. 

The Church's FAQ: "Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will 'get their own planet'?  No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church."

The Church's 2002 "Gospel Fundamentals" manual: "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."

I think the "get their own planet" is not apt.  Not because it goes too far, but because it doesn't go far enough.  Note the preceding question in the FAQ:

Quote

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).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

I remembered a word I hadn't thought of in a long time...

 

Pedantic /pə-dăn′tĭk/

adjective

1. Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for academic knowledge and formal rules.
   "a pedantic attention to details."
2. Of or pertaining to a pedant; characteristic of, or resembling, a pedant; ostentatious of learning.
   "a pedantic writer; a pedantic description; a pedantical affectation."
3. Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.

Have you considered applying to be president of Harvard?  The outgoing prez apparently thought wholesale plagiarism was "pedantic" too.  

You should have cited MRM rather than copying and pasting its content and trying to pass it off as yours.  I think that's Calm's point, and it's a valid one. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Hey!  Thems fighten words. 😁😉

No disrespect intended!  I love both of those, and we used to "perform" certain songs from the soundtrack of each when I was on my mission during district meetings or in the car singing along.

The remake of Saturday's Warrior was sacrileges.  

[manol]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

... Brigham Young's Adam-God "doctrine." Which he definitely talked about, but we don't know what the heck he was saying or what he really meant, so we ignore it.

 

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

But has it always been taught in the same way?  Has it always been couched in the language of planet ownership?  Of that, I'm not so sure.  Of that, I'd like to see a deeper dive into the literature about HOW the doctrine has been taught and presented and framed over the course of LDS history.  

 

@Stormin' Mormon (LOVE your moniker!), I can't speak to this subject from a place of scholarship, but I once studied with a fundamentalist group who claimed to teach the authentic Brigham Young Adam-God theory.  The way they explained it ties in with the idea that "you get a planet if you're really good". 

Briefly, they believe Adam was an advanced "graduate" of a previous Earth, that he had progressed to the point where he got to create a planet, and the spirits here are his kids (and no I don't recall any specifics about "how" the kids were created).  In their teachings, Jesus is Adam's firstborn spirit son; in other words, they rank Adam higher than Jesus but lower than God (Adam's father).  But as part of Adam's on-the-job training, he and Eve are actually the ones our prayers get routed to, even if we don't actually phrase our prayers that way.  So by this paradigm, Adam & Eve are what our (presumably far distant) future could look like. 

Anyway when I saw @Stargazer mention the Adam-God "doctrine" upthread, it jogged my memory.  Assuming this group actually was teaching what Brigham taught, perhaps the "you get a planet if you're really good" concept is an aspect of the Adam-God theory that survived and persisted? 

I invite correction from anyone who knows this subject better than I do, and/or can speak to it from a place of scholarship.

Edited April 23, 2024 by manol

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Is the alternative spending eternity strumming on a harp while lounging on a cloud ? 

My caricature can beat up your caricature!!!

[The Nehor]

Maybe it is because the speculated model of eternal progression sounds like a model of universal divine imperialism.

“God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits” - Joseph Smith

Then you look around at what humanity is enduring and go: “Huh…….”

The WhiteCelestial Man’s Burden

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Calm, Can you please fill in this gap for me...you seem to be quite knowledgeable. 

Nope.  I want to see you do some actual work rather than just borrow others’.

I know it’s much more satisfying watching others do work than doing your own sometimes.  I think .i will see how satisfying it can be today.

There are lots of tools online to go digging in the original material, no need to depend on others.

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm