Sun Inhabitants

0 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 0 Google+ 0 StumbleUpon 0 Email -- Filament.io 0 Flares ×

On page 271 of the Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young stated the following:

“Do you think [the sun] is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so will this earth when it is celestialzed. Every planet in its first rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but it is opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into existence is a body of light, but not till then.”

Assuming Brigham Young’s thoughts on this matter are correct, it seems then that the Sun was once an inhabited world, and that this earth in its celestial state will have a temperature of 5780 Kelvins (5500 ?Ǭ?C) and be 333,000 larger in mass than it is now.

Actually, what’s even more interesting are the reports that Joseph Smith also taught the moon was inhabited. Or rather it is interesting when compared to scriptures such as the following:

“There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.” (1 Cor. 15:41)

“Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.” (D&C 76:78)

40 thoughts on “Sun Inhabitants

  1. I’m confident Brigham isn’t correct. I think that the early theories on people living on the sun and on the moon arose out of confusion of the symbols of the sun and moon for terrestrial and celestial worlds. It helped that most of the early saints were uneducated and even those who thought they were educated (such as Orson Pratt) really weren’t that educated.

  2. Your symbol theory is possible, but my theory has always been along these lines.

    1. We beleive that God lives in a physical location.

    2. We often associate light with God.

    D&C 50: 24
    24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

    3. The place where angels reside is described as a sphere of fire.

    D&C 130; 6 The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth;

    7 But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

    8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim.

    4.) The earth will become like this as well and and that’s where we will dwell.

    D&C 130: 9
    9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.

    Hearing these kinds of teachings, one could easily be led to beleive that the Sun was once a planet like ours, and received it’s glory. I think that this may have influenced him to think this, or anyone else who heard it. Shoot, I sometimes lean that way.

    I personally doubt it, but I can understand why someone, having heard these teachings, would understand it that way.

  3. I guess in the Young’ian version of physics, ‘celestialized’=’add a whole lot of hydrogen’.

    I’m sure you also realise that this means that our worlds are not everlasting, right? Stars burn off all their fuel eventually.

    What a ripoff. You’re given this perfectly good god-hood with a world to populate and manage, and it doesn’t even last as long as your marriage.

    Weird.

  4. You should know better than to give any credence whatsoever to the story about Joseph Smith talking about men in the moon.

  5. I think the story was told 60 years or so after the fact by a man who claimed to have heard about it as a child from another child who said Joseph Smith had said something to him about men in the moon. And the man telling the story got other key facts wrong.

    In short, no. I don’t believe he said it.

    I think there’s more info on this at Jeff Lindsay’s (a.k.a. Mormanity’s) web site.

  6. Given BY’s teachings regarding inhabitanats on the sun, it is not at all infeasible that Joseph Smith believed there wre beings living on the moon.

  7. Brigham Young’s views about the sun, which he unmistakably expressed as a personal view (“I rather think it is…”) have nothing at all to do with the question of whether Joseph Smith said there were men on the moon. It is utterly irrelevant to the question. What is relevant is that the whole moon-men story is based on shoddy and unreliable history.

  8. I do not see how it is irrelevant at all. Many of Brigham Young’s teachings were based on things he claimed he heard Joseph Smith say. Despite the unreliability of Oliver Huntington’s testimony, I am not ready to completely dismiss the possibility that Joseph Smith did say such. Especially considering many others during his time believed the same thing (including his brother Hyrum).

  9. I’m surprised that you’re so willingly credulous about this story.

    When a living Prophet speaks, you ask what scriptural support he has to back him up. But when Huntington speaks such nonsense as this, you won’t dismiss it.

    Are you putting more confidence in Oliver Huntington than in Gordon B. Hinckley?

  10. When a living prophet speaks as a prophet, then yes, I expect him to either state something that is consistent with what his predecessors have said or preface it by saying that the Lord gave him a new revelation.

    If we don’t have an expectation like this (or something similar), then we have no way to differentiate between what is the word of God and what is the word of a man.

  11. But you’re not demanding anything close to the same standard of support for the utterly unreliable account of moon-men.

    (By the way, even if it were true that a child who told Huntington, as a child, that Joseph had told him about men in the moon, it wouldn’t reliably prove that Joseph had done so. And even if it were true that Joseph had told the other child about men in the moon, it would still prove nothing except that Joseph had told a fanciful tale that amused a child. I tell my children stories about dragons and giants. I guess I’d better warn them not to pass any on, for fear that I’ll be slandered one day as a believer in fairy-tale creatures.)

  12. The difference of course is that Huntington wasn’t a prophet. All we have to go on is his word. And unless we have some evidence to prove it false, I don’t see how we can simply dismiss it as false. Possibly unreliable? Sure. Absolutely false? Not so fast.

  13. But what if the Prophet says that bestiality and child rape are sins? You’ve said there’s no scriptural support for this teaching. Should we dismiss it as mere opinion, and feel free to ignore it?

  14. Technically I did not say there was no scriptural support for it. You asked, “Does anyone know of strong scriptural support . . . for the idea that bestiality and child rape are sins?” I responded with “Nope”, referring to the fact that I knew of no strong scriptural support for bestiality and child rape being sins. However, just because I knew of none, does not mean none (strong or weak) exist.

    That being said, if there is no scriptural support for the teaching that bestiality and child rape are sins and such teaching was not revealed by God, then yes it can be considered a personal opinion.

    Should we feel free to ignore it? absolutely. In fact, we should feel free to ignore anything the prophet says. If weren’t free to do so, then why choose God’s plan in the pre-mortal existence, and not Satan’s plan.

    Should we ignore it? I don’t think so. I am leery about ignoring counsel to avoid such practises as bestiality and child rape. Regardless of whether such counsel is prophetic, I think it is still valuable, as do many lawmakers throughout the world.

  15. Are you leery about ignoring the Prophet’s counsel to do things that don’t naturally go along with your own opinions? If he counsels us to do something that surprises you? For example, I was surprised when he told us not to get tattoos. But I am leery–very, very leery–of ignoring his counsel, because he is a Prophet. He’s a seer. A seer, as you know is one who sees–more specifically, who sees what others don’t see. I don’t demand that he give me confirming evidence from a dead Prophet before I accept his counsel. I don’t presume that the way things look from my point of view is superior.

  16. “Are you leery about ignoring the Prophet’s counsel to do things that don’t naturally go along with your own opinions?”

    Nope. I resist. I naturally resist change. Do I concede? Sometimes.

  17. It should also be pointed out that some people’s patriarchal blessings stated that they would be called to missions on the moon.

    Again, not proof by any means, but the idea was definitely in the air.

  18. I can’t help wondering what happened to the ancient Israelites who demanded scriptural support from Moses when he told them to walk through the Red Sea.

  19. So do I. I hope you feel similar motives for following the Prophet’s counsel today–whether or not you can see everything he sees.

  20. If I was standing on the borders of the giant Red Sea, being chased by armed Egyptians, and President Hinckley parted the sea, making a passage to the other side, I guarantee that I would follow.

  21. And how do you know you are not facing a situation of similar urgency when he tells you to do something else? Why are you so comfortable with the idea of rejecting his counsel unless he can point to a dead prophet who agrees with him?

  22. For some odd reason I have a problem finding the urgency in the declaration that people inhabit the sun or that we (or more specifically, youth) shouldn’t have tattoos.

  23. And because YOU have trouble seeing any urgency in the Prophet’s counsel not to have tattoos, you assume there isn’t any. In doing so, you’re rejecting the notion that he is a seer–that he sees what you do not see.

  24. Actually, it seems you are the one doing the assuming.

    When I said I don’t see the urgency in the declaration that people inhabit the sun or that we shouldn’t have tattoos, I meant that I don’t see the urgency in those declarations. I have made no assumptions.

    I also do not reject the notion that eh is a seer. I should mention that a seer is more than just someone who sees something we don’t see.

    In Mosiah 8:13, we learn that a seer is someone who is commanded to look into interpreters. Later on in verse 17, we learn that a seer also sees the past and the future. It’s not just having a different perspective.

  25. I agree that it’s not having a different perspective. It’s having a SUPERIOR perspective. God gives more info to Prophets than to the rest of us, and demands that we have faith to follow the Prophets. Disregard him at your own peril.

  26. Ah, I think ltbugaf has touched on a good point here.

    The scriptures tell us that prophets have an augmented, i.e. superiour view of the facts.

    Given that assumption, it is still not out of the question for the prophet to speak something that is not the word of God.

    Although he may be privy to more context, he is still only a man and therefore may be on the wrong side of an issue.

    People can have very, VERY good information at hand and make the wrong decisions.

    The question should really be:

    Are the prophets infallible due to their greater access to information, or should the membership look for their own perspective before following the prophet’s council because there’s a chance that he may be mis-reading his superior information?

  27. Or to further that thought, there may also be a chance that all of the superior information he knows has nothing at all to do with what he just said.

  28. When the Prophet says you should do something, you really have two choices. You can either follow or turn your back. I stand for the side that says it’s better to follow. You can turn your back if you want. I think you’ll regret it.

  29. right…you have a tendency to read people wrongly ltbugaf..why are you assuming anyone here is suggesting you “turn your back on the prophet”. no one is. but i do think you read what you want and interpret it the way you want, rather than reading what is said.

  30. But when I say I should just do what the Prophet says, the responses come in fast and furious: “But how do you know…how do you know…how do you know…”

    I just do it. Or rather, when I’m righteous I do it. There’s only one alternative. If you’re not in favor of doing what he says, then you’re in favor of not doing what he says.

Leave a Reply