Jump to content

Movie on preexistence is out


Recommended Posts

There is a movie that came out this past week called Remembering Heaven. It was put together by Sarah Hinze who researches pre birth experiences. My wife and I watched it yesterday and it was very enjoyable. It mixed the philosophy behind it with the history of how it became a heresy with people's personal experiences. Along with those experiencing it, Dr. Teryl Givens and Dr. Dan Peterson were interviewed. Check it out!

Link to comment

I've got Sarah Hinze's 1994 book, Coming from the Light: Spiritual Accounts of Life Before Life.  And I attended her presentation at the 1999 IANDS conference in Salt Lake City.  As I recall, as part of her research she went to IANDS (International Association of Near Death Studies), and asked if they had gathered any pre-birth accounts.  She was initally told, "No, we've never heard of that kind of thing," but when they went ahead and looked, they found numerous accountsin the archive.  The IANDS archivists had stories, but not a concept of pre-existence to account for their meaning.  So they did not recognize what they had.

I think it was Hinze that reported the story I have occasionally repeated, about a young unwed mother who was visited by a potential child to be, who said, "Mom, you've got to make up your mind one way or another... if you aren't going to have me, I need to make other arrangements."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment

Thanks for the heads-up.  I haven't seen the movie yet but here is a YouTube video of Sarah Hinze and her husband giving a talk at a conference of the International Association for Near-Death Studies (IANDS).   He speaks first, then she speaks starting at about 27:30:

Also from IANDS, below is a half-hour talk by a man who has memories of his pre-earth life. 

His vocabulary is not LDS yet many of the concepts he describes will be familiar.  His words are imo extremely uplifting, his experience of the veil being imposed is fascinating, and his description of Earth life as a "high-contrast experience" is arguably alternative wording for the "there needs be opposition in all things" concept taught by Lehi:

Link to comment

Is it closed-minded of me to look at the Daybells and adopt a not-with-a-ten-foot-pole attitude toward speculative stuff like this?

The warnings against "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14) "hav{ing} a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Romans 10:2) sort of come to mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is it closed-minded of me to look at the Daybells and adopt a not-with-a-ten-foot-pole attitude toward speculative stuff like this?

The warnings against "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14) "hav{ing} a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Romans 10:2) sort of come to mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps we’ve seen some of this with conjecture pertaining to Mother in Heaven. 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is it closed-minded of me to... adopt a not-with-a-ten-foot-pole attitude toward speculative stuff like this?

Whether we see a fearful world or a wonderful world depends largely on which lens we choose to look through. 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is it closed-minded of me to look at the Daybells and adopt a not-with-a-ten-foot-pole attitude toward speculative stuff like this?

The warnings against "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14) "hav{ing} a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Romans 10:2) sort of come to mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

I thought doctrinally we were supposed to forget the premortal existence; otherwise, we couldn’t develop faith. I’m surprised to church members would latch onto stuff like this. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, manol said:

Whether we see a fearful world or a wonderful world depends largely on which lens we choose to look through. 

It's not the "world" I am thinking of.  It's the potential problems that arise when we focus on speculations.  They tend to distract from the core doctrines that should command the bulk of our time, talents and energy.  We run the risk of placing undue emphasis on these conjectural topics, at the expense of the "weightier matters of the law."  But this is just for me, not for anyone else.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

I hope that some are not suggesting there is no doctrine on the pre-existence taught . We started with a  council in Heaven which implies a life and association with others. We are told we were sent here to gain a body and be tested. I see it as life affirming to search for info on our pre-earth life as well as our post-earth life.

I often hear the phrase , " I didn't choose to come here/ be born " . My internalized response is ' you probably did ! ' Mind you, that raises  many new " WHY<WHY< WHY " questions. 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not the "world" I am thinking of.  It's the potential problems that arise when we focus on speculations.  They tend to distract from the core doctrines that should command the bulk of our time, talents and energy.  We run the risk of placing undue emphasis on these conjectural topics, at the expense of the "weightier matters of the law."  But this is just for me, not for anyone else.

Thanks,

-Smac

Or we could flat out get it wrong. We saw this happen with conjectures about the reason for the priesthood ban. The worst is when the faulty conjectures get entrenched as folk doctrine. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I often hear the phrase , " I didn't choose to come here/ be born " . My internalized response is ' you probably did ! ' Mind you, that raises  many new " WHY<WHY< WHY " questions. 

You could make a case that you came to earth or followed Satan.  I often wonder if there was a third choice?

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I thought doctrinally we were supposed to forget the premortal existence; otherwise, we couldn’t develop faith. I’m surprised to church members would latch onto stuff like this. 

That rendition is not altogether doctrinal. 
 

I haven’t heard it for a while, but this passage from Wordsworth used to be quoted fairly often in the Church (the bold emphasis is mine):

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not the "world" I am thinking of.  It's the potential problems that arise when we focus on speculations.  They tend to distract from the core doctrines that should command the bulk of our time, talents and energy.  We run the risk of placing undue emphasis on these conjectural topics, at the expense of the "weightier matters of the law." 

First-hand experiences supporting the LDS doctrine of the pre-existence can be seen as confirmation. Or they can be seen as speculation, conjecture, and distraction.   It depends on the lens we choose to look through. 

 

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, manol said:

First-hand experiences supporting the LDS doctrine of the pre-existence can be seen as confirmation.

For the individual, yes.  But as soon as that individual starts spreading news around, it is no longer "first-hand."

See, e.g., here:

Quote

From James E. Faust:

  • My faith continued to grow as building blocks were added to the cornerstone, line upon line and precept upon precept. There are far too many of these to be chronicled individually; some are too sacred to utter.

James E. Faust, “A Growing Testimony,” Ensign, Nov 2000, 53–54, 59

Richard Nash:

  • 5. Be cautious about sharing personal spiritual experiences.

“There are some things just too sacred to discuss,” says President Boyd K. Packer, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Such experiences should not be shared, but “harbored and protected and regarded with the deepest reverence”
Richard Nash, “Telling Personal Stories,” Ensign, Sep 2002, 49

Linda Magleby:

  • Invite the children to gather in small groups around their teacher. Have the teacher share his or her experience with prayer, and invite the children to share their own experiences, if they have some. (Remind them that some experiences are too sacred to share.)

Linda Magleby, Sharing Time: Heavenly Father Hears and Answers Prayers, Friend, July 2006

And here:

Quote

Sharing our spiritual experiences with those who are open to hearing them is a wonderful way to build the faith and testimony of others. If you feel prompted to tell about an answer to prayer, for instance, others will have more faith that their prayers can be answered. But if you have had an unusual or deeply personal spiritual experience, it is wise not to share it unless the Holy Ghost moves you to do so.

President Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has said:

“I have learned that strong, impressive spiritual experiences do not come to us very frequently. And when they do, they are generally for our own edification, instruction, or correction. …

“I have come to believe also that it is not wise to continually talk of unusual spiritual experiences. They are to be guarded with care and shared only when the Spirit itself prompts you to use them to the blessing of others. …

“We are, I believe, to keep these things and ponder them in our hearts.”

I guess I operate under these parameters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For the individual, yes.  But as soon as that individual starts spreading news around, it is no longer "first-hand."

Much of Sarah Hinze's talk in the link above is her first-hand experience, and virtually all of Christian Sundberg's talk is either a description of his first-hand experience or his analysis of it.

I invite you to watch just two minutes of Christian's first-hand account, starting at 4:56, where this link is hopefully cued up to. 

https://youtu.be/7PO-Op38o-k?t=296

 

Link to comment

To smac97, I posted without adequately proof-reading, I suggest watching for about three minutes instead of just two, so that he wraps up that particular experience. 

Link to comment

In many ways, one can approach the field of NDE and PBEs like the Apocrypha, see D&C 91. There are things that can be learned but the field is messy and full of the interpretations of man. To me, they are classified as miracles. Usually very personal and not to be shared. Some, we do share (like the healing of the child's hip at Haun's Mill). Yet, even then, such stories merely buoy the faith of believers and not to convince others to believe, and are not used to establish doctrinal truth.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is it closed-minded of me to look at the Daybells and adopt a not-with-a-ten-foot-pole attitude toward speculative stuff like this?

The warnings against "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14) "hav{ing} a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Romans 10:2) sort of come to mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah, by definition that's a bit of a closed-minded approach. It's not my job to insist you should be open minded. I have my own things I'm closed-minded to for my own reasons. Such as anti-vax for being stupid; hyper new age mantra that just sound like feel good messaging packaged as spirituality; fundamentalism of any sort for being too rigid, dogmatic, and antithetical to who I am; buying a new gas guzzling vehicle for it being antithetical to what we need in the future, etc. 

But honestly, I likely wouldn't have a closed mind on these topics without first understanding some of the premises to them.  For other topics, I may still study them to understand why someone finds appeal in them. So I'm not that closed-minded that I wouldn't at least look a little to make sure I understand what it is and suggesting. Sometimes I've been pleasantly surprised to find things that were actually of some value. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Nofear said:

In many ways, one can approach the field of NDE and PBEs like the Apocrypha... Usually very personal and not to be shared.

I understand and respect this viewpoint, and I also understand and respect the viewpoint of experiencers who believe they are supposed to share what they have been gifted with. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

We run the risk of placing undue emphasis on these conjectural topics, at the expense of the "weightier matters of the law." 

The weightiest of weighty matters of the law are arguably the First and Second Great Commandments as taught by Jesus Christ, and ime there is a great deal of highly useful (though not necessarily overt) emphasis on these two commandments in most NDE and PBE experiences. 

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

But honestly, I likely wouldn't have a closed mind on these topics without first understanding some of the premises to them... Sometimes I've been pleasantly surprised to find things that were actually of some value.

From the above-linked video by Christian Sundberg, here are some imo amazing insights applicable to the Two Great Commandments, from 20:00 to about 22:10.  With luv:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PO-Op38o-k&t=1198s

Link to comment
On 5/17/2022 at 11:39 AM, jkwilliams said:

I thought doctrinally we were supposed to forget the premortal existence; otherwise, we couldn’t develop faith. I’m surprised to church members would latch onto stuff like this. 

Having knowledge about the premortal existence does not mean one has knowledge of their premortal existence and everything they learned while there.    It is important in any journey to know where one has been to fully know where they are going.  Having a basic understanding of the premortal world really helps orient one in the right direction. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...