- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
johnh wrote:
I think most lags would be shocked a bit by the officials doctrine:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C14 Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?
Latter-day Saints believe that God wants 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). Through following Christ’s teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).
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. Mormons 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).
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Ah, the memories. I think I’ll always remember these answers (especially the “get a planet” answer) as the day I got angry with the church, a feeling that lasted about 3-4 months. There are so many statement from past leaders that contradict this ‘PR spin.’
These days I actually embrace these statements as evidence the church is actively trying to move towards being less ‘peculiar’ and more open to others.
mackay, serious question: How does that statement about becoming like God differ in ANY way from what you were taught all your life? Look carefully at what it actually says, and what the Biblical verses say, and the take away is, “Yes, we believe we can become like God, but it’s not a weird, anti-Christian belief – like the caricatures other use to describe it. It’s taught in the Bible, as shown in the following verses.”
Here is my interpretation of the statement, using strictly the words in it:
Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?Quote:Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him.
Not explained yet, but certainly says we can become like God.
Quote:But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith.
True statement. I’ve heard some extreme caricatures of our belief.
Quote: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).
1) We are children of God; 2) We are heirs of God (inheritors of what God has) and joint-heirs with Christ (joint-heirs inherit equally – so we can be like Christ in our inheritance; 3) we may be glorified together (receive the same glory, based on our status of joint-heirs.
Quote:Through following Christ’s teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).
We can be of the same divine nature as God, the Father, and God, the Son.
All of this says that we believe we can become gods in the same way Christ is a god – and, since Christ said he was one with his father, so we can be. Also, notice that the statement explicitly does NOT say that we cannot become gods.
It’s important to understand that this is a statement addressed to non-members, so it is trying to frame the concept in terms they can understand and not as a weird, heretical, non-Christian belief.It does a good job of that, imo, by shifting the terminology to words used within the rest of Christianity and quoting accepted verses that teach the same things without saying, “We can become gods.” Yes, it’s a PR statement, but, as a PR statement written to non-Mormons in an attempt to help them understand better what that particular belief means, it does a good job.
Ray, I’ll have to back to my notes from 6-9 months ago when I investigated this. I can say with certainty that there are some pretty categorical statements from past leaders about becoming gods and creating/ruling over worlds (getting a planet). Not just obscure statements in some letter. Printed in manuals and lesson material. Some are still on lds.org.
Together they form a strong enough picture that means the ‘spin statement’ is a contradiction of what previous leaders have said.
Yes, the statement about getting our own planets is different than past leaders have taught – but when was the last time a top leader preached that in General Conference? I don’t know, so that’s a serious question – but I know I haven’t heard it (or, at least, don’t remember hearing it) in my lifetime. There are LOTS of things that past leaders have taught (both modern LDS leaders and Biblical leaders) that we no longer teach. If modern leaders can’t be prophets because we don’t believe something(s) they taught/teach, there have been no prophets, by that definition, in the history of the world. Thus, I prefer to define a prophet as someone who speaks the word of God (but not necessarily always) – ironically, in accordance with our Bible Dictionary definition that labels ALL of us as potential prophets.
Ray..the planet one is a great way to shock members. It is a fundamental Mormon belief. It is not talked about much in conference these days…buy everyone knows it is how things will be. I have brought it up twice in church…once in elders quorum and everyone gets quiet and some have actually replied “they have to say that because non members don’t understand”
We all KNOW that we will have our own earth and be god for that earth…that was the nature of the king follett speech…heck…battlestar galactica even knew it.
This is a big change and this, I think undermines what most lds people believe is going to happen when we become like god.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
johnh wrote:Ray..the planet one is a great way to shock members. It is a fundamental Mormon belief. It is not talked about much in conference these days…buy everyone knows it is how things will be.
I have brought it up twice in church…once in elders quorum and everyone gets quiet and some have actually replied “they have to say that because non members don’t understand”
We all KNOW that we will have our own earth and be god for that earth…that was the nature of the king follett speech…heck…battlestar galactica even knew it.
This is a big change and this, I think undermines what most lds people believe is going to happen when we become like god.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
I agree with John, this remains a fundamental belief among church members of why we’re here and where we’re going.
Sitting through the recent ‘as man is’ lesson made it very, very clear that this is an active belief. It’s not even an obscure one. Most everyone believes it.
Personally the concept that we can become like God is the reason I choose to stay LDS. I think the “we each get our own planet” idea is simplified to the point of sounding silly, but the concept is valid to me. The idea of eternal progression resonates with me a lot more than the idea of spending eternity just relaxing. It seems to make sense in a way that other versions of heaven don’t. This one teaching–that my wife and I will be eternal companions and spend eternity learning and growing and hopefully having children however gods do such a thing. To me the everyone gets a planet idea is too limiting, honestly. I think the three degrees of glory concept allows for those who wish to not progress. My view is that the limit on our progression is set by our own desires. If we don’t want to progress, God wouldn’t make us. One person’s heaven isn’t really the same as another’s. I really think we’ll all find happiness beyond what there is in this life no matter where we end up in the next.
Anyways, there’s been a lot of anti-King Follet and “as God is man may become” on here lately. I just wanted to say that many of the ideas expressed in those things are near the core of what Mormonism is to me and without those concepts I wouldn’t find much in the theology to make me want to stay LDS.
Wuwei, I completely agree and that’s why I find the “own planet” and “can we become like God” responses to be changes in doctrine. You can weigh it down in technicalities but what is posted on the website is different than what has been taught in most LDS circles for 150 years. Lesson4 of the Lorenzo snow manual even quotes “as man is god once was, as God is man may become”. OK…so technically you could start saying “this means we can become perfect “even as father in heaven is perfect”….but I guarantee you that I will get more arguments in gospel doctrine by saying that is all it means than I would getif I were to stand and give an entire talk about “What do we need to do to prepare to be Gods of our own spirit children on their own world” in any sacrament meeting in the US or Polynesian Islands (not sure about what has been the culture outside those areas).
The 3 things that sent me tumbling into faith crisis were the announcement about blacks and the priesthood just being an “oops” (so much for God not letting a prophet lead his people astray), The change in the “planet” doctrine (yeah…I know it is simplified to silliness stated like that), and then stumbling across the whole Book of Abraham controversy. I got all 3 of those inside of a month or so. I was actually looking for the statement that I cold drink my diet pepsi guilt free (wow…only 9 months ago and I look back and see this naïve little kid worried about the dumbest thing) and found the planet doctrine and planet doctrine as well. I am still trying to figure out what eternity means to me now….leaning a bit towards re-incarnation these days with a bit of LDS spin I think (since I have not studied Hinduism or Buddhism)
To be clear, I am not rejecting the idea that we might get our own planets. I just don’t accept it fully, either. Even our Articles of Faith say that the Earth will be renewed and receive its paradisical glory – and there are plenty of members who have believed that means this Earth will function as the Celestial Kingdom for the people who lived here in mortality. This actually fits better the idea that “the same sociality” will exist in the next life that exists here, since there really isn’t any “sociality” if everyone is off on their own planets doing their own thing. My point is two-fold:
1) There has been enough disagreement over the decades about exactly where we will be living in the next life that it is completely accurate to say that getting our own planets is not core Mormon doctrine.
2) The statement on the site about our becoming gods doesn’t say we won’t become gods; rather, it frames that belief in terms that are familiar to Christians and tries to explain in using only Biblical references, specifically so it won’t sound like a kooky, non-Christian doctrine. Frankly, that is the exact same way I try to explain it to my non-Mormon friends when they ask, although I use more Biblical references than those in the statement. There’s no way I’m relying on the Book of Mormon (since they don’t accept it and it’s not taught there) or the D&C and PofGP (since they don’t accept them). I’m sticking to the Bible, where it’s taught as one of the central themes.
I can’t find fault with a statement to non-members that tries to frame an answer in terms they might understand – especially one that never says that we can’t become gods. For what it is, and only what it is, I really like it – since it takes the same approach I use when dealing with that same audience. Also, just to say it, I’ve been extremely successful taking that approach, when others who have taken the more Mormon-centric approach have failed miserably. I figure if God speaks to us in our own language, we ought to try to do the same with others – and I think this particular statement tries to do that.
Gospel Fundamentals[/url] [/size] Quote:PrefaceThis book will help you learn and teach the basic principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Knowing these principles will help you understand the purpose of life and how to be truly happy. The principles explained in this book are true. As you study these principles and ponder and pray about them, you will come to know for yourself, and the Holy Ghost will bear witness to you, that they are true.
LINK
Quote:The Celestial KingdomThis 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. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted. LINK
Interesting. I am thinking the mormonnewsroom site is inaccurate.Thanks Shawn. So the news room says we will and won’t get our own planets. Wonder who writes the info there.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Quote:They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on,
That doesn’t say every couple will be living on their own planets. It says we will create worlds on which our spirit children can live, and that easily could mean during their mortal lives. That is the purest interpretation of that statement.
I’m not saying this just because I don’t believe we will all have individual planets – or just because that belief makes absolutely no sense to me. I’m analyzing only the words that are in each citation and sticking only to what they actually say.
I like Ray’s style of parsing text. He’s onto something. Looking at this issue closer, being “able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on” is NOT the same as “getting our own planet.” The correct answer to the question “Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will ‘get their own planet’?” is NO. When people get to the other side, they don’t GET a planet as a trophy. However, exalted beings are able to CREATE worlds. But what if the newsroom site is wrong? Well, the Gospel has still been restored, the priesthood is still on the earth, Jesus is still my Savior, and things will be okay.
Old-Timer wrote:Just for instruction and clarification, Pres. Hinckley was addressing ONLY the idea that God, the Father, once was a mortal before becoming GOD in his interview. That is the only part of the couplet that was mentioned and about which he was asked – not that we can become like God.
Also, as I’ve written previously, “I don’t know that . . .” was a very common way in his generation to say politely, “I wouldn’t say that . . .” I heard it hundreds of times growing up from my father and others of his and my grandparents’ generations.
Good points here. Further, Pres. Hinckley did NOT say God was never like man. He said:
Quote:I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.
That’s like saying, “I wouldn’t say that we teach it.” Something can be true without actively being taught. And then it seems that he clarifies what he meant – “I wouldn’t say that weemphasizeit.” His words once concerned me, but not anymore. johnh wrote:Thanks Shawn. So the news room says we will and won’t get our own planets.
Wonder who writes the info there.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2
Johnh, Shawn’s quote was from an old sunday school manual, not newsroom.
But it still stands as a contradiction to perceptions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.