- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
But it still stands as a contradiction to perceptions.
Agreed.
Good.
:clap: Ray, Shawn I guess I will have to disagree. To me you sound very much like the fair folks on this. You still are parsing words to say ‘technically if you read it just this way while standing on your left foot then what they wrote is exactly correct!’
The bottom line is ..most Mormons believe they will be gods over a planet filled with their spirit children. That is what comes to mind in most cases when we hear ‘will you get your own planet?’. Be interesting to see if we asked random members the question…I wonder how many will say ‘no..I will not get a planet where only I will dwell’
I have discussed this with multiple, everyone goes to king fillet and the belief they will be gods over their own planet….I also believe this is easily found in talks gone by….including the sunday school manual Shawn posted.
Quote:most Mormons believe they will be gods over a planet filled with their spirit children
I agree – phrased that way. Thanks for reframing it in those terms. I have heard too many people give different explanations, so I was reacting to those other explanations.
The problem with this is the apologists and spin doctors tie themselves up in knots. Mormonvoices is a website operated by FAIR with a journalist audience in mind.
http://mormonvoices.org/776/planets It says:
Quote:A search of LDS.org, which includes all of the church lesson manuals, all talks given in church conferences, and all magazines published by the LDS church shows that there are no instances—zero—where the caricature that Latter-day Saints will become “gods of their own planets” or “get their own planet” is taught.
Mormons, along with many other Christian denominations, believe in deification or theosis, based on the teaching that we can become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17).
Little is known, though much might be speculated, about the specific details of our potential under this doctrine. Reducing it to ruling a planet caricatures a profound and complex belief. The word “planet” makes Mormons seem more like sci-fi enthusiasts than devout Christians. Other Christians, who also believe in theosis or deification, are not ridiculed in this way. In 2001, Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles noted,
The real life we’re preparing for is eternal life. Secular knowledge has for us eternal significance. Our conviction is that God, our Heavenly Father, wants us to live the life that He does. We learn both the spiritual things and the secular things “so we may one day create worlds [and] people and govern them” (Henry B. Eyring, quoting Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, October 2002.)This isn’t just a quibble about semantics. Claims that Mormons hope for “their own planets” almost always aim to disrespect and marginalize, not to understand or clarify. The reality is that we seek eternal life, which we consider to be a life like that of our Father in Heaven. We consider our immediate task on Earth to learn to understand and obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than speculate on what life might be like if we achieve exaltation. Specifics about the creation of “worlds” and the ability to “govern them” upon achieving eternal life are not clarified in Latter-day Saint scripture. Attempts to portray these concepts as simply wanting to “get our own planet” are a mockery of Latter-day Saint beliefs.
This seems to be very much a quibble about semantics. They say on the one hand there are no references to becoming gods of their own planet… and then says we may one day create worlds and people and govern them. Which to me is very much a fair description of becoming gods of our own planet. Huh?!
Call a spade a spade! Instead they walk up to the spade, get a hacksaw out and cut chunks out of it, hold it in the air and say ‘look, a fork!’ To which everyone gets confused and says… but it’s now just a mangled spade…
Good points by all. mackay11, above everything else, I go back to my own feelings when I first heard Pres. Hinkcley’s statement – that he was saying: Quote:“I wouldn’t say that we teach it – (
obvious pause), I wouldn’t say that we emphasizeit.” It was a live interview, and he modified and clarified his first statement in a way that I see as completely accurate. “The Church” doesn’t emphasize the first part of the couplet, and it hasn’t been emphasized in my memory since he entered the FP, at least. The emphasis is, overwhelmingly, on the second part of the couplet. That gets taught actively, voluminously, constantly – in print, in multiple lessons, from the General Conference pulpit, etc. If I were to do an analysis and craft a comparison, I am absolutely certain that references to our potential to become like God outnumber references to God, the Father, having a mortal past by at least 90:1 – and that isn’t an eggageration. Thus, I am more than willing to give Pres. Hinckley a break on this one. Many critics’ reactions have been SO hyperbolic, and his statment has been blown SO out of proportion in SO many places, that my natural reaction is to step back, take a breath and look unemotionally at the actual words. I see a totally honest response – intially saying that he wouldn’t say we teach it and immediately correcting it to say that we don’t emphasize it.
I just can’t tie myself up in knots about an honest man clarifying in a live interview an initial statement that he probably realized wasn’t totally accurate – and, frankly, I think this is a perfect example of making someone an offender for a word.
AMEN to the above by Ray. On reflection, and given his immediate correction, I would agree that it’s fine to cut pres hinckley some slack. What really bugs me is the inaccurate statement by FAIR:
Here’s the question from Time and two answers:
Time asked: “Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are.”
President Hinckley said “I don’t know that we teach it. (I don’t know that we emphasise it…)”
The FAIR Article said: “The answer is correct; we do not teach in our classes today that God was a man just like us.”
The FAIR statement is their usual dodging and weaving and it does them a discredit.
But I’m much happier being angry with the guys at FAIR than at Pres Hinckley.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.