Missionary Work In The After-Life

[MiserereNobis]

I did NOT intend to offend anyone and if it was offensive I apologize and retract it all.

In fact that process reflected some of the ways I thought of things when as a former Catholic I became a Mormon. The point I was trying to make is that the transition is not really that huge, in fact there are a couple of posters I am aware of who at least used to think of themselves as both Mormon AND Catholic simultaneously, and used to attend both services.

I never fully understood that, but the fact that more than one person thought that was possible was quite revealing to me. Mockery certainly was not my goal since my entire inherited family (as opposed to the family I have created with my wife) is Catholic and always has been, and I love them dearly.

Mocking Catholics would be mocking my own flesh and blood. That was certainly not my intention.

Maybe you need to get a sense of humor.

Just so you know, I didn't take it as mockery. I do appreciate someone thinking of the religious feelings of others on the board, but in this case I just grinned at what you were saying. But that's just me personally

I've enjoyed our banter, mfb, and thought this was just more of the same.

[mfbukowski]

Just so you know, I didn't take it as mockery. I do appreciate someone thinking of the religious feelings of others on the board, but in this case I just grinned at what you were saying. But that's just me personally

I've enjoyed our banter, mfb, and thought this was just more of the same.

YAY! Good to see you back again!

[MiserereNobis]

YAY! Good to see you back again!

Yeah, I've been busy, but I like the conversations here

And, I was told I had to change my name. Apparently Popes aren't welcome on this board...

Ha, just kidding about that. I was told to change my name because there is a rule against using religious leaders' names as profile names. I figured we could use a little mercy, hence my new moniker.

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, I've been busy, but I like the conversations here

And, I was told I had to change my name. Apparently Popes aren't welcome on this board...

Ha, just kidding about that. I was told to change my name because there is a rule against using religious leaders' names as profile names. I figured we could use a little mercy, hence my new moniker.

Ora pro nobis peccatoribus, et miserere nobis!

[The Nehor]

In my opinion the smaller that number the better. I outright reject reincarnation as a possibility.

I reject it as well. I have no idea how you would sell it to someone.

To quote Pavel Chekov: "You want to go back?"

Or C.S. Lewis "Has this world been so kind to you that you should leave with regret? There are better things ahead than any we leave behind."

[Alan]

Just to clarify for non-LDS lurkers, you are free to have your opinion, but that view is highly non-doctrinal.

The whole gospel is based on the idea of a pre-mortal spirit coming to earth, obtaining a body, dying and going to the spirit world either paradise or prison and then eventually being resurrected to a kingdom of glory.

It also includes the possibility that if one does not hear the gospel in this life, one will have the opportunity to grow and progress in the afterlife.

I think there is absolutely no need to posit even a need for reincarnation- in the orthodox scheme I don't even see what function it would provide that cannot be accounted for in the orthodox view. If one misses something in this life, one will still have the opportunity to make up for it in the hereafter in the doctrinal scheme anyway- so what good would reincarnation do? The notion just throws a monkey-wrench into the whole schema.

But we are free to decide these things for ourselves, as long as we can honestly pass a temple recommend interview, so there is nothing wrong with alternate views like this, and one would not be censured for such a view unless it was taught as an alternative to the traditional views.

In my view you have obviously not thought too deeply about reincarnation. It certainly appears to have been understood by early church leaders, although nothing canonical. It appears to be acknowleged in the Bible, though admittedly the evidence is open to interpretation. However, there does appear to be more than a hint.

Quite apart from my own experience with this principle (which is very personal) it seems to me that it must feature somewhere in the plan. I do not believe it is automatic or even widespread, but I most certainly do believe it occurs. One only has to think of a murdered child, robbed of it's life's mission through the agency of another, for example. I believe such an individual can choose to return and complete their personal mission (we all have one). Our life is not just about obedience to the gospel; we are given tasks to perform that can only be performed by us. These are usually for the benefit of others but can also be important learning experiences for ourselves. Mortality is the place to learn these things and therefore it is only logical, and indeed just, that we are given the opportunity to return and complete when we are robbed of our original mission through the wicked actions of another.

[Ahab]

In my view you have obviously not thought too deeply about reincarnation. It certainly appears to have been understood by early church leaders, although nothing canonical. It appears to be acknowleged in the Bible, though admittedly the evidence is open to interpretation. However, there does appear to be more than a hint.

Quite apart from my own experience with this principle (which is very personal) it seems to me that it must feature somewhere in the plan. I do not believe it is automatic or even widespread, but I most certainly do believe it occurs. One only has to think of a murdered child, robbed of it's life's mission through the agency of another, for example. I believe such an individual can choose to return and complete their personal mission (we all have one).

That's an interesting idea apart from the fact that it isn't true. If it were true, though, what do you think would happen in the resurrection? Whose child would he/she be? Which body would be resurrected? Each spirit will return to its own body, when resurrected, so your idea would rob someone of a child, forever, as well as some part of the child's family tree. Or do you suppose some body would crumble to dust never to rise again, which would rob some body of a resurrection.

Our life is not just about obedience to the gospel; we are given tasks to perform that can only be performed by us.

To the extent that is true, God will protect us until we have fulfilled our mission. After that, we can die or be killed while we have a mortal body.

These are usually for the benefit of others but can also be important learning experiences for ourselves. Mortality is the place to learn these things and therefore it is only logical, and indeed just, that we are given the opportunity to return and complete when we are robbed of our original mission through the wicked actions of another.

I'd like to hear an example of a mission you think someone in particular needs to fulfill. Our Lord is the only one who could have done what he did, but who else do you think does something which nobbody else can do or should be able to do? I can't think of anyone who couldn't have done what anyone else has done. Even Joseph Smith's mission could have been done by somebody else although God knew who would eventually do it. What do you think is your mission which you must fulfill before you can die or be killed by another exercising their freedom to choose?

[blackstrap]

Suppose one is born in 1350 India and dies at age 10 from some plague,having never heard of the gospel. What harm would arise if the spirit wanted to be born in 1450 India in order to experience more of life? The body is a physical construct and as such could be created anew with or without the original template. Nobody was sealed previously,besides,the way sealings were done in the early days of the church,there seems to be no problem being sealed to 2 or more different families.As Alan said ,it may not be common,but there are ways around the problems. When I think about all the different scenarios surrounding birth and death,I am open to the possiblility of reincarnation.I also am not adamant about it either.

[ed2276]

I thought spirit prison and outer darkness were two different things. Isn't outer darkness more like the traditional Christian hell, a place of complete separation from God with no possibility of reprieve, where souls are sent after the final judgement?

I believe that you are correct about spirit prison and outer darkness being two different things [places]. Spirit prison, in my view, is the place where the spirits of those who have died without having accepted Christ go to await the preaching of the Gospel to them, and to await resurrection and final judgment.

Outer darkness is reserved for those who are beyond any salvation. It is reserved for Satan and his angels and for those humans who had a fulness of the truth, but thereafter denied it.

[ed2276]

Does the LDS interpretation of the verses refer to those in spirit prison? It seems to go against the LDS concept of free-will if those in spirit prison have the truth blatantly in front of them and then are asked to choose. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.

Those scriptures could certainly be pointing to those in spirit prison, who would bend the knee and confess Jesus. LDS scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants describes just such an even occuring among those who have been punished in hell for their sins. However, they could refer to everyone who has ever lived on the earth.

There is a more explicit verse in the NT that points to missionary work among those in spirit prison, the work being done by Jesus Himself.

1 Peter 3: 18 For Christ also hath once ^asuffered for sins, the just for the ^bunjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to ^cdeath in the flesh, but quickened by the ^dSpirit19By which also he went and ^apreached unto the ^bspirits in ^cprison 20 ^aWhich sometime were ^bdisobedient, when once the ^clongsuffering of God waited in the days of ^dNoah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were ^esaved by ^fwater.

I believe Isaiah also had this in mind when he prophesied that the Messiah would liberate the prisoners.

As to free-will, it may not be as simple to accept the truth, no matter how blantantly it is before you, even when you find yourself in the spirit world. The reason for this is that LDS are taught that whatever spirit we have cultivated within ourselves in this life carries on with our spirits when we die. This includes all the weaknesses, habits, and assumptions we have embraced during mortality. Hence, even if the truth is blantantly before us, we may still choose to reject it in favor of the beliefs and assumptions we have carried with us throughout mortality.

[ed2276]

I don't believe the 12 Disciples thought they were anything else but Jews. As I see it, you may still see whatever new truths that are taught as an extension of Catholicism, even if they line up with what LDS have been teaching.

That may well be; especially since Catholic and Mormon practices are not that dissimilar. I attend Mass every week with my wife, who is Catholic, and Mass is just about the same as a Mormon sacrament meeting.

[Flyonthewall]

I see re-incarnation as a corruption of the doctrine of eternal progression.

[mfbukowski]

Our life is not just about obedience to the gospel; we are given tasks to perform that can only be performed by us. These are usually for the benefit of others but can also be important learning experiences for ourselves. Mortality is the place to learn these things and therefore it is only logical, and indeed just, that we are given the opportunity to return and complete when we are robbed of our original mission through the wicked actions of another.

Ok let's think that through. What kind of thing are you talking about which could only be done by one person? David in the Bible was to have built the temple, but he sinned and so his son got the job.

And how are others to benefit from our actions if they are all dead after we are? Do they come back to so that the five or ten or hundreds of us can learn the lesson from the one who failed?

And what if a prophet messes up and misses his mission- do all 17 million of us have to come back and do it over again?

Clearly this denies agency - that I would be predestined in a sense for my "mission" which if I did not accomplish would force others to come back and learn the lesson I did not teach them. It involves an infinite regress.

To me it is a mass of confusion.

It may be true that we have missions- but if we fail at them, the tasks will be given to others.

You may have deep personal reasons for believing this model but that does not mean it applies to all- have you thought of that? If it does happen I might think it would be like a miracle performed for the good of an individual, but to assume that it happens as a matter of course to all or nearly all is incompatible with the gospel as taught.

If it happened often, it would be taught as a principle of the gospel. To believe that it happens generally while not being taught, would mean that the gospel model we have been taught is not "true".

Many people believe in reincarnation and it is a pretty common religious belief in terms of world religions. So why would we NOT teach it if indeed it is true? If Joseph made it all up, surely he would have thrown reincarnation into the pot because it is so widely believed.

In fact, it probably makes more sense to more sense to more people than golden plates and God living on Kolob and the Garden of Eden being in Missouri.

The only problem is that it is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Edited September 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I see re-incarnation as a corruption of the doctrine of eternal progression.

Agreed- and indeed I think eternal progression is a much cleaner way to understand the same principle- that we can progress or regress in the afterlife.

That is really the function of both beliefs- to provide an explanation for, and a theoretical mechanism for, a merciful God being able to provide a way for those who did not have an "honest chance" to get it right the first time, to be able to correct their mistakes in the afterlife.

Both those beliefs serve the same function in the overall explanation of the plan of salvation- and indeed we teach one and not the other for a reason- and that reason is the urgency created in the Christian view that we only get one shot at salvation.

We modify that view to allow for those who were not born with access to information about Christ, and further modify it to include missionary work on the other side, but our view still creates urgency to get it right and make the decision which is of utmost importance.

Another problem with fusing reincarnation with our view is that it ultimately implies that all will be exalted- which is definitely not a Mormon view. If we all just keep coming back until we are exalted- everyone will eventually be exalted- right?

That is not our view.

The idea of reincarnation combined with Mormonism just does not work- the two systems are too different. Again, if one wants to hold that in special circumstances God MIGHT make an exception - that could be made to work similarly to having a miracle - a direct divine intervention in one's life. But clearly reincarnation as a routine belief does not work- there are too many conflicts with established doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

Suppose one is born in 1350 India and dies at age 10 from some plague,having never heard of the gospel. What harm would arise if the spirit wanted to be born in 1450 India in order to experience more of life? The body is a physical construct and as such could be created anew with or without the original template. Nobody was sealed previously,besides,the way sealings were done in the early days of the church,there seems to be no problem being sealed to 2 or more different families.As Alan said ,it may not be common,but there are ways around the problems. When I think about all the different scenarios surrounding birth and death,I am open to the possiblility of reincarnation.I also am not adamant about it either.

It works as a miraculous intervention in specific cases but not as a routine part of the gospel. Anything can be made to work as a miraculous intervention. We believe in miracles, and God can do anything he wants as long as there is no natural law against it- in other words as long as he has not decided to create that law for himself.

[mfbukowski]

I thought spirit prison and outer darkness were two different things. Isn't outer darkness more like the traditional Christian hell, a place of complete separation from God with no possibility of reprieve, where souls are sent after the final judgement?

Many think they are more "states of mind" than places.

We see homeless people walking around in raving lunacy- seeing things only they see- perhaps they are experiencing hell on earth, or more to the point, perhaps that will be the way it is in the spirit world. Perhaps we will all be in the same "dimension" or whatever word works for you, but our experiences there may be very different, dependent on how we are here.

I may be having a nightmare while my wife sleeping peacefully beside me is having a dream of bliss- and yet both of us are in the same "place".

[blackstrap]

We are told that there are a couple of reasons to be born here.

1. To gain a body

2. To be tested concerning our faithfulness

3. To gain experience etc.

We are told that baptism must be done on earth so: Of all the people who have ever lived ( 12-100 billion) what % would have received an earthly baptism? What % would have had even a cursory exposure to God and Christ and thereby had any quality test.( sure they were much more righteous than us and had no need for much testing)

I think we only have a couple of pieces of a 10,000 piece puzzle.

[MiserereNobis]

We often tell others not to tell us what we believe. They might as well,seeing that we have a hard time deciding the details ourselves.

Honestly, this is a difficulty many non-LDS people have when looking into LDS doctrines. It appears that there is no clear place to find clear definitions of LDS doctrine.

[MiserereNobis]

That's an interesting idea apart from the fact that it isn't true. If it were true, though, what do you think would happen in the resurrection? Whose child would he/she be? Which body would be resurrected? Each spirit will return to its own body, when resurrected, so your idea would rob someone of a child, forever, as well as some part of the child's family tree. Or do you suppose some body would crumble to dust never to rise again, which would rob some body of a resurrection.

Indirectly, this brings up an interesting issue in the general resurrection of humans. The material from which our bodies are composes has been, according to science, recycled thousands and millions of times, especially if we go as far back as the birth of the universe/galaxy, stars creating elements, supernovas, etc. In the resurrections, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that some people's bodies are sharing the same elements?

To quote Shakespeare:

HAMLET

A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.

CLAUDIUS

What dost you mean by this?

HAMLET

Nothing but to show you how a king may go a progress through the guts of a beggar.

[MiserereNobis]

That may well be; especially since Catholic and Mormon practices are not that dissimilar. I attend Mass every week with my wife, who is Catholic, and Mass is just about the same as a Mormon sacrament meeting.

Really? I've been to LDS sacrament meeting and, obviously Mass (both the new and the traditional forms), and I find them very dissimilar. In the LDS meeting, the focus is on speaking -- there are 3-4 speakers which take up the bulk of the meeting. There is also very little ritual, except for the blessing and passing of communion, which is VERY short on ritual.

Sacrament meeting, despite its name, appears to me to mainly be focused on speaking.

[Calm]

Ok let's think that through. What kind of thing are you talking about which could only be done by one person? David in the Bible was to have built the temple, but he sinned and so his son got the job.

I think it was Dan Peterson who noted there was another Joseph, son of Joseph (Joseph Knight Jr.) in the vicinity of the plates is by chance Joseph Smith had failed. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9611d0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

[Calm]

Really? I've been to LDS sacrament meeting and, obviously Mass (both the new and the traditional forms), and I find them very dissimilar. In the LDS meeting, the focus is on speaking -- there are 3-4 speakers which take up the bulk of the meeting. There is also very little ritual, except for the blessing and passing of communion, which is VERY short on ritual.

Sacrament meeting, despite its name, appears to me to mainly be focused on speaking.

Time wise it is focused on the speaking, but for those who understand the significance, the Sacrament is the central event.

And I agree I didn't find my experience at Mass very similar to my experiences at Sacrament Meetings.

We ensure that all who desire to receive the Sacrament can do so by offering the Sacrament in their homes to shut-ins and others who can't make it to church.

Edited September 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[MiserereNobis]

Time wise it is focused on the speaking, but for those who understand the significance, the Sacrament is the central event.

I can hear what you are saying and will, obviously, bow to your interpretation of the meeting, since you are LDS and I am not, but I hope that you can see that from an outsider's perspective, the fact that communion only takes up about 10 minutes of an hour and 10 minute meeting (and the fact that it comes in the beginning part) has the appearance of downplaying its importance. It appears as if the point of the meeting is to listen to the speakers.

In Mass, the Eucharist comes last, and everything else is a build-up to it. This is particularly clear in the traditional Latin Mass.

We ensure that all who desire to receive the Sacrament can do so by offering the Sacrament in their homes to shut-ins and others who can't make it to church.

In Catholicism, we attempt to do the same. Traditionally the priest (or a deacon) would take the Blessed Sacrament to those who could not attend Mass (and to those approaching death, when the Sacrament is called the Viaticum and is part of the Last Rites). Today, lay people are authorized to do so as well, though I firmly believe it is more in the role of the priest or deacon than the laiety.

[shalamabobbi]

Indirectly, this brings up an interesting issue in the general resurrection of humans. The material from which our bodies are composes has been, according to science, recycled thousands and millions of times, especially if we go as far back as the birth of the universe/galaxy, stars creating elements, supernovas, etc. In the resurrections, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that some people's bodies are sharing the same elements?

Science also declares that there is no distiguishable difference between two atoms of the same isotope of an element. The only problem that is raised then would be if the history of mankind were so great that there wouldn't be enough matter in the earth to accommodate the resurrection of every individual.

Anyway it gives another twist to the phrase "mother earth."

I wonder if you would mind weighing in on the "Jesus'S Wife" thread.

It is interesting to me that some Christians view the idea of Christ having marital relations as sin where some LDS would see the failure to be sin.

This is interesting in view of the fact that the existence of priests and nuns in your faith would seem to indicate that you hold to the idea that there is something spiritually superior to forgoing the tests and trials and lessons of family life.

This to me is the oddest part of the Catholic religion and that which elicits the greatest curiosity about your religion.

[MiserereNobis]

I wonder if you would mind weighing in on the "Jesus'S Wife" thread.

I'll go check it out. Thanks for the pointer

It is interesting to me that some Christians view the idea of Christ having marital relations as sin where some LDS would see the failure to be sin.

We take St. Paul at his word when he says in 1 Corinthians 7:7-9:

7. For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that.

8. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

9. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

The calling (vocation) to dedicate one's entire life to God is a different and higher calling than to have a family. Since this vocation is so difficult, there are far fewer called to it than those called to marry.

This is interesting in view of the fact that the existence of priests and nuns in your faith would seem to indicate that you hold to the idea that there is something spiritually superior to forgoing the tests and trials and lessons of family life.

I think you underestimate the difficulty in voluntarily abstaining from that which our biology calls us to do: procreate. Priests and religious (monks and nuns) have testified over centuries how difficult the calling to celibacy can be. It's not just about sex, it's about intimacy with another human. Those called to celibacy are called to sacrifice their desires upon the Altar of the Lord and find Him as their intimitate companion, instead of a husband or wife. Husbands and wives make for simpler companions, as they are physically present in front of us. God, as an intimiate companion, requires much more faith.

ETA: please don't mistake me as saying that married life is easy or simple; it clearly is not. However, in married life one's companion (spouse) is physically present, where in celibacy, one's spouse is not. The latter therefore requires more faith.

This to me is the oddest part of the Catholic religion and that which elicits the greatest curiosity about your religion.

Please note that priestly celibacy is a practice of the Catholic Church, and not a dogma. The Eastern Catholic Churches (those who are in communion with Rome, as distinct from the Orthodox, who are not) have priests that are allowed to marry, as long as they are married before ordination. Married or celibate clergy is a long-standing tradition in both of our traditions, but as it is a practice and not a dogma it could be changed. I doubt, however, that it will be (and personally hope it will not).

Edited September 19, 2012 by MiserereNobis