Joseph Smith and Multiple Mortal Probations

[JLHPROF]

Just now, CMZ said:

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

Why would we think otherwise?

[CMZ]

57 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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

I'm not Ahab, but personally I believe (and it's not that far of a stretch since it's been said that such a thing could happen) that Church leaders may have said things that weren't true, and it could still happen. We aren't promised that prophets are infallible. I also believe that we historical records may not always 100% accurately convey what they intended to, and that sometimes there may be teachings that actually are true but that we may not currently know how to interpret them and/or to reconcile them with other teachings.

[CMZ]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why would we think otherwise?

Not saying we should think otherwise. Just that I don't think I'd ever heard specific mention of it before.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Not saying we should think otherwise. Just that I don't think I'd ever heard specific mention of it before.

That's half the fun of this board.  For better or for worse I don't think there is much in doctrine or Church history that has never passed through here for all of us to peruse.  I learned of the accusations of dog sacrifice for the first time when we had a thread on that.  For some this unauthenticated necklace will be new.

As was said on the other first page "you may expect an eternity of cats, that have not yet escaped from the bag."

[JLHPROF]

On 2/28/2017 at 11:03 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

"...when brother Pratt went back last fall, and published the Revelation concerning the plurality of wives; it was thought there was no other cat to let out.  But allow me to tell you ... you may expect an eternity of cats, that have not yet escaped from the bag ..." BRIGHAM YOUNG, 1853

Stealing this for my sig line.  LOVE it.
Kind of want a t-shirt that says "you may expect an eternity of cats, that have not yet escaped from the bag".

[Benjamin Seeker]

50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

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

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

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

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

 

I've seen pictures of this locket in Quinn's Mormonism and the Magic View. That's a pretty awesome inscription. Stuff like this make me wonder how more expansive our theology would be if JS had stuck around.

[rongo]

Brigham referred to his statement years later:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/17/48

(p. 360, spilling over into 361).

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

I already did the digging on George Laub's journal. His accounts of JS' Nauvoo sermons date to Jan. 1 1845. https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/4643/download?token=NSejRNxt

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

Let's just keep in mind the 10+ year difference between JST genesis and these comments. It would be interesting to find out if Enoch 1 had influenced JS or Laub.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

I find that interpretation very plausible, given the wording Robinson wrote down. What he gets out of it should inform our analysis though. Obviously, for some reason or other, MMP is in the air.

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

I've kept digging. Hopefully, we aren't covering the same ground. Brian Hales and Don Bradley date Joseph Lee Robinson's journal to 1853 or earlier.

http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JS0768.doc

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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

I know that what Brigham, and Joseph, taught that had to do with Adam and God, our Eternal Father, was and is true, and always will be.  I also know that many people misunderstood and misunderstand what our Church Presidents have taught, and that many people who misunderstand their doctrine have erroneously called it the Adam-God doctrine that our Church leaders taught when they didn't. The truth is in what they taught, but not what  some people erroneously say that they taught.

And that's about as clear as I can make it whether or not you correctly understand what I'm saying.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Ahab

[Benjamin Seeker]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I know that what Brigham, and Joseph, taught that had to do with Adam and God, our Eternal Father, was and is true, and always will be.  I also know that many people misunderstood and misunderstand what our Church Presidents have taught, and that many people who misunderstand their doctrine have erroneously called it the Adam-God doctrine that our Church leaders taught when they didn't. The truth is in what they taught, but not what  some people erroneously say that they taught.

And that's about as clear as I can make it whether or not you correctly understand what I'm saying.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't want to derail this thread, so lets just leave it there.

[clarkgoble]

Yeah the website wasn't too informative about when written. The way it's published it looks like a diary written in 1841 but it reads like it was written much later. Of course if it is as late as 1853 that's pretty significant since it likely means the later theology is shaping the memory. Although there are some differences from say Heber C. Kimball's theology (which is probably the most pronounced on MMPs and possibly shaped by the spiritualist movement that came into Utah) On the other hand we can't just dismiss it out of hand that something was said. But 12 years is a lot to remember the details of a conversation. I certainly couldn't do that.

To the 'soul mate' interpretation again that notion persisted (and arguably still persists in some degree) but I'm not sure I'd really call that MMP the way most people think about it. It seems there are several issues we need to keep clear and avoid conflating:

1. nature of premortal spirits especially in terms of sexuality and origin

2. nature of resurrection especially in terms of stability of body (ability to fall to a mortal body)

3. nature of being able to fall from grace

4. nature of glory and the ability to move between kingdoms after resurrection

While those are in some cases related I think we should keep them clear. For instance it sure sounds like the Robinson account says nothing about what most people associate with MMP which is Heber C. Kimball's later variation of reincarnation. i.e. the ability to progress between kingdoms and the telestial kingdom literally just being an other fallen earth like ours. (Forgive me if I mangled that - I've not read Kimball on this topic in more than 15 years which is why I'm skeptical about distant memories. My own are fuzzy to the point of untrustworthiness especially on details.)

In contrast to this is the A/G theory which is related yet different. This is the idea of beings getting resurrected and then falling and losing the resurrected body. It then (at least in some forms - if I recall Brigham is ambiguous on the HG part) involves a weird procession through the roles of the godhead (holy ghost → Christ → Father → Adam and repeat Father → Adam per creation) I don't think that makes much sense and the way Brigham formulates it seems inherently problematic. Last time I looked into in depth I came away thinking it was a mangled memory of what Joseph had taught but a bit confused. Then with the Orson Pratt debate he stubbornly dug in his heels and doubled down. Yet the ideas really never grabbed hold of the people that well.

Anyway, I do think that Joseph's tendency to adopt a radical freedom of individuals means that any divine being must be able to fall if only to permit choice. That includes God. This was of course blasphemous to people. But there are definitely passages as far back as 1829 in the Book of Mormon that head in that direction even if they don't fully embrace the idea. However the nature of a resurrected body makes the whole idea problematic in many ways. On the other hand the idea of an absolutely final judgment and free will seem to theologically be at odds too.

Getting back to the main points I wish to distinguish, I think it clear Joseph thought spirit life prior to mortality was a kind of probation (one which Satan failed at). It's not clear he thought there were more than those two although it seems reasonable that upon resurrection we are still progressing with free will. Likewise the theology of spirit prison/paradise means people living hundreds if not thousands of years there without a body. So at minimum there are 4 spans of life one could call probationary in traditional contemporary Mormon theology.

Likewise the ability to fall seems historicized with Adam even it's unclear what parts of the narrative of Genesis 2 are figurative or historic in all the accounts. Even someone like Brigham who took aspects as historic also took parts as highly figurative. So we have to be careful. The traditional take is Adam and Eve in the garden were in a terrestrial order although some take it as a celestial order. They weren't resurrected but they weren't in a fallen body. So one assumes at a minimum two different sets of bodies if not three in traditional LDS theology. Four if one includes the spirit body. 

Beyond that, I'm more loath that we know much about Joseph's views. I find the Laub account pretty ambiguous myself especially given those sermons by Joseph on becoming saviors by doing temple work.

Edited March 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[bdouglas]

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

What follows is a thesis on the controversial doctrine from the 19th century referred to as multiple mortal probations, which fell out of favor along with Adam-God. This thesis explains a bunch of odd data points and suggests a straightforward explanation for the origin of Adam-God. The sources are quoted from boap.org and the MF0081 "Multiple Mortal Probations: LDS Related Quotes" document found at mormonpolygamydocuments.org.

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

These secret teachings coincided with teachings by Joseph that either explicity stated or implied that previously resurrected beings, essentially from a prior earth, could interact with mortals on this earth. Perhaps the clearest example of this is a statement recorded by Nauvoo saint, George Laub. He wrote that Joseph stated, "Now the history of Josephus in Speaking of angels came down and took themselves wives of the daughters of men, See Geneses 6 Chapter 1-2, verses. These ware resurrected Bodies, Violated the Celestial laws."

More significantly, JS' King Follett Sermon suggests that, after the resurrection, each heir to Godhood will eventually serve as a Christ in a mortal probation. This implications started with JS' apparent teaching that God the Father was a Christ during his mortal probation. This is a straight forward interpretation of the standard collated version of the sermon most often circulated, but it's made even clearer by George Laub journal summary. He wrote, "...Jesus Christ spoke in this manner; I do as my Father before me did. Well what did the Father do? Why he went and took a body and went to redeem a world in the flesh and had power to lay down his life and to take it up again."

Another George Laub journal entry on JS' Sermon In the Grove seems to confirm that this is how Laub understood it. He recorded, "But the holy ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies for the Saviour Says the work that my father did do i also & those are the works he took himself a body & then laid down his life that he might take it up again." However, Laub didn't only understand that the Holy Ghost would serve as a Christ (more on that later), but he also implied that JS' King Follet Sermon taught that all who achieved Godhood would pass through the same. Laub wrote, "For we are to go from glory to glory and as one is raised to a higher, so the next under him may take his degree and so to take the exaltation through the regular channel. When we get to where Jesus is, he will be just as far ahead of us again in exaltation." The standard version of the sermon can be easily interpreted in this fashion. Here is the relevant portion:

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

Given George Laub's explicit summary of the King Follett sermon and the short time between JS' death and these ordinations performed in the Nauvoo period, it seems very likely that the doctrine underlying the ordinations originated with JS. This teaching was perhaps even canonized as, "This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law" (D&C 132:24, see vs. 22-25). However, the teaching was probably only explicitly taught to a select few. For example, in 1860, Orson Pratt wrote, "I heard brother Young say that Jesus had a body offlesh and bones, before he came (to earth and) he was born of the Virgin Mary, it was so contrary to every revelation given." Orson Pratt apparently wasn't in on it or hadn't understood it as others had.

JS also gave more info about this path to exaltation, which is that the Holy Ghost, the third member in the Godhead, was going to serve as a Christ. Besides the Laub's record of JS' comment on the Holy Ghost in his summary of the Sermon on the Grove, there is an additional JS comment recorded by Franklin D. Richards in August, 1843, not that long before the King Follett Sermon. Richards wrote, "Joseph also said that the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has."

From the above we can imply that JS believed that all Gods had served as Christs, that all heirs of the Celestial kingdom would serve as Christs as part of their progression from exaltation to exaltation, and that the Holy Ghost would also serve as a Christ. Here is where my thesis becomes a bit more speculative. It's my guess that JS believed that heirs of the Celestial Kingdom would not only serve as Christs, but first they would serve as Holy Ghosts. As is common knowledge, the trio of beings who participate in the creation in the temple are Michael, Jehovah, and Elohim, and these possibly represent JS' conception of the Godhead. JS taught many times that Michael stood next to Christ in authority, and he also taught that Elohim was the head of the Gods (i.e. The Father). With this possible equivalency between Micheal and the Holy Ghost in mind and JS' probable belief that all were to serve as Holy Ghosts prior to being Christs, JS likely believed the Nauvoo endowment was a representation of one stage of what each heir of the celestial kingdom was to pass through in their climb up the ladder of exaltation. Adam-God can then be seen as based on JS' teachings and the endowment, with a simple fundamental misunderstanding on the identity of Micheal in the Godhead. Considering the modern Mormon understanding of the titles Jehovah and Elohim didn't develop until long after Brigham Young, it is understandable that he could have developed his own interpretation of Micheal, Jehovah and Elohim. In fact, he attributed his identification of Michael as God the Father to JS' commentary on Daniel and JS' equivalence of Adam, Michael, and the Ancient of Days. The apparent supremacy in Daniel of the Ancient of Days to the "one like unto the Son of Man," who JS interpreted as Christ, makes Brigham's Adam-God doctrine even more understandable.

That's the gist of it. Let the comments, insights, and debate ensue!

I know people in the church who strongly believe in multiple probations, and I do also, but with a caveat: I do not believe I have had multiple probations on this earth, only the one I am in now. But, given the belief that I (i.e. my "intelligence") am co-eternal with God, I must've had other probations, maybe on other earths, prior to the formation and peopling of this earth. Otherwise what was I doing in the eternity before coming here?

So, to summarize . . . .

In fundamentalist Mormon circles the doctrine of multiple probations includes the idea of one having had multiple probations, or reincarnations, on this earth. It is this part that I disagree with. I believe I only get one go at life on this earth, one probation, and I am in this probation now.

Edited March 1, 2017 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

The (excommunicated) Mormon fundamentalist Jim Harmston claimed to be Joseph Smith in a new probation, and before that he said he was Benjamin Franklin.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

given the belief that I (i.e. my "intelligence") am co-eternal with God, I must've had other probations, maybe on other earths, prior to the formation and peopling of this earth. Otherwise what was I doing in the eternity before coming here?

You were doing everything our Father and his fathers before him were doing because you were then a part of them even though you had not been born as an independent spirit.

The idea is that we are reproductions of our parents rather than coming from out of nothing or nowhere. Similar to how mortal babies yet unborn to mortal  parents are now part of those parents, even before the woman becomes pregnant.

Do you see how you can get yourself into errors by trying to figure things out on your own?  Just try to be open to all possibilities until you come to know the truth on an issue.

[clarkgoble]

On 2/28/2017 at 1:12 PM, JAHS said:

Here's another one from the New Testament people use to support reincarnation:
John 9:2
"And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Without a previous life, how could the blind man commit a sin responsible for his handicap, as the man was blind from birth? 
We often use this scripture to support the concept of a pre-mortal life, but we would have to assume that it is possible to commit a sin while there in a spirit state.

Just to note that reincarnation was a common view in Hellenistic society and thus Roman society. Hellenized Jews often included a view of quasi-reincarnation that comes out of Plato. Yet it's important to note one has to distinguish between between the lose folk view of reincarnation and the more technical sense that arises in Platonism and especially in later mystical Judaism. Josephus attributes the belief to the Pharisees. 

Anyway Jesus can be answering the question without embracing the idea.

[CMZ]

4 hours ago, bdouglas said:

Otherwise what was I doing in the eternity before coming here?

 

Being an unembodied spirit.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Multiple probations is honestly my idea of hell. 

[CMZ]

8 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Multiple probations is honestly my idea of hell. 

"You can never escape!"

The idea of it has other problems I haven't fully delineated in this thread.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Multiple probations is honestly my idea of hell. 

In the Heber C. Kimball and Orson Whitney model it literally is hell i.e. the telestial kingdom. 

We should note that there were of course disputes on this in the 19th century with Wilford Woodruff famously criticizing Whitney over it. My sense is that it's just a conflation of several different ideas.

[clarkgoble]

24 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Being an unembodied spirit.

Except with the new theology that spirits were matter even spirits are embodied in some way. Just not with the stuff we have right now.

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Except with the new theology that spirits were matter even spirits are embodied in some way. Just not with the stuff we have right now.

Well, that's neither here nor there in this discussion. What bdouglas was saying was, "If we lived for an eternity before we came here then that must mean we had multiple mortal probations before we came here." Talking about what our spirits were clothed with before we came here doesn't change the fact that they were still premortal spirits.

[CMZ]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Except with the new theology that spirits were matter even spirits are embodied in some way. Just not with the stuff we have right now.

"Unembodied" in the sense of not having whatever body it is you get when you come to mortality.

[Benjamin Seeker]

Here is another relevant piece of evidence. Essentially, Heber C. Kimball claimed that JS, in the Nauvoo period, had declared Kimball's multiple mortal probation doctrine as true. 

As Clark Goble, has brought up on this thread, there is alot of evidence that Heber believed in some version of "multiple probations." He often taught it using various analogies including the repetition of the day/night cycle and the potter's ability to restart a piece on the wheel if it wasn't perfect. 

 One example of the potter analogy:

Quote

  * "How many shapes do you suppose you are put into before you become

    Saints, or before you become perfect and sanctified to enter into the

    celestial glory of God? You have got to be like that clay in the hands of

    the potter. Do you not know that the Lord directed the Prophet anciently,

    to go down to the potter's house to see a miracle on the wheel? Suppose

    the Potter takes a lump of clay, and putting it on the wheel, goes to

    work to form it into a vessel, and works it out this way, and that way,

    and the other way, but the clay is refractory and snappish; he still trys

    [tries] it, but it will break, and snap, and snarl, and thus the potter

    will work it and work it until he is satisfied he cannot bring it into

    the shape he wants, and it mars upon the wheel; he takes his tool, then,

    and cuts it off the wheel, and throws it into the mill to be ground over

    again, until it becomes passive, (don't you think you will go to hell if

    you are not passive?) and after it is ground there so many days, and it

    becomes passive, he takes the same lump, and makes of it a vessel unto

    honor. Now do you see into that, brethren? I know the potters can. I tell

    you, brethren, if you are not passive you will have to go into that mill,

    and perhaps have to grind there one thousand years, and then the Gospel

    will be offered to you again, and then if you will not accept of it, and

    become passive, you will have to go into the mill again, and thus you

    will have offers of salvation from time to time, until all the human

    family, will, except the sons of perdition, are redeemed. The spirits of

    men will have the Gospel as we do, and they are to be judged according to

    men in the flesh. Let us be passive, and take a course that will be

    perfectly submissive. (Heber C. Kimball, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 1:160f)

A couple examples of the day-night cycle analogy:

Quote

  * What I do not to-day, when the sun goes down, I lay down to sleep, which

    is typical of death; and in the morning I rise and commence my work where

    I left it yesterday. That course is typical of the probations we take.

    But suppose that I do not improve my time today, I wake up tomorrow and

    find myself in the rear; and then, if I do not improve upon that day, and

    again lay down to sleep, on awaking, I find myself still in the rear.

    THIS DAY'S WORK IS TYPICAL OF THIS PROBATION, AND THE SLEEP OF EVERY

    NIGHT IS TYPICAL OF DEATH, AND RISING IN THE MORNING IS TYPICAL OF THE 

    RESURRECTION. They are days' labors, and it is for us to be faithful

    today, tomorrow, and every day. (Heber C. Kimball, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES,

    4:329 1857/05/3)

 

  * I improved yesterday: I worked and made all the improvements I could, and

    did the best I could; but it came night, and I LAID DOWN TO TAKE A NAP,

    WHICH IS TYPICAL OF DEATH. THIS MORNING I HAVE RISEN UP AND AGAIN

    COMMENCED MY LABORS; AND I AM GOING TO IMPROVE TODAY, AND DO BETTER THAN

    I DID YESTERDAY. But in comes another night of sleep; I lay down, which

    is typical of death; and I rise in the morning, which is typical of the

    resurrection, and I renew my labors. I have to begin where I left off;

    but you cannot realize but that you have to take one jump away ahead,

    when you come to leave your bodies and go into the spirit world. That is

    not so, for you will have to commence to hoe your row where you left off.

    (Heber C. Kimball, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 4:336)

(If anyone would like to read more, these are drawn from the same document I already linked to, Brian Hale's collection of MMP quotes found here: http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/MF0081.doc)

If you read more of his relevant sermons, it appears that he believed that resurrection to heaven or hell was simply a repeat of earth life, that is until you were like unto the Son of God and qualified for a "permanent exaltation" (see Heber's sermons in the above document). So, this version of MMP appears to include something like reincarnation, though from the 1846 ordinations in which Heber and Brigham ordain themselves to be Saviors of a world or worlds and members of a Godhead, it seems Heber also believed in the interpretation of the King Follett Sermon and Sermon in the Grove I've argued that George Laub subscribed to, which is that all heirs of Godhood will eventually "pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has" (Laub's notes on JS' Sermon in the Grove). 

In one of Heber's sermons he specifically claimed that Joseph OKed his doctrine, or at least part of it:

Quote

  * "I frequently talk about the clay in the hands of the potter. The Lord

    said to Jeremiah, "I will show you a thing that I cannot tell you. Go

    down to the potter's house, and I will be there, but you shall not see

    me; and I will make that potter mar a vessel." Jeremiah went down to the

    potter's house, and the Lord showed him the very thing he had promised;

    for the potter undertook to make a vessel, and the clay marred in his

    hands, and he cut it off the wheel and threw it into the mill; "and now,"

    says he, "take it out again and shape it into a ball, and turn it into a

    vessel of honour." He did that very thing, though it is not written. The

    Scriptures say that out of the same lump he made a vessel first unto    

    dishonour, and then unto honour. I USED TO PREACH UPON THAT IN NAUVOO,

    AND JOSEPH SAID IT WAS THE TRUE INTERPRETATION. Now, Jeremiah was a man

    like brother Brigham, brother Heber, Amasa, and thousands of the servants

    of God that were valiant. There are thousands here that have never seen a

    potter's house. But if I was in one, I could take a lump of clay and show

    you; and perhaps, being out of practice, it would mar in my hands: then I

    would throw it back into the mill and grind it, and afterwards I would

    take it up again and make a vessel unto honour. And thus the Lord said to

    Jeremiah, "As you see that clay mar in the hands of the potter, so shall

    it be with the house of Israel. They shall go and be in prison till I

    bring them out and make them vessels unto honour." That is to be done in

    the latter days, when the Lord is to say to the dry bones, "Come forth,"

    and so on. Go and read the Bible, and you will learn about it. It will be

    just so with thousands and tens of thousands who will embrace

    "Mormonism:" they will go back into the mill again, through

    disobedience." (Heber C. Kimball, JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 5:271f)

Finally, I'd like to point out how nicely Heber's beliefs, as far as we can reconstruct them (i.e. reincarnation for those who haven't obtained a permanent exaltation, and a future Savior role for those who have) aligns with D&C 132:22-25:

Quote

 22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

23 But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.

24 This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.

25 Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law.

I realize that Heber also subscribed to Adam-God doctrine, however I didn't want to address that here because though we have evidence for JS believing and teaching some version of reincarnation and MMP, we don't have good evidence suggesting he subscribed to the idea that Adam was God the Father, while we do have strong evidence suggesting that he believed Adam was next in authority to Jesus Christ. That being said, Brigham Young did state on at least two occasions that Adam-God doctrine was from Joseph, and significantly, Adam-God doctrine inherently includes a version of MMP.  

The above observations create a longer list of those who are on record saying they understood JS to have taught reincarnation, MMP, and/or interaction of resurrected beings from a previous plan of salvation with our earth:

• Eliza R. Snow
• Prescendia Huntington
• Brigham Young
• Heber C. Kimball
• George Laub
• Joseph Lee Robinson

[clarkgoble]

Quote

Essentially, Heber C. Kimball claimed that JS, in the Nauvoo period, had declared Kimball's multiple mortal probation doctrine as true. 

However to be charitable Heber C. Kimball wasn't exactly the best dealing with ideas, memories or the like. That is while I love the guy and think he was a devout apostle, I'm not exactly sure his intellectual characteristics make him the best witness.

One should also note that Woodruff disagree strongly with Kimball's views on reincarnation.

Edited March 2, 2017 by clarkgoble