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

[Calm]

3 hours 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.

Please point to where he has not provided links.  I will call him out for any as well…but wherever I have checked his work because I am interested in reading more, seeing how accurate he is, etc, the links go to where they are supposed to.  I do criticize him, btw, when he hasn’t used the link to the original material and instead used one that paraphrased it when the link he used misrepresents the original material…did that a few days ago, but sometime a secondary source is appropriate if what is being researched is reactions to information.  And secondary sources are very useful for collecting several ideas together from different sources, of course.

And sometimes news articles are easier to understand than scientific studies if there’s lots of technical language, though one needs to be careful at all times to be sure paraphrases are accurate.

If you are assuming I never criticize smac for poor use of sources….lol, your research needs to improve

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

We always talked about as kids as what our planets were going to be like and the idea we could do anything to them…felt like ownership to me, at least from a child’s pov.  I am not sure how many believed the same way once they hit 25 and hopefully maturity.   

[Calm]

4 hours 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.

no link again?

 

Feel free to add another label….rulefollower

Board banned behaviours

Quote

Posting copyrighted material or passing off other’s materials as your own

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66539-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/#comments

Btw, If you think you are going to shame me for respecting the effort others make even when I wish they wouldn’t, you will be disappointed.

I find it interesting you are so willing to invest many posts in trying to justify breaking a board rule and yet as far as original research, all I have seen is you asking someone else to do it for you (if I understood the request).

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

We always talked about as kids as what our planets were going to be like and the idea we could do anything to them…felt like ownership to me, at least from a child’s pov.  I am not sure how many believed the same way once they hit 25 and hopefully maturity.   

When I married my wife (around the turn of the century), I used to joke with her that the first world we would create together would be one where we would cultivate velociraptors until they evolved into our world's dominant, sapient species.

The notion of planet ownership was mostly a punchline when I was growing up, not some "cherished doctrine" to be held sacred and aspire to. Notions of exaltation and joint heirship with Christ, on the other hand, still leave me in awe and fill me with a longing to "fight the good fight" and " finish the course."

 

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

When I married my wife (around the turn of the century), I used to joke with her that the first world we would create together would be one where we would cultivate velociraptors until they evolved into our world's dominant, sapient species.

The notion of planet ownership was mostly a punchline when I was growing up, not some "cherished doctrine" to be held sacred and aspire to. Notions of exaltation and joint heirship with Christ, on the other hand, still leave me in awe and fill me with a longing to "fight the good fight" and " finish the course."

 

By the time I as in my late teens it was a punchline for my friends as well, but I like to design and decorate and a whole world is much more fun than a house, so I have imagined quite a few over the years.

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think so but I would have to double check. 

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

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

I would say the zeitgeist of that age was “space, the final frontier” and “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”.  I was 12 in 1970, but from what I was being shown in school, hope and our future was out in space.

Almost forgot…2001:  A Space Odyssey was released in 1968.

Tolkien was also growing in popularity, fantasy was following in the footsteps of sci fi going mainstream from what I saw. (you could tell how mainstream a genre was by the quality of book covers and by the size of the library section devoted to them, how many were available in hardback, how many had to be shelved during a shift).  

You could find worlds without end at any library early 70s (I worked or volunteered at a few over the years, also bookstores, and hung out in them much, much more.)

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[manol]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Maybe I will get a world ... someday.  Right now, I'm focused more on getting 100 percent ministering.*   

*Yes, I know that ministering is more about saving and exalting souls than it is about statistics.

Good for you!  Your families are lucky to have you.  I get the impression that ministering is not all that high on a lot of people's priority lists. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

By the time I as in my late teens it was a punchline for my friends as well, but I like to design and decorate and a whole world is much more fun than a house, so I have imagined quite a few over the years.

The Lord promises to teach us in our own language, a promise that goes far beyond the mere use of English, Spanish, or Russian. Our "language" includes all the cultural baggage of symbols, shortcuts, and assumptions that go into communication. In that regard, I speak a different language than my parents did, and my kids speak a different language than I do.

Therefore, if the language the Lord had used to teach my parents the true doctrine of exaltation no longer resonates with my generation, then the Lord will change the language He uses to speak to me and my generation. He loves me no less than He loves my parents and will use whatever language He needs to in order for true doctrine to connect with me and take root in my heart and mind.

Planet ownership maybe wasn't a joke for my parent's generation, but it had become one for mine. So the language used to teach and frame the doctrine had to change in order for it to carry the same weight and power that it had for the previous generation. I would feel rather unloved if the Lord insisted on talking to me in the language of a 19th century farmer living on the edge of starvation in the Great Basin. 

I know I've made this point several times before, and I'll continue to make it for as long as I live. If I wanted a God who hasn't ever changed His way of teaching His children, I'd have no need for the Open Heavens of the Restoration.

Edited April 23, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Calm]

5 hours 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.

This post bewilders me, so I have got to ask…

Do you even look at Smac’s posts?  How could you make such an obvious error in thinking he doesn’t “provide any links to all his cut and pastes”?

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[Buckeye]

I’ve always seen two key inaccuracies in the notion that we get our own planet. First, it’s too small. The doctrine is we share everything God has, not just one lousy planet. Second - and most critically - we don’t “own” anything. Whatever material we’re entrusted with is a trust to benefit others, not ourselves. It’s a stewardship. 

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

That era also reversed the priesthood restriction.  I don't understand why stormin Mormon wants to discount two decades of prophet and apostles' teachings.  The teachings about creating planets were clearly spoken by SWK and others.  Now we teach something different.  And the change seems to be in response to outside perceptions. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

teachings about creating planets were clearly spoken by SWK and others

I am pretty sure Stormin’ has just discounted “planet ownership”, not creating planets in some fashion.

The whole planet ownership sounds a bit too space opera for me….”planet stewardship” fits better.

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

That era also reversed the priesthood restriction.  I don't understand why stormin Mormon wants to discount two decades of prophet and apostles' teachings.  The teachings about creating planets were clearly spoken by SWK and others.  Now we teach something different.  And the change seems to be in response to outside perceptions. 

First: Calm is correct. I am not dismissing the doctrines of exaltation and joint heirship with Christ and all that those things imply. I am discounting the loopy folk teachings about planet ownership.

Second: I am very comfortable with discounting two decades of folk teachings. After all, as restorationists, we routinely discount two millenia of folk teachings. 

Third: I think the pressure to move on from this folk teaching was internal, not external. It was members like me and Calm who took that teaching lightly that required Church leaders to find new framing for the very real doctrine of joint heirship with Christ. And as I explained in a previous post, a God who loves me is going to change up the ways He teaches his children from generation to generation to ensure that each of us receive His teaching with the same clarity and power that previous generations have.

Edited April 23, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

When I married my wife (around the turn of the century) ... 

Happy [pending?] 124th anniversary!  I admire couples who have been able to stick it out through thick and thin for that long!   

   

[Craig Speechly]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Where did I pass anything I quoted off as my own writing or ideas?

Thanks,

-Craig

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Where did I pass anything I quoted off as my own writing or ideas?

Thanks,

-Craig

In the OP.  It appears that you copied and pasted wholesale from MRM's website here: https://www.mrm.org/spirit-children-and-planets

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

Yes you do know I was kidding right?  But I did love both those production in my mission days. It was one of the few items of music we could listen to in my mission.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Yes you do know I was kidding right?  But I did love both those production in my mission days. It was one of the few items of music we could listen to in my mission.

I did know you were kidding but I wanted there to be no doubt of my love for those productions.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

By the time I as in my late teens it was a punchline for my friends as well, but I like to design and decorate and a whole world is much more fun than a house, so I have imagined quite a few over the years.

I would say the zeitgeist of that age was “space, the final frontier” and “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”.  I was 12 in 1970, but from what I was being shown in school, hope and our future was out in space.

Almost forgot…2001:  A Space Odyssey was released in 1968.

Tolkien was also growing in popularity, fantasy was following in the footsteps of sci fi going mainstream from what I saw. (you could tell how mainstream a genre was by the quality of book covers and by the size of the library section devoted to them, how many were available in hardback, how many had to be shelved during a shift).  

You could find worlds without end at any library early 70s (I worked or volunteered at a few over the years, also bookstores, and hung out in them much, much more.)

We must have enjoyed a similar genre. I enjoyed Star Trek.  My older brother was big into space, astronomy and NASA. I read Asimov, Tolkein and Ray Bradbury as well as other scifi works. And of course Star Wars was the greatest movie ever when it came out.

[Craig Speechly]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

no link again?

 

Feel free to add another label….rulefollower

Board banned behaviours

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66539-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/#comments

Btw, If you think you are going to shame me for respecting the effort others make even when I wish they wouldn’t, you will be disappointed.

I find it interesting you are so willing to invest many posts in trying to justify breaking a board rule and yet as far as original research, all I have seen is you asking someone else to do it for you (if I understood the request).

Calm you are being excessively pedantic on this message board.  There I said it.  I guess, I'm now banned. Screw it, Enjoy your Silo. What could have been a civil conversation on something I felt was an interesting observation has quickly become an exasperating attack for the sin of failing to list the source of a collection of quotes of LDS leaders I found via a simple google search.  

But you've won. You have successfully disrupted the flow of the conversation, turning what could have been a lively and engaging exchange of ideas into a tedious nitpicking session of meeting your exacting standards for proper posting. Instead of focusing on the substance of my OP, you've put me on the defense, attacked my character and forced me to get bogged down in trivial details, detracting from the overall enjoyment of this conversation. You've Won, I give up.

You've sent your message loud and clear and I've received it. This board is not a safe place to ask questions or present subject matter unless it meets your exacting standard.  Perhaps not you intent, but your stilted, painfully irritating need to dot every i and cross every t, creates a hostile atmosphere for many of the posters here and honestly it drive us away. It's exhausting. But perhaps that is you intent.  You prefer homogeneity instead of a diverse platform of ideas and opinions. You seem to get more pleasure from the policing of this board than from creating an environment where a civil discussion and exchange of ideas can take place.  You've created a board where people like myself feel hesitant to express ourselves freely for fear of being scrutinized and corrected at every turn over seemingly minuscule matters that are of over whelming importance to you. 

For what its worth here is my advice for you, your annoying exactitude stifles honest and genuine expression. By driving folks like myself away, mind you I don't hide behind a wall of anonymity like everyone else here, you are diminishing the value of this community as a space for meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding. You are shrinking the idea gene pool and you know what that does to the over all health of your close-knit community. In essence, while attention to accuracy and precision is important, your obsession with it just results in souring the experience for everyone involved and if not for everyone, it has for me. Everyone else is afraid to tell you the truth for fear of being banned, but you are an annoying influence on this board and frankly my dear I just don't give a damn.

 

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Growing up in the Church I don't recall much emphasis on "what exalted beings will be doing." 

Apparently our experiences were different. In the 1970s, when I was a teen and attending released time seminary at Jordan High in Sandy Utah we discussed becoming gods and creating worlds. I recall the first time I was aware of the King Follett who intrigued I was.  I read GAs and heard GC talks on the subject.  It was a common theme.

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

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:

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

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:

Thanks,

-Smac

As noted I never really thought os it as getting my own world specifically.  Rather a creator of worlds along with God the Father and Jesus Christ.  Adding to their glory, exaltation and everlasting burnings, becoming one with them through divine indwelling and so on.

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, manol said:

 

 

@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.

If one reads into early LDS thought about exaltation  and eternal life and eternal increase Brigham Adam God teachings fold well into the concept.

[MustardSeed]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Apparently our experiences were different. In the 1970s, when I was a teen and attending released time seminary at Jordan High in Sandy Utah we discussed becoming gods and creating worlds. I recall the first time I was aware of the King Follett who intrigued I was.  I read GAs and heard GC talks on the subject.  It was a common theme.

As noted I never really thought os it as getting my own world specifically.  Rather a creator of worlds along with God the Father and Jesus Christ.  Adding to their glory, exaltation and everlasting burnings, becoming one with them through divine indwelling and so on.

Same.  In fact, had I not read this thread I wouldn’t blink if somebody gave a talk on this today. I didn’t know that this wasn’t a thing for anybody? Isn’t that one of the basic criticisms people have for our church, the idea that we can become just like God? 

[Amulek]

10 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

I guess, I'm now banned.

No idea. I believe "petty, mean-spirited personal attack" is how I phrased it in my report though, so I guess we'll see.

 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

Calm you are being excessively pedantic on this message board.  There I said it.  I guess, I'm now banned. Screw it, Enjoy your Silo. What could have been a civil conversation on something I felt was an interesting observation has quickly become an exasperating attack for the sin of failing to list the source of a collection of quotes of LDS leaders I found via a simple google search.  

But you've won. You have successfully disrupted the flow of the conversation, turning what could have been a lively and engaging exchange of ideas into a tedious nitpicking session of meeting your exacting standards for proper posting. Instead of focusing on the substance of my OP, you've put me on the defense, attacked my character and forced me to get bogged down in trivial details, detracting from the overall enjoyment of this conversation. You've Won, I give up.

You've sent your message loud and clear and I've received it. This board is not a safe place to ask questions or present subject matter unless it meets your exacting standard.  Perhaps not you intent, but your stilted, painfully irritating need to dot every i and cross every t, creates a hostile atmosphere for many of the posters here and honestly it drive us away. It's exhausting. But perhaps that is you intent.  You prefer homogeneity instead of a diverse platform of ideas and opinions. You seem to get more pleasure from the policing of this board than from creating an environment where a civil discussion and exchange of ideas can take place.  You've created a board where people like myself feel hesitant to express ourselves freely for fear of being scrutinized and corrected at every turn over seemingly minuscule matters that are of over whelming importance to you. 

For what its worth here is my advice for you, your annoying exactitude stifles honest and genuine expression. By driving folks like myself away, mind you I don't hide behind a wall of anonymity like everyone else here, you are diminishing the value of this community as a space for meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding. You are shrinking the idea gene pool and you know what that does to the over all health of your close-knit community. In essence, while attention to accuracy and precision is important, your obsession with it just results in souring the experience for everyone involved and if not for everyone, it has for me. Everyone else is afraid to tell you the truth for fear of being banned, but you are an annoying influence on this board and frankly my dear I just don't give a damn.

 

All you had to do to keep the "lively and engaging exchange of ideas" going was to say something like "Oops, I did forget to cite that source.  Here it is" when it was first mentioned, and all of the "tedious nitpicking" that you have engaged in trying to deflect her point wouldn't have happened.  Heck, you could have just ignored her post completely and she likely would not have brought it up again, having said it already once.  

Calm is one of the most beloved posters on here for a reason.  And you repeatedly struggle to have respectful discussions on here for a reason as well (and it's not because Calm is obsessed with citation).

Edited April 23, 2024 by bluebell

[Craig Speechly]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In the OP.  It appears that you copied and pasted wholesale from MRM's website here: https://www.mrm.org/spirit-children-and-planets

Thanks,

-Smac

Each and every quote I posted in my OP is cited.

Thanks,

-Craig