- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Don’t see what’s so wrong with getting a planet. Alright, it sounds odd, but it’s kind of cool at the same time. This is one of our USPs (unique selling points)… otherwise we might as well be Methodist. SamBee wrote:Don’t see what’s so wrong with getting a planet. Alright, it sounds odd, but it’s kind of cool at the same time. This is one of our USPs (unique selling points)… otherwise we might as well be Methodist.
I agree with you and, as mentioned, was frustrated to find this dumbing down approach. But sometimes it’s in our perceptions of being elite that we can become superior in our tone with others.
Ditto on the thinking it was cool…sort bummed out now that i know it isn’t doctrine…..it turns out we were the ones who were believing something crazy My wife and I, way back when we were teenagers dating, would watch sunsets and talk about who would get to do what when we were making planets…
she was going to be in charge of sunsets
By the way, I intend to populate a planet, not conquer an already populated one. No imperialism for me please! 😆 😆 SamBee wrote:Don’t see what’s so wrong with getting a planet. Alright, it sounds odd, but it’s kind of cool at the same time. This is one of our USPs (unique selling points)… otherwise we might as well be Methodist.
I’ve always had a problem with the Mormon concept of everyone being a King and Priest, etc., and getting to rule. What happens when everyone is king? Who would you rule and why? Is everyone destined to rule a planet (or whatever) who is faithful in the church? What about those who don’t want to – or would be quite bad at it for some reason. Would they just be “taken care of?” What if I don’t want to rule (I know – I’m an apostate and won’t have to worry about that anyway!
😆 ) Does everyone with delusions of grandeur naturally gravitate towards Mormonism because, hey — we’re handing out PLANETS to those who get in on the ground floor! (Talk about the greatest multi-level marketing scheme in history!!!)I always thought the king part was weird since the scriptures are pretty down on the whole king thing Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
johnh wrote:Ditto on the thinking it was cool…sort bummed out now that i know it isn’t doctrine…..it turns out we were the ones who were believing something crazy
My wife and I, way back when we were teenagers dating, would watch sunsets and talk about who would get to do what when we were making planets…
she was going to be in charge of sunsets
Don’t give up hope yet. Just because it’s not canonised and the Mormon news room plays it down, doesn’t mean that it’s not part of Mormon theology. There are several clear examples of ‘ruler of worlds’ and ‘creators of worlds’ in LDS teachings – it’s just not canonised.
What I learn from this is there are ‘doctrines’ that are fundamental (Christ’s atonement), ‘doctrines’ that are secondary (Adamondiamon sp??!) and then a whole swathe of teachings, ponderings and well-intended speculation. The ‘creator of worlds’ mainly falls into the third category. There is plenty of authoritative writing about it, but we’ve not made it official. In that sense, we can give Hinkley the benefit of the doubt when he avoids speculating about it. The fact that some aspects of LDS teachings aren’t absolute, but ‘optional’ is, for me, a positive.
I’ll dig out some notes on planets as I wrote quite a lot about it a few months back when it was really bothering me.
I also think some of the speculation/personal opinion was just plain wrong and ill-informed. Thankfully most of it avoided being canonised.
wjclerk wrote:SamBee wrote:Don’t see what’s so wrong with getting a planet. Alright, it sounds odd, but it’s kind of cool at the same time. This is one of our USPs (unique selling points)… otherwise we might as well be Methodist.
I’ve always had a problem with the Mormon concept of everyone being a King and Priest, etc., and getting to rule. What happens when everyone is king? Who would you rule and why? Is everyone destined to rule a planet (or whatever) who is faithful in the church? What about those who don’t want to – or would be quite bad at it for some reason. Would they just be “taken care of?” What if I don’t want to rule (I know – I’m an apostate and won’t have to worry about that anyway!
😆 ) Does everyone with delusions of grandeur naturally gravitate towards Mormonism because, hey — we’re handing out PLANETS to those who get in on the ground floor! (Talk about the greatest multi-level marketing scheme in history!!!)I always saw the cycle repeating. This is kind of how I see it. And yes, there is a touch of the pyramid scheme, perhaps, but I think it is better than that…
THIS IS PURELY MY OPINION!!!
Quote:What happens when everyone is king?
You rule justly, IMHO, or you should have reached a stage where you can.
I suspect if you start being unjust, then you get stripped of the right to rule.
Quote:Who would you rule and why?
Your spiritual offspring, much like us now.
Somehow I doubt that the normal rules of pregnancy etc would apply with that, which is probably a relief to the women here.
Quote:Is everyone destined to rule a planet (or whatever) who is faithful in the church?
I don’t think everyone is. But I think that you’ll probably find only the most evil people are excluded from this. For the rest, they have a long, long time to progress towards this.
Quote:What about those who don’t want to – or would be quite bad at it for some reason.
They probably have a good place somewhere. I don’t think planets is all that there are out there. Other things would need to be taken care of.
Quote:Does everyone with delusions of grandeur naturally gravitate towards Mormonism because, hey — we’re handing out PLANETS to those who get in on the ground floor!
I’ve probably got my own delusions of grandeur, but no, this is not the main reason I like some aspects of the church. I don’t think most converts are even aware of this.
But as I say, there are certain unusual-but-cool aspects of our church, and we shouldn’t shy away from them.
Fwiw, righteous kingship is the ideal articulated in the part of the Book of Mormon that occurs in the same time frame as the Old Testament, Jesus is called the “King of Kings”, and we speak all the time about the kingdom of God. I see the Restoration of “All” Things differently than most, probably because I’m a history teacher and philosopher by nature. I see our church history as more of a re-enactment of world history, in a much more condensed time period. There are really interesting, fascinating, enlightening things that arise from that view, and I think we have been moving into the “New Testament” portion of our history for the last few decades.
Maybe I will write a full post about that at some point, but, for the purposes of this thread, I just will say that the talk in question and lots of other talks that have been given over the last few years are part of that movement, imo.
Old-Timer wrote:…I think we have been moving into the “New Testament” portion of our history for the last few decades.
Uhoh… but after the New Testament came the Nicene Creed and then the warring popes etc. Not looking forward to that phase
But being more serious – I agree with your observation of there being a movement to focus on the simple good news. The Gen Conf talks are sometimes criticised for not being ‘deeper’ and more ‘revealatory’ – but it’s precisely this that I appreciate at the moment. I don’t want our prophet to be coming up with some new doctrine/commandment/deep space-time-continuum philosophy. Stories about service and compassion are enough for me at the moment.
And airplane analogies. Lots of airplane analogies.
Quote:after the New Testament came the Nicene Creed
Great document that is pretty much pure Mormon doctrine.
Just saying.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.