Article On Reincarnation And Mormonism

[stYro]

Reincarnation is an abhorrent doctrine and an abomination of the true principles of pre-mortality and eternal progression. I am surprised any LDS would hold any affinity for it.

Actually, reincarnation is one possible explanation for both pre-mortality and eternal progression. Since I'm no longer LDS I can't hold myself out as an example of one with an affinity for it, but I used to be.

In exploring the implications of reincarnation on both pre-mortality and eternal progression, let's look at what Joseph Smith had to say about knowledge and intelligence gained during this life:

"Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come." D&C 130:18,19

Now, why would a resurrected and exalted being, who presumably has ready access to knowledge of all things, accrue any "advantage" from knowledge and intelligence gained in this life? Doesn't make sense. On the other hand, Joseph's statements would make sense if the person is resurrected into a world where he does not have ready access to a knowledge of all things... like this one!

And interestingly Joseph doesn't say that the knowledge itself rises with us, only that the intelligence does. He says that the knowledge and intelligence gained will give us an "advantage" in the world to come. Hmmm. Do we see people born into this world who have an inexplicable "advantage" over others? Yes - we call that an "aptitude"!

So, one possible explanation for some people being born with superior aptitudes in various areas is, they developed that in a previous mortal life. Thus reincarnation ties into and offers an explanation for inequalities that seem to come from our pre-mortal life.

And if the knowledge and intelligence we develop here shows up in a future mortal life as an enhanced aptitude, that would indeed give us an advantage in the world to come, assuming that would be a world like this one. There would really be no need to have an "advantage" if Joseph was referring to the Celestial Kingdom when he said "the world to come".

Reincarnation offers possible explanations for a great many other things, such as how the promises of God can be fulfulled when such simply isn't possible in a person's present earth life. If that has ever botherd you, see here: http://www.freeread.com/archives/2326

stYro

Edited July 8, 2011 by stYro

[blarsen]

I've always wondered exactly what the phrase: "to go no more out' means in the several passages of the Book of Mormon where it is found. It is used in the context of sitting down with God for eternity "to go no more out".

Here they are:

Alma 34:36 - . . . . yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the lamb.

Helaman 3:30 - And land their souls, yea, their immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven, to sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and with Jacob, and with all our holy fathers, to go no more out.

Alma 7:25 - And may the Lord bless you, and keep your garments spotless, that ye may at last be brought to sit down with aAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the holy prophets who have been ever since the world began, having your garments bspotless even as their garments are spotless, in the kingdom of heaven to go no more out.

3 Nephi 28:40 - And in this state they were to remain until the judgment day of Christ; and at that day they were to receive a greater change, and to be received into the kingdom of the Father to go no more out, but to dwell with God eternally in the heavens.

Alma 29:17 - And now may God grant unto these, my brethren, that they may sit down in the kingdom of God; yea, and also all those who are the fruit of their labors that they may go no more out, but that they may praise him forever.

I'm surprised nobody has yet picked up on these quotes as possibly referring to reincarnation. They seem to imply that we keep having to "go out", or we keep going out, until we reach a point where we can go to our final rest in the Kingdom of God, with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc.

Now you could interpret this as meaning we keep going out of God's presence episodically in this life, maybe numerous times, until we finally get it (a la Ground Hog Day) and enter into God's rest in this life. One problem with this is that "go no more out' is opposed in these quotes to going in and sitting down in the presence of God. These quotes carry a strong denotation of PLACE (i.e., actually sitting down with God in the heavens).

I'm not arguing the point, however. I just don't know, and appreciate the arguments against the notion of reincarnation already posted. My mother used to speculate about this occassionally; and it occurred to her, agreeing with what has been mentioned by other posters above, that what could be more hellish than to have to begin over and over again, kind of llke Sisyphus rolling a stone up a high hill only to see it fall back down again, and then having to keep repeating the process again and again. Ugh! A hellish punishment if their ever was one.

Edited July 8, 2011 by blarsen

[stYro]

Or it could be the phenomenon of ancestral memory.

Unlikely in this case; young James was not related to the pilot.

Not saying ancestral memory isn't possible. The only "evidence" I've come across in my own life that a seeming past-life flashback might be "real" was as a cousin of my grandfather's that I did not know anything about until after the flashback. And if that was indeed "me", I did learn from at least one of his (many) mistakes, and carried a particular aversion into this life. To the best of my knowledge, I am not descended from this guy... though if I was, that might explain why my "grandfather" hated him so much!

Edited July 8, 2011 by stYro

[stYro]

Is that your assessment as well stYro? You seem to be advancing the idea that there are no conflicts. How does the idea fit in with the sealing keys of Elijah?

I don't know that I'm qualified to reply, as I'm not sure what you mean by the "sealing keys of Elijah". Do you mean sealings that are done in the temples, like to deceased ancestors?

[shalamabobbi]

I don't know that I'm qualified to reply, as I'm not sure what you mean by the "sealing keys of Elijah". Do you mean sealings that are done in the temples, like to deceased ancestors?

Exactly. The whole of the human family gets sealed together children to parents, parents to theirs, and that becomes the order in heaven.

[stYro]

Exactly. The whole of the human family gets sealed together children to parents, parents to theirs, and that becomes the order in heaven.

Thanks. Okay, I think the concept of reincarnation presents something of a conflict IF that is indeed the order of heaven, but I think it could still be worked out. Remember that a temple sealing isn't valid unless it is ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Thus there is a correct order that is known to the Holy Spirit, but it's not obvious to us, so if an out-of-pattern sealing is performed, it doesn't count (nor is it held against us). At least that's my understanding.

So hyothetically if I'm stYro the staLWart in this lifetime, sealed to my soulmate the foxy Ms. stYro, that sealing to Ms. Polly Vinyl Chloride the last go-round doesn't count because we're not connected on that level, and this is known best to the Holy Spirit of Promise and to our own souls. Likewise maybe my dad this go-round is really closely connected to me, but my mom is not, nor is she to my dad, so that will have to be set in order. Some of the same sorting-out will still have to take place if this is indeed our one and only earth life, just because our family units are not all cookie-cutter perfect with no divorces or multiple spouses or other anomalies.

As to what the order of heaven is, well I have an unorthodox opinion on the subject but it would derail the thread, and the OP is a real grouch so I don't want to go there.

stYro

Edited July 8, 2011 by stYro

[Thinking]

This is an interesting concept. Matter is already reincarnated. Why not the spirit?

[stYro]

I'm surprised nobody has yet picked up on these quotes as possibly referring to reincarnation. They seem to imply that we keep having to "go out", or we keep going out, until we reach a point where we can go to our final rest in the Kingdom of God, with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc.

Now you could interpret this as meaning we keep going out of God's presence episodically in this life, maybe numerous times, until we finally get it (a la Ground Hog Day) and enter into God's rest in this life. One problem with this is that "go no more out' is opposed in these quotes to going in and sitting down in the presence of God. These quotes carry a strong denotation of PLACE (i.e., actually sitting down with God in the heavens).

Sorry for not responding the first go-round blarsen; yes, I think you have an excellent point! I haven't been into the Book of Mormon in a long time and didn't notice these passages way back when, but attaining a state were you "go no more out" certainly implies that there was a previous state that included "going out and coming back".

Thanks for contributing this insight.

stYro

[Deborah]

I'm surprised nobody has yet picked up on these quotes as possibly referring to reincarnation. They seem to imply that we keep having to "go out", or we keep going out, until we reach a point where we can go to our final rest in the Kingdom of God, with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc.

Seriously? I don't see anything that would reflect reincarnation. These seem to be talking simply about repentance, which everyone should remember continues into the post mortal Spirit World.

From Neal Maxwell

“To go no more out”! An intriguing promise! For the busy, for those ceaselessly on the move, for the homeless, for the lonely, and for widows and widowers—and for others of us who will become such—does not the prospect of this homecoming in such grand and everlasting circumstances warm the soul? Not, of course, that life hereafter is to consist of unending repose. Rather, for those who attain the presence of God, “to go no more out”—nowhere is really out of his presence, and now is forever! As time is no more, likewise space will shrink irrevocably. For all we know, the speed of light may prove to be too slow to do some of what must be done.

To go no more out means to be always in the presence of Father.

[ERMD]

Reincarnation is an abhorrent doctrine and an abomination of the true principles of pre-mortality and eternal progression. I am surprised any LDS would hold any affinity for it.

As I was reading this thread, this was my reaction as well.

You go, girl!

[shalamabobbi]

As to what the order of heaven is, well I have an unorthodox opinion on the subject but it would derail the thread

I doubt the mods will mind since this is your thread.

Thanks for the reply. Let's define a variable to make this discussion cleaner. Let's let the variable represent different spirits and in parenthesis a number that represents a count down so that Me(1) represents my last stay here on earth for example.

So say Me(1) gets sealed to my spouse Sherry(3). If Me(2) lived back with Brigham Young and was sealed to Karen(7) as yet I have no eternal companion. Say Me(6) back in the dark ages was married to Deborah(1). The work is finally done for that sealing but it doesn't take for me because I wasn't Me(1).

Now add to this the issue of Me(1) having child Jerry(3) and you begin to appreciate the problem.

Edited July 8, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[mfbukowski]

NOTE: I just messed up- and edited post 36 in reply to myself- instead of "replying" to post 36. The time stamp and all that is messed up- sorry- not possible to get it back the way it was I think. So I am posting it here as a new post instead of an edit- which is indeed what it is.

The point is that I am changing my mind about whether or not reincarnation is a harmful doctrine to LDS views- and it is now clear to me that it is.

I cannot conceive how this idea of reincarnation is at all compatible with the idea of a fall and vicarious sacrifice of Jesus the Christ- in other words, the atonement.

So the savior died for all our sins through all our lives? And why is there a judgement for sin if we just work that all out through multiple lives in which we repent of our sins and get closer to perfection?

In other words, the whole idea of the atonement is that we put our sins on Christ- not that we can repent for them through successive lives, getting closer to perfection each time.

In such a plan there is no need for "saved by grace" at all- and the whole onus of repentance is on us.

Now that I think about it - it's like DUH,- why do Hindus and Buddhists have no need for a savior??

Because they believe in reincarnation!! It is totally opposed to any kind of a need for a savior!

1 Peter 3

18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

There is no reason for the fall, no reason for the atonement, no reason for Christ preaching to the spirits in prison, no reason for the doctrine of the redemption of the dead, no reason to go to the temple to do vicarious work for the dead- in short no reason to be LDS at all-

Just a good reason to be Buddhist or Hindu.

Almost had me there bro- but no thanks!

[mfbukowski]

Reincarnation is actually a substitute explanation for how we can reach perfection WITHOUT the need for a savior.

Totally opposed to LDS doctrine.

[ebeddoulos]

At this point It looks like there is a mistake on my side. If I find otherwise I will post, but for now I'll concede that one to you.

That is magnanimous on your part. However, that is not the only argument you should have conceded.

Not really; based on the definition in your post, "correction" is probably a better translation of the word than "damnation" or "condemnation", even if it wasn't used by bible translators. The main point is, it's the same word used by Jesus to describe the lesser resurrection. So Paul may have been saying that after we die, then comes the resurrection of krisis - which is not the same thing as the resurrection of life.

I most strongly disagree with your assessment that “correction” is a better translation than “damnation” or “condemnation” or my preference, “judgement”. Of the definitions I provided and many others that are available, not one use or imply "correction". By any standard of which I am aware, “correction” is not a proper translation of the Greek word κρίσις (krísis). If it was, you would think that some Bible scholar would have used it, would you not? To emphasise that point I provide Hebrews 9:27 below as translated into English from the translations I have in my electronic Bible collection.

(ACV) And inasmuch as it is reserved to men once to die, and after this, judgment,

(ABUNT) And inasmuch as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment;

(AMP) And just as it is appointed for [all] men once to die, and after that the [certain] judgment,

(AUVNT) And just as it is destined for people to die one time, and [then] after that to be judged,

(ALT) And just as it is laid up [fig., destined] for people to die once, and after this [comes] judgment,

(AndNT) And, as it is appointed to men once to die, and after this the judgment,

(ANT) and in which [He] appoints [to] the men once to die after but this {is} Judgment

(ASV) And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment;

(BBE) And because by God's law death comes to men once, and after that they are judged;

(Bishops) And as it is appoynted vnto men once to dye, and after this the iudgement:

(cpdv) And in the same manner as it has been appointed for men to die one time, and after this, to be judged,

(CENT) And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment,

(CEV) We die only once, and then we are judged.

(CAB) And just as it is appointed for men once to die, and after this judgment,

(cjb) Just as human beings have to die once, but after this comes judgment,

(CV) And, in as much as it is reserved to the men to be dying once, yet after this a judging,

(CNT-ND-Eng) And according as it is appointed for the men to die once, but after this a judgement;

(CNT-SD-Eng) And according as it is laid down for the men to die once, but after this the judgement;

(Coverdale) And as it is appoynted vnto me yt they shal once dye, and then cometh the iudgmet: Eue

(Darby) And forasmuch as it is the portion of men once to die, and after this judgment;

(Diaglott-NT) And as it awaits the men once to die, after but this a judgment;

(Disciple) And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this [cometh] judgment;

(DRB) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:

(Emph) And, inasmuch as it is in store for men - once for all to die, but after this, judgment,

(ELG-NT) As it is appointed for men once to die, and after this the judgment,

(EMTV) And just as it is appointed for men once to die, and after this judgment,

(EJB2K) And as it is appointed unto men to die once, and after this the judgment;

(ERV) Everyone must die once. Then they are judged.

(ESV) And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

(Etheridge) And as it is ordained to the sons of men, that they must once die, and after their death the judgment;

(EVID) And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(EWB-CB) And inasmuch as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(ECB) And as it is laid out for humanity to die once

and after this the judgment:

(ERRB) And inasmuch as it is appointed laid out

unto men humanity once to die,

but after this the judgment:

(Geneva) And as it is appointed vnto men that they shall once die, and after that commeth the iudgement:

(GNB-TEV) Everyone must die once, and after that be judged by God.

(GDBY_NT) And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this is the judgment:

(GSNT) And just as men are destined to die once and after that to be judged,

(GW) People die once, and after that they are judged.

(HCSB) And just as it is appointed for people to die once--and after this, judgment--

(HNV) Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment,

(IAV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(ISV) Indeed, just as people are appointed to die once and after that to be judged,

(JMNT) And according to as much as it is lying-away (laid away from; reserved) for (in; to) mankind (men) to die-away once, but after this a decision (a separation resulting in a distinction; a judgment),

(JST) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment;

(Julia) And inasmuch as it is reserved to men once to die, and after this the judgment:

(KJV) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(KJV-1611(a)) And as it is appointed vnto men once to die, but after this the Iudgement:

(KJV-2000) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(KJV-21) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the Judgment,

(KJV-CNT) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(KJV-M) And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment,

(KJV-N) And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

(KJB-PCE) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(KJV-RN) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(KJV-U) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(KnoxNT) Man's destiny is to die once for all; nothing remains after that but judgement;

(Lamsa) And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after their death, the judgment;

(LB) And just as it is destined that men die only once, and after that comes judgment,

(LEB) And [just as] it is destined for people to die once, and after this, judgment,

(LITV) And as it is reserved to men once to die, and after this, Judgment;

(LONT) And, forasmuch as it is appointed to men once to die, and after that, the judgment;

(Mace) as then it is appointed that men should die but once, after which the judgment ensues;

(MRC) And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment,

(MofNT) And just as it is appointed for men to die once and after that to be judged,

(MNT) And since it is appointed to men once to die, and after that the judgment;

(MSG) Everyone has to die once, then face the consequences.

(MSTC) And as it is appointed unto men that they shall once die, and then cometh the judgment,

(MuNT-R) And, as it is appointed to men, that they must once die, and after their death is the judgment;

(MuNT) And, as it is appointed to men, that they must once die, and after their death is the judgment;

(NASB) And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

(NCV) Just as everyone must die once and be judged,

(NET) And just as people31 are appointed to die once, and then to face judgment,32

(NLT) And just as it is destined that each person dies only once and after that comes judgment,

(NSB) It is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(NWT) And as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this a judgment,

(NHEB) Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment,

(NIRV) People have to die once. After that, God will judge them.

(NIV) Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

(NIVUK) Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

(NJB) Since human beings die only once, after which comes judgement,

(NoyesNT) And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment;

(NRSV) And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, and after that the judgment,

(OJB) And in as much as it is appointed for men to die once and after this HaMishpat [Yom HaDin],

(RNT) And as it is appointed for men once for all to die and after this comes judgment,

(RSV) And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment,

(RV) And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment;

(Sawyer) And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this is the judgment,

(TCE) And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment,

(TS98) And as it awaits men to die once, and after this the judgment,

(TCNT) And, as it is ordained for men to die but once (death being followed by judgment),

(Tyndale) And as it is apoynted vnto men that they shall once dye and then commeth the iudegement even

(UPDV) And inasmuch as it is appointed to men once to die, and after this [comes] judgment;

(VGNT) Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment,

(VW) And as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this the judgment,

(Webster) And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(WesNT) And as it is appointed for men once to die, and after this the judgment:

(WeyNT) And since it is reserved for all mankind once to die, and afterwards to be judged;

(WhNT) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

(WmsNT) Indeed, just as men must die but once and after that be judged,

(WEB) Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment,

(WENT) People must die, and after that they will be judged.

(WoNT) And inasmuch as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this comes judgment;

(WorNT) And as it is appointed to men once to die, and after this the judgement;

(Wyc) And as it is ordeynede to men,

(WycNT) And as it is ordeynede to men,

(YLT) and as it is laid up to men once to die, and after this--judgment,

(YLTNT-R) and as it is laid up to men once to die, and after this -- judgment,

There are a few – less than twenty – in my print collection that are not represented above but none of them translate κρίσις as “correction” either. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out one version of the Bible that is so translated? Or perhaps a knowledgeable person or scholar who defends your position and who might also not mistake αλλα for δε? Yes this is a Call-For-Reference (CFR).

It is also possible that Paul wasn't teaching the highest level of truth available on the subject to that particular audience. Reincarnation is not a helpful concept for those likely to use it as an excuse for procrastination. See D&C 19:4-12 for more information on the Lord intentionally withholding a higher truth because a lesser concept is more useful given the audience at hand.

Anything may be possible but what is reality is that your exegesis is wrong, yet again.

Joseph Smith was speaking specifically of transmigration of souls from father to son, which is not synonymous with reincarnation as we understand the term today, though maybe the distinction was less clear in Joseph's day.

All the nuanced wishful thinking on your part combined will not change the fact that transmigration of souls means one spirit inhabiting more than one mortal body and that the Prophet Joseph Smith condemned it as “doctrine … of the devil”. You must face it; your exegesis is wrong, yet again..

Fortunately that issue can can be clarified, as we have evidence that Joseph did comment specifically on the concept of reincarnation as we understand the term today:

"8 June 1889: During our talks he [Lorenzo Snow] told me 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. He said he [Lorenzo Snow] saw nothing ureasonable in it, and could believe it, if it came to him from the Lord or His oracle." ---Diary of Orson F. Whitney, 8 June 1889 entry, Church Archives

Oh, that is what you consider to be “evidence”? Now all you must do is to provide a credible citation. Sorry but some internet site, apostate or anti-Mormon, claiming they secreted it from the “church archives” does not qualify. Without a believable citation your “evidence is about as believable as:

I was reading on the internet about the Holy Grail and one juicy tid-bit actually came from Sir Gawain’s diary which said that Gawain had talked to Sir Lancelot and Lancelot had said his sweetheart, Lady Guinevere, believed that the Holy Grail had been found and Guinevere believed it because she had heard it from King Arthur who had once been her husband. You know it all has to be true because Sir Gawain wrote it only forty-four years after King Arthur was tragically killed, two years after Lady Guinevere died and Sir Lancelot was still a spry 75 years old. It gets even better! The diary was then hidden in Merlin’s secret cave and it is still there.

Oh, yeah, that is some great “evidence”. About right on par with your earlier δε vs. αλλα “evidence”. Lest you do not get the implication, yes, this is another Call-For-Reference (CFR) as to where you acquired your “evidence”? If I were a betting man, I’d wager that you cannot produce anything with a providence other than "Church Archives".

[ERayR]

NOTE: I just messed up- and edited post 36 in reply to myself- instead of "replying" to post 36. The time stamp and all that is messed up- sorry- not possible to get it back the way it was I think. So I am posting it here as a new post instead of an edit- which is indeed what it is.

The point is that I am changing my mind about whether or not reincarnation is a harmful doctrine to LDS views- and it is now clear to me that it is.

I cannot conceive how this idea of reincarnation is at all compatible with the idea of a fall and vicarious sacrifice of Jesus the Christ- in other words, the atonement.

So the savior died for all our sins through all our lives? And why is there a judgement for sin if we just work that all out through multiple lives in which we repent of our sins and get closer to perfection?

In other words, the whole idea of the atonement is that we put our sins on Christ- not that we can repent for them through successive lives, getting closer to perfection each time.

In such a plan there is no need for "saved by grace" at all- and the whole onus of repentance is on us.

Now that I think about it - it's like DUH,- why do Hindus and Buddhists have no need for a savior??

Because they believe in reincarnation!! It is totally opposed to any kind of a need for a savior!

1 Peter 3

There is no reason for the fall, no reason for the atonement, no reason for Christ preaching to the spirits in prison, no reason for the doctrine of the redemption of the dead, no reason to go to the temple to do vicarious work for the dead- in short no reason to be LDS at all-

Just a good reason to be Buddhist or Hindu.

Almost had me there bro- but no thanks!

mfbukowski:

As I said back in post # 11 reincarnation negates the atonement.

[stYro]

That is magnanimous on your part. However, that is not the only argument you should have conceded.

I contacted the author of the article, and here is what he had to say:

"This person [ebeddoulos] is correct. I must have misread my concordance when I wrote this over 30 years ago. The correct Greek word is DE and still means "but" and implies an alternate or something contrary so the basic interpretation remains correct."

All the nuanced wishful thinking on your part combined will not change the fact that transmigration of souls means one spirit inhabiting more than one mortal body and that the Prophet Joseph Smith condemned it as “doctrine … of the devil”. You must face it; your exegesis is wrong, yet again.

I know you're not stupid, so I don't understand why you keep misreading what I'm saying. I hope you're not doing it on purpose to make it look like I'm saying something that I'm really not. I'm saying that Joseph Smith was specifically speaking of the transmigration of souls from father to son.

Oh, yeah, that is some great “evidence”. About right on par with your earlier δε vs. αλλα “evidence”. Lest you do not get the implication, yes, this is another Call-For-Reference (CFR) as to where you acquired your “evidence”? If I were a betting man, I’d wager that you cannot produce anything with a providence other than "Church Archives".

You've put me in a catch-22, as I cannot guarantee that the site I got that quote from has no temple content. And I've been busted by the mods before for linking to something written on a site that had temple content somewhere on it, which I didn't know about, but which was not in the article I had linked to.

The best I can do is this: If you google "Eliza R. Snow reincarnation", you will find it.

Edit: The quote is also on this page of the article I mentioned in my opening post, left-hand column, third paragaph from the bottom:

http://www.freeread.com/archives/2290

Edited July 9, 2011 by stYro

[stYro]

The point is that I am changing my mind about whether or not reincarnation is a harmful doctrine to LDS views- and it is now clear to me that it is.

I cannot conceive how this idea of reincarnation is at all compatible with the idea of a fall and vicarious sacrifice of Jesus the Christ- in other words, the atonement.

So the savior died for all our sins through all our lives? And why is there a judgement for sin if we just work that all out through multiple lives in which we repent of our sins and get closer to perfection?

In other words, the whole idea of the atonement is that we put our sins on Christ- not that we can repent for them through successive lives, getting closer to perfection each time.

Perhaps there is a continuum of belief regarding the relative roles of Grace and Works in salvation (or exaltation - whatever means "the highest and closest to God you can end up"). Many born-again Christians are way out on the Grace end of the spectrum, which is fine, but could slow their progression because progression is not something they emphasize. The Mormons are near the middle, acknowledging the need for Grace but believing that a great deal of Works is necessary also. Bringing in the concept of reincarnation does push the main emphasis over onto Works (going from a small capacity to a great capacity, from Grace to Grace, from Exaltation to Exaltation...), but for the sake of progression or perfection, not for the sake of punishment or repentance, in my understanding at least.

Personally, I think the atonement takes us out from under condemnation, but it doesn't make us gods. Nor does anything other than walking the same path as all the Gods that have gone before us. Do you think that one brief normal lifetime is enough to really learn all the lessons of mortality that a God should know inside and out (see Alma 7:11-13 and John 5:19)? Here God has constructed this magnificent institute of experiential learning for his children, and nobody gets to do more than scratch the surface... and some not even that?

Edited July 8, 2011 by stYro

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski:

As I said back in post # 11 reincarnation negates the atonement.

Oh.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps there is a continuum of belief regarding the relative roles of Grace and Works in salvation (or exaltation - whatever means "the highest and closest to God you can end up"). Many born-again Christians are way out on the Grace end of the spectrum, which is fine, but could slow their progression because progression is not something they emphasize. The Mormons are near the middle, acknowledging the need for Grace but believing that a great deal of Works is necessary also. Bringing in the concept of reincarnation does push the main emphasis over onto Works (going from a small capacity to a great capacity, from Grace to Grace, from Exaltation to Exaltation...), but for the sake of progression or perfection, not for the sake of punishment or repentance, in my understanding at least.

You are missing the point.

Buddhists, Hindus, and others who believe in reincarnation have no reason to argue over "grace and works" because they don't need "grace" at all.

On your "continuum" they would be at the "ZERO grace required" point.

There is no need for the atonement AT ALL.

That is totally incompatible with any form of Christianity whatsoever. Why do you need Christ at all? You don't!

[stYro]

You are missing the point.

Buddhists, Hindus, and others who believe in reincarnation have no reason to argue over "grace and works" because they don't need "grace" at all.

On your "continuum" they would be at the "ZERO grace required" point.

There is no need for the atonement AT ALL.

That is totally incompatible with any form of Christianity whatsoever. Why do you need Christ at all? You don't!

I'm not arguing for Hinduism or Buddhism.

You are certainly right about one thing - there is a "zero grace" point! It's described in D&C 19:4-17, where we learn two important principles: First, that God's punishment isn't really without end (the terms "endless punishment" and "eternal punishment" being in effect word-games designed to make an impression on the boneheads); and second, that those who do not repent must pay the price themselves. So if God's punishment really isn't without end (verse 6), then theoretically a person could pay the entire price himself, given that eternity is a very very very long time.

However, I would imagine that very few souls take that route, as it's extremely inefficient.

This will not be a perfect analogy, but hopefully will illustrate why reincarnation doesn't negate the basic need for the atonement: Let's say your mortal life lasts for 7500 years instead of 75 years. Would you have any less need for the atonement? Probably not. Now suppose your 7500 year life is chopped up into 100 segments, each 75 years long. Would you have any less need for the atonement?

Edited July 8, 2011 by stYro

[Libs]

You are missing the point.

Buddhists, Hindus, and others who believe in reincarnation have no reason to argue over "grace and works" because they don't need "grace" at all.

On your "continuum" they would be at the "ZERO grace required" point.

There is no need for the atonement AT ALL.

That is totally incompatible with any form of Christianity whatsoever. Why do you need Christ at all? You don't!

From conversations with a Hindu:

Grace and Effort

"Is there a view in Hinduism that you cannot become perfect without God’s grace or God’s help?" I asked.

"Two things must be there to become perfect," Professor Sharma explained. "The first thing is not only do you need God’s grace, but you need God’s help. God must be with me. And then, the second thing is my efforts."

"You’re saying, then, that perfection is achieved by God’s help and also your personal effort. Is there anything else?"

"Study," he answered.

"Anything else?" I asked.

"That’s all. These three things."

"Studies, personal effort, and God’s help," I summed up.

"Right," he answered.

"And perfection is achieved?"

"Yes."

"And perfection is where the soul is the master of the mind: the soul is the master of body, emotions, and the senses?"

"Right."

http://www.spiritualworld.org/hinduism/print.htm

I don't think that's a whole lot different from Mormonism, except Hindus do believe that you pay for your own sin, through "Natural Law". There is a segment on that, in the link. So, grace is necessary, but your are correct that Christ's Atonement is not a part of their religion.

[stYro]

I doubt the mods will mind since this is your thread.

Thanks for the reply. Let's define a variable to make this discussion cleaner. Let's let the variable represent different spirits and in parenthesis a number that represents a count down so that Me(1) represents my last stay here on earth for example.

So say Me(1) gets sealed to my spouse Sherry(3). If Me(2) lived back with Brigham Young and was sealed to Karen(7) as yet I have no eternal companion. Say Me(6) back in the dark ages was married to Deborah(1). The work is finally done for that sealing but it doesn't take for me because I wasn't Me(1).

Now add to this the issue of Me(1) having child Jerry(3) and you begin to appreciate the problem.

Well obviously I don't have it all figured out yet! My escape clause remains the Holy Spirit of Promise, which presumably can see things that we, limited by mortality, cannot yet see.

In my opinion, a Me(1) life probably looks sort of like the kind of life Jesus lived, assuming he was serious when he said we're supposed to become like him. I don't think there have been very many in this age yet.

Edited July 8, 2011 by stYro

[mfbukowski]

I'm not arguing for Hinduism or Buddhism.

You are certainly right about one thing - there is a "zero grace" point! It's described in D&C 19:4-17, where we learn two important principles: First, that God's punishment isn't really without end (the terms "endless punishment" and "eternal punishment" being in effect word-games designed to make an impression on the boneheads); and second, that those who do not repent must pay the price themselves. So if God's punishment really isn't without end (verse 6), then theoretically a person could pay the entire price himself, given that eternity is a very very very long time.

However, I would imagine that very few souls take that route, as it's extremely inefficient.

This will not be a perfect analogy, but hopefully will illustrate why reincarnation doesn't negate the basic need for the atonement: Let's say your mortal life lasts for 7500 years instead of 75 years. Would you have any less need for the atonement? Probably not. Now suppose your 7500 year life is chopped up into 100 segments, each 75 years long. Would you have any less need for the atonement?

But you're missing the point again.

If you eventually need the atonement anyway, why go though 85 lifetimes before you put it into effect in your life? What a waste of time!

Either you need it or you don't- the most efficient theory is that we live once, need the atonement, and accept it- or we don't need it and we have to perfect ourselves. Christian reincarnation just from a theoretical point of view is just a hodge-podge combination of two conflicting ideas.

Self-perfection is totally incompatible with Christianity- because then Christ's sacrifice was a waste.

So either you are wasting multiple life times and accepting the atonement anyway, or you don't need to have it to start with, and Christ's sacrifice was a waste or non-existent.

No thanks!

[mfbukowski]

You are certainly right about one thing - there is a "zero grace" point! It's described in D&C 19:4-17, where we learn two important principles: First, that God's punishment isn't really without end (the terms "endless punishment" and "eternal punishment" being in effect word-games designed to make an impression on the boneheads); and second, that those who do not repent must pay the price themselves. So if God's punishment really isn't without end (verse 6), then theoretically a person could pay the entire price himself, given that eternity is a very very very long time.

No, there is no point you can "pay the price yourself"- again, if there was there would be no need for the atonement.

So just become a consistent Buddhist and drop the charade of needing the atonement at all if you don't need it. Why bother with all the Christian stuff at all? What does it add to the theory?

[mfbukowski]

From conversations with a Hindu:

http://www.spiritual...duism/print.htm

I don't think that's a whole lot different from Mormonism, except Hindus do believe that you pay for your own sin, through "Natural Law". There is a segment on that, in the link. So, grace is necessary, but your are correct that Christ's Atonement is not a part of their religion.

Sure.

That's why they are called "Hindus" and not "Christians". They don't need Christ in their theory.

That's what I have been saying! Why pretend to be a "Christian"?