Worlds without number and the inhabitants thereof
One of the most striking concepts revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith can be found in the first chapter of the Book of Moses.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words. (Moses 1:33-35, 38)
These scriptures are most commonly read in the church to mean that before this earth was created there were innumerable other similar inhabited worlds that God created. In fact the header in this chapter reads: Many inhabited worlds seen.
Then to add to the mix, we can throw in this insight Joseph taught near the end of his life:
It is the first principle to know that we may converse with him and that he once was a man like us, and the Father was once on an earth like us (King Follet Discourse, Wilford Woodruff Diary)
So the basic idea as most read these passages is that there have been innumerable inhabited worlds (which are generally thought to be planets as opposed to the figurative worlds on the same planet) and that God, the Father of Jesus Christ, was a mortal on at least one of them.
If that isn’t enough to set us apart doctrinally as a peculiar people I don’t know what would be. But while these statements open grand new vistas for us, they also bring up a lot of new questions. Here are some of the issues that interest me:
1. Who were the inhabitants of all those other worlds?
2. Did each world have a savior of its own?
3. Who was the Godhead for each world?
4. How similar was the human plot of each world?
5. How similar was the animal and plant life of previous worlds to ours?
I’ll spend time exploring these questions over several posts to come. In my next post (which I’ll publish tonight as well) I’ll start with the first question. This ought to be fun!
6. Was the Father a Messiah? (Jesus said that he only does what he saw his father do).
7. Does the Father still hold Family Home Evening? (or rather does he still have relationships with his ‘earthly’ parents/children?
Comment by yddy42 — April 10, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
While there definitely are “answers” to these questions given by various figures in the late 19th century, I’m not convinced they are revealed answers. In either case it seems difficult to discern the answer and I have no problem saying, “I don’t know.”
I should add that one of the more famous discourses about multiple worlds was Orson Hyde’s on the parable of the vineyards in D&C 88. There he says each of the twelve vineyards is a different planet and Christ is the savior of each. That seemed very profound when I found it on my mission. I think it far less profound today and take a healthy skepticism towards such speculations.
Comment by Clark — April 10, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
yddy42: Nice additional questions. I’ll address those in the follow up posts in this series.
Clark: I have no problem admitting “I don’t know” either, and that is what I do say in most venues. But this seems like a good place to explore the merits and follies of various models. Who knows, maybe we could even cobble together a model that makes some sense.
BTW — Where can I find that Orson Hyde sermon? Is it in the JD or something? It sounds like it could be an interesting reference point as we speculate here.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — April 10, 2005 @ 5:12 pm
But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you.
I think this is the one of the least appreciated verses around. It accounts for much of my stance on a lot of issues, including the crazy topic of foreknowledge. There’s just lots we don’t know about anything outside of how this world operates.
That said, I think I’m mostly in favor of the idea that it generally works the same way each time in terms of creation, fall, and atonement, although I don’t know whether I believe in the one savior per world theory or the one per spirit generation theory, though I don’t tend to go for the one savior for all spirits ever theory. It doesn’t make much sense to me.
yddy42:
I’ve never been satisfied that the evidence you give for point 1 says what some claim it does. It seems like a pretty general statement to me, and I’m not sure how far we can push it. He at least busies himself with the work of his father–bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, though I would have no problem with the father as a savior, I don’t know that I see it as necessary.
As far as his relationships, I hope so. Why should God the father be the only one who has to give up his important relationships?
Comment by Steve H — April 10, 2005 @ 10:53 pm
Am I missing something? Where in the verses you provided does it state that other worlds are inhabited?
Comment by Kim Siever — April 11, 2005 @ 7:54 am
Kim: I noticed that too. There is room for the interpretation that this is the only inhabited world ever in the Moses verses alone, however the header of that chapter and the quote from Joseph say that other worlds were inhabited.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — April 11, 2005 @ 8:27 am
Also, if he’s created worlds without number, is it really worth telling us if they are just rocks floating around out there? Are they even worlds? I don’t see that there would be a purpose.
Comment by Steve H — April 11, 2005 @ 3:05 pm
I always interpreted Abraham as saying that there were other saviors out there somewhere:
“And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.”
If Kolob was meant to be a symbol for Christ (a fairly popular idea) it would seem that these other governing ones might be Christs as well.
Man, talk about speculation.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — April 11, 2005 @ 3:32 pm
Clark,
The same thing happened to me on my mission. Same verses, same discourse.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — April 11, 2005 @ 3:33 pm
That is two of you who have read that sermon… Where is it found? Sounds interesting.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — April 11, 2005 @ 3:42 pm
I read it in the D&C student manual I think.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — April 11, 2005 @ 3:45 pm
Wow. I have that institute manual. I’ll look up Orson Hyde ain the D&C 88 section there. If the quote shows up there it can’t be all that speculative though — That’s a correlation-cleansed manual.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — April 11, 2005 @ 4:08 pm
Ok I found the quote. It is found in that manual indeed on page 201. It is quoting Elder Orson Pratt (not Hyde) from JD 17:331-32. I’ll read the whole thing comment on it if there is anything of interest in it later.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — April 11, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
Whoops. My bad. Hyde was the one who had that odd family tree in explaining the plan of salvation.
Comment by Clark — April 11, 2005 @ 10:23 pm
Geoff, the scripture header is not scripture.
What quote from Joseph Smith are you referring to? I couldn’t find a quote from Joseph Smith in this post or the comments that states the other worlds were inhabited.
SteveH,
It may be that the intent of creating the worlds was to populate them. Or it may not be. The scriptures are silent on the issue and we are just guessing. Nothing wrong with guessing, as long as we realise that’s all it is.
That being said, ‘world’ can also be used as a ’synonym’ for planet. We have nine such worlds in our solar system and not all of them are inhabited. Does that mean they don’t have a purpose?
Comment by Kim Siever — April 12, 2005 @ 8:07 am
I always thought that this verse:
Meant that there were many adams (i.e., for the many worlds). Many Adams = many inhabitants. No?
Comment by J. Stapley — April 12, 2005 @ 8:34 am
Kim,
Check the post again. The second quote is from Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse (as recorded by Wilford Woodruff).
J,
I agree absolutely. Many Adams does = many worlds.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — April 12, 2005 @ 9:17 am
Geoff,
I have gone through that quote a dozen times and I see nowhere in it that states the worlds without number that Jesus created are inhabited.
Re: Adam=many
I believe that scripture is stating that the interpretation of Adam is “many”, just as Kim means “chief or ruler”.
Comment by Kim Siever — April 12, 2005 @ 2:46 pm
That’s fine Kim. That’s the beauty of these speculative things… we’re allowed to believe whatever we want. I think you are in a minority in that reading of those scriptures (as the header attests) but I se nothing wrong with that.
So I guess that means you think that this is the only inhabited world of all that Moses was told about? Do you also assume Jesus was only speaking for himself to Moses and not by divine investiture of authority on behalf of the Father? Who do you think created the world the Father inhabited?
That was the point of this post — to hear the various theories out there.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — April 12, 2005 @ 3:55 pm
“So I guess that means you think that this is the only inhabited world of all that Moses was told about? ”
Why do you guess that? Simply because I said that the scripture does not say what everyone thinks it says? Because I argue the scripture does not state other worlds were inhabited does not mean I am arguing against the idea of other worlds being inhabited.
I believe many things that are not in the scriptures.
Comment by Kim Siever — April 13, 2005 @ 7:36 am
Uhhh… ok. Well, um… Thanks for going to such great lengths to point that out… ;-)
Comment by Geoff Johnston — April 13, 2005 @ 8:38 am
To get back to the original questions at the beginning of this topic:
Who were the inhabitants of all those other worlds?
Batch theory seems to fit well here. Those who talk about the HTK? theory, I would appreciate a better understanding of it. I’ve been trying to get a full grasp of it. Could someone give me a good summary of this please?
Did each world have a savior of its own?
I would think so. For some reason I have difficulty with the idea that Jesus is the Saviour of multi-worlds. Maybe because the angels that visit the earth have been said to be spirits who have already been to earth or will be going to earth. I dont’ know about you guys, but a religion that preached that a Saviour died for our sins on a planet far away in another galaxy would just seem way to weird for my taste. How did such information make if from the far away planet? Think how difficult of a message that would be for a missionary there! Also, one of the appeals of Jesus as a Saviour is that he was one of us. He experienced OUR earth and OUR problems. And to go along with the question, “Did each world have a savior of its own?” Did each world have its own satan?
Who was the Godhead for each world?
That goes along strongly with the question who was the saviour of these other worlds.
How similar was the human plot of each world?
I would think the human plot would not be much different than earths. As Solomon says, there is nothing new under the sun. In other words, no matter how much things changes, some things always stay the same.
How similar was the animal and plant life of previous worlds to ours?
I would say, if I was making planets, I’d probably change it up some when it came to plants and animals.
As the human’s on that world’s idea of treatment towards animals changed, perhaps the natural selection of different species would be altered allowing for wildly different varieties of animals even if the original animals and plants that started each earth was the same.
Comment by Speaking Up — April 13, 2005 @ 11:05 am
Good comments, S-U.
I think I am largely in agreement with you. I plan to post on each of these questions separately. In answer to your question about my first question, see my post that describes what I am calling the Heber C Kimball model (aka the HCK model). I first mentioned the model and quoted Heber C. in this post. I should note that Jeffrey Gilliam just took this idea much further than I did in a post yesterday too.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — April 13, 2005 @ 11:26 am
[…] ts own?
By: Geoff Johnston @ 2:22 pm
As promised, this is the third in my series about the worlds without number and the inhabitants thereof talked about in our scriptures and in the church […]
Pingback by New Cool Thang » Did each world have a savior of its own? — April 22, 2005 @ 2:23 pm
SEPTEMBER 30, 2007
WELL GUYS IT LOOKS LIKE I’M ABOUT 2 YEARS LATE ON THIS DISCUSSION. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD MY FEELINGS ANYWAY. EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE BEING TAUGHT HERE AND NOW STATES THAT WE’RE BEING SCHOOLED FOR THE ETERNITY’S. WHO IS TO SAY THAT WE WHO MAKE IT TO THE HIGHEST KINGDOM, ON OUR WAY TO GODHOOD. PERHAPS, OUR PREREQUISITES WILL BE TO BECOME (SAVIORS OF MEN AND WOMEN!! THUS FULL FILLING ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS. HAVING DONE WHAT WE’VE WITNESSED OUR FATHER/BROTHER DO. ALL I CAN SAY IS WOW WHAT ENDLESS POSSIBILITIES. THE THOUGHT THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO ENDURE THE SAME SUFFERING THAT OUR SAVIOR HAD TO ENDURE IS QUITE HUMBLING….
Comment by JOE MILLETT — September 30, 2007 @ 8:05 pm