Scriptural promises/Prophetic disappointment

[Hagoth]

We had the GD lesson about D&C 132 today. Our teacher at least mentioned polygamy but overlooked the part about becoming gods. Why is it that Mormonism so fuzzy about this nowadays?

Interviewer to Hinkley: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Hinkley to Interviewer: 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.

Hinkley to Church members (spoken between the lines): I'm sorry to be the ones to break it to you folks, but you aren't really going to be gods. Sorry about that.

So what IS the official doctrine on this? We've been told that the notion of getting our own planet is a "cartoonish image" but the fact that we really have been taught to expect to own unlimited planets gets a pass. When I was growing up we were taught ALL THE TIME that we were going to be gods. Now not so much. So what do our leaders actually believe, what do they expect us to believe, and if we do really believe in eternal progression all the way to the big throne in the sky why are we so cowardly about overtly teaching it? I always thought it was a powerful differentiator and a kick-ass missionary tool.

Some try to downplay the godhood doctrine in the King Follet discourse because it's not cannon, but this doctrine clearly manifests in our scripture:

D&C 132: 19: ...and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fullness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

The only requirements are that you enter into the Everlasting Covenant and that you commit no murder. Check and check (so far), so should I start picking out my godly wardrobe or settling for GBH tacit revelation of disappointment?

[Emower]

Well, the new and everlasting covenant is polygamy, so until you find yourself a cute little 17 yr old it's off the table for you...

[Anon70]

This is joked about all the time-I regularly hear people joke about "when I build my worlds..." Hardy har har. It's definitely in the fabric of our narrative and culture. Why don't they jist come out and clarify all this "stuff"? Instead they try to just slowly distance themselves from it.

[Corsair]

I endured the D&C 132 lesson yesterday also. The teacher avoided talk of polygamy entirely beyond the cursory mention that it would not be the subject of the discussion. However, the lesson was filled with the heavy implication about becoming gods after being sealed in the temple and remaining righteous. They were definitely having the cake and eating it, too. The teacher avoided all talk of plural marriage but still taught exaltation based on D&C 132:26.

[1smartdodog]

God hood was the one compelling doctrine When I was young. What possibly interests young people anymore? Maybe the promise of eternal sex keeps them in line.

[Emower]

I think this experience falls under the category of a scriptural promise with a disappointment at the end.

I too had D&C 132 yesterday. I just randomly thought I would pop in to SS for kicks yesterday. I guess I hit the jackpot with the topic. Anyway, at some point during the lesson, the teacher asked, "So after we are sealed, does that mean that we are just good from know on? We can sit back and be confident in our exaltation?" There was a whole chorus of "No's" and the typical discussion of holding fast to the end. So I raised my hand and cued up verse 26, which states ---in some pretty unambiguous language--- that as long as you dont murder someone you will come forth in the first resurrection and enter into your exaltation. Obviously, no one had read that verse before and the look of panic on the teachers face was priceless. That alone was worth the concerned looks people gave me afterwards. One guy piped up after some real awkward silence and said that basically exaltation doesnt mean Celestial Kingdom, and the first Resurrection doesnt mean the righteous people. Everybody grabbed his lifeline and held on tight as they voted to accept that answer. So my scriptural promise was voted off the island by the SS class majority.

But boy were there some confused faces!

[Corsair]

I think this experience falls under the category of a scriptural promise with a disappointment at the end.

I too had D&C 132 yesterday. I just randomly thought I would pop in to SS for kicks yesterday. I guess I hit the jackpot with the topic. Anyway, at some point during the lesson, the teacher asked, "So after we are sealed, does that mean that we are just good from know on? We can sit back and be confident in our exaltation?" There was a whole chorus of "No's" and the typical discussion of holding fast to the end. So I raised my hand and cued up verse 26, which states ---in some pretty unambiguous language--- that as long as you dont murder someone you will come forth in the first resurrection and enter into your exaltation. Obviously, no one had read that verse before and the look of panic on the teachers face was priceless. That alone was worth the concerned looks people gave me afterwards. One guy piped up after some real awkward silence and said that basically exaltation doesnt mean Celestial Kingdom, and the first Resurrection doesnt mean the righteous people. Everybody grabbed his lifeline and held on tight as they voted to accept that answer. So my scriptural promise was voted off the island by the SS class majority.

But boy were there some confused faces!

LDS Doctrine, policy, and culture meld together and create these kind of religious expectations. The LDS church does not have a systematic theology partly because it is so difficult to consistently identify doctrine vs. policy vs. culture vs. "something that some revered leader may have said". As much as the church denounces "the philosophy of men mingled with scripture", it hilariously remains the dominant discourse in your average ward up through the highest levels of general conference addresses.

[FoundMyOwnWay]

Well, the new and everlasting covenant is polygamy, so until you find yourself a cute little 17 yr old it's off the table for you...

I believe the proper church teachings on this is to find a cute little, a few months shy of her 18th birthday yr old

[Hagoth]

God hood was the one compelling doctrine When I was young. What possibly interests young people anymore? Maybe the promise of eternal sex keeps them in line.

Which, when you think of it is basically what Mormon "godhood" is.

[Hagoth]

When the GD teacher was talking about how much comfort the gospel gives us in knowing that we will be able to live in our nuclear families for eternity I had to bite my tongue and sit on my hands. The questions I wanted to ask were: who do you imagine will be in your nuclear family? Who do your parents expect to have in their nuclear family? How about your wife's parents? How about your son's wife... her parents... her mother's parents...

Ultimately this great power of sealing families together leads us to the concept that all of mankind is one big family, which is great, but it means we don't need any specific sealing power because they make no sense in the context of the universal family.