Yes, We Believe in Getting Our Own Planet

This podcast, Get Your Own Planet: Lore or Doctrine?, is presented by mormonchronicle.com and the letter P.

Download the episode here

Listen to this episode:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

In this episode, Brian M. and Ezra Taylor debunk dishonest apologetics and discuss Richard Bushman’s comments last year about getting your own planet. In an interview CNN published in June of 2011, Professor Bushman declared that the Mormon belief of “getting your own planet” was more lore than doctrine. Brian and Ezra discuss statements from current and past prophets to determine the truth of the matter.

This entry was posted in Podcast and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Yes, We Believe in Getting Our Own Planet

  1. wini4truth says:

    The generation of LDS who have been taught the doctrine of becoming like God and creating, peopling and governing worlds (PLANETS), are dying off. Those of the younger generation (the past 20 years or so) have risen in almost complete darkness as to the core teachings of the church restored through the prophet, Joseph Smith. If you mention some of the meaty doctrines, i.e., plural marriage, becoming like God, the doctrine of “gathering”, etc. to these new-generation Mormons, they look at you like you are from another church! In disgust they argue that those things are apostate views and are certainly not part of the Mormon religion! (cont.)

    • wini4truth says:

      They don’t study the history or past revelations and periodicals of the church, because they have a “living prophet” to tell them whatever they need to know, and that’s enough for them! Well, sadly, they will fall far short of what they need to know to qualify for an exaltation. Not only is it doctrine that we will “get” our own planet, but we will “create” our own planets! By the way, thanks for bring this up, Brian and Ezra. It’s an essential element which is missing from the current LDS curriculum.

      • Jeremy Parker says:

        I have to laugh at the idea of knowing these “doctrines” as being vital. Those who cannot let go of these doctrines have more problems by far than those who aren’t yet acquainted with them.

        Clinging to polygamy makes about as much sense as clinging to the declaration that it would never be taken from us as a practice or that blacks would never have the priesthood.

        The reason these doctrines are seemingly missing is first that many of them weren’t spot on revelations (Brigham Young said the Spirit gives revelation in perfection but that we receive in imperfection as a rule). And often we interpret our own meanings into things. cont…

        • Jeremy Parker says:

          I do not think that those are “leading the church” decisions for which they cannot lead us astray, but rather imperfections that prove why we don’t or rather shouldn’t deify the prophets.

          Only the core doctrines being taught and implemented today are important for today. Those that think that a great man dies and immediately starts building worlds is in for a long eternity. There will be ample time to learn everything.

          If polygamy (etc) is necessary there then clearly it will be necessary for the great many who have passed since the practice ceased. They would presumably be introduced to the practice later and sealings would have to be done here presumably during the great millennial period of temple/genealogical works.

          If that works for them it will works for us.

    • Scott Stover says:

      I often lament the fact that so many say, for example, “oh, we no longer believe in plural marriage”. Not True! We have to realize that, if the Lord commanded, we would be faced with the same dilemma as those early saints who were called to live that doctrine. It’s just as valid today as it ever was.

      • Jeremy Parker says:

        That’s like saying that some mistakenly believe that we no longer believe in taking our son up the mountain to slay them with a knife. The Lord could command we eat the same thing for 40 years or anything else for that matter. The doctrine is not made up of what the Lord could ask, but of what He does ask. And just to be clear that is in no way shape or form polygamy at present. That means in ANY way shape or form, though, word, or deed.

        Sad that the people “preparing to live polygamy” aren’t preparing to eat just manna or to slay their sons or live 40 years in the wilderness etc…

        Its a peculiar LDS deviance. But hey “R” is for rationalize right?

  2. D. Rolling Kearney says:

    Hey, guys. Your download link is all frelled.

  3. andrew says:

    i can tell you as a member who falls into that younger age demographic that there is almost a complete and unfortunately ignorance as to the meaty doctrines of the restoration. I find it disturbing that many of my peers in the church I was very unaware of these things. It is pretty pathetic when in Sunday school I try bringing up some of the more weighty things of the church and I am either shunned or ignored by the class. Likewise in my priesthood quorum. It is true that many of my peers in the church do not bother to read or study the history of the church or the doctrines of the gospel. I often feel like I am the only young member of the church here in Kansas City that truly believes in the restoration fully and completely. I am not surprised however because most of my peers don’t even bother reading their Scriptures. It’s amazing to me just how little the gospel is studied among people my age in the church at least here in the Kansas City area. I don’t know about the rest of you but I would say less than 10% of those who I associate with and church study the gospel on a daily basis and I include many leaders of the church on the local level in that category. Honestly I feel like at times it won’t make a difference if I go to Sunday school or not because they’re just going to be talking about the milky things of the gospel. I believe that the church is now really at least among people my age really to churches in one. I believe that the first church should be known as the milky church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I believe 90% of church membership today falls in that category. This is the group that simply comes to church on Sunday for three hours, listens to what is said in sacrament meeting, goes to Sunday school for 45 min. and then priesthood-relief Society and then return home never again to open up their Scriptures. And then there is the meaty church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. These are the ones who not only attend church for three hours but actually study the Scriptures and the gospel on a regular and even daily basis and believe all that has been said in the past and the present, wither it be on the topic of plural marriage or pornography, the law of consecration to the law of tithing, from the second anointing to the second coming, and even on the topic of secret combinations and conspiracies. I fear that I am part of a darkened generation in the church and I honestly fear for my generations future in the church.

    By the way. Does anyone know if the Journal of discourses is available as an audio book on CD?

    • Ezra Taylor says:

      Unfortunately, the Journal of Discourses is not available on audio to my knowledge.

      • Jeremy Parker says:

        I heard that the tape recorder they used broke on the trek west…

        Honestly though can you imagine being the voice talent for the JD?

    • James says:

      Sadly i see the same things. I have been in several wards and branches in both california and idaho. I am now 40 and have seen this same trend over my lifetime. My generation is largely ignorant and apathetic to the gospel. Just like andrew describes many of us(including me for a time in my earlier years) just come to church at the appointed hours and go through a few motions and prays or speaks when its expected but otherwise we never pray, study or speak about the gospel again to our families during the week. And this would be crew that considers themselves active and righteous. Then there is the rest that hardly if ever even go through the outward motions to be seen of men. I always wondered why mormon included the story of the zoramites in the BoM. Not anymore

    • Tim says:

      This is my first post so excuse me if this is breaking any protocol, I came across your site as I was hunting down Drew Briney’s book. Andrew, it’s very much the same in my part of England, (East Anglia). No one seems to want to learn anything new – they are only happy if we discuss what they already know. If I mention anything outside of their box in Sunday School or Priesthood it’s like I never said anything and it’s never even acknowledged by the teachers that I even spoke. I think they just don’t know how to handle what’s not in the manual anymore. The manuals seem well crafted to make any discussion of the old doctrines seem really out of place in the lessons.

      • James says:

        IMHO its warned about in the book of mormon.
        Alma 12:9–12 with special emphasis to verse 9
        We are in a steady decline because the church is under condemnation. Because of this the portion of the word that is available to us seems to be comtinually parsed down. I think this is why the manuals, home teaching message and other lessons are getting simpler and simpler. But if we apply with real intent the principles taught in those manuals they lead us to more and the Lord will give us the next steps. But we cant drag anyone else along with us against their will. Look at this next scripture and see if it is not describing our day. Remember that when the Gentiles are addressed it is the modern LDS church.
        2 nephi 28:20-32

    • hannah says:

      what about the doctrine of blood atonement revealed to brigham young?? justified life-taking. do you believe that ‘meaty’ doctrine ought to be highlighted?

    • braingrunt says:

      I have gone to some trouble to get my computer reading the JOD to me without too many distracting oddities such as page numbers, announcing dashes like mad etc. It’s not great but it works for me a bit.

  4. James says:

    I also want to know why andr gets to post 2.5 times more characters at a time than the rest of us? :). Where is the love ezra? Where is it? Now we are respecting persons? I fear for this site. LoL

    • Brian M. says:

      It’s not that we “let” him, he must be a hacker. ;)

      When you get your own planet you can decide how many characters to allow each person per post.

      Anyways, the reason we added the character limit for comments is because there were people posting article-length comments.

  5. D. Rolling Kearney says:

    Great episode, guys! Have you considered contacting “Elder” Bushman and asking him to clarify his comments in light of these quotations you shared? That would be a good listen. Anything to flesh these things out; they’re too short! Maybe you could address comments from the prior episode on the subsequent ones? Or allow people to call in somehow? Maybe leave you an audio comment like LDS Liberty does? Just some ideas. Keep up the good work!

  6. Andrew Curtis says:

    1.The church has a lot of corruption within. 2. America is jacked up and no longer serves Jesus Christ (majority). These two ingredients will bring upon us His judgments. I fear that it’s not too far away. Who can dispute?

    • wini4truth says:

      Ezra and Brian: Please at least lengthen the amount of characters we can use to comment! It’s a pain to have to continue a thought in subsequent posts! Besides, if a person wants to post an article-length reply, they’ll do it anyway. Whether it’s broken up into several posts or one long one, what’s the difference? There’s my two cents!

      • James says:

        True dat.

        Brian and ezra, How about 2000 characters instead of the 777? Wait. If were sticking to symbolic numbers then how about 777×3=2331 :)
        Whats wrong with long comments anyway? It just means your article triggered interest and discussion. How will we beome united if we dont start with free discussion to come to a unity of the faith? Not that we would change the faith but that we may change ourselves. Either way tank you for the work you put into this site. Love it.
        Then again. Your planet, your rules. :)

    • Gaven Day says:

      He already poured out his Judgement on Jesus Christ, not excepting Christ as the only way to God is the only way to exact his wrath and that is by going to Hell. So you have nothing to worry about when it comes to America being judged by God. :)

  7. wini4truth says:

    Ezra and Brian, what’s the difference if someone posts one long, article-length post or several successive posts? Just wondering. It’s a real pain to have to continue a thought in a subsequent post, especially when you have a computer as slow as mine.

  8. Craig Payne says:

    From what joseph Smith has taught us about how God became God and from the sriptures and the Officaial Declaration of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve on Jesus Christ we learn a)that God was once a man and worshiped a God and Father. We also know that God the Father used Jesus Christ(Jeovah) to create the Universe. That would mean that God as man lived in an Alternate Universe and worshiped his God and Father there before he became a god and created his own universe. If I am correct from these assumptions then if we become like God we won’t be given a planet or even a Galaxy to rule but we who are going to, “be given all that the Father has and will create our own entire Universe.

  9. Rippinsteo says:

    Show me where in the standard works of the LDS scriptural canon–the ONLY official source of doctrine for LDS belief and practice–there are scriptural verses indicating such a notion that anyone will be getting his or her own planet? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Any such belief, even if true, remains in the realm of the speculative until such time that such a doctrine is canonized as scripture.

    • Ezra Taylor says:

      Have you read Abraham? Also, it is a false premise. Show me where in the standard works of the LDS scriptural canon where it says it is the only official source of doctrine. Yeah, I didn’t think so. The Lord said, “And whatsoever they (Apostles and Prophets) shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” Doctrine and Covenants 68:4 D&C 138 wasn’t included in the cannon until 1978, does that mean it wasn’t true until then? Other revelations from God have been removed, are they no longer true? The prophet Brigham Young said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95) If you don’t like the doctrine, that’s between you and God, but to rail against it upon a false premise isn’t very convincing.

    • Jeremy Parker says:

      If not D&C 132 is going to be a fine monkey wrench! Maybe we will all just live on one giant-ever-exponentially-expanding-never-mind-the-laws-of-physics-planet.

  10. andrew says:

    If we were to follow that line of thinking then every general conference address would have to be sustained as part of the “standard works” in order for it to be true. I don’t know about you but I don’t think I could luge that many scriptures around. :)

    • Jeremy Parker says:

      There’s still a decent element of that in the Doctrine and Covenants left over from before the weight of conferences etc.. became so mountainous. And then there’s the Discourses on Faith that went the other way. But then the church still send out quads with the Songs of Solomon too (presumably to balance the weight of latter-day scripture with former day scripture?).

  11. I was not aware that this was an issue with my generation. I am 21, and I have a firm grip on this doctrine. As for those questioning the validity of this doctrine, it is explicitly stated in the “Exaltation” chapter of the Gospel Principles manual (if not the current edition, I know in a past edition; I read it on my mission).

  12. Dustin Jansen says:

    Didn’t Hinkley believe otherwise?

    When he was asked about it and if it was still the doctrine of the church, Hnkley replied, “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 wouldn’t say that we teach it. I wouldn’t say that we *EMPHASIZE* it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I wouldn’t say it that way. 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 wouldn’t say that others know a lot about it.”

    Should we still be preaching it?

    • James says:

      Dustin,
      No he didn’t believe otherwise. You can find talks where he mentioned and taught the principle of eternal progression and its ultimate end. He was the editor in chief for decades on manuals that did so as well. He was dragged onto a meat topic with a milk comprehension and accountability audience so he did the best he could. What was he supposed to do? Ignore the Lord himself which counseled us not to cast pearls….lest they turn and rend you? The Lord layered and taught principles in parables for exactly that reason. So that those with ears to hear would hear but those without would not. Examine the case where abraham allowed pharoah to take wife thinking she was just his sister. Technically all women are our sisters so he was not lying but he all

      • James says:

        But he allowed people to read into his statement what they wanted to hear. Critics would read that and think he was disavowing the principle. But when i read that i hear him saying everything technically correct based on the definition of terms but not volunteering information that could be considered a pearl to those whom it would not benefit but only serve to condemn. We are accountable for all that we know and will be judged for it. The portion of the word we are given depends entirely on what we re willing to receive and at least attempt to live with atonement carrying the balance. Look at the brother of jared and you will see that if we are willing to accept it we will receive all things. In fact they could not be kept from us. Yet his record was sealed…

        • Dustin says:

          When I watched it, I was disappointed that he did not say yes, that it was still a part of our doctrine. I’m a member of the church. The reporter wasn’t going to argue with him. He could say God is our father in heaven and desires, like all parents, for his children to attain what he has. That’s not wrong. It’s straight forward and narrows any misinterpretation, rather than letting the world have a free for all on the statement. It sounds less than truthful, and that is the problem.

          • James says:

            Was the Lord less that truthful when he refused to answer some questions at his trial? Was he less than truthful when he taught in parables with deep meanings while allowing many to think it was just a cute story while telling his disciples what he really meant? Was it less than truthful for alma or others to withhold information they were required by the Lord to withhold? Our ways are not his ways.
            9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. (Alma, 12:9)

  13. dustin says:

    All I’m saying is that the whole bunch of the world knows what we believe. The whole pearl before swine thing is weak. We already put our beliefs out there. We’re already cast our pearls.

    Comparing Jesus’ experience to Hinkley’s. I’ll pray about that one.

    • Jeremy Parker says:

      I totally agree. I have searched high and low inside and out and find no place for the doctrine of polygamy in my life. I can see how others would welcome it and for them it might make their heaven better I don’t presume to know nor tell them what their heaven is, but it sure ain’t mine.

      There is no way that I could enjoy the close relationship I share with my wife under those circumstances. You can make “time is no more” arguments, but you can’t be two places at once. Absence may make the heart grow fonder but I find it unnecessary and painful.

      And to dispel the time argument, time is not relative to the point of time travel or the atonement could never be infinite and eternal, and repentance would be doing all we can do by going back and fixing it ourselves.

    • Gaven Day says:

      Hey read the whole thing! Pearls among swine does not refer to doctrine. It refers to yourself, before that scripture it talks about judging those who have a speck in their eye when you have a plank. Then it goes to talk about the swine, Why? To tell you to confide in those who are worthy of it. If you tell someone who is not worth what you struggle with, they will judge you and most likely let the world know. Why would you hide a belief if it is true? Because it is weird and really makes no sense! A true belief will lay everything before you and not hide things from you. Truth pierces through lies like light through darkness. Question everything and find it for yourself.

  14. Gaven Day says:

    So this doctrine coupled with the belief that families are sealed leads to the fact that you do not get your own planet. Here is why, You get marries and have a son. Then you become like father god and create your own planet your son will be with you on that planet. Wait you have a father that has his own planet…. so you don’y get one because you are with him…. but wait your father has a father, and so on. Logically this does not work. The Mormon doctrine was created by a man in the same way Islam was created. A man went into the wilderness and was visited by an angle who gave him a new book. Then a second book was created to help with the first. Even core beliefs are close or the same. Please question everything and find the truth.

    • Your comment makes no sense. Families being sealed does not mean that they will always have to be located or live in the same physical location.

      I also disagree with your second premise. Joseph Smith was a true prophet and the scriptures are true. An in-depth study of them will allow the Spirit to reveal that to you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Note: For further discussion of these articles and topics we invite you to join the LDS Freedom Forum.