Joseph Smith and Multiple Mortal Probations

[Benjamin Seeker]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Do you have a direct link?

http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/MF0081.doc

EDIT: I replaced the link with the correct one. I apologize if people had followed it and been confused.

Sorry. I originally had links, but the formatting kept my post from being published, so I deleted the links in an effort to fix the formatting.

Quote

Although we probably should distinguish between MMP as a doctrine of reincarnation for the telestial kingdom from MMP as part of Adam God (the idea of a progression from mortal, to Christ, to Father, to falling as Adam, to return to Father).

I agree that there are multiple ideas going on here.

Quote

That seems a bit of a stretch. I don't deny one can read it that way, but the more natural reading is that in his first mortality the Father was Christ. And as the head of our creation under the Father, it is Jesus who will be head in the next creation the way the father is. That is, I think the text is inherently ambiguous there.

I agree that the easiest take away, which Laub points out, is that God the Father was a Christ. I don't know how much of a stretch my other implications are considering that Brigham and Heber are ordaining people to be Saviors, in Godheads, and in "Trinities" or "Presidencies of Worlds" (read Peter, James and John) just less than two years later. They could be going off on their own already, but it's more likely, simply due to time and authority still being sured up, that they are building off inner circle doctrine established by JS. It also a very logical next step after establishing that men can become Gods and God was a Christ.

Quote

I don't think the Laub quote you give suggests Laub read the KFD in terms of MMP either. At best it just means the Holy Ghost doesn't have a body and will one day, will die, and will be resurrected.

Please clarify if I'm mistaken, but I didn't use Laub's quote on the Holy Ghost to support MMP. I used it to show his understanding that the Holy Ghost would, as Franklin Richards writes, go through a "similar course" as the Son has, and that God the Father and the Gods before Him had done these things. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I did use a different Laub quote on the King Follett Sermon to support the idea of heirs of the Celestial Kingdom following in Christs' footsteps. He wrote that heirs will eventually reach "where Christ is."

Quote

Likewise the use of the term "savior" is more vague than I think you are using it. When I hear the term applied to people other than Jesus I immediately think of Mosiah 15 and not MMP. i.e. we are saviors in a derived sense in which we preach the gospel. Now of course I think Brigham came to understand it the way you suggest. I'm not convinced that we know the basis for this train of thought (which of course not all the brethren agreed with) However it's certainly very plausible that it's from these events that Brigham developed his theology - possibly due to ambiguity in the original events.

There is just such good evidence for a literal understanding of this idea (which quote with the term Savior are you referring to?). George Laub gives us the literal interpretation about Christ doing the things he saw his Father do, and Brigham, Heber, Phelps, and others apparently understood the term Savior very literally in 1846. Though I have to agree that there is a high level of ambiguity in these original events (I can only talk in likelihoods).

As I've already pointed out in a post above, JS' teaching placing previously resurrected beings on earth is highly suggestive of MMP, as is the endowment, particularly contrasted with his teachings on identifying resurrected beings vs. ministering spirits vs. devils, which he repeated multiple times before and after the Nauvoo endowment had been given.

Basically, I'm not sure I'm right, but the odds are in my favor, I think.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

D&C 88:31-31

"And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place [the telestial kingdom where they now live], to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received."

Some say this scripture suggests that a person might be able to leave the telestial glory experience another life on earth and then return to the telestial glory.

I think it's more likely talking about going from one degree of glory to another degree, as in going from receiving a portion of telestial glory to receiving a fulness of telestial glory and then going back to receiving only the portion of telestial glory they had received because they were not willing to receive the fulness of (more) telestial glory.

The glory of God is intelligence, with God having a fulness of the celestial level of intelligence, and going from one level of intelligence to another is not what I think of as reincarnation.

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I agree that the easiest take away, which Laub points out, is that God the Father was a Christ. I don't know how much of a stretch my other implications are considering that Brigham and Heber are ordaining people to be Saviors, in Godheads, and in "Trinities" or "Presidencies of Worlds" (read Peter, James and John) just less than two years later. They could be going off on their own already, but it's more likely, simply due to time and authority still being sured up, that they are building off inner circle doctrine established by JS. It also a very logical next step after establishing that men can become Gods and God was a Christ.

But of course a lot happened in those two years. 

I just think we need more context to figure out what to make of those later ordinations.  Again, I'd take for granted that Heber and Brigham took it in the fashion consistent with their beliefs in the 1850's. However in terms of how we infer the source I think we need to be more cautious.

An important context you're leaving out is Joseph's sermons on "Saviors on Mt Zion" which has strong echoes of Mosiah 15 as I mentioned. (Which is itself a rif and midrash on Isaiah 52 but there's also Obadiah 1:21 "And saviors shall come up on mount Zion..." 

Then compare these, particularly the Obadiah reference to the Jan 21, 1844 sermon by Joseph Smith.

Quote

But what is the object of this important mission or how is it to be fulfilled, The keys are to be delivered the spirit of Elijah is to Come, The gospel to be esstablished the saints of God gatherd Zion built up, & the Saints to Come up as Saviors on mount Zion but how are they to become Saviors on Mount Zion by building their temples erecting their Baptismal fonts & going forth & receiving all the ordinances, Baptisms, Confirmations, washings, anointings ordinations & sealing powers upon our heads in behalf of all our Progenitors who are dead & redeem them that they may Come forth in the first resurrection & be exalted to thrones of glory with us, & here in is the chain that binds the hearts of the fathers to the Children, & the Children to the Fathers which fulfills the mission of Elijah

So neglecting this sense of our being saviors kind of shifts how we read those passages. If the earthly is in the image of the heavenly then it makes sense that we are to be doing these things. The first Presidency is thus in the image of the godhead. 

Again I'm not denying that Heber and Brigham at least came to view it more expansively. I'm just saying we can't infer from that what Joseph's views were. Because I think as compelling an argument could be made that their theology comes from misreading Joseph (especially in an age where they were going by memory and not writings) as the argument that Joseph's came from misreading neoplatonic or other texts. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander)

Quote

Please clarify if I'm mistaken, but I didn't use Laub's quote on the Holy Ghost to support MMP. I used it to show his understanding that the Holy Ghost would, as Franklin Richards writes, go through a "similar course" as the Son has, and that God the Father and the Gods before Him had done these things. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Right. I'm just making explicit that Laub's take on the Holy Ghost can be taken as just he's a spirit. i.e. no real theological important beyond he'll have to get a body like the rest of us.

Quote

I think a non-literal interpretation is of the term Savior is probably anachronistic (which quote are you referring to). Brigham, Heber, Phelps, and others apparently understood the term Savior very literally in 1846.

But the question at hand is why and when. I'm not sure 1846 is as clear as you do. Especially relative to that 1844 sermon of Joseph on what being a savior means.

Quote

As I've already pointed out in a post above, JS' teaching placing previously resurrected beings on earth is highly suggestive of MMP, as is the endowment, particularly contrasted with his teachings on identifying resurrected beings vs. ministering spirits vs. devils, which he repeated multiple times before and after the Nauvoo endowment had been given

Could you be more explicit here? I don't see how resurrected angels implies much about MMP.

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But of course a lot happened in those two years. 

I just think we need more context to figure out what to make of those later ordinations.  Again, I'd take for granted that Heber and Brigham took it in the fashion consistent with their beliefs in the 1850's. However in terms of how we infer the source I think we need to be more cautious.

An important context you're leaving out is Joseph's sermons on "Saviors on Mt Zion" which has strong echoes of Mosiah 15 as I mentioned. (Which is itself a rif and midrash on Isaiah 52 but there's also Obadiah 1:21 "And saviors shall come up on mount Zion..." 

Then compare these, particularly the Obadiah reference to the Jan 21, 1844 sermon by Joseph Smith.

So neglecting this sense of our being saviors kind of shifts how we read those passages. If the earthly is in the image of the heavenly then it makes sense that we are to be doing these things. The first Presidency is thus in the image of the godhead. 

Again I'm not denying that Heber and Brigham at least came to view it more expansively. I'm just saying we can't infer from that what Joseph's views were. Because I think as compelling an argument could be made that their theology comes from misreading Joseph (especially in an age where they were going by memory and not writings) as the argument that Joseph's came from misreading neoplatonic or other texts. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander)

I think you've made a nice case here for other likely possibilities. However, we still need to address the resurrected being bit, which I think really gives my argument some bite (see below).

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Right. I'm just making explicit that Laub's take on the Holy Ghost can be taken as just he's a spirit. i.e. no real theological important beyond he'll have to get a body like the rest of us.

Cool. I, of course, admit that that interpretation is possible, though a less literal reading of the two quotes on the Holy Ghost (and infinitely more mundane, which has nothing to do with our debate )

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Could you be more explicit here? I don't see how resurrected angels implies much about MMP.

OK, so JS gives a resurrected being interpretation of Genesis' "sons of God" marrying the daughters of men. That places resurrected being from a previous earth or plan of salvation, if you will, interacting with people on this earth (this isn't MMP quite yet). Then in the endowment we get a very similar thing happening, only this time with characters that we recognize from their later mortal probations here on earth. This interpretation of the endowment is practically forced by JS' teachings about identifying resurrected beings vs. ministering spirits vs. devils, which he repeated several times before and after the Nauvoo endowment had been given (sorry to sound like a broken record on that one). Thus, we have a canonized example of MMP.

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

OK, so JS gives a resurrected being interpretation of Genesis' "sons of God" marrying the daughters of men. That places resurrected being from a previous earth or plan of salvation, if you will, interacting with people on this earth (this isn't MMP quite yet). Then in the endowment we get a very similar thing happening, only this time with characters that we recognize from their later mortal probations here on earth. This interpretation of the endowment is practically forced by JS' teachings about identifying resurrected beings vs. ministering spirits vs. devils, which he repeated several times before and after the Nauvoo endowment had been given (sorry to sound like a broken record on that one). Thus, we have a canonized example of MMP.

Just to be explicit, which sermon are you referring to? I suspect there's some exegisical questions here that may be being glossed over.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I think it's more likely talking about going from one degree of glory to another degree, as in going from receiving a portion of telestial glory to receiving a fulness of telestial glory and then going back to receiving only the portion of telestial glory they had received because they were not willing to receive the fulness of (more) telestial glory.

The glory of God is intelligence, with God having a fulness of the celestial level of intelligence, and going from one level of intelligence to another is not what I think of as reincarnation.

Makes sense if you look at it within the context of being able to progress within a particular glory of heaven.

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Just to be explicit, which sermon are you referring to? I suspect there's some exegisical questions here that may be being glossed over.

George Laub wrote that Joseph stated, "Now the history of Josephus in Speaking of angels came down and took themselves wives of the daughters of men, See Geneses 6 Chapter 1-2, verses. These ware resurrected Bodies, Violated the Celestial laws."

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Makes sense if you look at it within the context of being able to progress within a particular glory of heaven.

Yes, as spiritual/intellectual progress or progression of intelligence, but that isn't what I think people are thinking of when they talk about reincarnation.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Ahab

[Ahab]

38 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

George Laub wrote that Joseph stated, "Now the history of Josephus in Speaking of angels came down and took themselves wives of the daughters of men, See Geneses 6 Chapter 1-2, verses. These ware resurrected Bodies, Violated the Celestial laws."

George Laub was wrong and would have had the opportunity to receive correction if he had read Joseph's translation of the "sons of God" text in Genesis.

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

George Laub was wrong and would have had the opportunity to receive correction if he had read Joseph's translation of the "sons of God" text in Genesis.

The JST correction you refer to was dictated by JS in 1830-1831. George Laub's record is of JS' comments in the Nauvoo period, where JS appears to have had come to a contrasting interpretation, and like I've pointed out, it clearly connects with rest of the Nauvoo era data.

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The JST correction you refer to was dictated by JS in 1830-1831. George Laub's record is of JS' comments in the Nauvoo period, where JS appears to have had come to a contrasting interpretation, and like I've pointed out, it clearly connects with rest of the Nauvoo era data.

Still appears, to me, to be a misunderstanding of his teachings to think that he was teaching reincarnation as truth.

[CMZ]

Again, not jumping to a final conclusion, but we should try to square the MMP theory with other truths that are available, especially canonized ones (not saying nobody else has mentioned scriptures here). When the Lord Jesus Christ says:

Quote

 

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

D&C 19:16-17

 

Then it gets a little hard to think that at some later point he would tell someone, "Remember that part about not suffering even as I? Well, that's not really the case. The reality is that you will have to suffer in pretty much the exact same way as I did. Oh, and it's because you repented that you will get to do this."

Edited March 1, 2017 by CMZ

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JAHS said:

We often use this scripture to support the concept of a pre-mortal life, but we would have to assume that it is possible to commit a sin while there in a spirit state.

Satan sinned, did he not?

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Satan sinned, did he not?

True but he and all the others that sinned with him did not even make it to earth the first time. Did the rest of us in some way sin while we were there?
I suppose it's possible.

[Benjamin Seeker]

26 minutes ago, JAHS said:

True but he and all the others that sinned with him did not even make it to earth the first time. Did the rest of us in some way sin while we were there?
I suppose it's possible.

Here is a quote with some insight on what JS thought about you question, that, coincidentally, also has some bearing on the possibility of Joseph teaching multiple mortal probations:

Quote

We also heard him (Joseph) say that God had revealed unto him that any man who ever committed adultery in either of his probations that that man could never be raised to the highest exaltation in the celestial glory and that he (Joseph) felt anxious with regard to himself and he inquired of the Lord and the Lord told him that he, Joseph, had never committed adultery (D&C 132:41). This saying of the Prophet astonished me very much. It opened up to me a very wide field of reflection. The idea that we had passed through probations prior to this and that we must have been married and given in marriage in those probations or there would be no propriety in making such an assertion and that there were several exaltations in the servants to the Gods. Be this as it may, this is what he said. (Journal of Joseph Lee Robinson, http://planetnielsen.com/joseph_lee_robinson/jlr_basic_journal.pdf, pp. 40-41)

Some people have argued that JS's phrase, "either probation," could refer to our mortal probation and preexistence (1st and 2nd estates), and frankly, this seems like a plausible understanding of the quote, which in that scenario it at least infers that spirits were married in the preexistence. However, obviously Robinson understood Joseph as referring to some version of multiple mortal probations, which makes us wonder if there was more than what Robinson reported or if he was piecing together other things he'd heard Joseph say. No matter, he understood JS to mean multiple mortal probations. The date of the quote is more or less appropriate for MMP also, being the fall of 1841.

We have a growing list of people understanding JS to have taught controversial related doctrines (i.e. reincarnation, multiple mortal probations, or resurrected beings from a past earth or plan of salvation interacting with this earth), including:

1. Eliza R. Snow
2. Prescendia Huntington Buell
3. George Laub
4. Joseph Lee Robinson
5. Brigham Young (very likely)
6. Heber C Kimball (very likely)
7. W.W. Phelps (possibly)

Edited March 1, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[CMZ]

So... even with all these people talking about it we still have to square it with the scriptures:

Quote

Alma 11:45 Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.

Quote

D&C 63:49 Yea, and blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, from henceforth, when the Lord shall come, and old things shall pass away, and all things become new, they shall rise from the dead and shall not die after, and shall receive an inheritance before the Lord, in the holy city.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by CMZ

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

True but he and all the others that sinned with him did not even make it to earth the first time. Did the rest of us in some way sin while we were there?
I suppose it's possible.

Everyone is sinning in this life, no exceptions save Christ.  Seems to me it would be the same in the preexistent, if it was possible to sin, people would because we were and are not perfect....unless we were very different than what we are now.  The sins might not have been that big of a deal, probably more of feelings....being ungrateful, lazy, unkind, apathetic as it appears besides God's power there may not have been anything to be jealous of.  Perhaps it was even possible since we were in the presence of God to repent ourselves since none appeared to have cause spiritual death until Satan stepped up the game.  Assuming what we know is more literal than allegory, which assumption I don't actually make, but I like to think of what life would be like with God, I see that as real.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Calm

[Ahab]

9 hours ago, CMZ said:

So... even with all these people talking about it we still have to square it with the scriptures:

 

...or what I think is more likely, that other people think they were hearing Church leaders teaching reincarnation or MMPs...

I suppose I just have a little more faith that our Church leaders, like Joseph Smith, didn't teach anything contrary to scripture. 

[Ahab]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Everyone is sinning in this life, no exceptions save Christ.  Seems to me it would be the same in the preexistent, if it was possible to sin, people would because we were and are not perfect....unless we were very different than what we are now.  The sins might not have been that big of a deal, probably more of feelings....being ungrateful, lazy, unkind, apathetic as it appears besides God's power there may not have been anything to be jealous of.  Perhaps it was even possible since we were in the presence of God to repent ourselves since none appeared to have cause spiritual death until Satan stepped up the game.  Assuming what we know is more literal than allegory, which assumption I don't actually make, but I like to think of what life would be like with God, I see that as real.

I suppose the atonement would still apply to sins committed before we became mortal, if we did sin in heaven before we became mortal, but I don't see in scripture the idea that we sinned in heaven before we became mortal.

And I don't like making assumptions.

[clarkgoble]

Benjamin I want to read through the link and quotes before responding further because I want to get the dates right in my mind and how distant accounts are. Obviously the earlier the account the better since later accounts get contaminated by thinking them through in terms of the later teaching.

The point about the Watchers I think we have to be a bit more careful with. Joseph had likely read 1 Enoch by then as an English translation came out in 1821 with two more revised editions over the next 20 years. The Laub account seems to be familiar with that tradition which isn't in the JST of Genesis. 

Joseph Lee Robinson's account on probations is fascinating. I'd not seen that one before. What's weird about it is he indicates there were only two probations. It's not at all clear what he means by that. It almost sounds a lot more like the Saturday's Warrior type of account where people were soul mates because they were a couple in the pre-existence.

Edited March 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

...or what I think is more likely, that other people think they were hearing Church leaders teaching reincarnation or MMPs...

I suppose I just have a little more faith that our Church leaders, like Joseph Smith, didn't teach anything contrary to scripture. 

Ahab, how about Brigham's teachings on Adam-God, for example. Clearly that contradicts scripture and was very controversial. When you say that our church leaders didn't teach anything contrary to scripture, are you making exceptions for Brigham Young, Heber C Kimball, and Wilford Woodruff, who were all on board with Adam-God? I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just curious how you approach that topic.

[Benjamin Seeker]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Benjamin I want to read through the link and quotes before responding further because I want to get the dates right in my mind and how distant accounts are. Obviously the earlier the account the better since later accounts get contaminated by thinking them through in terms of the later teaching.

That would be great if you would look into that. It would be really helpful to know when each of these accounts were given/written (Eliza Snow, Prescendia Huntington, Laub's journal, and Robinson's journal).

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[JLHPROF]

On 2/27/2017 at 10:31 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

In the Nauvoo period, Joseph Smith began believed in and secretly taught something akin to reincarnation. Michael Quinn documented it as follows:

Quote

Apostle Lorenzo Snow said that "his sister, the late Eliza R. Snow Smith, was a firm believer in the principle of reincarnation and that she claimed to have received it from Joseph the Prophet, her husband." Prescendia Huntington Buell (later Kimball) also affirmed her belief in "plural probations," referring to a statement "in confirmation" by her polyandrous husband Joseph Smiths. In the 1840s their polygamous relationship to the Mormon prophet was as secret as his conversion to reincarnation.

 

Apparently, Laub wasn't the only who understood the King Follett Sermon this way. In January of 1846, just over a year and a half after the death of JS, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball ordained each other to act as a savior. They also vicariously ordained Joseph and Hyrum to do the same. Following is the summary of the January 1846 Nauvoo Temple Record from the Multiple Mortal Probations document:

Quote

Brigham Young laid hands on Heber C. Kimball and "Ordained him to the Godhead, and that he would act as the Savior to a world or worlds." This was part of a long prayer. Promised wives, seed without number, be full partaker with Abraham, Isaac., and Jacob. The Godhead was a different blessing from Godhood. (Some received only Godhood.) Heber C. Kimball then did the same to Brigham Young, i.e., ordained him to The Godhead. They in turn did it by proxy for Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Other saints (W.W. Phelps) were blessed to act in Trinities (or Presidencies of worlds).

 

 

12 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

We have a growing list of people understanding JS to have taught controversial related doctrines (i.e. reincarnation, multiple mortal probations, or resurrected beings from a past earth or plan of salvation interacting with this earth), including:

1. Eliza R. Snow

I am not sure on the teachings concerning Multiple Mortal Probations but I'd like to contribute something concerning the ordaining to Godhead and Eliza R. Snow.
I have had in my collection of random Church paraphernalia something I came across online years ago (I cannot even remember where).  Kind of a collector of random bits of LDS things.

I have never been able to find a clearer copy or even another reference to an Eliza R. Snow necklace.  (The closest I found was this locket long after Joseph but I have not been able to inspect the archives to see if it compares).

Still, if this is authentic it would go along perfectly with the type of ordinations mentioned in the OP.
Calling Eliza to be a "Member of the First Presidency of the Women of the Universe" would be interesting.
Members of the Godhead holding "keys of the Universe" is in Joseph's teachings:

• Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family. (TPJS 157)

 

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

...or what I think is more likely, that other people think they were hearing Church leaders teaching reincarnation or MMPs...

I suppose I just have a little more faith that our Church leaders, like Joseph Smith, didn't teach anything contrary to scripture. 

Are you saying that you have more faith than I do? My statement wasn't personally claiming that Church leaders, like Joseph Smith, did teach anything contrary to scripture. I'm not even bringing up the multiple mortal probation quotes. Personally I am saying that since such quotes exist that at the very least give the appearance of Joseph Smith having taught about multiple mortal probations then a way to approach them is to see if they match up with what the scriptures say. And there are certain scriptures which appear to be very contradictory to the idea of multiple mortal probations.

Edited March 1, 2017 by CMZ

[CMZ]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Calling Eliza to be a "Member of the First Presidency of the Women of the Universe" would be interesting.

 

 

So there's a Relief Society Presidency for the entire universe then.