Reincarnation - True Doctrine, Or False?

[Buckeye]

Not a contradiction. Those who died as children will be resurrected as children and grow to their full age. Their spirits are in adult form. He will not be physically born again. Yes, he will remember.

Why only 6 then? Why not 666? Why should the world end if we could just go on learning forever? There are a few things we need to learn here that we cannot learn elsewhere. the rest of it we could learn more quickly elsewhere.

 

This just seems really weird.

 

First, what age defines a "child." Is it 8 or 18? And regardless of the age demarcation, this would mean that parent's ability to raise their children depends entirely on an arbitrary age. If we assume the age is 8, then the Smith Parents would be able to raise their child who died at age 7, but the Jones family would not be able to raise their child who died at 9. What's the rationale for that?

 

Second, are you suggesting that children who die are allowed to progress mentally and spiritually, but are kept young physically? This would mean, for instance, that the children of Joseph and Emma who died at a very young age will progress spiritually and mentally for some hundreds of years in the next realm, but stay in their very small bodies until the resurrection? Let's call this the Extreme Doogie Howser doctrine! To me, this is not just weird, but heinous. By what right is a person damned from growing physically for 100s (or 1,000s) of years just so that his parents can have the joy of "raising" him? That seems quite unfair to the child.

 

Moreover, the parents "raising" of the child appears to be very limited compared to what happens in this life. Sure, they can teach junior how to throw a baseball and ride a bike, but they don't get to teach him the alphabet, calculus, charity, or forgiveness - because he was allowed to progress in those attributes during the many years between death and resurrection. This will make for some awesome deacon's quorums. "Boys, we have a new member of the quorum; Amenhotep turned 12 this week; but he wisely used the 3,000 years since death to learn 200 languages, cure cancer, gain 14 Ph.D's, compose 52 symphonies (some of which are still performed at the Lincoln Center) and to solve the mystery of the space-time continuum; he's a little shy so please welcome him with love."

 

You can believe this weirdness all you want, but I find it appauling. If my children die early I will be quite sad, but I would want them to grow and progress as much as possible between that moment and when we meet again. After all, they are not "mine" in any possessive sense. They are they own beings and have the right to growth and happiness as much as any other.

[The Nehor]

This just seems really weird.

 

First, what age defines a "child." Is it 8 or 18? And regardless of the age demarcation, this would mean that parent's ability to raise their children depends entirely on an arbitrary age. If we assume the age is 8, then the Smith Parents would be able to raise their child who died at age 7, but the Jones family would not be able to raise their child who died at 9. What's the rationale for that?

 

Second, are you suggesting that children who die are allowed to progress mentally and spiritually, but are kept young physically? This would mean, for instance, that the children of Joseph and Emma who died at a very young age will progress spiritually and mentally for some hundreds of years in the next realm, but stay in their very small bodies until the resurrection? Let's call this the Extreme Doogie Howser doctrine! To me, this is not just weird, but heinous. By what right is a person damned from growing physically for 100s (or 1,000s) of years just so that his parents can have the joy of "raising" him? That seems quite unfair to the child.

 

Moreover, the parents "raising" of the child appears to be very limited compared to what happens in this life. Sure, they can teach junior how to throw a baseball and ride a bike, but they don't get to teach him the alphabet, calculus, charity, or forgiveness - because he was allowed to progress in those attributes during the many years between death and resurrection. This will make for some awesome deacon's quorums. "Boys, we have a new member of the quorum; Amenhotep turned 12 this week; but he wisely used the 3,000 years since death to learn 200 languages, cure cancer, gain 14 Ph.D's, compose 52 symphonies (some of which are still performed at the Lincoln Center) and to solve the mystery of the space-time continuum; he's a little shy so please welcome him with love."

 

You can believe this weirdness all you want, but I find it appauling. If my children die early I will be quite sad, but I would want them to grow and progress as much as possible between that moment and when we meet again. After all, they are not "mine" in any possessive sense. They are they own beings and have the right to growth and happiness as much as any other.

First: No specific age ends childhood. I will still be the child of my parents in the Millenium. Obviously a 7 year old will be different then a 17 year old.

Second: No, I am not suggesting they will be kept young forever. They will be resurrected at the age they died and grow up at a normal rate. It is not about their parents having the joy of raising them. It is about growing experiences we can only have while in a body.

I agree that the Millenium will be a very different place.

Actually they are yours in a possessive sense and you belong to them too. Now possessiveness can turn to neediness and stunting the growth of others but charity will take care of much of that in the Millenium. I am not surprised you find appalling. There are parts of it I do not like. If the things of the Terrestrial and Celestial worlds were truly congenial to us the world would be a better place.

[Buckeye]

First: No specific age ends childhood. I will still be the child of my parents in the Millenium. Obviously a 7 year old will be different then a 17 year old.

Second: No, I am not suggesting they will be kept young forever. They will be resurrected at the age they died and grow up at a normal rate. It is not about their parents having the joy of raising them. It is about growing experiences we can only have while in a body.

I agree that the Millenium will be a very different place.

Actually they are yours in a possessive sense and you belong to them too. Now possessiveness can turn to neediness and stunting the growth of others but charity will take care of much of that in the Millenium. I am not surprised you find appalling. There are parts of it I do not like. If the things of the Terrestrial and Celestial worlds were truly congenial to us the world would be a better place.

 

What is the magic age at which a resurrected being stops "aging"? Let's say it's 70. Would that mean that Joseph Smith would be resurrected as 38-year old man and continue growing at a normal rate, just like a 5 year old?

 

And what if someone's growth is stunted during life, but they still live to a ripe old age? Let's say a woman's growth hormones stop functioning at age 9 and she stays the same size until her death at 94. Would she be resurrection to the "ideal age" or would she be resurrected to age 9 so that she could experience the physical growth she'd missed out on during life?

[thesometimesaint]

This just seems really weird.

 

First, what age defines a "child." Is it 8 or 18? And regardless of the age demarcation, this would mean that parent's ability to raise their children depends entirely on an arbitrary age. If we assume the age is 8, then the Smith Parents would be able to raise their child who died at age 7, but the Jones family would not be able to raise their child who died at 9. What's the rationale for that?

 

Second, are you suggesting that children who die are allowed to progress mentally and spiritually, but are kept young physically? This would mean, for instance, that the children of Joseph and Emma who died at a very young age will progress spiritually and mentally for some hundreds of years in the next realm, but stay in their very small bodies until the resurrection? Let's call this the Extreme Doogie Howser doctrine! To me, this is not just weird, but heinous. By what right is a person damned from growing physically for 100s (or 1,000s) of years just so that his parents can have the joy of "raising" him? That seems quite unfair to the child.

 

Moreover, the parents "raising" of the child appears to be very limited compared to what happens in this life. Sure, they can teach junior how to throw a baseball and ride a bike, but they don't get to teach him the alphabet, calculus, charity, or forgiveness - because he was allowed to progress in those attributes during the many years between death and resurrection. This will make for some awesome deacon's quorums. "Boys, we have a new member of the quorum; Amenhotep turned 12 this week; but he wisely used the 3,000 years since death to learn 200 languages, cure cancer, gain 14 Ph.D's, compose 52 symphonies (some of which are still performed at the Lincoln Center) and to solve the mystery of the space-time continuum; he's a little shy so please welcome him with love."

 

You can believe this weirdness all you want, but I find it appauling. If my children die early I will be quite sad, but I would want them to grow and progress as much as possible between that moment and when we meet again. After all, they are not "mine" in any possessive sense. They are they own beings and have the right to growth and happiness as much as any other.

 

I don't believe it is arbitrary. I believe it is situational. God helps us regardless of our chronological age. So I'm fine with our parents helping us as necessary.

 

No man(woman) can be saved in ignorance. We will be saved no faster than we gain knowledge. I take those statements as the necessity for me to learn everything I can, as fast as I can. While knowing full well that I won't learn everything in this life.

[The Nehor]

What is the magic age at which a resurrected being stops "aging"? Let's say it's 70. Would that mean that Joseph Smith would be resurrected as 38-year old man and continue growing at a normal rate, just like a 5 year old?

 

And what if someone's growth is stunted during life, but they still live to a ripe old age? Let's say a woman's growth hormones stop functioning at age 9 and she stays the same size until her death at 94. Would she be resurrection to the "ideal age" or would she be resurrected to age 9 so that she could experience the physical growth she'd missed out on during life?

I imagine the magic age is whatever age they wish.The exact mechanics are unknown but we are resurrected as we were in life. Presumably you can reverse aging at will as well.

No idea what happens to people with stunted growth. I can guarantee it will not be a problem. My guess is they can grow up normally or skip it as they wish.

Your questions are getting silly.

[Buckeye]

I imagine the magic age is whatever age they wish.The exact mechanics are unknown but we are resurrected as we were in life. Presumably you can reverse aging at will as well.

No idea what happens to people with stunted growth. I can guarantee it will not be a problem. My guess is they can grow up normally or skip it as they wish.

Your questions are getting silly.

 

The questions are silly because your premise is silly. To say that people will grow in spirit form for years and years, only to be crammed into a child's body at resurrection is, frankly, silly. Resurrection is supposed to match our body to our spirit in its form, not vice versa.

 

Also, you now say that we can pick whatever age we want. So presumably a 5 year old can choose to stay a 5 year old - but this would then compromise the promise to parents that they get to raise their children in the resurrection. The promise really is "you can raise them to whatever age they want to be raised to."

 

Adding to the silliness is your new notion of "reverse aging." We can now add the Benjamin Button doctrine to the Doogie Howser doctrine! How is this supposed to work? Someone who dies at 80 is resurrected at 80 and then can choose to "reverse age" down to his ideal age of 35 ... or 16 ... or 4 months ... or maybe even prenatal? Talk about silly.

[Calm]

Our spirits are likely adults at the time of our birth and we managed then to connect up somehow with a much smaller body. After all we had all of the premortal existence to grow in our spirits whatever that means. The idea that spirits have to fit completely inside the body, imo is faulty. Or that an adult size spirit is the same size as an adult size human body.

Nehor isn't the one who came up with the idea, it was Joseph Smith.

Someone who dies at 80 is resurrected at 80 and then can choose to "reverse age" down to his ideal age of 35

And that I would believe is from Brigham Young, but it might be one of the JFSs. People are resurrected with their infirmities but as they repent and their spirits are purified, their bodies alter to match the more perfected spirit. As the spirit is perfected, the body is as well. Edited February 13, 2015 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

Our spirits are likely adults at the time of our birth and we managed then to connect up somehow with a much smaller body.  After all we had all of the premortal existence to grow in our spirits whatever that means.  The idea that spirits have to fit completely inside the body, imo is faulty.  Or that an adult size spirit is the same size as an adult size human body.

 

Nehor isn't the one who came up with the idea, it was Joseph Smith.

 

And that I would believe is from Brigham Young, but it might be one of the JFSs.  People are resurrected with their infirmities but as they repent and their spirits are purified, their bodies alter to match the more perfected spirit.  BTW the spirit is perfected, the body is as well.

 

There is also the teaching that children are resurrected as children and raised by their parents...which would be opposite growth to an 80 year old getting younger and healthier.

Edited February 13, 2015 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

The questions are silly because your premise is silly. To say that people will grow in spirit form for years and years, only to be crammed into a child's body at resurrection is, frankly, silly. Resurrection is supposed to match our body to our spirit in its form, not vice versa.

 

Also, you now say that we can pick whatever age we want. So presumably a 5 year old can choose to stay a 5 year old - but this would then compromise the promise to parents that they get to raise their children in the resurrection. The promise really is "you can raise them to whatever age they want to be raised to."

 

Adding to the silliness is your new notion of "reverse aging." We can now add the Benjamin Button doctrine to the Doogie Howser doctrine! How is this supposed to work? Someone who dies at 80 is resurrected at 80 and then can choose to "reverse age" down to his ideal age of 35 ... or 16 ... or 4 months ... or maybe even prenatal? Talk about silly.

Of course it seems silly. Resurrection itself is ridiculous. A society where it is an accepted fact will of course appear ridiculous. I meant your questions were silly as you were throwing out oddball cases that I have no answers too.

Virtually everything I said is backed up by the words of a prophet. The millennium is going to be delightfully wacky. Though not as strange as those born mortal in the Millenium will find stories of our day.

[ERayR]

Of course it seems silly. Resurrection itself is ridiculous. A society where it is an accepted fact will of course appear ridiculous. I meant your questions were silly as you were throwing out oddball cases that I have no answers too.

Virtually everything I said is backed up by the words of a prophet. The millennium is going to be delightfully wacky. Though not as strange as those born mortal in the Millenium will find stories of our day.

 

Of course it is true and if you don't repent you will come back as a mouse in the land of cats. 

[busybee]

The questions are silly because your premise is silly. To say that people will grow in spirit form for years and years, only to be crammed into a child's body at resurrection is, frankly, silly. Resurrection is supposed to match our body to our spirit in its form, not vice versa.

 

Also, you now say that we can pick whatever age we want. So presumably a 5 year old can choose to stay a 5 year old - but this would then compromise the promise to parents that they get to raise their children in the resurrection. The promise really is "you can raise them to whatever age they want to be raised to."

 

Adding to the silliness is your new notion of "reverse aging." We can now add the Benjamin Button doctrine to the Doogie Howser doctrine! How is this supposed to work? Someone who dies at 80 is resurrected at 80 and then can choose to "reverse age" down to his ideal age of 35 ... or 16 ... or 4 months ... or maybe even prenatal? Talk about silly.

We were all adult spirits crammed into babies bodies when we came to earth. Did you think we were tiny baby spirits when we received our mortal bodies? There were things we had to learn before we were ready to come into mortality. Why then is it so unfathomable that an adult spirit would be returned to a child's body after the resurrection to grow to physical maturity?

[janderich]

Well I have browsed this thread but not read everything. I believe in MMP of a certain form but not as expressed by most people. I do not believe in reincarnation as explained by eastern religions nor do I believe in multiple probations before the resurrection. But I do believe we face additional probations after the resurrection.

 

Perhaps what I believe in is better expressed as additional eternal rounds. Each round consists of us choosing to enter earth life, here leaning and growing, after which we die and enter the spirit world. Finally we are resurrected to inherit the kingdom prepared for us. This is standard LDS theology, but most people end there. They have some vague notion that we continue to progress but nothing more. They do not know how an eternal being can progress nor do they seek to understand. This is where additional mortal probations enter in. Progression can only occur when we are separated from God. To progress we must enter another probationary state. In this new round we are born, die, and are resurrected yet again. This continues over and over again until we become as God or become a son of perdition.

 

I believe most of the supposed contradictions with concepts such as death, the resurrection, and the atonement can be explained. However, at the end of the day it amounts to a witness of the spirit. I would love to hear contradictions to what I have just expressed and I will comment.

 

 

[Calm]

Are there people in this world that are on further progression probations than others or are we all on the same one?

 

Progression can only occur when we are separated from God.

 

 

It is an interesting idea…but how does God himself progress then?

[janderich]

Are there people in this world that are on further progression probations than others or are we all on the same one?

 

 

It is an interesting idea…but how does God himself progress then?

Well while we all progressed to an advanced state before this life it appears to me that we entered this current mortal round at different levels of advancement. Certainly everyone who is on this earth now is in the same eternal round since we will all be judged and resurrected. As to the number of rounds we have faced I do not know. 

 

I admit that Christ is the limit of my current understanding. He became one with the Father, he overcame death, the final enemy. What is past that I do not know. 

[The Nehor]

Well I have browsed this thread but not read everything. I believe in MMP of a certain form but not as expressed by most people. I do not believe in reincarnation as explained by eastern religions nor do I believe in multiple probations before the resurrection. But I do believe we face additional probations after the resurrection.

 

Perhaps what I believe in is better expressed as additional eternal rounds. Each round consists of us choosing to enter earth life, here leaning and growing, after which we die and enter the spirit world. Finally we are resurrected to inherit the kingdom prepared for us. This is standard LDS theology, but most people end there. They have some vague notion that we continue to progress but nothing more. They do not know how an eternal being can progress nor do they seek to understand. This is where additional mortal probations enter in. Progression can only occur when we are separated from God. To progress we must enter another probationary state. In this new round we are born, die, and are resurrected yet again. This continues over and over again until we become as God or become a son of perdition.

 

I believe most of the supposed contradictions with concepts such as death, the resurrection, and the atonement can be explained. However, at the end of the day it amounts to a witness of the spirit. I would love to hear contradictions to what I have just expressed and I will comment.

If separation from God is needed for progress it would make sense to stop praying or seeking his counsel and presence in this life. By doing so we are hindering our own progression.

[janderich]

If separation from God is needed for progress it would make sense to stop praying or seeking his counsel and presence in this life. By doing so we are hindering our own progression.

Well let me further clarify this point. The fall created both temporal and spiritual death as Samuel said, "for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual" (Hel 14:16). But we are not to remain this way forever. It was not God's intent to leave us to become angles to a devil. Instead the fall provided something new.

The fall had a two-fold direction — downward, yet forward. It brought man into the world and set his feet upon progression’s highway. (Elder Orson F. Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, 83)

Having been given the opportunity to progress we are to use it. Through the atonement of Christ we have been given a way to come back into the Lord's presence. This life then gave us an opportunity to prepare, through personal experience, to meet God again.

We are here cut off from his presence but not from his influence. Through Christ we are enlightened. We must seek that light and learn to heed its promptings. In so doing we grow beyond the state we found ourselves in before the fall. The opportunity in this life is precious. It is worth the effort. David O. McKay spoke truth when he said:

Truly it has been said that the grand aim of man’s creation is the development of a grand character, and grand character is by its very nature the product of a probationary discipline. (“Man’s Soul Is As Endless As Time,” Instructor, January 1960, 1–2, italics added).

Character is the product of a probationary discipline. There is no other way to obtain it.

[JLHPROF]

Well let me further clarify this point. The fall created both temporal and spiritual death as Samuel said, "for all mankind, by the fall of Adam being cut off from the presence of the Lord, are considered as dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual" (Hel 14:16). But we are not to remain this way forever. It was not God's intent to leave us to become angles to a devil. Instead the fall provided something new.

Having been given the opportunity to progress we are to use it. Through the atonement of Christ we have been given a way to come back into the Lord's presence. This life then gave us an opportunity to prepare, through personal experience, to meet God again.

We are here cut off from his presence but not from his influence. Through Christ we are enlightened. We must seek that light and learn to heed its promptings. In so doing we grow beyond the state we found ourselves in before the fall. The opportunity in this life is precious. It is worth the effort. David O. McKay spoke truth when he said:

Character is the product of a probationary discipline. There is no other way to obtain it.

 

I think it may be more accurate to say opposition is required for progression, not absence from God.  No opposition, no growth.

Just my opinion.

[rodheadlee]

What is the magic age at which a resurrected being stops "aging"? Let's say it's 70. Would that mean that Joseph Smith would be resurrected as 38-year old man and continue growing at a normal rate, just like a 5 year old?

 

And what if someone's growth is stunted during life, but they still live to a ripe old age? Let's say a woman's growth hormones stop functioning at age 9 and she stays the same size until her death at 94. Would she be resurrection to the "ideal age" or would she be resurrected to age 9 so that she could experience the physical growth she'd missed out on during life?

I plan on being resurrected to my 33 year old body which was Christ's age when he was crucified and resurrected.

Edited February 16, 2015 by rodheadlee

[janderich]

I think it may be more accurate to say opposition is required for progression, not absence from God.  No opposition, no growth.

Just my opinion.

Not absence, I never said that, but some distance is required. The fall separated us from God and placed us in an environment where our weakness was exposed. My point is that such a condition is necessary. Yes opposition is also required, but it is not simply opposition that allows us to progress. If that were the case, then you may believe that there is progression after the resurrection in our eternal state. However, I do not believe this to be the case. Once we have entered into our kingdom we have made our choice. We do not progress between kingdoms, we do not marry, we do not retrogress, despite the fact that opposition remains.

[Alan]

Joining this thread late.

I do believe reincarnation occurs is certain circumstances. If we are denied the chance to fulfill our life's mission through no fault of our own (murder for example) I believe we are given the choice to return and finish our work. We are not forced to; we have agency at all times.

[JLHPROF]

Yes opposition is also required, but it is not simply opposition that allows us to progress. If that were the case, then you may believe that there is progression after the resurrection in our eternal state. However, I do not believe this to be the case. Once we have entered into our kingdom we have made our choice. We do not progress between kingdoms, we do not marry, we do not retrogress, despite the fact that opposition remains.

 

And I completely disagree.  I do believe in progression either between kingdoms or of the kingdoms as a group.

I believe we will ALWAYS progress or retrogress.  There is no stagnation, from the lowliest life form to God himself.

[janderich]

And I completely disagree.  I do believe in progression either between kingdoms or of the kingdoms as a group.

I believe we will ALWAYS progress or retrogress.  There is no stagnation, from the lowliest life form to God himself.

Note my previous words, "in the eternal state". I did not say there is no progression, rather, there is no progression while in the eternal state or in a state of glory. After the resurrection we reach this state. While in such a state there can be no progression. This the scriptures plainly testify. But during mortality it is a different mater. During mortality we are provided an opportunity to effect our standing in the eternities thanks to the fall and the atonement. That is the reason for this mortal probation. So Alma can rightly say, "For behold this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God: yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors...therefore I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed." (Alma 34:32-33). And so it is. This life is the time. While here, we must work with all our might. But when the end of this life comes we will not be perfect. We will have a long way yet to go, and to get there we must enter a probationary state yet again, and again, and again. By doing so we will progress from one kingdom to the the next as you have stated.

Edited February 16, 2015 by janderich

[pogi]

Joining this thread late.

I do believe reincarnation occurs is certain circumstances. If we are denied the chance to fulfill our life's mission through no fault of our own (murder for example) I believe we are given the choice to return and finish our work. We are not forced to; we have agency at all times.

 

Is this just wishful thinking or do you have a reason to support your belief?

[MormonFreeThinker]

Joining this thread late.

I do believe reincarnation occurs is certain circumstances. If we are denied the chance to fulfill our life's mission through no fault of our own (murder for example) I believe we are given the choice to return and finish our work. We are not forced to; we have agency at all times.

 

I seen no evidence that reincarnation occurs, the church says, "the concept of reincarnation involves being born into the world again in a different form and is false doctrine" Preach My Gospel: A Guide to Missionary Service, (2004), 47–59

 

Some people claim to remember previous lives, others claim to remember alien abductions. So what is the difference? 

 

Edited February 16, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Alan]

Is this just wishful thinking or do you have a reason to support your belief?

 

It's more than wishful thinking.

I have a very good reason for my belief.