33 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
It seems to me that this is a technique arrogant members use to make themselves feel even better about themselves. One of my companions on the mission believed this, and it drove me crazy, “We’re born into the church because we were the best of the best in the pre-existence.” Please. There are plenty of horrible members of the LDS church, and there are plenty of incredible people not of our faith. |
I suppose a large part of the problem lies in how one classifies an advantage or disadvantage. Well noted. |
Orwell, Very nice articulation of this issue. If a person accepts the concept of eternal progression it seems strange to then claim that progression begins with mortality. But I share Tim’s (#1) revulsion of how this idea ends up being interpreted. Which is why I really like your point about the problem of classifying an advantage or disadvantage. It’s just way too difficult to know how any progression before this life manifests itself here in mortality. |
And all I am is a commenter… |
1 & 3: Yeah, there are way too many crazy ideas about how this concept is interpreted. nasamomdele, you’re just too righteous, man… Now that I look over everything again, I should probably have just posted the following, more concise analysis: Do our decisions in the pre-mortal existence affect this life? Very possibly. How do they manifest themselves? I have no clue, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t in any of the ways you most often hear… |
Orwell – nice post. You really summed up a complex issue that has been used to justify many wrongs (e.g., Black Priesthood restriction, poverty, etc.). I have often wondered how I got so lucky in this life as I am pretty sure, I was not a valiant soul in the pre-existence – I was probably complaining and overanalyzing everything as I do here… |
I do believe we have particular talents–maybe gifts given in the pre-mortal life, or maybe simply inherited–which empower/enable us to accomplish missions. I have a very broad interpretation of missions, however. |
I think that a doctrine like this, demands humility to be understood correctly. We shouldn’t toss the baby out with the bathwater, though. What constitutes an advantage or a disadvantage? As was point out – that is the crux of the problem. Many great prophets have had a lot of problems. Pharaoh himself was identified as a righteous man. And the greatest man of all, was born in a stable and had more problems than any of us. None of us were wicked in the pre-existence – it was more of a difference between good and better, other than the spirits cast out. Any man or woman who identifies something as an advantage, or curse, without revelation, is simply guessing. But that doesn’t mean advantages or curses don’t exist. |
Yeah, as far as “wicked” people making it to earth, I threw the word “sin” around a lot simply because it’s terminology we can relate to, I obviously don’t know how it all went down. Still, good people here also sin, so there may be some pre-mortal equivalent. Who knows…
This is certainly true; and it’s a very individual matter, in my opinion. Margaret, I am with you on the “mission” thing, especially the broad interpretation part. |
This thread reminds me of a statement made by one of my favorite GAs, Boyd K. Packer. In a talk entitled “The Choice,” he stated that “Some [in this life] are tested by poor health, some by a body that is deformed or homely. Others are tested by handsome and healthy bodies; some by the passion of youth; others by the erosions of age. Some suffer disappointment in marriage, family problems; others live in poverty and obscurity. Some (perhaps this is the hardest test) find ease and luxury. All are part of the test, and there is more equality in this testing than sometimes we suspect.” Any time I find myself feeling a little green with envy or upset because of something I believe I “lack” in my life, I try to remember that very often those people we believe have life “easy” may very well be struggling more than we ever have or will be. I believe that our faithfulness in the pre-mortal world may very well be rewarded in this but I highly doubt it has anything to do with physical benefits and more likely manifests in spiritual strengths and in spiritual gifts. As Orwell stated, personal responsibility is “somewhat (and I might say grossly) out-of-fashion” but taking credit ourselves for the gifts we receive from heaven is a little too “in fashion.” Does it really matter if any ease we find in this life comes from our choices in the pre-mortal world? I think what matters more is how we use the gifts and talents we have been given regardless of why HF chose to bestow them upon us to begin with. |
Absolutely, hence the parable of the talents. Both the first and second received the same reward, regardless of the amount of their original gift; only their actions concerning what they had been given mattered. |
Orwell: Further complicating matters is the fact that personal responsibility for anything we do in this life is already somewhat out-of-fashion — I can just imagine how popular extending it to a previous life would be. This is a very astute point. I’m wondering if instead of talking in terms of accountability for pre-mortal activities, we should talk in terms of addictions, diseases, and syndromes. For example, instead of saying of folks that they were lackluster participants in the pre-existence, we could diagnose something like APF (Attenuated Premortal Faithfullness) Syndrome — turn them into victims of something outside of their control that requires some form of recompense from those who do not suffer. This should satisfy everybody’s sense of entitlement. |
It had not previously occurred to me that in 2008 church members might speculate that the reason they or their fellow humans were better or worse off in this life was due to their actions in the premortal life. Such speculation (especially with regard to others) is, by definition, wholly beyond our knowledge and thus completely without merit, in my opinion. |
DKL. Love your comment. The gospel according to Ron: I think in the premortal live we were allowed to choose some of our challenges. Why did I choose infertility instead of great wealth as my trial? I don’t know. I’d like to have a talk with my premortal self and smack him around because I think he made a pretty dumb choice. |
Yes, MCQ, I cannot believe that people of good breeding these days would ever speculate about anything. It is so 2007. Fortunately, you and I were raised in better pre-mortal spheres of acquaintances and are thus not prone to such embarrassing breaches of propriety. |
Brilliant, DKL. You realize, of course, that this not only satisfies everyone’s sense of entitlement, but it will also surely lead to some kind of medication to correct spiritual imbalances. Apostasy, inactivity, and gentile-ness could be eradicated overnight. Of course you’d need a prescription from the bishop; we wouldn’t want the faithful abusing it (they’d have no disorder to blame for their addiction). |
Orwell, that’s exactly right! I’m glad you see my vision. That idea for medication is terrific! I agree with you that we’d have to guard against abuse of it by the faithful. If someone were born gay, then she’d have every right to medication to eliminate her homosexual urges. But those who are born straight shouldn’t be able to use the medication just to ensure that they don’t turn away from the light. Likewise with people who are born wife-beaters vs. people who are merely tempted to beat their wives by circumstances. (Nobody chooses to be a wife-beater; there’s such a stigma attached to it that I don’t think that anyone would ever want that. And people who beat their wife just can’t seem to stop no matter how many blessings they get or how guilty they feel or how many times they try to redirect their passions. Imagine how nice it will be for them to be cured by the Bishop’s pill!) |
ctlewis, there is no speculation involved for me. I have it on direct revelation that you were not even allowed into my premortal neighborhood, except to empty the garbage. |
MCQ, clearly I was mistaken about you. You obviously have no concept of what constitutes “good breeding” and “better spheres of acquaintances” in the pre-existence. As you point out, it seems you did not share my pre-mortal station of abject humility, which precludes you from being worthy to receive any revelation whatsoever. Don’t worry, though, it appears that prevailing conventional wisdom now absolves you of any responsibility. Hopefully you can get a prescription and get that taken care of. |
ctlewis, truly your abject humility would be inspiring to all if it weren’t so obviously undermined by your judgmental sanctimony. But thanks for the diagnosis, Dr. I’ll take all the helpful prescriptions I can get. |
“Nevertheless, there is undeniable evidence that the pre-existence does affect this life.” Sure…. should be why a baby was sent to be born into Nazi Germany to start life risking death from allied bombings and then a childhood with very, very little in the material sense. Ah, and then escaping East Germany after his father was labelled a dissenter and remember that he wasn’t even a church member nor was his family when he was born. Off course I refer to Pt Uchtdorf and his amazing life story. |
#21: Comments like yours provide me with endless amusement. The original post and a number of comments discuss a given point at length, and then someone like you comes out of the bizarro world and acts as though they are cleverly refuting everyone – by saying the same thing (with an out-of-context quote to boot). Classic. I didn’t know that unfaithfulness in the pre-existence could affect reading comprehension. Better luck in this life. (P.S. I’m really resisting the urge to use your unfortunate choice of username against you). Ah, MCQ, I am so disappointed. You and I were having such a good time, but playing the “judgmental sanctimony” card is right out of the Daily Universe editorial page playbook, which kind of saps my enthusiasm to continue. So, if that is what you were hoping, well played. |
It had not previously occurred to me that in 2008 church members might speculate that the reason they or their fellow humans were better or worse off in this life was due to their actions in the premortal life. But really, who cares if it’s that one way or another? The only reason why it might matter is if you used it to justify a course of action toward or against a class of people. At a poker game, people get all sorts of cards (ahem, so I’m told). Sometimes it’s random. If you have a dealer with a specific interest, perhaps it’s not random. It doesn’t mean that the worse hand is forever doomed. (OK, I’m reaching here.) I see nothing in our current understanding of the gospel plan that really hinges on whether or not you think people who were less valiant were born into poverty in Africa. Our commandments to save our brothers and sisters (both spiritually and temporally) are still in effect. |
queno, your last sentence is obviously true. As you noted, the problem comes when those who believe in such pseudo-doctrines use them to justify their action (or inaction) or attitudes toward a person or group. Those actions and atitudes are made far more likely by the persistence of the psuedo-doctrines we are talking about. The responsible action is, in my view, to do away with them, because I disagree with the original post that there is any legitimate basis to believe in them in the first place. |
This is certainly true. I never suggested otherwise. Quite the contrary. (As a matter of fact, no one ever even mentioned anything about being less worthy = being born into poverty in Africa.) Whenever anything on the doctrinal fringes is discussed on a Mormon-themed blog, someone always says that it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect the gospel plan (I’m sure I’ve even said it myself on occasion). I’ll be the first to agree that this concept doesn’t really matter… it’s just something interesting to think about sometimes.
MCQ, what church do you go to? Do you really mean to say that you never see this doctrine (and its inevitable, undesirable side effects) rear its ugly head anymore? Let me know what ward you attend so that I can move there before it is taken up into heaven. Besides, the whole point of the original post was to say that although there is evidence to show that we are possibly affected by the pre-mortal life (and I believe we are, to some extent), it is useless to speculate how and on whom it has an impact. Obviously, disagreement is your prerogative. However, since you wish to do away with the idea entirely (I wouldn’t even call it a pseudo-doctrine, just an idea, the pseudo-doctrine is applying the idea to race, church membership, or whatever), I am interested to know how you interpret the things I brought up in paragraph three of the original post. |
I think this “idea” has been so discredited, due mostly to its unfortunate use as a justification for the priesthood ban, that I never hear it mentioned anymore except as a joke. I’m not talking about just in my ward, I’m talking about anywhere. This blog being, I guess, the exception to that general experience. As for your third paragraph: “Nevertheless, there is undeniable evidence that the pre-existence does affect this life. First and foremost, there was a distinction made between followers of Satan and followers of Christ. We all know that the former did not end up with bodies, so there is at least one documented advantage that we can ascribe to “worthiness.— I don’t consider this to be an example of what we are talking about. The “idea” we are discussing is that those spirits who came into mortality received advantages or disadvantages based on their actions or relative righteousness in the premortal life. Spirits who were cast out and never gained mortality are obviously excluded from that idea. “Besides, given LDS theology’s rejection of polarized, binary eternal destinations after death, why should life after birth be any different?” I’m not sure what you mean by this. No one is suggesting that there is a polarized, binary aspect to this life, so your comparison to life after death is inapt. “Come to that, if we are so comfortable — zealously so — with the idea that righteousness in this life affects our place in the eternities, why should the idea that pre-mortal faithfulness gives us a better start here be so controversial?” Because mortality is different. This is where we come to be tested. This is where we prepare to meet God. This is where we have our memories of our prior existence erased so that we can prove ourselves on faith. What you are suggesting is a sort of series of proving grounds, where we are proved in one life and then our results in that life dictate our “start value” or birth status in the next. I don’t believe that and the Church I belong to doesn’t teach that, but of course you are free to believe it if you wish. I think the only reasonable argument that our actions in the pre-mortal life affect our mortality is the idea of spiritual gifts. We are told that there are many different ones and that we all have them but we don’t know exactly how or why we got them. It may be that our pre-mortal actions dictated this to some extent, but although it’s interesting, I find no scriptural basis for that conclusion. |
Sure…. should be why a baby was sent to be born into Nazi Germany to start life risking death from allied bombings and then a childhood with very, very little in the material sense. Ah, and then escaping East Germany after his father was labelled a dissenter and remember that he wasn’t even a church member nor was his family when he was born. Some may consider that a punishment or hardship. But Pres Uchtdorf probably considers it a blessing that led to building his character, which led to a lustrous career and church leadership. I once gave someone’s car a battery jump while my car was still running. (I didn’t know you weren’t supposed to do that with my type of car.) It damaged my starter, which had to be replaced. However, the process of having the car starter replaced put me in position to receive some blessings for which I would have gladly paid the same dollar amount as the new starter. So what initially appeared to be misfortune, turned out to be a blessing. To the Nephite disciples, 9 thought it would be a blessing to leave earth as soon as possible, and 3 thought it would be a blessing to stick around as long as possible. |
MCQ, the problem with most of what you are saying is that you are not responding to what has been written; instead, you are bringing in your baggage about how this “idea” has been interpreted in the past and answering as if that were the original point. Nevertheless, there is undeniable evidence that the pre-existence does affect this life. First and foremost, there was a distinction made between followers of Satan and followers of Christ. We all know that the former did not end up with bodies, so there is at least one documented advantage that we can ascribe to “worthiness.” The reason you don’t “consider” this an example of what we are talking about is because, I repeat, you are having a hard time following the subject at hand. We are talking about how the pre-existence affects this life. Being sent to Earth is the most profound effect. Advantages or disadvantages would be secondary repercussions reserved for those that received bodies. First, there is plenty of evidence to support different levels of progress or faithfulness (or whatever you want to call it) in the pre-existence: Most conspicuously, Christ is at the top and Satan is at the bottom. Unless you believe that everyone that went with Christ was as great or worthy as he was, and everyone that followed Satan was as bad, you have to acknowledge a gradation of some sort. In addition, a few of the in-betweeners are mentioned (though they are, admittedly, on the high end), like Michael (who was permitted to help form the Earth), the “noble and great ones,” and those that were “chosen” for whatever it is that God chose them for. These gradations are reflected in mortality: Christ was to be the Savior. Michael became Adam, the first man. Abraham, a prophet, was told by God that he was one of the “noble and great ones.” These do appear to correlate with what we know about their relative “status” (for lack of a better word) in the pre-existence. “Even before they were born, they, with many others, received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the due time of the Lord to labor in his vineyard for the salvation of the souls of men.” Obviously, not all of us are cut out to do these jobs — not everyone could be the Savior. The Lord, in his wisdom, had to place all of these people in a situation that would be suitable for them to accomplish their mission, we have been using the word “advantages,” but you can call them whatever you like. Follow this to the logical conclusion, and it is reasonable to suggest that everyone is put here with whatever “advantages” they need to do whatever it is they are supposed to do. Besides, given LDS theology’s rejection of polarized, binary eternal destinations after death, why should life after birth be any different? Not at all, you just didn’t understand it. If we keep our first estate, we are given the opportunity for a second. If we keep the second, we receive one of three kingdoms, within which we are told there are other divisions, in accordance with what we deserve to receive. Our doctrine does not accept a polarized division between those saved in heaven and those cast out into hell. Why should the first estate be any different? We already know that merit counted for something before birth, so asserting that the only distinction made was between those cast out and those sent to earth is not dissimilar to the heaven and hell dichotomy. Come to that, if we are so comfortable — zealously so — with the idea that righteousness in this life affects our place in the eternities, why should the idea that pre-mortal faithfulness gives us a better start here be so controversial? Both are a step in the process of preparing to meet God. Mortality is a test to see if we will keep our second estate, as the pre-existence tested to see if we would keep our first. Obviously, as you progress, things get harder, so the second is necessarily more difficult, and thus different (memories erased and so forth). I have never suggested anything about “start value,” that is your baggage coming into play again. I have only suggested different circumstances (advantages or otherwise), appropriate for the individual. No one, least of all myself, has disputed that anyone and everyone is capable of attaining exaltation. Both faithful servants in the parable of the talents received the same reward (and I am not suggesting the one given five was more faithful beforehand, it could have been the other way around). Everyone with a body passed the qualifying round and has the same chance to win an eternal reward.
See, this is pretty much what I have been saying all along. I admit there is no absolute scriptural proof about any of this stuff. I am merely connecting dots, making logical conclusions, and saying “isn’t that interesting.” I agree that spiritual gifts are probably the primary way that the pre-mortal life affects this one. I have never mentioned the priesthood ban, poverty in Africa, start values, or anything along those lines as being a result of unfaithfulness. I don’t think such ideas are true, appropriate, or relevant to this discussion. I have used the words “advantages” and “disadvantages”; however, I have also pointed out that I do not know how to define them as God would. I frankly don’t see what you find so disturbing about any of this. Maybe you should go back and read the thread again. |
Bookslinger, I am not really sure what #21 is smoking. If they had been paying attention they would have seen that nobody on this thread is going to peg Pres. Uchtdorf as being a pre-mortal sinner based on the circumstances of his birth. I wholeheartedly endorse your points; we have no way of knowing what is or isn’t an advantage or disadvantage. |
It isn’t my baggage Orwell, it’s just the baggage (or “context”) that comes along with saying things like this: “attributing natural inequalities or differences, be they social, economic, ethnic, racial, political, etc., to pre-mortal righteousness (or lack thereof) is becoming taboo. You yourself admit that it’s “taboo,” “controversial,” “politically incorrect.” Why? Well obviously because of the baggage that these ideas already have. It’s not my baggage, Orwell, and it’s not new. You can’t raise such subjects in a vacuum. They inevitably bring with them the natural meanings and contexts that have grown up around them. Sorry, but words do mean things, man. You can’t walk out in the rain then complain that it’s wet. |
So? I have already demonstrated my understanding of why they are controversial and politically incorrect, as well they should be. I think the original post (as well as numerous subsequent comments) makes it abundantly clear that I see no merit in the sorts of interpretations that have become taboo. I and other commenters have deliberately gone out or our way to separate this idea from the unfortunate interpretations of the past. You would be hard-pressed to find anything genuinely offensive on this thread. Since you are so concerned with context, you should try reading in context; apparently you are very susceptible to buzzwords. Adverse initial reactions are one thing, and maybe even understandable in this case, but competent reading should clear things up pretty quickly.
That is a cop-out. There is no vacuum. I have repeatedly recognized and repudiated these “natural meanings and contexts that have grown up around them” in order to make clear that what we are discussing is quite different. If you want to use a rain analogy, perhaps this classic example of affirming the consequent is more appropriate: When it rains, the ground is wet. I have walked out on some wet ground, so you throw up your arms in panic and tell everyone that it is raining. Again, disagreement is your prerogative, but you haven’t been able to make any cogent points because you are unable to intellectually separate the rain from the wet ground for the sake of discussion. What this all reminds me of is the critique you wrote on your blog of those that were upset by Julie B. Beck’s conference talk “Mothers Who Know.” You conclude that “Most of the criticism leveled against [her talk] is criticizing it for things it did not say.” The similarities are eerie. |
Orwell, it sounds to me like you are in a panic, not me. Sorry if you can’t handle criticism, but simply saying that I’m not reading competently or that I’m not making cogent points doesn’t make it true. You say you’ve repudiated the the previous meanings of these ideas. Fine. I’m simply saying you can’t so easily walk away from them. You still have the gum stuck to your shoe. BTW, thanks for linking to my blog, glad to know I at least have one fan. |
Exasperated is more like it. You’re right, my saying that you aren’t reading or making cogent points doesn’t make it true, but it’s pretty self-evident, so whatever. I’m fine with criticism, I just expect it to be quality, and I’m still just waiting for some that makes sense. Figures of speech haven’t really gotten you anywhere. To be honest with you, I don’t really care that much about this whole idea anyway. I know I’ve made myself come off as its greatest advocate, but the post was just sparked by a casual conversation the other day that made me think and honestly conclude that, “well, it may be possible.” However, I take great pleasure in refuting your posts; and, though my tendency to be verbose sometimes suggests otherwise, I am not particularly vindictive. So, you’re genuinely welcome for the link. I knew you’d be pleased. What’s the point of linking your name to it if nobody ever clicks on it, right? |