"I think we met in the pre-existence."


Awakened
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sure, it sounds all romantic and stuff.  But how could it happen in a practical sense?  I just don't see how it could be rational.  We all knew that the veil would be drawn over our eyes.  What kind of promises could pierce the veil for both parties?   It would have to be some special set of circumstances.

I met my "one and only" at first sight.  Everyone there (except for her) could immediately tell that I was so struck upon seeing her.  But I don't think I ever believed that she and I had been associates prior to mortality.  The only reason I believe she was my one chance at happiness is because I just can't imagine another perfect woman on the planet being willing to put up with me.  And can you believe she actually "likes" me?  I think it's because I was "nice" to her or something like that.

An interesting thing was that after we got to know one another, I figured out that we had met online a few months earlier.  But it was a fly-by chat and nothing came of it (at least not through that route).

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

@Anddenex no need to repeat yourself. I understood you just fine. Perhaps the trouble is that I'm not being clear enough. Somethings are hard to convey in words. We agree on much, but disagree still as well.

Since what you say is true for most (I believe), I'm content to leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Sure, it sounds all romantic and stuff.  But how could it happen in a practical sense?  I just don't see how it could be rational.  

What things of God strike the mortal mind as rational though? I'm not making this as an argument for a position, but just pointing out that irrationality is the prime argument that anti-religion type folk use. In other words, something not seeming rational does not (and should not) hold a ton of weight to those who believe in the miraculous and the super-natural.

Once again...I don't mean to say that I think we did promise each other things prior to this life. But I also know that God, actually, does rule the universe, knows the beginning from the end, and things have a way of working out according to His will and ways. Accordingly, I have no problem (despite the fact that it is, without a doubt, not doctrinal) with the idea that our eternal mates were all known and planned before we came here. Certainly known to God. And possibly known to us as well. But maybe not. It's certainly not important (unless, as Vort pointed out, it leads one to wait for that magical revelatory spark before they'll date someone or the like).

And, as stated, I quite like the romantic idea that upon having the veil removed from my eyes that I will look at my wife and wonder how I could have possibly forgotten the eons we had already known each other prior to mortality. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What things of God strike the mortal mind as rational though? I'm not making this as an argument for a position, but just pointing out that irrationality is the prime argument that anti-religion type folk use. In other words, something not seeming rational does not (and should not) hold a ton of weight to those who believe in the miraculous and the super-natural.

That isn't really the same category is it?

Atheists will basically say since they don't have additional information, then it is impossible for anyone else to have additional information.  That is an irrational statement.  Or one could say, since they don't have eyes, our ability to see is a myth.

What I'm saying is that in this thread, no one has provided any additional information for us to even inspect.  It is all conjecture by everyone's admission.  In the realm of conjecture, we need to run it through the rationality filter based on what we do know (whether revealed or by man's methods).  This does not preclude a revelatory statement which we may not understand from being true.  But we're not talking about revelatory statements -- unless I missed a sentence or a post.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That isn't really the same category is it?

It is not.

But...the point remains. Which point is simply that saying it isn't rational is not very meaningful in the debate of whether something is possible in the realm of the supernatural. As to the rest of your reply, I agree. There is no reason to presume this idea is accurate. But rationality is not the why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It is not.

But...the point remains. Which point is simply that saying it isn't rational is not very meaningful in the debate of whether something is possible in the realm of the supernatural. As to the rest of your reply, I agree. There is no reason to presume this idea is accurate. But rationality is not the why.

I'm going to disagree on the "rationality" not being a criterion.  If you don't like the word, then try "reasoning".  We've already stated that there is no revelation supporting these guesses in this thread.  Now you want to remove logic and reason as well?  What are we basing such guesses on?

I absolutely agree that the "official doctrine" (interesting how many threads seem to merge together) is finally declared by revelation.  But when we are admittedly guessing, there has to be an element of reason to our hypotheses.  Whenever things are not "revealed" all we can do to proceed is use the reasoning the Lord has given us -- even for supernatural principles.

  1. Several verses in The Acts uses the word "reason" to explain doctrines of Christ.
  2. In The King Follet Sermon Joseph submits that there never was a father without a father before him.  This is clearly a mortal's reasoning.
  3. "O, My Father" says "No, the thought makes reason stare.  Truth is reason.".  And what revelation is there that backs these statements up?
  4. Isaiah 1:18.

 

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm going to disagree on the "rationality" not being a criterion.  If you don't like the word, then try "reasoning".  We've already stated that there is no revelation supporting these guesses in this thread.  Now you want to remove logic and reason as well?  What are we basing such guesses on?

I absolutely agree that the "official doctrine" (interesting how many threads seem to merge together) is finally declared by revelation.  But when we are admittedly guessing, there has to be an element of reason to our hypotheses.  Whenever things are not "revealed" all we can do to proceed is use the reasoning the Lord has given us -- even for supernatural principles.

  1. Several verses in The Acts uses the word "reason" to explain doctrines of Christ.
  2. In The King Follet Sermon Joseph submits that there never was a father without a father before him.  This is clearly a mortal's reasoning.
  3. "O, My Father" says "No, the thought makes reason stare.  Truth is reason.".  And what revelation is there that backs these statements up?

 

 

Let me try again:

I'm not throwing reason out the window. I am saying that applying mortal reasoning to things that are of the heavens will fail.

You said it isn't rational to presume that there are practical means for the Lord to lead us to the proper intended person to whom we were "promised" in the pre-existence. But I think it is perfectly rational (yes...I'm changing tactics a bit here) to presume that the Lord's practical means are well beyond anything that we can understand, and the fact that it doesn't seem practical or rational to us does not make it so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Let me try again:

I'm not throwing reason out the window. I am saying that applying mortal reasoning to things that are of the heavens will fail.

You said it isn't rational to presume that there are practical means for the Lord to lead us to the proper intended person to whom we were "promised" in the pre-existence. But I think it is perfectly rational (yes...I'm changing tactics a bit here) to presume that the Lord's practical means are well beyond anything that we can understand, and the fact that it doesn't seem practical or rational to us does not make it so.

I think we're going along two non-parallel lines on different planes.

I understand that many things of the Lord don't make sense to the mortal mind.  My point is that when we are making conjecture we can't use that idea alone as the excuse to make any guess we want.  The guesses must be based on something.  So, if you admittedly don't have revelation to back  up the guess, and you aren't supplying any rationale to do so, what are you basing the guess on?  Or is it truly an off the top of your head gut feeling and nothing more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I think we're going along two non-parallel lines on different planes.

I understand that many things of the Lord don't make sense to the mortal mind.  My point is that when we are making conjecture we can't use that idea alone as the excuse to make any guess we want.  The guesses must be based on something.  So, if you admittedly don't have revelation to back  up the guess, and you aren't supplying any rationale to do so, what are you basing the guess on?  Or is it truly an off the top of your head gut feeling and nothing more?

Nod.

So in this case I'd say the guess is based on a long series of anecdotal narratives. There are, simply, enough of them that the consideration comes into play. That doesn't legitimize the theory. But it certainly gives it more weight than a random idea one comes up with that no one's ever heard of before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Nod.

So in this case I'd say the guess is based on a long series of anecdotal narratives. There are, simply, enough of them that the consideration comes into play. That doesn't legitimize the theory. But it certainly gives it more weight than a random idea one comes up with that no one's ever heard of before.

Well, this is essentially the same as my experience with the idea that it is more difficult to repent after this life.  But at least that position is backed up by some statements from apostles.  So, I find myself in good company on that opinion.  The pre-mortal promises idea... not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, this is essentially the same as my experience with the idea that it is more difficult to repent after this life.  But at least that position is backed up by some statements from apostles.  So, I find myself in good company on that opinion.  The pre-mortal promises idea... not so much.

I have no problem, whatsoever, with the idea that you don't think the pre-mortal promises idea holds merit. I somewhat tend to agree. I simply would not argue it as as factual reality that must be accepted. And, as I've said, I like the idea romantically...but that means nothing.

I also have no problem with someone accepting the "harder to repent after this life" theory, except in the regards that I stated in the other thread (in the case it might lead someone to believe that they can accept the "harder" but can still choose to repent later, than therefor have justification to themselves to delay repenting). The only reason I reject it as an idea is because it contrasts with other known scriptural principles, such as the plain idea that once life is over it is too late (as taught in the Book of Mormon).

But, truly, either of these issues are ones that are fairly innocuous regardless of which side one falls on concerning them (pending taking either one to a harmful conclusion and action, as addressed in both threads).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

When I was young, single and dating it just did not seem rational that there was one and only one young lady that I must find and connect with in this life in order to fulfill my destiny.  In addition I could not see any reference in scripture or among the statements of authority that such was a good or even important belief, concept or idea.  I had met and dated hundreds of ladies that I believed I could marry and establish whatever was needed in this life.  This concept remained for a while in my marriage – that is up and to the very day that my first child was born.  As I held the infant in my arms I was filled with the spirit that testified to me that this child in my care was no coincidence.  That everything I had done in this life had brought me to this point and that this spirit child entrusted to me and my wife to fulfill covenants and obligations planned and made in our pre-existence lives.  Each child and even their spouse I have sought for and obtained spiritual conformation that all have been according to divine plan and agency granted in the pre-existence.

I can understand that it may be possible that many did not enter into such covenants and promises in the pre-existence or that for some reason this understanding should be kept from them concerning their eternal marriage.  As pointed out in the LDS Gospel Dictionary concerning prayer – that there are some blessings (and I would add understanding of blessings is also a blessing) that are withheld until it becomes a matter of prayer – perhaps even fasting.  This may not hold for others – but for me – there are a great many things that have taken me years of preparation before I was even ready to pray for certain blessings and then more years to become in tune enough to realize the blessing of understanding and receiving spiritual witness.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...
On 6/27/2016 at 8:16 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

I also have no problem with someone accepting the "harder to repent after this life" theory, except in the regards that I stated in the other thread (in the case it might lead someone to believe that they can accept the "harder" but can still choose to repent later, than therefor have justification to themselves to delay repenting). The only reason I reject it as an idea is because it contrasts with other known scriptural principles, such as the plain idea that once life is over it is too late (as taught in the Book of Mormon).

 

Is this principle not also taught in the Doctrine & Covenants?  If the LORD gives you a witness of the truth and adequate time to accept but one rejects it in mortality and later repents in the spirit world that progression is limited? 

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;
74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.  -- Doc. & Cov. 76

But going back to the original post subject.  I have met some people in my life and had the strong, real feeling of recognition, comfort, and affection for them.  Sometimes I wonder if I knew these people also in the pre mortal life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

 

Is this principle not also taught in the Doctrine & Covenants?  If the LORD gives you a witness of the truth and adequate time to accept but one rejects it in mortality and later repents in the spirit world that progression is limited? 

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;
74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.  -- Doc. & Cov. 76

But going back to the original post subject.  I have met some people in my life and had the strong, real feeling of recognition, comfort, and affection for them.  Sometimes I wonder if I knew these people also in the pre mortal life.

As I understand the divine covenant and eternal purpose of "Agency" - I am very certain that whatever trial or event or even person that we encounter in this life was not to some degree our choice of agency in the pre-existence. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

 

Is this principle not also taught in the Doctrine & Covenants?  If the LORD gives you a witness of the truth and adequate time to accept but one rejects it in mortality and later repents in the spirit world that progression is limited? 

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;
74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.  -- Doc. & Cov. 76

But going back to the original post subject.  I have met some people in my life and had the strong, real feeling of recognition, comfort, and affection for them.  Sometimes I wonder if I knew these people also in the pre mortal life.

I think we all knew each other in the premortal life, though we may not have the same feelings as you do. And maybe you are just a nice person and have a charitable aspect to your deja vu! We should treat everyone with such charity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think we all knew each other in the premortal life, though we may not have the same feelings as you do. And maybe you are just a nice person and have a charitable aspect to your deja vu! We should treat everyone with such charity. 

I'm convinced of it, in certain instances.   One in particular for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Grunt said:

I'm convinced of it, in certain instances.   One in particular for me.

Yes, I had these feelings when I first saw my wife across the room, and throughout the evening as we were introduced and talked. I did not associate them in the moment with the Veil becoming thin, but I wouldn't argue against it. I did struggle a bit trying to remember where I had met her before, maybe in passing or something. I didn't (and still don't) associate the experience with deja vu either; I just went with it. In retrospect I would describe the phenomenon as more of a spiritual resonance between us. Some people call it "chemistry".

I do think our doctrine influences our social and cultural attitudes, and so the deduction that we knew someone in the pre-existence might be our first response. By the time I met my wife I had been a convert of 5 years (she a convert of 2 years), but about as far away as you can get from the Wasatch Front :) ... though I had seen a production of "My Turn on Earth" which I won't comment on, ha-ha.

I think there must be a reason for people to knowingly reconnect in this life, so I would think some sort of gospel-related obligation would be involved when we have such a manifestation.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

I think there must be a reason for people to knowingly reconnect in this life, so I would think some sort of gospel-related obligation would be involved when we have such a manifestation.

I've had one instance of this that I've spoken and written about in detail.  I've since become very cautious about "supposing" publicly, but I happily discuss it privately.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2021 at 6:40 AM, CV75 said:

I think we all knew each other in the premortal life, though we may not have the same feelings as you do. And maybe you are just a nice person and have a charitable aspect to your deja vu! We should treat everyone with such charity. 

As part of my personal logic, personal revelation and understanding of our pre-existence ---- I have become convinced that ever, even little detail, of our mortal life here on earth was known in the pre-existence.  Most of religious nature agree that G-d knows "All Things" and that his plan is without mistakes or unknowns to the most minuet detail.    It is my personal belief and logic that G-d is a G-d of truth - which is the knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will become.  That G-d deceives no one and that the truth was made known to us concerning his plan and as a gift of Agency - that before being born and coming to earth that we knew all the details of our extremely brief mortal life.  That we come here with a veil of forgetfulness that at times can be very thin and we have impressions that we knew an experience (or person) before. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

As part of my personal logic, personal revelation and understanding of our pre-existence ---- I have become convinced that ever, even little detail, of our mortal life here on earth was known in the pre-existence.  Most of religious nature agree that G-d knows "All Things" and that his plan is without mistakes or unknowns to the most minuet detail.    It is my personal belief and logic that G-d is a G-d of truth - which is the knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will become.  That G-d deceives no one and that the truth was made known to us concerning his plan and as a gift of Agency - that before being born and coming to earth that we knew all the details of our extremely brief mortal life.  That we come here with a veil of forgetfulness that at times can be very thin and we have impressions that we knew an experience (or person) before. 

The Traveler

I take D&C 93: 24-25 to refer to "things" and not necessarily "all things" or "everything". Phrases like "knoweth all things" and "the truth of all things" have a context limited by faith (God exercises faith), agency (we can act contrary to his faith) and assignment. The "truth of all things" from Moroni 10:5 would still be rendered "the knowledge of things of all things," which is still not "everything." I think I recall the analogy comparing mortal probation to a systems testing environment where the performance capacity is already known and now only has to be demonstrated for client satisfaction, but in this case I think foreknowledge is a form of faith, and faith is a form of knowledge yet to be realized or applied. In other words, the interdependent faith-knowledge dynamic described in Alma 32 is a way to describe two aspects of the same mental state experience.

24 And atruth is bknowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; 25 And whatsoever is amore or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a bliar from the beginning.

 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

When I was a missionary in the LTM (Language Training Mission, prior to the MTC, the Missionary Training Mission) I felt I knew from the preexistence most of the elders in my district. It was such a strong feeling and I felt a true connection with them. What’s interesting is that I have never had that feeling of knowing my husband in the preexistence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if...?

What if we find out in the hereafter that our ability to know other people on a personal level is infinite, not limited by time or number of people? In fact, what if we all knew everybody premortally? What if we were as well-acquainted with each other as we are today acquainted with our spouse or child? What if the limits that we experience today in our circle of acquaintances are strictly artifacts of mortality, with no real eternal equivalents?

This would fundamentally alter the nature of our understanding of interpersonal relationships. Moreover, it would really point up those who cynically maximize their profit from their political connections. In the next life, we would not only remember each other, but we would know how individual people treated their relationships, whether as a means to profit, a resource to be milked, or a sacred trust to be fostered and guarded, even if doing so didn't offer any advantage to their mortal state.

What might become of a person eternally when everyone knows he willingly sold out his brother or sister to gain status? What horrific character does forcible rape or seduction take on when the man realizes he raped a beloved sister or the woman that she seduced a struggling brother, all for some sort of selfish carnal satisfaction? What a keenly painful, yet just, realization when we understand that our betrayals of those around us are ultimately deep betrayals of ourselves, betrayals that will follow us in the eternities! Yet that is a hell that, save for the atoning blood of our Savior, awaits us all.

I love God and try to serve him. I believe in Christ and in his atonement, and strive to make it effective in my life. But all too often, God and Christ and the atonement and such other ideas seem abstract and remote from me in my day-to-day living. But my relationships with my wife, my children, my parents, my siblings, my cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, friends—these things seem solid and immediate. As I struggle to fulfill my duty to such precious people, I try to remember the satisfaction I take in my happy relationships with those I love and the pain I have felt when experiencing the sting of betrayal from one of them, or worse yet, the remorse of having betrayed someone, even in a small way.

Just putting some random thoughts out there.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

What if...?

What if we find out in the hereafter that our ability to know other people on a personal level is infinite, not limited by time or number of people? In fact, what if we all knew everybody premortally? What if we were as well-acquainted with, say, each other as we are today acquainted with our spouse or child? What if the limits that we experience today in our circle of acquaintances are strictly artifacts of mortality, with no real eternal equivalents?

This would fundamentally alter the nature of our understanding of interpersonal relationships. Moreover, it would really point up those who cynically maximize their profit from their political connections. In the next life, we would not only remember each other, but we would know how individual people treated their relationships, whether as a means to profit, a resource to be milked, or a sacred trust to be fostered and guarded, even if doing so didn't offer any advantage to their mortal state.

What might become of a person eternally when everyone knows he willingly sold out his brother or sister to gain status? What horrific character does forcible rape or seduction take on when the man realizes he raped a beloved sister or the woman that she seduced a struggling brother, all for some sort of selfish carnal satisfaction? What a keenly painful, yet just, realization when we understand that our betrayals of those around us are ultimately deep betrayals of ourselves, betrayals that will follow us in the eternities! Yet that is a hell that, save for the atoning blood of our Savior, awaits us all.

I love God and try to serve him. I believe in Christ and in his atonement, and strive to make it effective in my life. But all too often, God and Christ and the atonement and such other ideas seem abstract and remote from me in my day-to-day living. But my relationships with my wife, my children, my parents, my siblings, my cousins, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, friends—these things seem solid and immediate. As I struggle to fulfill my duty to such precious people, I try to remember the satisfaction I take in my happy relationships with those I love and the pain I have felt when experiencing the sting of betrayal from one of them, or worse yet, the remorse of having betrayed someone, even in a small way.

Just putting some random thoughts out there.

In this life we tend to develop love only with those that we relate to.  We tend to not care so much for the many we know nothing of.  Mostly we take care of those we know the most of.  I like this point you have made - so much so that I plan to use it moving forward as though it is one of my own.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, classylady said:

When I was a missionary in the LTM (Language Training Mission, prior to the MTC, the Missionary Training Mission) I felt I knew from the preexistence most of the elders in my district. It was such a strong feeling and I felt a true connection with them. What’s interesting is that I have never had that feeling of knowing my husband in the preexistence.

Maybe the LORD wanted to know your mission efforts were special to Him along with the others in your group in the Missionary Training Center.  You probably did not need a revelation like that with your husband.  But maybe you did not know your husband in the pre-mortal life.  I believe any Latter-Day Saint man and woman can make a marriage work if they both want it to.

Also as I was studying the different Gospel Principles once while serving a mission I had a strong impression given to me by the Holy Ghost that I had studied these truths in the pre-mortal life.  The things I learned while on a mission I would not trade for the most fine gold or valuable jewels in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share