A Couple Of Questions

[Yep]

I post on various other boards, as I believe that many of us do. I am in conversation with a couple who claim to be members in good standing, one of which made statement that leads me to believe she holds a recommend, and claim to have a few fairly eminent LDS Apologists' support for a couple of positions. I feel that I have adequately answered their claims, but I am not as skilled as many of you. Even though the positions are rather extreme and they are positions that put them at odds with LDS belief and they do not provide sufficient reference, I do not wish to deny their claim of support out of hand. It is difficult for me to believe that an apologist would hold the views they are claiming. As such, I thought that I would ask the question here and open it up for us. If I can find support in some form for their position then I will acknowledge such.

Initial claim, which I am positive holds no apologetic support, is that a form of reincarnation is probable given early Church leadership's teachings. They believe that multiple probations are somehow multiple mortalities. IMO, this is easily refuted by sourcing various Joseph Smith works. However, is there any real support among early leadership for some form of reincarnation that includes multiple mortalities?

The continued holding to a position on reincarnation requires them to believe that at some point the leadership of the Church must have begun to be somewhat in error. What is the typical response to a member who continues to push reincarnation in any form, given the Church's stated position on reincarnation and the transmigration of the soul.

Also, as support for their position they have made comments concerning common consent. I understand common consent, when in relation to the body of the Church, to be more an exercise of showing our approval, and disapproval, and less of a potent statement that necessitates action (i.e. if dissent is shown, the dissent is investigated and the presiding authority then makes a decision based on the prompting of the spirit.) Is this correct? I have found support, but given the claim to apologetic support I am testing my position against the apologetic position.

Finally how much dissent, belief of error within the leadership of the Church, can exist within an individual and still maintain in good standing?

I know that I am asking a number of differing questions in this thread, but I did not wish to create multiple for this. I hope we can maintain a fairly cohesive thread.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Yep

[thesometimesaint]

I post on various other boards, as I believe that many of us do. I am in conversation with a couple who claim to be members in good standing, one of which made statement that leads me to believe she holds a recommend, and claim to have a few fairly eminent LDS Apologists' support for a couple of positions. I feel that I have adequately answered their claims, but I am not as skilled as many of you. Even though the positions are rather extreme and they are positions that put them at odds with LDS belief and they do not provide sufficient reference, I do not wish to deny their claim of support out of hand. It is difficult for me to believe that an apologist would hold the views they are claiming. As such, I thought that I would ask the question here and open it up for us. If I can find support in some form for their position then I will acknowledge such.

Initial claim, which I am positive holds no apologetic support, is that a form of reincarnation is probable given early Church leadership's teachings. They believe that multiple probations are somehow multiple mortalities. IMO, this is easily refuted by sourcing various Joseph Smith works. However, is there any real support among early leadership for some form of reincarnation that includes multiple mortalities?

The continued holding to a position on reincarnation requires them to believe that at some point the leadership of the Church must have begun to be somewhat in error. What is the typical response to a member who continues to push reincarnation in any form, given the Church's stated position on reincarnation and the transmigration of the soul.

Also, as support for their position they have made comments concerning common consent. I understand common consent, when in relation to the body of the Church, to be more an exercise of showing our approval, and disapproval, and less of a potent statement that necessitates action (i.e. if dissent is shown, the dissent is investigated and the presiding authority then makes a decision based on the prompting of the spirit.) Is this correct? I have found support, but given the claim to apologetic support I am testing my position against the apologetic position.

Finally how much dissent, belief of error within the leadership of the Church, can exist within an individual and still maintain in good standing?

I know that I am asking a number of differing questions in this thread, but I did not wish to create multiple for this. I hope we can maintain a fairly cohesive thread.

We don't believe in reincarnation as the Hindus do, but like other Christians do.

As long as you can answer the baptismal questions correctly you are good to go. For those members that have been through the Temple I would add the Temple Recommend questions.

[Yep]

As long as you can answer the baptismal questions correctly you are good to go. For those members that have been through the Temple I would add the Temple Recommend questions.

At what point would a belief in error within the leadership of the Church require some form of discipline?

[thesometimesaint]

When you teach it as a doctrine of the church after instruction that it is not.

[Calm]

It is difficult for me to believe that an apologist would hold the views they are claiming.

Apologists come in all shapes and sizes and may be generally 'mainstream' in most areas while having a few less popular views. And of course, what is an "eminent LDS apologist" often depends on whether one agrees with the individual or not.

The idea of multiple mortal probations is often supported, IIRC (it's been awhile since i looked into it) by the idea that Adam was a celestial being who then put off his immortal body and became mortal again...which is interpreted as him having already gone through a regular earthly life on another earth, being resurrected, etc. and then assuming the role of Adam here. There is also the idea that besides the role of Adam, the role of Christ is setup this way (based on the idea that one can't become a God without a body). IIRC some believe that one becomes a "God the Father" by serving in all these capacities while one's original mortal probation would have been just a typical human being. Thus it is not reincarnation in the traditional sense...one does not assume lesser physical forms such as animals and it appears to be based on the idea of progression....each probation one assumes a higher spiritual role.

I cannot remember what they believe happens with those who do not play such a role...such as all the women that have ever been since I don't believe they believe a woman can become a man in another life...plus that would imply that ultimately everyone ends up as male since the ultimate spiritual roles are that of Christ and the God the Father (again IIRC).

There is claim that BY and others believed this because of certain comments made by BY about Adam and Eve putting off their celestial bodies to come to our earth, but it is unclear exactly what they meant by this imo as well as how they placed the concept in relation to the teaching that once resurrected the spirit and the body will never experience death again.

[Yep]

Apologists come in all shapes and sizes and may be generally 'mainstream' in most areas while having a few less popular views. And of course, what is an "eminent LDS apologist" often depends on whether one agrees with the individual or not.

The idea of multiple mortal probations is often supported, IIRC (it's been awhile since i looked into it) by the idea that Adam was a celestial being who then put off his immortal body and became mortal again...which is interpreted as him having already gone through a regular earthly life on another earth, being resurrected, etc. and then assuming the role of Adam here. There is also the idea that besides the role of Adam, the role of Christ is setup this way (based on the idea that one can't become a God without a body). IIRC some believe that one becomes a "God the Father" by serving in all these capacities while one's original mortal probation would have been just a typical human being. Thus it is not reincarnation in the traditional sense...one does not assume lesser physical forms such as animals and it appears to be based on the idea of progression....each probation one assumes a higher spiritual role.

I cannot remember what they believe happens with those who do not play such a role...such as all the women that have ever been since I don't believe they believe a woman can become a man in another life...plus that would imply that ultimately everyone ends up as male since the ultimate spiritual roles are that of Christ and the God the Father (again IIRC).

There is claim that BY and others believed this because of certain comments made by BY about Adam and Eve putting off their celestial bodies to come to our earth, but it is unclear exactly what they meant by this imo as well as how they placed the concept in relation to the teaching that once resurrected the spirit and the body will never experience death again.

Thank you.

The position that I am dealing with is that of multiple mortalities on this earth, for all individuals. Thus to achieve perfection most frequently requires multiple lives. It reminds me of the Joshua/Mathias claim, only not in a family line. A claim they have espoused is that Joseph Smith was another prominent scriptural figure in a prior mortality, due to reference to a quote stating something along the lines of, "if you knew who I was" (I cannot remember the exact wording or citation.)

[Calm]

due to reference to a quote stating something along the lines of, "if you knew who I was" (I cannot remember the exact wording or citation.)

That quote has been used to support the idea JS was the Holy Ghost among other things....

Sorry, I can't help you with the idea that we are given mmps until we get it right or whatever, I haven't heard of any quote from early leaders that support that idea and many that outright refute it. Given that we have the time in the spirit world after death before judgment to learn and repent, I don't see the necessity at all.

[Questing Beast]

The legend has it that Joseph Smith hinted at being a direct descendant physically of Jesus Christ. Not that he was ever anyone else before he was Joseph Smith. No, I can't find the reference.

Eliza R. Snow purportedly told her prophet brother on an occasion that Joseph Smith believed in reincarnation, the Christian kind, not the Hindu variety, so I gather from all his other teachings.

I believe in "reincarnation" in the sense that I believe we live as many mortal lives as seems necessary/good to learn what Joy Is and is not. There are probably those who are "glorified" who help teach others in mortal venues by taking on roles. This in no way runs counter to the doctrine that resurrected beings never died again, because taking on such roles is purely voluntary and in no way amount to anything more than putting on and taking off a temporary body, like a costume. But the distinction being made by me is not really a distinction, since I believe that we are already immortals when we are created, and this mortality stuff is just a series of temporary experiences, much like dreams to an immortal, which we "awake" from back into our true, full selves. The doctrine that "this life is the only life to prepare to meet God" (words to that effect) is not denied by this belief; since "this life" includes all of eternity, and we are always trying to meet "God" on a higher and more intimate level of understanding and being....

[Yep]

That quote has been used to support the idea JS was the Holy Ghost among other things....

Sorry, I can't help you with the idea that we are given mmps until we get it right or whatever, I haven't heard of any quote from early leaders that support that idea and many that outright refute it. Given that we have the time in the spirit world after death before judgment to learn and repent, I don't see the necessity at all.

This has been my position as well. I believe that the two I am discussing with are verging on leaving the Church and are espousing these views as acceptable to the body of the Church. Their view is that the leadership is in error and should be called to account. They have asked why discipline is not happening today as it did in the early LDS Church. My response is that this type of discipline hasn't been necessary and that most discipline is fairly private and not extending to the general awareness of the body of the church. I have cited that from time to time public figures are disciplined. If I remember correctly some BYU Faculty have been disciplined fairly recently, and I heard that there was some discipline due to going over budget with the SLC Mall. I don't think BYU faculty is what they were referencing though, I believe they are referencing discipline of high end authorities on matters of doctrine. I have thus felt a need to refute their position so as to not allow the population of the board believe that these two are representative of the main body of the Church. I am currently considering withdrawing from the discussion as I believe that I have accomplished this goal, but if I am able I feel I should respond to a few statements that I think will be answered here or in further research.

I am however very interested in the responses here as a matter of curiosity and that innate drive to keep learning everything I can, particularly about my positions and beliefs.

[Yep]

I believe in "reincarnation" in the sense that I believe we live as many mortal lives as seems necessary/good to learn what Joy Is and is not. There are probably those who are "glorified" who help teach others in mortal venues by taking on roles. This in no way runs counter to the doctrine that resurrected beings never died again, because taking on such roles is purely voluntary and in no way amount to anything more than putting on and taking off a temporary body, like a costume. But the distinction being made by me is not really a distinction, since I believe that we are already immortals when we are created, and this mortality stuff is just a series of temporary experiences, much like dreams to an immortal, which we "awake" from back into our true, full selves. The doctrine that "this life is the only life to prepare to meet God" (words to that effect) is not denied by this belief; since "this life" includes all of eternity, and we are always trying to meet "God" on a higher and more intimate level of understanding and being....

That feels in conflict with what is taught, is this a personal view or is there support for your position?

[Questing Beast]

Personal view, and I don't see it in conflict with anything except a dogmatic focus on specific teachings, i.e. insisting on One Way Only to interpret the scriptures. We are seven billion souls on this planet. It is not conceivable that One Way Only could possibly accommodate us all....

[Yep]

Personal view, and I don't see it in conflict with anything except a dogmatic focus on specific teachings, i.e. insisting on One Way Only to interpret the scriptures. We are seven billion souls on this planet. It is not conceivable that One Way Only could possibly accommodate us all....

Is this view more of an idea you entertain, or is it a solid part of your personal belief system?

[CASteinman]

Apparently you are aware of Joshua/Mathias. You can find this story in The History of the Church volume 2 Page 304. I will quote part:

Tuesday, November 10.—I resumed conversation with Matthias, and desired him to enlighten my mind more on his views respecting the resurrection.

He said that he possessed the spirit of his fathers, that he was a literal descendant of Matthias, the Apostle, who was chosen in the place of Judas that fell; that his spirit was resurrected in him; and that this was the way or scheme of eternal life—this transmigration of soul or spirit from father to son.

I told him that his doctrine was of the devil, that he was in reality in possession of a wicked and depraved spirit, although he professed to be the Spirit of truth itself; and he said also that he possessed the soul of Christ.

He tarried until Wednesday, 11th, when, after breakfast, I told him, that my God told me, that his god was the devil, and I could not keep him any longer, and he must depart. And so I, for once, cast out the devil in bodily shape, and I believe a murderer.

[CASteinman]

Also, as support for their position they have made comments concerning common consent. I understand common consent, when in relation to the body of the Church, to be more an exercise of showing our approval, and disapproval, and less of a potent statement that necessitates action (i.e. if dissent is shown, the dissent is investigated and the presiding authority then makes a decision based on the prompting of the spirit.) Is this correct? I have found support, but given the claim to apologetic support I am testing my position against the apologetic position.

What are they claiming about common consent.

Sometimes dissent does require action. This is especially true in cases of ordination or calling to specific positions of responsibility. I believe that there was an instance a few years back where dissenters were not going to support the President. They were invited to meet after Conference so that their concerns could be heard and if appropriate, investigated.

Edited April 23, 2013 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

It is not conceivable that One Way Only could possibly accommodate us all....

It is conceivable for God, who conceived the plan -- for all.

[CASteinman]

They have asked why discipline is not happening today as it did in the early LDS Church. My response is that this type of discipline hasn't been necessary and that most discipline is fairly private and not extending to the general awareness of the body of the church. I have cited that from time to time public figures are disciplined.

Kinda weird. "I'm gonna leave the Church unless they publicly discipline people" How about we start with them? Is that cool with them?

[teddyaware]

A claim they have espoused is that Joseph Smith was another prominent scriptural figure in a prior mortality, due to reference to a quote stating something along the lines of, "if you knew who I was" (I cannot remember the exact wording or citation.)

Here is the quote:

"You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself. . . . When I am called by the trump of the archangel and weighed in the balance, you will all know me then." (History of the Church, volume 6: 316)

[Yep]

Here is the quote:

"You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself. . . . When I am called by the trump of the archangel and weighed in the balance, you will all know me then." (History of the Church, volume 6: 316)

Thank you.

[Yep]

What are they claiming about common consent.

Sometimes dissent does require action. This is especially true in cases of ordination or calling to specific positions of responsibility. I believe that there was an instance a few years back where dissenters were not going to support the President. They were invited to meet after Conference so that their concerns could be heard and if appropriate, investigated.

They are not very clear. Their general claim is that common consent places more authority in the body of the church than in the Leadership. It seems close to the general denominational Christian position that if the minister teaches what I disagree with or is different from my current belief, he obviously is not teaching by the spirit. Thus, anything stated that is in conflict with the personal position is incorrect, leading to a position that the leadership is further and further from the truth.

[Yep]

Kinda weird. "I'm gonna leave the Church unless they publicly discipline people" How about we start with them? Is that cool with them?

That's my view as well. The very odd thing is that they still claim to be strong LDS with no intent to leave. They claim that the leadership teaches error and false doctrine, yet they are not leaving the Church. Their claim for evidence of, and support for, their claim to the need of discipline/correction is that it happened in the early LDS Church quite a bit and now it does not appear to occur. If I truly believed such concerning the leadership I do not think I could stay in the Church.

[CASteinman]

They are not very clear. Their general claim is that common consent places more authority in the body of the church than in the Leadership.

That would not be exactly so. The body of the Church has a "No" vote -- a veto power. But this is not the same as having more authority and there is no scriptural mechanism for the body of the Church to exercise any authority beyond that veto.

It seems close to the general denominational Christian position that if the minister teaches what I disagree with or is different from my current belief, he obviously is not teaching by the spirit. Thus, anything stated that is in conflict with the personal position is incorrect, leading to a position that the leadership is further and further from the truth.

At least some other religious bodies have a democratic process of some sort by which their elders and pastors are selected. Perhaps that is what these people are suggesting for the LDS Church.

[wenglund]

People are free to believe as they wish (we reserve to them the same right we reserve to ourselves). This applies, to some extent, within the restored gospel. So, rather than challenge whether LDS can believe in reincarnation, perhaps a better strategy would be to challenge why would LDS believe in reincarnation since it doesn't make sense on a number of levels--not the least of which is the numbers. If human spirits reentered human life after they die, one would expect human population to have remained fairly constant over time, and birth and death rates would always have been about the same over time. Since they haven't been (not by any stretch of imagination), this logically negates the notion of reincarnation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Although I am very, very reluctant to say this of anyone -- it does appear that they are on the road to apostasy -- not because of their incorrect doctrinal views, but because of their very pointed attacks on leadership basically saying it was fallen. There is a line that some of us, including myself, come very close to with regards to dissenting from opinions expressed by Church Leaders and from certain perceived Church policies, but once you start saying that the First Presidency is fallen and should be removed, and start calling for harsh discipline of others who do not agree with your views, I think you are well on your way out the door.

[CASteinman]

If human spirits reentered human life after they die, one would expect human population to have remained fairly constant over time, and birth and death rates would always have been about the same over time. Since they haven't been (not by any stretch of imagination), this logically negates the notion of reincarnation.

But wade.. .you are not counting on the fungibility of the gnat and locust populations....

[CASteinman]

Although I am very, very reluctant to say this of anyone -- it does appear that they are on the road to apostasy -- not because of their incorrect doctrinal views, but because of their very pointed attacks on leadership basically saying it was fallen. There is a line that some of us, including myself, come very close to with regards to dissenting from opinions expressed by Church Leaders and from certain perceived Church policies, but once you start saying that the First Presidency is fallen and should be removed, and start calling for harsh discipline of others who do not agree with your views, I think you are well on your way out the door.

I think you are right. As an aside, I don't think "badly" of such people really. Perhaps they are like the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf -- who are often condemned in classes.

But my view is a bit different. I have a person I know who is mentally ill. If he does not take his medicine, he has all kinds of weird ideas and conspiracy theories, as well as problems with his clothing which must be shed in order to be holy. People like this may not be quite as obviously insane, but I sort of feel toward them the same way -- some sort of "bug" has gotten into them and I believe that while they are not fit for membership, God will be merciful to them because they are sincere. At least that is what I hope. Because I am sincere and yet I believe I am often wrong and I hope to be forgiven.