Uncomfortable Doctrine

[Elphaba]

While I often disagree with Hemi, there are also times when he is a refreshing breath of air to me.

This is because he will insist teachings, such as God was once a man who progressed to becoming a God, and that we can do the same, really was taught by the Church.

Then others come into threads like this one, saying they were never taught this. Yet Hemi talks about it as if it is a given. And where I grew up in the Church, it was a given as well.

There are three talking points I distinctly remember from my days in the Church:

1. Christ was the cornerstone of the Church.

2. Charity is not true charity unless it is given anonymously.

3. God was once a man like us, and he had progressed far enough to become our God.

4. As worthy men and women, we could progress to become a god, just like Heavenly Father, including having our own world to populate. (The idea was by the time we had become gods, Heavenly Father would still have been progressing, and thus would advise us, but that we had progressed enough we didn’t need his help as much anymore.)

Nos. 1 and 3 were practically drilled into me, and I know we spoke of them often. And to those who say I wasn’t taught these beliefs, this is not true. I was.

I am NOT saying these concepts are doctrine. From what I’ve gleaned on the apologetics sites, they are not doctrine because they are not contained in the canon.

But to those who say these beliefs were never taught, I know I was taught them. In fact, when I told my mother of President Hinckley’s comments “I don’t know that we teach it,“ she did not believe me. She said that if he had really said that, the Church would have been in an uproar.

There are other non-doctrinal items I was also taught, such as God literally had relations with Mary. I KNOW this came straight out of “Mormon Doctrine,” as I remember seeing the book in the instructor’s hands. And frankly, my shock at the words he was saying was significant. But I also know it was not taught often; rather, I suspect the instructor was excited about receiving his MD, and was gleaning his lesson plan from the book. I've also wondered if he was instructed not to teach from it again, because there were no more shocks like that one. Of course, I'll never know for sure.

So, how could it be that the Garden Grover 5th ward, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, emphatically taught that God had once been a man, and that we could become Gods, yet there are so many people, including some here, who say they were never taught these things.

And for those who doubt me, I promise you this is what I was taught as a young child/woman in Church. I am not going to pretend otherwise.

Yet so many others, here on the board, were never taught these beliefs. How is this possible?

Elphaba

Edited September 3, 2008 by Elphaba

[candyprpl]

To All,

In regards to the last several posts and directly because It was and never is my intention to " force people in an uncomfortable spot " I will simply offer a few statements as thanks for the obviously very challenging topics.

1. I love you all :)

2. I am probably more confused now than I was yesterday regarding LDS prophets , the LDS doctrine and indeed the LDS " official teachings ".

3. I will intentionaly " back off " and maybe play the question game for a while :)

4. :confused::confused:

God bless and thanks for all you have shared.

Carl

:lol:You're the greatest. I'll agree with 1 and 2 as well and I'm LDS:lol:

[bcguy]

What ever happened to the discussion of the 10 commandments? Commandment #2 "There shall be no other gods before me" It is also in

king James version Exodus 20 American King James Version

And God spoke all these words, saying,

2 I am the LORD your God, which have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 You shall have no other gods before me.

4 You shall not make to you any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And showing mercy to thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain.

So when the church teaches we will be gods.. I almost left the church in the begining.

Hate to say it. I grew up with the bible seen the 10 commandments and have a firmer belief in it then the BOM.

[HiJolly]

While I often disagree with Hemi, there are also times when he is a refreshing breath of air to me.

This is because he will insist teachings, such as God was once a man who progressed to becoming a God, and that we can do the same, really was taught by the Church.

Taught by the Church, or taught by members of the Church? If someone is reading from Mormon Doctrine, that's not taught by the Church. That's some cowboy member being -- well, a cowboy. (not intending to insult cowboys)

Then others come into threads like this one, saying they were never taught this. Yet Hemi talks about it as if it is a given. And where I grew up in the Church, it was a given as well.

Yup. Me too.

There are three talking points I distinctly remember from my days in the Church:

1. Christ was the cornerstone of the Church.

2. Charity is not true charity unless it is given anonymously.

3. God was once a man like us, and he had progressed far enough to become our God.

4. As worthy men and women, we could progress to become a god, just like Heavenly Father, including having our own world to populate. (The idea was by the time we had become gods, Heavenly Father would still have been progressing, and thus would advise us, but that we had progressed enough we didn’t need his help as much anymore.)

I agree, except the 'world' business. I was taught that God handled the entire universe. Maybe that was an Arizona thing.

...And for those who doubt me, I promise you this is what I was taught as a young child/woman in Church. I am not going to pretend otherwise.

Yet so many others, here on the board, were never taught these beliefs. How is this possible?

Elphaba

Aw, Elph, it was before Correlation, ya know? I totally relate to what you're saying, though. It WAS taught in just this way back in the 60's and 70's. Along with not reading non-mormon books and sources, which I've totally violated! Hari Krishna! Hari Hari! Hari Rama!

HiJolly

[justamere10]

What ever happened to the discussion of the 10 commandments? Commandment #2 "There shall be no other gods before me" It is also in

king James version Exodus 20 American King James Version

And God spoke all these words, saying,

2 I am the LORD your God, which have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 You shall have no other gods before me.

4 You shall not make to you any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And showing mercy to thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

7 You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain.

So when the church teaches we will be gods.. I almost left the church in the begining.

Hate to say it. I grew up with the bible seen the 10 commandments and have a firmer belief in it then the BOM.

How about something like "Ye shall have no other natural Father before me." Meaning I and only I am your natural Parent, so don't forget it and don't be thinking you can adopt yourself to another man and he will take my place, he never can, I am your one and only natural Heavenly Parent.

[Misshalfway]

I am not saying we never taught it. I am saying we don't teach the speculative aspects of it as doctrine and that the lines where doctrine end and speculation begins are rather fuzzy.

Is there anyone on the planet who understands what I have been trying to say?

Perhaps I will go to the questions only thread too. They understand me there. :)

[HiJolly]

I am not saying we never taught it. I am saying we don't teach the speculative aspects of it as doctrine and that the lines where doctrine end and speculation begins are rather fuzzy.

Is there anyone on the planet who understands what I have been trying to say?

Perhaps I will go to the questions only thread too. They understand me there. :)

I understand, Miss. You're awesome.

HiJolly

[MobyMule]

I would have to agree if we want to limit our own edification then it would be hard to comprehend anything that is given.

Very true. We have to be open to continuing truth and the promptings of the Spirit. We must have a desire to continue to learn of God and his ways.

[justamere10]

...

There are other non-doctrinal items I was also taught, such as God literally had relations with Mary. I KNOW this came straight out of “Mormon Doctrine,” as I remember seeing the book in the instructor’s hands. And frankly, my shock at the words he was saying was significant. But I also know it was not taught often; rather, I suspect the instructor was excited about receiving his MD, and was gleaning his lesson plan from the book. I've also wondered if he was instructed not to teach from it again, because there were no more shocks like that one. Of course, I'll never know for sure.

So, how could it be that the Garden Grover 5th ward, in the ‘60s and ‘70s, emphatically taught that God had once been a man, and that we could become Gods, yet there are so many people, including some here, who say they were never taught these things.

And for those who doubt me, I promise you this is what I was taught as a young child/woman in Church. I am not going to pretend otherwise.

Yet so many others, here on the board, were never taught these beliefs. How is this possible?

Elphaba

Many members of the LDS Church continue to seek learning and understanding from books that are not in our canon. That may or may not be a good thing to do, depending possibly on the degree to which we give heed to the disclaimer that such books are not official LDS doctrine and that the author/s speaks for him/herself, and to the degree that doing so takes away from time we could have spent studying our canonized revelations directly.

A case in point is the well-known book (several versions) "Mormon Doctrine" by Elder Bruce R. McConkie formerly of the Twelve (now deceased) which I think is the book you are referring to.

According to the authors of a new book titled "David O. McKay and the Rise and Fall of Modern Mormonism" brother McConkie's book was never authorized by the First Presidency because they knew such a book written by a General Authority would indeed be considered authorititive even though it would contain on many topics only the opinions and understandings of the author, rather than revelation on the matter from the Lord.

Apparently two members of the First Presidency reviewed the book "Mormon Doctrine" and found more than a thousand incidences of exactly the above where an opinion was rendered but there was nothing revealed by the Lord on the matter. (E.g. evolution.)

Elder McConkie was a spiritual giant, there is no doubt about that, and I will always remember his final testimony in General Conference. But his book "Mormon Doctrine" is NOT in our canon and as such we will not be held accountable by God for what is written in it.

[Moksha]

4. As worthy men and women, we could progress to become a god, just like Heavenly Father, including having our own world to populate.

Elphaba

And the more obedient we were, the larger the planet we would have and the larger the planet, the more moons it would have.

Hence the name Mormon. Mormon = More Moons.

[Hemidakota]

MORMON = Mor Mon[y]

[richlittell]

Sorry for the confusion. This is what I was responding to. No one here should suggest that JS is the "rock". So I guess I should have responded to richlittell. Oops.

LDS teaches that the "rock" is revelation -- no matter who it is receiving it. Of course in context of the scripture, it is speaking of the leaders of the Church. And we feel a leader cannot lead the Church if they don't have that 'rock'.

HiJolly

Joseph smith is not "the rock?" I thought he said of himself that he was a "rolling stone."

Really though, I was only making a comparison between Joseph and Peter, not declaring any sort of doctrine that "the rock" was Joseph Smith and not revelation.

[richlittell]

Hello richlittell,

I would stand by my original contribution in this matter, If there was a need to restore ( 1600 years or so down the road ) then it seems rather obvious IMHO that Jesus' words that HIS CHURCH would never fall would lead me to the only conclusion there is,

...

because the very creator of HIS CHURCH, JESUS, BUILT IT, GAVE THE AUTHORITY AND GRACE TO SUSTAIN IT AND PROMISED US ALL IT WOULD NEVER FALL AND WOULD STAND UNTIL THE VERY END.

You missed my whole point. You are speaking from a view based on scriptural interpretation, which is precisely why I said (my point):

was there an apostasy somewhere in these two thousand years since the time of Christ. I would say that no one can really prove this philosophically, scripturally or historically -- I mean neither the LDS position nor the Catholic church's position, although both sides, of course, would say their is scriptural and historical evidence to strengthen their conclusion.

Of course, from our perspective, we know these things by revelation, but that argument won't hold for people who do not believe in revelation.

Edited September 3, 2008 by richlittell

[Elphaba]

Taught by the Church, or taught by members of the Church?

Hi Hi,

If it were any belief other than this one, I would agree with you. But in this case, the belief that God was once a man, and man could become a God (hereafter called “belief”), was an integral part of innumerable talks I heard at every pulpit, fireside, Seminary, Institute and Gospel Doctrine class. I even remember a roadshow that portrayed the belief, alongside the pioeers.

If someone is reading from Mormon Doctrine, that's not taught by the Church. That's some cowboy member being -- well, a cowboy. (not intending to insult cowboys)

I think I was not clear about this. It was only a one-time thing with this particular instructor, where he used information from the book to teach how Mary became pregnant by relations with God. But I don’t recall seeing the book in any other lessons.

In fact, I share your belief about the book. That’s why I have no problem telling whomever that the Mary/God claim was never an official doctrine of the Church, though MD was not the only reference to this.

However, there is a distinct difference between his one class, and my entire Church experience with the belief.

Yup. Me too.

Oh good, so I’m not crazy.

I agree, except the 'world' business. I was taught that God handled the entire universe. Maybe that was an Arizona thing.

I honestly don’t know, though I doubt it was just an Arizona thing. I would concede I am probably wrong on part of that point. However, that should not be used to dismiss what I do remember. (You don’t do this.)

I know what I was taught at the time.

Aw, Elph, it was before Correlation, ya know? I totally relate to what you're saying, though. It WAS taught in just this way back in the 60's and 70's. Along with not reading non-mormon books and sources, which I've totally violated!

Okay, thank you. I feel better now, as I know I’m not having flashbacks of someone else’s life.

Hari Krishna! Hari Hari! Hari Rama!

Airports are just not the same anymore without them, are they?

Thanks Hi!

Elphaba

[Vanhin]

If Joseph said it, consider it doctrine. Anyone else who wants to say different, I would caution them to seek out the Holy Ghost for a confirmation then deny what was given by him.

Hey Hemidakota,

I respectfully disagree. If Joseph Smith said something that is binding doctrine upon members of the Church, then we would find the doctrine in our current edition of the Standard Works. Not everything that is said by Joseph Smith or any other prophet is to be considered doctrine of this Church. I guess from time to time we have to repost this from the Church's Newsroom. Ceeboo, I think you should read this too, so you can be less confused by the various points of view on these forums.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine. (Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom)

Though that statement was prepared mainly for public commentators, I think it's important for members to understand as well. It's really quite simple to me. If it is the doctrine of this Church, then show me from the scriptures, and then I am certain that the Holy Ghost will confirm it.

There are doctrine and principles that Joseph could not give to the Saints due to their spiritual immaturity. This comes by personal revelation for your own spiritual edification.

If there are such principles, that have not been given to the Saints by the process God has established, yet someone thinks they have received them and that they are authorized to teach them in such a public manner, as these forums, then I would be concerned about that.

I would caution against anyone thinking that they have received something by way of revelation that goes beyond what is taught by the Church as doctrine. The Preach My Gospel manual cautions that we should compare the inspiration that we receive with the scriptures and teachings of the living prophets. We must also be certain that our feelings are consistent with our calling or assignment. (http://broadcast.lds.org/Missionary/PreachMyGospel___11_04_RecognizeTheSpirit__36617_eng_011.pdf)

President Boyd K. Packer counseled:

“I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently. And when they do, they are generally for our own edification, instruction, or correction. Unless we are called by proper authority to do so, they do not position us to counsel or to correct others.

I have come to believe also that it is not wise to continually talk of unusual spiritual experiences. They are to be guarded with care and shared only when the Spirit itself prompts you to use them to the blessing of others” (Ensign, Jan. 1983, 53).

All of that said, I don't believe there were many things that Joseph Smith taught that could not be backed up by scripture. It is the various interpretations and specualtions of his teachings, that go beyond what we have received as doctrine, that I think should concern us.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Elphaba]

I am not saying we never taught it. I am saying we don't teach the speculative aspects of it as doctrine and that the lines where doctrine end and speculation begins are rather fuzzy.

I agree the Church (correlation committee, and whoever else has to approve the teaching publications), does not teach the speculative aspects today, and that the lines have become fuzzy.

However, amongst those in the pews, there wasn't any speculation when I was a child/young woman. The fuzzy lines didn't exist then. Today they exist because people question what used to be just assumed as doctrine. But this is a new phenomenon, comparatively.

I clearly remember the belief, simply and thoroughly, taught to me as a child/young woman. And I have no doubt there are innumerable Saints who still believe this, with no speculation about it. This includes my mother.

Is there anyone on the planet who understands what I have been trying to say?

I did say: "Then others come into threads like this one, saying they were never taught this."

I never thought of you in this way as you have clearly said you know it was taught. I apologize for not being clear as to who I meant, as I can see anyone on the thread may have thought I meant him/her.

I simply wanted to explain my experience with this when I was a child/young woman, as I do not understand how someone could never have been taught this. It is so contrary to my experience.

To be clear, I am only referring to anyone who says he/she was never taught about this.

Sorry for the confusion.

Elphaba

[justamere10]

MORMON = Mor Mon[y]

That's why we have a Profit at the head of our church.

[Elphaba]

Many members of the LDS Church continue to seek learning and understanding from books that are not in our canon. That may or may not be a good thing to do, depending possibly on the degree to which we give heed to the disclaimer that such books are not official LDS doctrine and that the author/s speaks for him/herself, and to the degree that doing so takes away from time we could have spent studying our canonized revelations directly.

A case in point is the well-known book (several versions) "Mormon Doctrine" by Elder Bruce R. McConkie formerly of the Twelve (now deceased) which I think is the book you are referring to.

According to the authors of a new book titled "David O. McKay and the Rise and Fall of Modern Mormonism" brother McConkie's book was never authorized by the First Presidency because they knew such a book written by a General Authority would indeed be considered authorititive even though it would contain on many topics only the opinions and understandings of the author, rather than revelation on the matter from the Lord.

Apparently two members of the First Presidency reviewed the book "Mormon Doctrine" and found more than a thousand incidences of exactly the above where an opinion was rendered but there was nothing revealed by the Lord on the matter. (E.g. evolution.)

Elder McConkie was a spiritual giant, there is no doubt about that, and I will always remember his final testimony in General Conference. But his book "Mormon Doctrine" is NOT in our canon and as such we will not be held accountable by God for what is written in it.

Yes, I already know all of this.

When I mentioned Mormon Doctrine, I was referring to one specific instance that had nothing to do with the teaching that God was once a man, etc.

Elphaba

[justamere10]

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine. (Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom)

Though that statement was prepared mainly for public commentators, I think it's important for members to understand as well. It's really quite simple to me. If it is the doctrine of this Church, then show me from the scriptures, and then I am certain that the Holy Ghost will confirm it.

If there are such principles, that have not been given to the Saints by the process God has established, yet someone thinks they have received them and that they are authorized to teach them in such a public manner, as these forums, then I would be concerned about that.

I would caution against anyone thinking that they have received something by way of revelation that goes beyond what is taught by the Church as doctrine. The Preach My Gospel manual cautions that we should compare the inspiration that we receive with the scriptures and teachings of the living prophets. We must also be certain that our feelings are consistent with our calling or assignment. (http://broadcast.lds.org/Missionary/PreachMyGospel___11_04_RecognizeTheSpirit__36617_eng_011.pdf)

President Boyd K. Packer counseled:

“I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently. And when they do, they are generally for our own edification, instruction, or correction. Unless we are called by proper authority to do so, they do not position us to counsel or to correct others.

I have come to believe also that it is not wise to continually talk of unusual spiritual experiences. They are to be guarded with care and shared only when the Spirit itself prompts you to use them to the blessing of others” (Ensign, Jan. 1983, 53).

All of that said, I don't believe there were many things that Joseph Smith taught that could not be backed up by scripture. It is the various interpretations and specualtions of his teachings, that go beyond what we have received as doctrine, that I think should concern us.

Regards,

Vanhin

Good counsel, thank-you.

[Jenamarie]

I'll agree with Elphaba, that I was most certainly taught the whole "we'll become gods" (small g) growing up in the church. I even remember talking with the kids in one of my Primary classes about what kinds of creatures we would create for our planets (lots of fairies and unicorns and dinosaurs ) And the whole "God was once a man..." thing was mentioned MANY times in my years growing up in the church. I'm actually quiet surprised that it's now considered a "speculative" doctrine.

(but then, maybe I don't have a difficult time understanding how God could have once been a man AND have always been God. The whole "one Eternal round" thing I think answers that. God's time as a man WAS NOT his "beginning", He's always been who He Is, just as we've always been who we are, and niether He nor US are any less divine because we've been human. It comes with the territory, IMO.)

Edited September 3, 2008 by Jenamarie

[Vanhin]

I think it's reasonably clear that our doctrine is that God the Father, like his Son Jesus Christ, obtained a body by entering mortality, and is himself a resurrected and glorified Man (D&C 130:22, John 5:19). In fact, he is the Man of Holiness, and Jesus Christ is the Son of Man. (Moses 6:57).

It is equally clear, that our doctrine is that mankind, can become like God, and that this feat is obtainable because of our Heavenly Fathers plan for us, and the merits of Jesus Christ (John 17:20-24, D&C 132:20). This is the highest meaning of salvation, which latter-day saints call "Eternal Life", to know God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, which knowledge is only obtained by becoming like them (John 17:3).

We have always taught this in our curriculum, since it became doctrine, and we still do (See LDS.org - Melchizedek Priesthood Chapter Detail - The Great Plan of Salvation).

Those truths are not speculation.

Regards,

Vanhin

[bmy-]

I can't remember who said it for the life of me.. google turned up nothing.

'We passed the trial of persecution with flying colors. It's the trial of acceptance that worries me.' (paraphrase)

Sometimes I get the vibe that.. 'our church as a whole' is afraid of being different. Pushing towards mainstream Christianity and such.. i'm afraid that certain doctrines are being swept under the rug because they're controversial.

[justamere10]

I can't remember who said it for the life of me.. google turned up nothing.

'We passed the trial of persecution with flying colors. It's the trial of acceptance that worries me.' (paraphrase)

Sometimes I get the vibe that.. 'our church as a whole' is afraid of being different. Pushing towards mainstream Christianity and such.. i'm afraid that certain doctrines are being swept under the rug because they're controversial.

"And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you." D&C 82: 22

Doctrine and Covenants 82

I think the Prophet knows where the Lord is leading His Church. If the parable of the ten virgins is meant to be the members of the LDS Church, then even though we may lose half of our membership during the times of sifting because they didn't make enough right choices to be prepared, we will have gained the other 50%. Being in the limelight as we are now adds to our overall membership numbers.

These are great times to live, the fields are absolutely white ready to harvest. Why wait another hour to thrust in your sickle and reap? You can serve an unofficial mission right now from your own home, as an LDS Cyber Missionary.

[Nappaljarri]

The whole point of our existence is to become like God, this is the essence of the teachings of the church and the plan of Salvation. But, this concept like all doctrine can only be understood and accepted through personal testimony by the Holy Ghost. I think where peoples' concept of being like God gets construed is in mixing "Man's" philosophy of who or what they envisage God to be, with who our God actually is and the nature of "exaltation" (of which of course I have only one clue). And the nature of Godhood that we can understand is that exaltation is in a FAMILY context. Husband and Wife exalted together and creating spiritual bodies for their children for their eternal family. This is the purpose and nature of Godhood, not just sitting around with people/angels worshipping and singing praises.

I think if one reads D&C: 132 especially verse 19 and pray about it, the Holy Ghost can teach them about "eternal lives" and what it means.

[Moksha]

So with the deemphasis on becoming a God, could we assume an equal deemphasis on multiple celestial wives and planet populating?