The logistics of such an arrangement are somewhat mystifying to me.
Do ALL faithful Mormons get their own planet? Or is it only the men? If women get their own planets too, do Mormons also get interplanetary travel so they can visit their spouses?
Are the planets inhabited, and if so, by whom? Non-Mormons?
What’s church doctrine on these issues?
Mods, this is in GD, because it’s related to religion. If you deem it more appropriate for another forum, I have no problem with a change of venue?
A summary of Mormon commentary on this topic. Another Mormon explains his version here. The notion appears to be that Mormons, who strive to be like God, can progress and after death can become gods themselves. The MRM site suggests that current Mormons find the teaching kind of embarrassing and are downplaying it. We have some Mormons and ex-Mormons on the board and I hope they’ll explain.
Ya Mormons are kind of like Scientology and Christianity combined, just don’t tell them that, it pisses them off.
Trying to nail down a definite LDS Church doctrine on this and countless other issues is like nailing jelly to the wall. While all the major Christian churches and most other organized religious bodies have clear statements of doctrine that are available to everyone, the LDS Church has a confusing jumble. Generally speaking they have one set of doctrine that they want to present to outsiders, other documents that they wish to make available to their members, and yet others that are supposed to be concealed from rank-and-file members and known only by those at certain levels of the hierarchy. Furthermore, throughout Church history the “prophets”, “apostles”, and official Church bodies have issued countless books, publications, sermons, and announcements and there’s no clear statement of exactly which ones are official statements of doctrine and which aren’t.
So in response to a question of what LDS Doctrine says about the matter, the answer is: it depends.
That is a pretty good summary. And it is something the church used to talk about a lot. Once they realized it wasn’t a draw, but a scary crazy thing for non-members they go out of their way to all but deny it.
Let me see if I can’t flesh it out though. The basic doctrine goes something like this.
We were all created as spirits before we were incarnated into physical bodies. This was through some divine spiritual conception. According to Mormons we are all brothers and sisters in a far more literal sense than most Christians believe. Christ is our oldest brother and in some other ways is different from the rest of us… but really only in that he was better than any of the rest of us. We are all literally divine and can be co-inheritors of God along with Jesus, if we are only just righteous enough.
When we die, we will eventually end up in one of four places or kingdoms:
The Celestial - This is where God the Father lives. This is reserved for the best of the best. I’ve heard in talks given by church officials that only a few percent of even the church members will make it all the way there. Then again I’ve heard that most of the church members will make it there. And there will be some number of very good people who convert after their deaths who will be here too. Strictly speaking the Earth is supposed to be converted to Celestial matter and move through space to God’s physical location (Kolob). Everyone who makes it there stays on Earth and lives with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Terrestrial - This is the second rank. Good people who don’t ever accept the church (even after death) and faithless Mormons who still manage to not become too horrible. Christ will live with them (part time) but they never get to see the Father again.
The Telestial - This is the bottom rank. It is still supposed to be so nice that we would all just kill ourselves to get there faster. Out of the Godhead only the Holy Ghost will be in Telestial. This is where really bad people end up (unrepentant murderers, rapists, and the like).
Outer Darkness - This is where the even worst go. This is where Satan and his followers in the original fall will end up. We can get there but only if we “deny the Holy Ghost.” Generally this means only prophets and the like who actively work against God can go there.
So with the basics covered, to your original question. In the Celestial Kingdom there will be separations. The best of these are for couples (neither men nor women can achieve the best unmarried). For them they become “Exalted” and get to live “the kind of life God lives.” They become gods and goddesses. They get to create spirit children, and help their children through the same path of existence that we all are supposed to follow. Getting your own planet isn’t spelled out specifically. And in fact most Mormons believe they’ll get their own universe, not just a planet. After all if we can become like God the Father, we’ll get universes just like he has, right?
The interesting thing is while the outlines of the doctrine are well defined, and spelled out in LDS scriptures, details are sketchy. Exactly how being a god or goddess, and what faithful Mormons are going to get, and how that will work is left to the individual members. So in the 19th century you get a lot of references to getting a planet. That is what the members could imagine. Evidently members have bigger imaginations now in the 21st century. 
Ain’t that the truth! The basic problem, is the LDS church has some really unique doctrines… and a philosophy of “Milk before Meat.” So they specifically have a doctrine of only “revealing” doctrines to members when they are ready. It is allowed, even encouraged to lie about a doctrine until someone is ready to “receive” it.
In the 19th century they could slowly move you from a standard seeming variant of Christianity to a point where you are in the Temple dressed up in white robes chanting “Pay Lay Ale,” and promising to “devote all you have to the church.” It is far too easy for new converts to learn some of this stuff, before they are too far in to start questioning things. So the philosophy seems to be to deny it now, and then reveal it later when a member is ready.
I don’t think any of the old crazy doctrines ever changed, they just added plausible deniability for outsiders. And it adds a little bit of ala carte choice to members. Don’t like Blood Atonement? Well that was just Brigham Young being crazy. Of course the one exception is Adam-God, even the leadership obviously now believes that was just Brigham Young being crazy. But Exaltation is too core. It is still being taught in Gospel Principles classes and it a key part of the Endowment ceremony in the Temple.
Ex-Mormon weighing in. The short answer is that yes, they believed it and taught it but now most of them, including a lot of the top leadership wish that it would just go away.
The first linked article is interesting because it quotes the 12th President Spencer W. Kimball from the time period when I was in high school. This is was made Mormons. This was what we believed. This is why we paid 10% of our net income in tithing, “refrained” from drinking, went on two year missions, wore funny underwear, went to church several times on Sunday and held lay leadership roles.
Mormons, and only Mormons, had the possibility of going on to become gods and goddesses. We went through the temples, got secret names, which we believed if we told anyone we would jeopardize out eternal salvation, promised to give all our possessions to the church if asked, learned secret handshakes which would get us past the guardian angels into the top kingdoms and made secret signs showing how we could be killed if we talked about any of this, all to become gods and goddesses.
It seems a little too silly for Mormonism now, I guess, although really if you believe any of it, what difference does *this *particular doctrine make?
So, at some point after I bailed, there became the Official Doctrine Recall, in which the then president of the church, Gorden B. Hinckley, told Larry King that “we don’t know a lot” about this.
Prophets of the Lord were saying at last as the 80s and perhaps 90s that we’d (or they, since I’m out) would get their own planets. Some time this changed. It’s too bad they don’t clarify this, it would be interesting to see if good Mormons at least get their own rose gardens in the next life.
Yes, “becoming like God” is the ultimate goal of Mormonism. It’s certainly what the missionaries were selling in the 1990s. I think pretty much everyone was surprised when Gordon B Hinkley said that becoming like God was “not doctrinal” and “I don’t know if we teach that.” Really, he was a prophet, seer, and revelator. He ought to know stuff like this.
I like the comment above comparing nailing down LDS doctrine to nailing Jello to a wall. Want to do a fun experiment? Tell a Mormon that LDS doctrine endorses beer. Show it to them in their scripture, Doctrine & Covenants section 89. The response will be that the scripture was written with a limited understanding, and that what is being discussed in Sunday School and preached in General Conference supercedes what was written in scripture nearly 200 years ago. And then, a few days later, casually mention the doctrine that members should contribute their time and their money to oppose marriage equality. The response will be no, that’s not doctrine; it’s discussed among the saints and it was read from every pulpit in a letter from Thomas S Monson and friends, but it’s not docrine because … wait for it … it wasn’t canonized in scripture.
There’s no such thing as doctrine in Mormonism. Any sermon, any press release, any commandment, and any scripture can be declared non-doctrinal if any Mormon finds it to be too embarassing.
true story: At my university town in the flatlands of America, there were a lot of Mormon missionaries. Once I was talking to the chief guy–a man about 30 who was in charge of organizing the missionaries.
I asked him about the Doctrine &Covenants , and a part of it that seemed contradictory. The D&C was originally created as notes taken during lectures by Mormon leaders. The chief missionary guy told me to ignore the D&C lecture notes, because they aren’t official.“After all” he told me with a straight face, “The author might of misunderstood something, or missed out on the context because he got up to go to the bathroom.”
That’s right folks, the chief missionary guy told me that somebody who went to the bathroom 150 years ago is the reason why I shouldn’t read the sacred Doctrines.
Wait, Christians get eternal salvation, Muslims get paradise with 72 babes to cater to their every whim (I assume Muslims who are women get cabana boys?), and now Mormons get their own freaking planet on which they are gods, and we Jews get … what? Nothing, That’s what!
Grumble grumble mumble.
That actually explains a lot.
If it’s not too much of a hijack would someone like to explain these two things? Blood Atonement and Adam-God.
Don’t you guys pretty much rule this planet? And you want another one? Geez, there’s no reason to be greedy. 
I already complain when my boss adds more people reporting to me. No way do I want a whole freakin’ planet.
I don’t necessarily want another planet. I’ll settle for the 72 hot babes. Or even 10.
So far, being part of the international conspiracy has been a drag. I hung out in the cemetary and didn’t see even one Elder. 
I hope you read the fine print because they may not be babes.
Isn’t that planet named "coleslaw’, “kohlrabi”…or something like that?
How do you think God feels? Billions. Of. Direct. Reports.
There’s no way to guarantee adequate supervision. It’s pretty obvious the business plan is in shreds. Whole divisions of the organization in open conflict with others, and almost all of them continuously badmouthing the Head Office.
Wait a second. Was I talking about Heaven and Earth, or my company? :smack:
You’re thinking about Kolob, but that’s not it.
Blood Atonement
Quick summary: According to Brigham Young, Jesus’s atonement can only go so far with some people. In order for some sins to be forgiven, the sinner’s blood must spill on the ground. This includes murderers, apostates, miscegenators, and some adulterers. When Jesus taught “love thy enemy”, he meant that we should love the church’s enemies sufficiently to slice their throats so that they may be forgiven.
Adam-God
Another doctrine taught by Brigham and a few of his apostles, although it seems he could never get the entire Quorum of 12 in agreement. Basically, the earth was created by Jehovah (a.k.a. Jesus) and Michael (a.k.a. Adam) under the supervision of Elohim (a.k.a. God the Father). So Adam is the father of the human race, and the creator of the earth, and “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do”.
Both of these doctrines are found throughout the Journal of Discourses, a collection of sermons by Brigham Young and other top Mormon authorities. The introductions to the volumes described the content as “doctrine” and Brigham stated that ALL of his sermons (provided they were edited and published by the church) are “scripture”. But JoD is not presently considered part of the scripture canon. Modern lesson manuals frequently use JoD as source material, but the lesson manuals include a warning that teachers should avoid looking stuff up in its original context. The LDS church would prefer that these doctrines be forgotten.
OK lets see how quickly I can do this.
Blood Atonement - Basic idea is that there are some sins so horrifically outside the pale that Christ’s atonement doesn’t cover it any more. Exactly what these are changed over the years. Apostasy was the big one in the 19th century. In the early 20th century that was dropped. So mostly murder, rape and the like. Back in Brigham Young’s day, a church council could declare someone in need of blood atonement and would send someone to carry it out, usually via beheading. A late as 1970 the LDS church was still publishing material like this quote from the prophet Joseph Fielding Smith (grand nephew of the original)
Adam-God - The basic idea is that Adam was God the Father. That Eve was one of his plural wives who arrived on Earth and together they physically populated the human race, via the standard fashion. As a corollary Mary was also tossed in as another of God’s plural wives. No idea what role Joseph of Nazareth was supposed to hold. But as both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had polyandrous marriages with women who remained married to their other husband, it probably wasn’t considered a problem. Even at the time it wasn’t fully accepted in the church. Most famously the Apostle Orson Pratt published essays opposing the doctrine. Even though the doctrine was still being taught by Prophets and Apostles into the 20th century the church has pretty aggressively disavowed this one. Brigham was stating opinion not doctrine, Brigham was using metaphor, Brigham was misunderstood, or otherwise didn’t mean what he plainly meant, have all been used to describe away the doctrine. But it is worth mentioning that it is still followed by the FLDS and some other splinter Mormon groups. Here is one of the many quotes by Brigham Young on the doctrine.
And on preview, Rhodes beat me to it. Oh well I wrote it all out, so here you go.