In The News...

[Shaydie]

Hi, I'm an ex-LDS. I mean no disrespect to anyone here, I love the LDS people; I was fifth generation LDS and am not one of those bitter, argumentative types. I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to challenge their beliefs. There's no ill will here! :)

This article was on FOXnews.com today:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html

There is a question and answer I don't understand:

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will "rule" after their death and ascension?

A: No.

****

Can you help me understand why the church answered "no" to this question? I haven't been in the church since the early 90s and am curious if doctrine is different from what I knew. I was raised that as Heavenly Father is, man can become. I remember many lessons about going to the Celestial Kingdom and one day becoming a heavenly father and mother and having our own planets and populating them with billions of spirit children. I don't understand why the church answered this way.

I understand Godhood is only for those to ascend to the Celestial Kingdom and it still must be developed within the highest of the three levels there, and that it is not a general rule for 99.9% of the population out there. I'm just wondering if this is a lie of omission? Why was it answered this way?

I ask respectfully, please understand that. I'm not trying to start an argument, just trying to get clear information. Thanks for listening!

[a-train]

The answer is because Mormons DO NOT believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will "rule". If we are speaking of the planet on which those who live on this earth will live immortally in the presence of God, we are speaking of THIS planet, not another one.

A common phrase among the least educated concerning Mormon doctrine goes something like this: 'Mormons believe that when they go to heaven they will get their own planet to be god of.' I think that common misinformation is probably the source of the question listed in the article.

-a-train

[Palerider]

This type of concept also came about some years ago from back in the 80's. There was some anti material from I believe Wally Martin who taught that we were trying to "Take Over the World" and I believe it went a bit further from that point into the other worlds thing. (I could be wrong about this)

[Annabelli]

Some generations back, it was typical for anti-mormons to attend LDS Churches. Some of them were even baptized. These anti-mormons had children who also attended the church. While their anti-mormon parents did not tell the children about their anti-mormon associations, they did teach anti-mormon beliefs to their children as if it were church doctrine. These anti-mormon parents did not stay in relations with their anti-mormon associates and when the anti-mormon parents died, their children were members of the LDS Church and never knew the reality of their parents to be anti-mormons. While these children are in good standing as legitimate members, the teachings of anti-mormon values still are current beliefs to most because they were taught as if it were church doctrine. Most of these children are adults with children and grandchildren.

It is a matter of educating members with church doctrine and reinforcing the values of the church.

I realize that there are people who have learned anti-mormon values on their own and convert into the Church based on those beliefs. And again, it is a matter of educating members with church doctrine and reinforcing the values of the church.

Whenever I have a whimiscal thought about something that may or may not seem right, I go to LDS.org and check it out.

[Elphaba]

Some generations back, it was typical for anti-mormons to attend LDS Churches. Some of them were even baptized. These anti-mormons had children who also attended the church. While their anti-mormon parents did not tell the children about their anti-mormon associations, they did teach anti-mormon beliefs to their children as if it were church doctrine. These anti-mormon parents did not stay in relations with their anti-mormon associates and when the anti-mormon parents died, their children were members of the LDS Church and never knew the reality of their parents to be anti-mormons. While these children are in good standing as legitimate members, the teachings of anti-mormon values still are current beliefs to most because they were taught as if it were church doctrine. Most of these children are adults with children and grandchildren.

Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. was an anti-Mormon!

"The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him, we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this."

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr.,

Doctrines of Salvation Volume 2, page 48.

As a child and young woman in the '60 and '70s, I was taught that I could one day have my own planet with my husband and have spirit children who would then progress as we had, and that this eternal progression would continue forever. Nevertheless, I have no problem with the Church clarifying this is not doctrinal and explaining there is actually no such belief.

However, I don't think those who do believe it is doctrine are necessarily uneducated. As in some other non-doctrinal issues, I think it is one of those things that was taught in the past but was not necessarily ever clarified as not doctrinal in the present in regular Church venues. That is not a criticism.

I just think it is a little harsh to blame a member who does not know to look for a clarification when he/she does not know there is a clarification to be made.

I also think a member who does unwittingly have some of the older non-doctrinal beliefs will soon learn otherwise with all of the ongoing media/Church interaction due to the presidential campaigns, and that is probably a good thing. :)

Elphaba

[Maureen]

Some generations back, it was typical for anti-mormons to attend LDS Churches. Some of them were even baptized. These anti-mormons had children who also attended the church. While their anti-mormon parents did not tell the children about their anti-mormon associations, they did teach anti-mormon beliefs to their children as if it were church doctrine. These anti-mormon parents did not stay in relations with their anti-mormon associates and when the anti-mormon parents died, their children were members of the LDS Church and never knew the reality of their parents to be anti-mormons. While these children are in good standing as legitimate members, the teachings of anti-mormon values still are current beliefs to most because they were taught as if it were church doctrine. Most of these children are adults with children and grandchildren.

Are you saying that there was an actual conspiracy generations back for anti-mormons to make their way into the LDS church to intentionally pollute it with heretical beliefs?

M.

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

Some generations back, it was typical for anti-mormons to attend LDS Churches. Some of them were even baptized. These anti-mormons had children who also attended the church. While their anti-mormon parents did not tell the children about their anti-mormon associations, they did teach anti-mormon beliefs to their children as if it were church doctrine. These anti-mormon parents did not stay in relations with their anti-mormon associates and when the anti-mormon parents died, their children were members of the LDS Church and never knew the reality of their parents to be anti-mormons. While these children are in good standing as legitimate members, the teachings of anti-mormon values still are current beliefs to most because they were taught as if it were church doctrine. Most of these children are adults with children and grandchildren.

Are you saying that there was an actual conspiracy generations back for anti-mormons to make their way into the LDS church to intentionally pollute it with heretical beliefs?

M.

yes....it has happened

[Moksha]

Maybe the no stems from a we don't teach that anymore, rather than it never existing, because I have heard about it repeatedly in the last several years.

I support this change BTW.

[Shaydie]

You have me so lost.

So they no longer teach at church that you can achieve Godhood and populate your own planets someday?

Also, I'm not talking about the planet earth, as we were always taught that this planet would become the Telestial Kingdom after the Millennium. I'm talking about becoming exalted beings ourselves one day. Achieving Godhood. This is no longer what is taught at church?

I mean, I heard that in Sacrament, Sunday School, Young Women's, Relief Society... that was all misinformation according to what they're teaching now?

PS--I was also told in church that Heavenly Father sent Jesus to a number of his different planets, but this world was the only one wicked enough to kill him. I was a Mormon back in the 1970s and it goes many generations back in my family. It sounds like the beliefs are completely different these days.

[a-train]

President Joseph Fielding Smith Jr.'s quote is still precisely the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is not that righteous Mormons upon their death are presented with a planet or planets of their own to rule. It is also doubtful, but also unknown that planets upon which future spirit children of those yet to be celestialized living here are in existance. It is more probable, but also still unknown that such planets would be created later. I think when one asks a yes/no question, they get a yes or a no for an answer. In this case, a simple no is a lot easier to give than a lengthy explanation.

It is still and has always been the doctrine of the Church that those that overcome will sit with Christ in His throne, even as He also overcame, and is set down with His Father in His throne. (Rev. 3:21) It is a Biblical teaching. Also, those who attain this exaltation are gods and children of the Most High (D&C 76:58).

Joseph Smith himself taught that this earth will ultimately be celestial (not terrestrial or telestial) and shall be inhabited eternally by the celestialized people indigenous to it.

D&C 88, which was given in 1832 contains these words from the LORD: 'And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it. Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory; For after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father; That bodies who are of the celestial kingdom may possess it forever and ever; for, for this intent was it made and created, and for this intent are they sanctified.' (verse 17-19)

While I have heard people speculate about this earth being the only one wicked enough to crucify the Saviour, I am unaware that the notion is anything more than speculation. If anyone has a good source for that concept I'd appreciate it.

-a-train

[Shaydie]

Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one who heard that one. You don't know what a relief that is. Sometimes I think people think I'm making this stuff up.

I was talking to an LDS guy and he was telling me it was okay to have playing cards (face cards) as long as you aren't gambling for money. I remembered when Pres. Kimball told us to get rid of those and my mom and her brothers and sister threw them all out, but on holidays they'd always played Pinochle so they were a little sad about it, lol. I showed him the quote and he got onboard.

[Elphaba]

President Joseph Fielding Smith Jr.'s quote is still precisely the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is not that righteous Mormons upon their death are presented with a planet or planets of their own to rule. It is also doubtful, but also unknown that planets upon which future spirit children of those yet to be celestialized living here are in existance. It is more probable, but also still unknown that such planets would be created later. I think when one asks a yes/no question, they get a yes or a no for an answer. In this case, a simple no is a lot easier to give than a lengthy explanation.

Hi a,

Thank you for helping me to see where the question was different from that which I addressed. I did not catch on to that until you pointed it out.

I disagree however, that this was a yes or no question. The person answering the question knew exactly what the questioner was really asking. If someone asked you or I a non-religious question, I would comfortably say 99 percent of the time we would both explain to the questioner why the question was wrong and give the questioner the proper context. Why not do the same thing here?

In my opinion, it is disengenous not to offer to put the question in its proper context, just as you just did wth me. To do not do so makes it appear as if the person answering the question is afraid of discussing both the real question and the real answer.

Elphaba

[a-train]

I disagree however, that this was a yes or no question. The person answering the question knew exactly what the questioner was really asking. If someone asked you or I a non-religious question, I would comfortably say 99 percent of the time we would both explain to the questioner why the question was wrong and give the questioner the proper context. Why not do the same thing here?

In my opinion, it is disengenous not to offer to put the question in its proper context, just as you just did wth me. To do not do so makes it appear as if the person answering the question is afraid of discussing both the real question and the real answer.

Elphaba

While I am not completely in the know about how or where these questions were asked and answered, it is very evident by the link in the OP that it was NOT a simple interview, as many of the questions were given the exact same statement for an answer.

Also, it is said in the opening statement of the article: 'The Church objected to answering some of the questions on the grounds that they misrepresent the basic tenets of the Mormon religion.' I don't know if the 'NO' on this particular question is an answer to the question or a refusal to answer.

-a-train

[inthearmsofsleep]

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will "rule" after their death and ascension?

A: No.

The answer is simple. We don't believe (nor have ever believed) that Mormons will rule an existing planet/planets after we die. This is just misleading phrasing. We believe that we can become like God, in that we become creators of planets/beings just as He is... but not that when we all die we'll go off and rule a planet.

[Elphaba]

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will "rule" after their death and ascension?

A: No.

The answer is simple. We don't believe (nor have ever believed) that Mormons will rule an existing planet/planets after we die. This is just misleading phrasing. We believe that we can become like God, in that we become creators of planets/beings just as He is... but not that when we all die we'll go off and rule a planet.

I think that has already been established in this thread.

Elphaba

[inthearmsofsleep]

<div class='quotemain'>

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe in the existence of another physical planet or planets, where Mormons will "rule" after their death and ascension?

A: No.

The answer is simple. We don't believe (nor have ever believed) that Mormons will rule an existing planet/planets after we die. This is just misleading phrasing. We believe that we can become like God, in that we become creators of planets/beings just as He is... but not that when we all die we'll go off and rule a planet.

I think that has already been established in this thread.

Elphaba

Well I'm happy to be here to reinforce whatever was established.

[Dale]

The writer of the article gave the best answer he knew. But i see a possibility that some LDS will be placed in the position they will rule on other planets. With the idea of exaltation it sounds to me clear God the Father became a ultimate ruler at some point. If God did it some exalted men and women at some point will be able to do what he did it or exaltation won't be able to produce any more Gods to follow in Gods tracks. But the old LDS saying is clear "As man is God once was and as God is man may become." The LDS doctrine has no limitations placed on what some of man may become, and the answer of "No." would place limit's on the possibilities associated with exaltation.

[adobo44]

Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. was an anti-Mormon!

"The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him, we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this."

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr.,

Doctrines of Salvation Volume 2, page 48.

As a child and young woman in the '60 and '70s, I was taught that I could one day have my own planet with my husband and have spirit children who would then progress as we had, and that this eternal progression would continue forever. Nevertheless, I have no problem with the Church clarifying this is not doctrinal and explaining there is actually no such belief.

However, I don't think those who do believe it is doctrine are necessarily uneducated. As in some other non-doctrinal issues, I think it is one of those things that was taught in the past but was not necessarily ever clarified as not doctrinal in the present in regular Church venues. That is not a criticism.

I just think it is a little harsh to blame a member who does not know to look for a clarification when he/she does not know there is a clarification to be made.

I also think a member who does unwittingly have some of the older non-doctrinal beliefs will soon learn otherwise with all of the ongoing media/Church interaction due to the presidential campaigns, and that is probably a good thing. :)

Elphaba

First of all,there are certain doctrines inside the church and gospel of Jesus Christ that are too sacred to share them with everybody!!!!!

The lord warned us in the book of mormon,3 nephi 14:6,quote:''Give not that which is holy unto the dogs,neither cast ye your pearls before swine,lest they trample them under their feet,and turn again and rend you''(end quote),see also Matthew 7:6 in the new testament!!

This is probably the reason why Mitt Romney does not go into such doctrines publickly!!

[MorningStar]

You have me so lost.

So they no longer teach at church that you can achieve Godhood and populate your own planets someday?

Also, I'm not talking about the planet earth, as we were always taught that this planet would become the Telestial Kingdom after the Millennium. I'm talking about becoming exalted beings ourselves one day. Achieving Godhood. This is no longer what is taught at church?

I mean, I heard that in Sacrament, Sunday School, Young Women's, Relief Society... that was all misinformation according to what they're teaching now?

PS--I was also told in church that Heavenly Father sent Jesus to a number of his different planets, but this world was the only one wicked enough to kill him. I was a Mormon back in the 1970s and it goes many generations back in my family. It sounds like the beliefs are completely different these days.

We have been taught that we can become gods, but I have never been taught in church that we get our own planets. So "no" was the correct answer.

If you're eating Cocoa Puffs and I ask you later, "Did you eat Cocoa Puffs this morning?" The correct answer would be yes. If I ask you if you were eating Cocoa Puffs and standing on your head this morning, the answer would be no, although you were eating Cocoa Puffs. The long answer to the question would be, "We do believe we can become gods, but we don't know what exactly that involves other than being made perfect and exalted like our Father in Heaven. We are made perfect through the Atonement and will spend the eternities still worshipping our Heavenly Father." Some settings are not meant for the long answer. :)