Scriptural evidence for "pre-mortal existence". Is there any?

[Nicea325]

PART TWO:

The Catholic Church of the fourth century was the answer to an earlier apostasy.

 

[KathleenGee]

StephenKent,

I took a college course on the entire writings of John and in no way do they even come close to Mormonism…

But that is for another thread…

I need to ask you…are you a convert to Mormonism? Have you had any exposure to other faiths on your own two feet…? You have been indoctrinated to have emnity against the Catholic church and those men leading you into this have absolutely no desire to study history, but to destroy the Church and replace it with Mormonism…no matter the means.

That is one of the moral issues I have with Mormonism.

Christ is too big…to make out that the Catholic Church is what you were taught…I would not go any further but advise you to start seeking outside sources.

The fulfillment of Revelations is found in the liturgy of the Mass, and when we stand with the Lord, Who stands at the altar as atonement for the sin of mankind…including Mormon sin…we are indeed doing the work of liturgy in opposing evil in this world, the Daily Sacrifice of the Mass, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, prayed for you, the Mormon religion, and all of mankind.

The enemy you need to watch out is the Father of Lies…the same ‘Father’ who led Adam and Eve into sin promissing them to be as gods…

Sacred Scriptures over and over again proclaim praise and glory for the One, True God! There not a single word ‘church’ used in Revelations in describing Babylon. You have been had. Stop allowing those men to use you…the same for other Mormon men who come here to glean and to promote a new version of Mormonism in a passive, but nevertheless prosletyzing way!!

 

[KathleenGee]

In Catholic Christianity, the Incarnation opposes all forms of conjecturing of religion. Again, this is going back to the Book of Wisdom 11:21 where God has ‘ordered all things by measure, number, and weight’.

In the Incarnation, Christ alone is the only begotten Son…in pagan beliefs such as in the ancient Greek/Roman vision of the world, "the universe was the ‘monogenes’ or '‘only begotten emanation from a divine principle not really different from the universe itself.’…

'Christianity, since it reposed the divine strictly in Christ and in the Holy Trinity that transcended the world, avoided any kind of pantheism and allowed Christians to view the universe as a realm of order and predictability…again, Fr Stanley Jaki.

And as in Mormonism with its unsubstantiated witness, stories, spectacles, golden plates, ‘reformed Egyptian calligraphy’, peep hat stones, religious underwear, polygamy and polyandry, spectacles and the Angel Moroni, the lost tribe of Israel in America, along with condemnation of historical Christ’s Catholic Church, completing its break from Christianity while continuing to manipulate and misrepresent its sources, all for the spirit of man to be a god…cannot see as but part of the same deficiencies as other belief systems that do not believe in the rationality and order of the universe set by God alone…

These moral deficiencies of Mormonism, and the ongoing misunderstanding by their own Mormon persons regarding Catholic theological Scriptures and Christology fall into the same trap are like all the other world religions that do not recognize one, transcendent God and creator…

Fr Jaki ending…‘The earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times,of Islam, of Imperial China, let alone those achieved in prehistoric times, do not constitute science and are better described as lore, skills, wisdom, techniques, crafts, technologies, engineering, learning or simply knowledge.’ We can see but the claims of Mormonism and its emnity against the Catholic Church as part of these same fruits???

I pray for the conversion of Mormons to truth and freedom, to God Himself…because the Catholic Church is the place of God Himself.

 

[KathleenGee]

Great posts, Lori and Pablope!

I hope our Mormon participants will take a time out to reflect…and think with reason and rationality…Mormon Cultist, you mentioned to Lori that the Mormons refuse the Book of Wisdom, with the response, ‘Go figure’…

I would reflect on the beginning statements on the Discourse of Wisdom, the chapter partially introduced to us by StephenKent…but recognize it what it is really talking about…the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, not some pre existing fully cognizant soul…as Wisdom is speaking to the children of men and the simple people who still want to learn.

 

[StephenKent]

Thank you Kathleen and others for your thoughtful and insightful comments.

Listen to this beautiful music at your next opportunity: youtube.com/watch?v=1sPJWaWF9_o&feature=related This young man has devoted his life to Christ and I salute him and pray for his success as a minister of God. I did the scripture reading when my sister took out her final vows and know of the sacrifice such devotees make. May we all here on this list cherish the love that God has given us and speak in understanding and peace, not in a spirit of contention.

I have simply quoted the scriptures, not tried to interpret them. They clearly are subject to interpretations, using words to describe what they mean, words that are not in them. That’s fine. I do not cite them as “proof.” The question did not ask for “proof” and I did not use that word; the question asked for “evidence” and that is all I presented. Whether the cited passages are convincing evidence or not is for the reader to decide. Most likely, the answer to that depends more on interpretation than on the very language of the passages themselves.

Others in earlier centuries struggled much as we do still today. Some have observed that the concept of a premortal existence of persons was not formally condemned until AD 543 when Origen’s errors were listed and pronounced heretical at a council of bishops. Origen’s early teachings can be read here: Origen, De Principiis I, 8, 4, in PG 11:179; and ibid., II, 9, 6-8, in PG 11:230-32.

With regard to a premortal existence, Clement said, “Well, if I live after, I must have lived before. Doesn’t that follow?” (Clementine Recognitions I, 1, in PG 1:1207.) Indeed, Clement of Rome, whom Barnabas converted, tells us that “cujus interna species est antiquior,” that the Earth was created and prepared for man, whose real nature, though he came last of all, is older than any of it. And Clement’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians tells us of “the first church, the spiritual [one, (spiritum) which] was created before sun and moon.” He says he got the doctrine from “The Book of the Apostles.” (Clement, Epistola II ad Corinthios (Second Epistle to the Corinthians) 14, in PG 1:329.) Man existed before the creation of the world—a doctrine that Peter taught him.

Plotinus, one of the greatest of the Christian Neoplatonists, argues that the recognizable differences in children at their very birth shows that each must bring something with him into this life from another one. (Plotinus, Ennead II, 3, 10; cf. English translation, in A. H. Armstrong, tr., Plotinus, 6 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), 2:76.)

Thanks to the Patrologia, a collection of the writings of all the Christian Fathers, in chronological order, which grows all the time, we literally have hundreds of volumes of writings; and the first volumes say more on this subject than any others, because Christians depart from the doctrine after that. In these volumes the editor, J.-P. Migne, speaks of the four different positions on the subject. “For some taught that the spirit was before the body, others that it came after, still others, that they came into existence together, while others are not willing to make any assertion. Along with these opinions should be mentioned the errors of the Pythagoreans, Platonists, Gnostics, and Origenists.” (Clementine Recognitions I, n. 20, in PG 1:1222-23. )The later Doctors still could not make up their minds. “Under the influence of the prevailing philosophy, many Christian thinkers asked themselves,” writes H. de Leusse, “in the third and fourth centuries, if it was permissible to think of a pre-existence of souls.” (H. de Leusse, “Le Problème de la préexistence des âmes chez Marius Victorinus Afer,” Recherches de science religeuse 29 (1939): 197.) Augustine believed the doctrine firmly up until the year A.D. 410; after that, he hesitates, and does not cease to hesitate between traducianism (the idea that the spirit enters the body at the moment of conception, and didn’t exist before, but was “traduced” into the body at the moment of conception) and infusionism (the idea that the spirit existed before). . . . He repeats endlessly that he has not made up his mind. In short, Augustine “truly does not know, . . . and it is perhaps temerity to want to penetrate a mystery reserved to God himself.” (Ibid., 236-37.) So the first of the great Latin theologians, who got nearly all of his doctrines from Origen, anyway, could never resolve the problem for himself.

In A.D. 523, the African bishops agreed that “we should either leave the question in silence or consider it without contention”; since “the holy scriptures give us no clear statement, it should be investigated with caution. The more so since it’s possible for the faithful to ignore it without any particular disadvantage (detrimento) to their faith.” (Ibid., 237.)

But those interpretations are not what we are asked to discuss; we are asked to discuss the scriptures themselves. And I thank all those who have posted about them. Thanks.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Council of Nicea completed the fullness of Christ’s revelation, clarifying His divine nature with the Father.

In the beginning years of the Church, yes, many individuals wrote and shared reflections…but Christology was still in formation…and among the followers of the holy Apostles…not all carried the same weight and proximity to them…So you have to see if they were individual writers who learned through others what the Apostles had taught accompanying them…the apostles tested and chose those specifically as bishops, presbyters and teachers vs others who wrote independently…among the many writers, it was the work of the Holy Spirit in the early church to discern who was speaking and writing in the spirit of the Church, and those who were farther out…Tertullian has been quoted many times, especially in the witness of Christian charity being the cause of converting many pagans to Christianity. Tertullian was much of an ascetic, and his imbalance unfortunately led him more to more of his own reflections than those reflecting the movement of the Holy Spirit.

So what we look at is not what this writer said or that one…but what was acknowledged as true teaching of the Holy Spirit…

Remember, our faith is drawn from the communion of the Holy Spirit we share as Church; there are many voices, many opinions…but we know the voice of the Shepherd at work…the Holy Spirit guides us in acknowledging that which is meant for the service for the Church…the blessing of communion.

StephenKent…there is a great site, www.calledtocommunion.com…we reflected some of us on an article on ‘Ecclesial Deum…’…We believe that God works through people, we trust Christ at work…there is reference in it regarding Mormons and other Restorationists and those akin to Baptist faith who think the true faith left at some point…what was the authority to affirm what was still correct and when did the falling away occur?..they can’t decide but they all share this idea of some kind of falling away.

I will finally add that if there is any one theme that explains best my Catholic faith, it is communion and based on solid teaching that comes from God alone through those consecrated to Him…we do not come for man, but for God when we enter into our churches…Who remains among us…

Keep you in prayers

kathleen

 

[zaffiroborant]

PART ONE (OF TWO PARTS):

Two. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not take – and never has taken – a position on the identity of any religious denomination as supposedly being the “harlot church” (your phrase). The book of Revelation uses the phrases “great whore that sitteth upon the waters” (Rev. 17:1) and “Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth” (Rev. 17:5). But you will find nowhere at no time that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has ever identified those phrases or your phrase (or any similar phrase, or similar idea) either as the equivalent of or as identifying the Roman Catholic Church (or any other church, for that matter) as the Babylon or harlot spoken of in the book of Revelation.

Three. Some Latter-day Saints have done so erroneously. One who was in a position of leadership in the Church once did so (to the embarassment of many, I might add). He was Bruce R. McConkie, and essentially did so in his widely-read book “Mormon Doctrine” (first edition). However, not only did he remove that in his second edition, both his first edition and his second edition contained clear and explicit mention of the fact that everything he said in his book was his own personal thinking and that he was not speaking on behalf of the Church. (Indeed, it was numerous other Church leaders themselves who asked him to remove it from his book.)

.

McConkie was simply reiterating what previous apostles (McConkie was an apostle, his erroneous book was not that much of an embarrassment apparently) and presidents (otherwise known as the Prophet) taught and believed:shrug:

 

[StephenKent]

PART ONE (OF TWO PARTS):

McConkie was simply reiterating what previous apostles (McConkie was an apostle, his erroneous book was not that much of an embarrassment apparently) and presidents (otherwise known as the Prophet) taught and believed:shrug:

It is an old routine for those who take issue with the Roman Catholic Church and for those who take issue with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to make an assertion about the Church, whichever Church, and then after attacking that assertion, walk away satisfied. And those who pick up the conversation afterwards usually never go behind the assertion to discover that it in fact is a false assertion. Both churches have suffered this mistreatment since their earliest days. To state that “McConkie was simply reiterating what previous apostles . . . and presidents . . . taught and believed” does not stand up to scrutiny; it has been falsely asserted that prior leaders in the LDS Church have believed and stated that belief, but if anyone can find any prior statement of any prior leader in the LDS Church, please quote and cite it. I am confident you’ll not be successful in the effort.

Indeed, I am at a loss to find that any leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at any time have ever “taught and believed” that the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church is to be identifed as the “harlot church” (Kathleen’s words, not mine) or the “great whore” (Rev. 17:1) or “Babylon” (Rev. 17:5). Kathleen asserted (post 219) that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints *itself *(“the Mormon church” as she terms it) has in the past, at some unstated time or times, made a “caricature” of the Catholic Church as “akin to the great harlot church.” This simply is not so. It has been said before that such derogatory statements have been made by the Church; but it is not true and no such statements can be found. If anyone can find any statement whatsoever by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints even supporting, much less stating, the unfounded and undocumented notion of a comparison is to be drawn between the Catholic Church and the “great whore” or “Babylon,” kindly cite it and quote it. I am confident you will never find it. It’s simply not there.

And as far as concerns any such statement that may at any time have been made by anyone who has been a leader in the LDS Church, I find one and only one, Bruce R. McConkie (who himself stated that he was not speaking for the Church and who, in any event, was not the leader of the Church). And he wrote as an individual, in his own personal book, with his own express disclaimer that he did not speak for the Church. And, to boot, other leaders in the Church otherwise asked him to remove his statement from his book. And guess what? He did. He was a leader in the Church, not the leader of the Church and never pretended to speak for the Church.

Zaffiroborant (post 246) states that McConkie was “reiterating what previous apostles and presidents taught and believed.” This simply is not true (and even if it were true – and it is not – it would not constitute a position of the Church itself, which has never uttered a word on the subject).

In fact, prior leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did touch against the subject in a very general way, a way that is markedly different from the way in which it is otherwise portrayed to casual observers who have not read the sources, in a way quite different from what you would expect if you had otherwise approached the subject having heard or read only what others have falsely asserted about their statements. When you actually go to the words of those prior leaders, you see something quite different indeed, something that would not lead you to state that McConkie was “reiterating” what they had to say.

 

[StephenKent]

PART TWO (OF TWO PARTS):

For example, John Taylor, who became President of the Church but who at the time was not speaking for the Church, observed what Kathleen observes, but you will note from the following quotation, he did not say anything that can even remotely be construed as the statement of a position taken by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or construed as an opinion of his own about the Roman Catholic Church; rather, he pointed out nothing more than the raunchy historical treatment of the Catholic Church by others. Said he: "The *Protestants *talk a great deal about Catholic priests, but I believe they are much more honest in the sight of man, and will do more for their pay, than any Protestant minister you can find. You will find them up at five o’clock in the morning, saying mass, and attending to what they consider are their religious duties – visiting the sick, and going among fevers and plagues, where Protestant ministers dare not go. (Journal of Discourses (“JD”) 1:22 - p.23, John Taylor, August 22, 1852, emphasis mine)

Again, John Taylor: " The *Protestants *believe the Catholics are all in error, and pack the whole church off to hell as the mother of harlots, without any trouble, or without even a sigh." (JD 1:154, John Taylor, June 12, 1853, emphasis mine.)

And again: “Where did the Church of England obtain her authority? From the Church of Rome, which *they *say is the mother of harlots and the abomination of all things.” (JD 10:126, John Taylor, March 1, 1863, emphasis mine.)

George Albert Smith, also later a President of the Church, spoke of the Protestants, too: “When these reformers came out from it [the Catholic Church] they were cut off and denounced as apostates, . . . *these apostates from her *united in denouncing her as the mother of harlots.” (JD 12:335, George Albert Smith, November 15, 1868, emphasis mine.)

And again: “*The Church of England *made no pretensions to inspiration. *It *had protested against the Church of Rome as being the ‘beast,’ the ‘false prophet,’ the ‘mother of harlots and abominations of the earth,’ and everything that was corrupt, and had inaugurated a reformation, and established the Protestant Church of England, with the King for its head; but it had no inspiration. And this body of learned men passed their votes on these sacred books without any pretense whatever to inspiration from the Almighty.” (JD 12:263, George Albert Smith, June 21, 1868, emphasis mine.)

And, mind you, the above statements themselves – which is all I can find (!), while made by leaders *in *the Church, were not made or considered to have been made as official statements *of * the Church, or of its doctrine or its beliefs or its position regarding Roman Catholicism.

As for the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., he, too, had one thing to say about the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church, and again, it was a comment that took aim not at the Catholic Church but at its Protestant detractors: “The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it?” (History of the Church, 6:478; Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 223; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 375) Note that the Smith says nothing whatsoever about “whore” or “harlot” or, indeed, about the Roman Catholic Church being what the Protestants constantly rail about.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a Protestant denomination and the thoughts and beliefs and positions taken by various Protestant denominations over the centuries should not be imposed on the LDS Church.

The position of Latter-day Saints and the official position of the LDS Chruch about other denominations generally and about the Roman Catholic Church specifically is far different from what otherwise it is falsely portrayed to be. See, for example, newsroom.lds.org/article/interfaith. See also a letter signed last Thursday, January 19, 2012 at usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/upload/Marriage-and-Religious-Freedom-Letter-Jan-12-2012-4.pdf.

It would be a wonderful thing if the comments made in postings here on this wonderful forum did not reiterate false characterizations that have otherwise been made of the positions taken by the two Churches. Nothing but respect for and by and between the two Churches should be seen. And our postings should reflect that.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Stephen…

I am glad you are not anti-Catholic…I never heard of it either about the Mormon religion until I went to the LDS bookstore near the state temple…I met some wonderful Mormons, but they moved, and I never got a chance to openly talk about our faith with each other. I did pick up some attitude at the beginning, and that is what triggered me to want to talk to them.

I went to the bookstore and saw the book, ‘Pearl of Great Price’, that looked like an old edition. We think now it was an abridged version of Orson Pratt’s, a classic, that was written around 1852…which makes sense considering the style of writing. I came to passages of the great Roman Church, an abomination, the great whore church and her Protestant whore daughters, and on and on and on. So it was from this experience that I began researching Mormonism online and came to many beliefs it has held. There was a dispute following that said I did not read the Pearl of Great Price…I had gone back to the store to verify the title, but by then it was pulled. In the meantime, I called LDS in SLC, and they knew nothing of the book. I mean it was like I talked to the lady at the front desk and that is a far as I went. I was drawn to the title, Pearl of Great Price, because I wanted to find out Mormon spirituality on the kingdom of Christ and instead read nothing about His kingdom.

I was in complete shock and the maledictions put me into shock. I put it down, shaking, and went over to Smith’s Mormon documents…and how he said all religions were corrupt…some posters came on in the past and brought out the actual words of his.

We all know what the Roman church. And only the Catholic Church has an authority set of doctrines not matched by other churches. So it has to be us.

You give a list of churches. There is a spin going out through World Net Daily on one of its ads about a book promoting the idea that the Church began with Constantine and thus proves we are pagan. It is ridiculous.

The founding of our Church is in Christ appointing St. Peter as head of His church, who has the power to bind and has the keys to heaven. Note…a key can fit only into a particular opening…Peter has the keys to heaven…means when the Holy Father speaks, he is speaking living revelation…the will of Christ for mankind today…and the Holy Father speaks not only to Catholics but to all man kind, and thus he is also speaking universally.

The role of the papacy, and in ancient times, was to symbolize universal unity of all believers, and to settle disputes.

You have to study history. Ours is the Church based on Jesus Christ, and not man.

And as I shared with you yesterday, you have to decide who is the interpreter of your beliefs…man or the Holy Spirit…Wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, piety, fear of the Lord, …from Proverbs.

If you believe in man, then your results and fruits will be of man’s. Division, emnity, constant bickering, a lack of transcendence…etc…

If you believe in Christ, and that of Christ, you will consider all things as God wants you to see them, you are nurtured in God’s Eucharist, and you gain the understanding of Sacred Scripture that envelopes every word and phrase into a single, whole fruit: Jesus.

People who come to the Catholic Church come to encounter God, not various men’s teachings and perspective. Ours is based on the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ by the witness of the 12 apostles who likewise were gifted by the Holy Spirit to choose their successors, this line never broken.

A protestant scholar studied for 27 years to see whether or not the line of Peter was ever broken, and he found out the truth: it never was. We have documentation, we have the communion afforded us, communion of one heart and one mine under Peter and the papacy, that only God can provide.

I came back to add, that yes, I am aware of those churches and denominations…and rebuttals against St. Clement being used by Mormons as they begin to discover the ancient church fathers, our saints…there is alot of history…but it is a matter of being in the Church…in the Holy Spirit, and Christ did not call us to division.

Gatherings, denominations, sects can argue back and forth, but if you should decide to study the Church more in depth in prayer…the Holy Spirit will help you discern. The Vatican has the greatest library in the world, so many books have been written on theology, but you have to look at the historical setting which Restorationists many times can’t do. Their convictions run so deep and hard against the Church, they can’t find their way. It takes time. But Catholicism does not depend on one theologian…and there may be those who access such theologians, but then there are many other Catholics who do not connect with Christ intellectually, but emotionally…there are Franciscan, Carmelite, Dominican, feminist, and countless others with their own charisms just in how they read and interpret Scripture!!! The orthodox understanding of Scripture is doctrinally represented in our Catholic Catechism. But again, even that has been misconstrued by Mormons to mean the opposite it intended and they have an inability to read context, read how understanding grows from one part of catechism to the next, and reading saints’ and others’ footnotes in the context they meant them. It takes time.

 

[KathleenGee]

It was Martin Luther who, when he broke away, really went all out and was the one who began using such language against the Church. He was a man of terrible scruples and was also wrote the worst anti-Semitic writings against the Jews.

He also admitted later on that those who followed The Gospel, meaning his Protestants, ended up not being as charitable as those of ‘Babylon’. He was unable to forgive certain church authorities…

And Christianity has been dismantling ever since, especially in America. We have the most extreme Christian sects that have broken from all churches, and they continue to fragment…

It is better to trust in God and wait for the Church to reform…doing so through prayer and penance, than leave it. The Council of Trent covered all its bases, as well as providing more advising counsel for the pope with more conciliar like cardinals.

It is Christ Who sustains the Church, it is He Who purges. And there are more and more Protestants returning Home. Mormons are coming into the Catholic Church as well.

One must learn as a Catholic to keep one’s eyes always on the Lord in the Church, and not to get too attached to the personhoods…there are so many wonderful clerics…but they are still men. And we do them more service, as the saints advise us, to pray and do penance for them.

God bless…

 

[PaulDupre]

it has been falsely asserted that prior leaders in the LDS Church have believed and stated that belief, but if anyone can find any prior statement of any prior leader in the LDS Church, please quote and cite it. I am confident you’ll not be successful in the effort.

Indeed, I am at a loss to find that any leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at any time have ever “taught and believed” that the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church is to be identifed as the “harlot church” (Kathleen’s words, not mine) or the “great whore” (Rev. 17:1) or “Babylon”…kindly cite it and quote it. I am confident you will never find it. It’s simply not there.

You should sharpen your research skills.

"The present Christian world exists and continues by division. The MYSTERY of Babylon the great, is mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and it needs no prophetic vision, to unravel such mysteries. The old church is the mother, and the protestants are the lewd daughters. Alas! alas! what doctrine, what principle, or what scheme, in all, what prayers, what devotion, or what faith, since the fathers have fallen asleep,' has opened the heavens; has brought men into the presence of God; and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to an innumerable company of angels? The answer is, not any: **There is none in all christendom that doeth good; no, not one.’**

• Apostle John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.811

“Babylon, literally understood, is the gay world; spiritual wickedness, the golden city, and the glory of the world, The priests of Egypt, who received a portion gratis from Pharaoh; the priests of Baal, and the Pharisees, and Sadducees, with their “long robes,” among the Jews, are equally included in their mother’s family, with the Roman Catholics, Protestants, and all that have not had the keys of the kingdom and power thereof, according to the ordinances of God.”

• Prophet John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.939

"**Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” **whom the Lord denounces… as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act. If any penitent believer desires to obtain forgiveness of sins through baptism, let him beware of having any thing to do with the churches of apostate Christendom, lest he perish in the awful plagues and judgments, denounced against them. The only persons among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who have authority from Jesus Christ to administer any gospel ordinance are those called and authorized among the Latter-day Saints. Before the restoration of the church of Christ to the earth in the year 1830, there have been no people on the earth for many generations possessing authority from God to minister gospel ordinances. We again repeat. Beware of the hypocritical false teachers and imposters of Babylon!

• Apostle Orson Pratt The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255

Pre-1990 Temple Endowment (Lucifer speaking): “Then with that enmity I will take the treasure of the earth, and with gold and silver I will buy up armies and navies, Popes and priests, and reign with blood and horror on the earth!”

LDS Church Publication “The Seer,” January, 1854. No. 1., Page 204-206

DOCTRINE QUESTIONS

Q. Who founded the Roman Catholic Church?
A. The Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God by denying immediate revelation, and substituting in the place thereof, tradition and ancient revelations as a sufficient rule of faith and practice.

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Boom.

You’ve just been PaulDupre’d, sir.

 

[TexanKnight]

Stephen, are you serious? Really?

1. “The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church, is the great corrupt, ecclesiastical power, represented by great Babylon” (Orson Pratt, Writings of an Apostle, Orson Pratt, n. 6, 84).
2. “All the priests who adhere to the sectarian [Christian] religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels” (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith, ed. Vol. 1, n. 4, 60).
3. [Under the heading, “Church of the Devil,” Apostle Bruce R. McConkie lists:] “The Roman Catholic Church specifically—singled out, set apart, described, and designated as being ‘most abominable above all other churches’ (I Ne. 13:5)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 129).
4. “Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls (Morm. 8; Moro. 8)” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, Bruce R. McConkie, 177).

Seriously, Stephen, either you were not being honest, or you truly do not know your church.

 

[KathleenGee]

I was wondering StephenKent, if you were a convert to Mormonism…

Anyway, it is Martin Luther who gave a radical new conception of church: His concept changed from that divinely inspired to that of man…-contradicting Christ’s own words, but simply communities with human and historical origins.

Subsequently, in Luther’s quest to be more Gospel oriented, he likewise removed the divine authority of the papacy and subsequently the authority. And with this, there would be no more distinctions between priests and lay. Luther no longer believed in infallibility of councils…and that also put the Council of Nicea up for dispute.

Furthermore, in Germany there was a great movement to break away to form their own national jurisdiction, again a faith based on ethnic origin, rather than on man in need of redemption and the mark of universality.

The mark of faith is certitude, not constant doubting and questioning…how many historical figures are there who failed in their mission because of lack of certitude?

It was Martin Luther who ‘discovered’ that the Pope was the anti-Christ, and his attacks on the papacy became increasingly hostile. One could say he was a propagandist, and during this time was the invention of the printing press, providing the printing of the Bible…which Luther used to write 3 revolutionary manifestos – ‘To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation’, ‘On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church’, and ‘On the Freedom of the Christian Man’…

He was very inflammatory in his writings…The first manifesto sounds nationalistic, which is not the Catholic spirit in the Church. Rather, we are of the Kingdom of Christ, which is within and we are aliens in our own lands.

Luther’s liturgy he created was greatly simplified. It no longer focused on Christ as Atonement, but the main focus was the sermon…the preacher himself…man.

Source: Catholic seminary text ‘Concise History of the Catholic Church’, by Thomas Bokenkotter.

So just in this we can see the fruit of man at work, not the Holy Spirit.

 

[KathleenGee]

StephenKent…

By the way, I also saw sources the Catholic posters are bringing to light as well…

 

[Nicea325]

PART TWO:

Quote:

The Catholic Church of the fourth century was the answer to an earlier apostasy.

 

[Telstar]

I’m talking about statements like “your theology is whacked”. I know you didn’t make it personally, but our theology makes perfect sense when understood based on our understanding and interpretation of the scriptures: it can’t be expected to make sense based on yours or we’d all be Catholic, now wouldn’t we.
The only way discussion works is if both sides are interested and make an attempt to understand each other’s views.

I realize that the comment was rather blunt. However, I think it was meant to be more tongue-in-cheek than insulting. It reflects his basic view that the reason we (Catholics) see LDS beliefs as being so far off the mark, is due to the fact that its theology is way off kilter from a Catholic, or even a mainstream Christian, standpoint. I don’t think it was intended as an insult, just a general statement of his opinion.

Absolutely, when explaining to us what you disagree with our beliefs, base that on your own interpretation and understanding, buy don’t try to tell us that ours don’t make sense when you’re basing that on theology that was never meant to back it up.
Not a personal dig at anyone you understand, just trying to help the discussion along a little better, hopefully.

I can sympathize with your view. But, this is a Catholic forum, so expecting us not to look at everything through that lens is not very realistic. If we weren’t interested in learning about others beliefs, we wouldn’t be posting here, in the Non-Catholic section. But, we’re also obliged to try to correct any misconceptions about the truth of Christianity as we know it. If we didn’t do that, we wouldn’t be doing what Jesus taught us all to do. Did He pull any punches when telling the Pharisees and Sadduccees how their interpretations of Scripture and its application to their daily life were wrong? Nope. In fact, He came right out and called them a “den of vipers”. So, I think we’ve probably been even more tolerant in our methods of explaining errors that we see, than He was with them.

From the myriad of explanations given by LDS in many other threads, we understand pretty well where you’re ‘coming from’, that’s why we believe your theology is incorrect, and why we give our explanations from the Catholic point of view.

In your theology, but not in ours. Eternal has two uses, one that simply means without beginning or end: simply being a statement of something’s period of existence; and the other referring to God as ‘The Eternal One’. When we speak of Eternal Life it means both life without end, but also life with the Eternal One.

Which is the crux of the problem in LDS beliefs. LDS redefine terms to fit their theology, rather than trying to understand theology correctly, according to the original meaning of the terms that all Christians use. Using the same words is meaningless if the definitions are totally different. If you call an apple an orange, then ask me for a cup of orange juice, should you be surprised when you don’t get what you wanted? Would that be my fault or yours?

It’s not a suggestion that you might need help reading it, but as it is only the Latter Day Saints that use it, it seems reasonable that someone wanting it is interested to know about us, and therefore the missionaries are the best people to talk to about us.

If you order a Catholic Bible online, would you expect a Priest or a Nun to personally deliver it to you?

Given its a quote I can think of only one source: and your saying it to me makes me a balding Shakespearian actor…
Drat, I wanted to be Q! (disclaimer: not to be taken as any statement of doctrine )
http://yerble.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/make-it-snow-picard-star-trek1.jpg

Actually, I was picturing the Romulan that said it, but I love that pic! (right click/save as)

“Q!!!” (One of my favorite characters in ST.)

Jesus on trial stating simply “I AM” is one of my favourite, and possibly most powerful proclamations of His divinity. Not to mention just how riled up those two simple words got his accusers.
However all it has to mean is that He* is unchanging* (present continuous tense, with no reference to the past). It does not have to be interpreted to mean anything with regards to eternity.

Mine, too. He was clearly saying He’s God. No question.

I was responding to a statement to the effect that it was a shame particular books were not included in the KJV, the poster seemed to be of the opinion we believed that if it hadn’t been included, it was of no worth.
Song of Solomon is included, and we believe it to be of little doctrinal worth. Go figure lol.

I realize that. I just couldn’t help pointing out the irony.

 

[Telstar]

Anyway, some were denying my assertion that some Catholic scholars read Wisdom 8:19 as referring to premortal existence of the soul, even in the face of the one reference I provided. (Yes the guy was a doctoral student, but he had to pass his dissertation off with 3 faculty members. One was a Franciscan, and another was a Jesuit. All three had a “Licentiate of Sacred Theology”, which allows them to teach theology in Catholic universities. And yet, these guys aren’t “real Catholics”? Whatever.

I might have been too hasty in my painting with such a broad brush. I know many Catholics that have a very poor understanding of what the Church teaches, so I should know better than to doubt the some Catholics might have a view that’s not based on Church teaching. But, what “some” individual Catholic scholars might believe about anything in scripture is less important than what the Church actually teaches about them, even if they are college professors.

I’m still not convinced that the thesis was written from a Catholic perspective, nor does the ‘approval’ of it necessarily mean that those people were approving the theories it contained. They might just be acknowledging that it was approved by them from a strictly academic standpoint, based on the literary structure used in presenting the subject matter.

I would have to do some digging to find out what the Church specifically teaches about it, but I think I can safely say that the Church doesn’t teach anything like ‘pre-mortal existence’.

So not only is the premortal existence of the soul thought by many scholars to have been taught in Wisdom, but a bunch of ancient Rabbis taught it, too!

Not every Rabbi was correct in their theological thinking, either. Just look at the Pharisees, Sadducee, and even the High Priest, Caiaphas, in the time of Christ. They couldn’t have been more wrong in their beliefs about the coming Messiah, since they couldn’t even recognize Him when He was standing right in front of them.

Do you (Kathleen and Lori) see the corner you are painting yourself into? You pronounce that there is NO biblical evidence for the idea of premortal existence. People then trot out several biblical passages that seem to support the view. You pronounce that these passages cannot possibly be taken to mean what Mormons take them to mean. People then trot out various biblical scholars (including Catholics) that take at least one of these passages to refer to pre-mortal existence. You pronounce that the Jews never believed any such thing. People then trot out an old scholarly article about how the Rabbinical writings contain such interpretations. You’ve also pronounced that nobody but Gnostics within early Christianity believed in premortal existence, but it turns out that isn’t the case. Do you want some references?

I admit that there probably are many people that would see them as ‘evidence’, but those passages are still subject to individual interpretation which might not be correct.

Finally, Lori pronounced this:
Really? Because both the 7th Day Adventists and the JWs believe that humans DON’T HAVE a soul that is separate from the body.

Sorry, that’s why I said IIRC (If I Remember Correctly). Apparently, I didn’t. (I’m not even an expert on my own, so I sure don’t claim to be one on any other religion, either.) Mea culpa.

It seems like you’re trying a bit too hard. None of the Mormons here seem to be pushing the idea that every reasonable person HAS TO interpret these passages the same way we do. We are just saying that many reasonable people can (and do) interpret at least some of these passages to be referring to premortal existence. This doesn’t “prove” our interpretation right–it just proves that people who pronounce that we have “no evidence” for our view are really stretching.

I apologize for any of my previous ‘presumptions’. But, that doesn’t change the fact that things are not always what they seem, even in Scripture. That’s why Catholics defer to those who have been given the gift, and the Authority, to interpret what it really means. When 20 different people read them, we can end up with 20 completely different interpretations of what they mean. That’s why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to remain with the Church that He established, to ensure that Her interpretations would always be the correct ones.

 

[Telstar]

awesome posts…good job, Kath

Agreeance!