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

[entree_gratuite]

Aux contraire, mon ami. What you fail to understand is that God creates every soul, and they are absolutely perfect when He creates them. The problem of its corruption occurs when that perfect soul is infused into the corrupt flesh (body) that was procreated by the imperfect man and woman. Man “creates” the body through the natural process of the flesh, but God creates the perfect soul that will inhabit that imperfect body. When the soul enters that corrupt flesh, it becomes tainted by the flesh it’s joined to. The soul is affected/infected by the corruption of the flesh that it inhabits.

God ***never ***creates anything evil, but man corrupts everything he touches through his own sinful nature which resides in his flesh. Man (his flesh) is the one that is always corrupt since the fall of Adam & Eve, not God. Baptism washes away his sin from his soul, but the soul will only remain totally clean until the flesh corrupts it once again, by falling back into sin.

 

[zaffiroborant]

In 1865 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints condemned the personal writings of Orson Pratt, found in his publication known as The Seer. Said the Church: “*The Seer *contains doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.”

Not all of Pratt’s personal writings were condemned, The Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon in which Pratt wrote “The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church is the great corrupt ecclesiastic power, represented by great Babylon” was not condemned.

Latter-day Saints should be accorded the same control over what is and what is not binding on them as rightly are the Roman Catholics. (See, e.g., Canon 827 § 4: “Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.” (vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM).)

Whether or not it is binding is not the point, it was published by leaders in the LDS church so it comes as no surprise that McConkie would have this attitude toward Catholicism. You can see shades of it in Hollands general conference address and the audiences response to his mocking.

The quotations from the Times and Seasons publication – the first of which actually is from Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 811 – can no more be attributed to John Taylor than can the posts we here make be attributed to the Catholic Answers Forums. John Taylor was the editor of the newspaper (see, e.g., Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 814; , but he was in no way the author of all of its contents. The first of the two statements you quoted from the Times and Seasons is unattributed (something common in early American newspapers).

Nor was it uncommon for owners and editors to publish in just such an unattributed manner, or under a pseudo name.

 

[entree_gratuite]

Finally, what in the world does pre mortal existence even have to do with salvation, sanctification, and our final union with God anyway?

Ours is the God of order and rationality…

You are absolutely correct here,so even if the pre-existence of souls is true ,which I believe it to be, then,maybe God decided ,that this idea would be 'confusing, to unsaved souls,and left it out,since now that we had the new covenant with Jesus, All we needed was/ is Him ?

The idea of the pre-existence of souls,and karma, was not a Hellenic idea or belief, but a very highly developed one in India,at least as long ago as the beginning of Judaism 5/6000 years ago .At this time,before hinduism,and it’s many gods,the one true God was called Krishna .[Christ] Believe it or not, I am fundamentally Catholic,as there is nothing I do not believe of her Sacred Scripture,except this one thing. So I would say I am Catholic +.

 

[KathleenGee]

Entree…

Check out my posts 231-236…you may want to see Stephen Kent’s scriptural passages he thought mean we were born before hand…sorry it takes some time…

and my computer kept erasing them…took time…

Remember…God lives outside of time…He is knowing all the past, the present and the future…so in that sense He knows us…but for us we are creatures…we have our beginning at conception when God is the one Who makes things grow, Who gives the Spirit of Life…with the cooperation with our parents.

And get yourself a universal Catholic Church Catechism…we refer to it here as CCC…here the doctrine of the Creed, Christology, faith and morality, and prayer and social justice are here to ponder…

Believe me, if the Holy Spirit working through all the saints had us believe in pre mortal existance, we would have known it at the time of the Apostles Creed…it implies a totally different kind of world.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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’.

I think the CCC shows quite clearly that there is no teaching of a ‘pre-mortal existence’ in number 366.

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection

It can be read in context here if interested

 

[Telstar]

I think the CCC shows quite clearly that there is no teaching of a ‘pre-mortal existence’ in number 366.

It can be read in context here if interested

Thank you, Zaff!

I thought I had read something about that recently, when perusing the CCC for info to use in another thread, here. I tend to lose myself when reading the CCC, because there’s so much excellent information in it. I love the explanations, not only of what we believe, but why we believe it. It’s always good to go back and reread some of those basics that are so beautifully written and inspiring, even for someone that just needs a little reminder and boost of faith. :heaven:

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Zaff…

Knew it was in there…we went through the catechism numerous times for various topics…

Yes…look to the Catechism for your answer…if the Church thought we needed to know that…it would have told us…but we are all unaware of our existence prior to the age of 2 or 3…

 

[StephenKent]

Two other passages that possibly qualify as “scriptural evidence” for “pre-mortal existence” can be gleaned here:

"If the soul of a man . . . was not formed along with his body, but is proved to have been implanted strictly from without, much more must this be the case with those living beings which are called heavenly. For, as regards man, how could the soul of him, viz., Jacob, who supplanted his brother in the womb, appear to be formed along with his body? Or how could his soul, or its images, be formed along with his body, who, while lying in his mother’s womb, was filled with the Holy Ghost? I refer to John leaping in his mother’s womb. (Origen, De Prinicipiis, 1.7.4.)

Of course, who was Origen and did he speak authoritatively for the Catholic Church?

“With respect to the soul, whether it is derived from the seed by a process of traducianism, so that the reason or substance of it may be considered as placed in the seminal particles of the body themselves, or whether it has any other beginning; and this beginning itself, whether it be by birth or not, or whether bestowed upon the body from without or no[t], is not distinguished with sufficient clearness in the teaching of the church.” (De Prinicipiis, Preface 5.)

“Before the ages they were all pure intelligences (νοός), whether demons or souls or angels. one of them, the Devil, since he possessed free will, chose to resist God, and God rejected him. All the other powers fell away with him, becoming demons, angels and archangels according as their misdeeds were more, or less, or still less, heinous. Each obtained a lot proportionate to his sin. There remained the souls; these had not sinned so grievously as to become demons or so venially as to become angels. God therefore made the present world, binding the soul to the body as a punishment… Plainly He chastises each to suit his sin, making one a demon, another a soul, another an archangel . . . .” (De Prinicipiis 1.8.1)

“Whole nations of souls are stored away somewhere in a realm of their own, with an existence comprable to our bodily life . . . . So long as a soul continued to abide in the good it has no experience of union with a body . . . . But by some inclination towards evil these souls lose their wings and come into bodies.” (G. W. Butterworth, ed., Origen: On First Principles, (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1973), pp. 72- 3, see n. 8, p. 72, n. 1, p. 73.)

See Origen, De Principiis (Book I), Chapter 7, “On Incorporeal and Coporeal Beings” and Chapter 8, “On the Angels.” (newadvent.org/fathers/04121.htm)

 

[zaffiroborant]

Of course, who was Origen and did he speak authoritatively for the Catholic Church?

On this point apparently not:

THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
A.D. 553

THE ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN.

I

IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema.

The other 14 anathemas against Origen can be read here

 

[Telstar]

On this point apparently not:

The other 14 anathemas against Origen can be read here

Thank you, once again, Zaff.

I was looking for that info, but I couldn’t find it. I was reading through the writings of Origen to see it in context, and it certainly seemed that he was way off base on those particular beliefs. I knew that he was later judged to be heretical in some of his writings, but since some of them were theologically sound, he’s often quoted on both sides of theological debates.

Although many of the works that Origen wrote were truly inspired, and contained some excellent theological points, he also had some very poor theological ideas that were extremely questionable. The development of theology was still in it’s early stages at that point in time, so some things weren’t fully understood or explored yet. That’s why the Church never put all of its eggs in one theologian’s basket as the sole authority for our beliefs. Even the best theologians can make some serious mistakes in judgement. They’re still human. So, unless their points are debated in a formal Council, and they approve it as sound teaching, it’s just considered to be conjecture and a personal opinion of the writer. If they’re as far off base as some of his were, then they will be sanctioned and forbidden to teach them.

I have a feeling that Joseph Smith (and friends?) probably based a lot of his theology on anything he could find written by early theologians that was condemned by the early Church as heresy, just because they were condemned by the Church. I’m sure a lot of those ideas must have appealed to him because he was very anti-Catholic, and needed to find something to prove there was a ‘great apostasy’ so he could justify the need for the ‘restoration’ by his new religion. That would also appeal to many of the other local Protestants, that were equally anti-Catholic, and would ensure that they would follow along with his ‘new’ old ideas.

 

[theidler]

Poor Origen…such a holy and stalwart Christian, and yet with such a tarnished reputation.
Much of what was condemned was Origenism, not necessarily Origen’s original writings themselves. He was a speculative theologian, and one of the first theologians period, so it is natural that he fell into some errors. But I contend that he was no heretic - he never stated his ideas as dogma, he never willingly attacked or disagreed with the Church, he never defected to a heresy like Tertullian.
That said, I can see why the Mormons pick out certain bits of his writings to support their own bizarre doctrines…even though, ironically, the Mormons believe all of these fellows were part of apostate Christianity.
As I’ve learned though, figuring out Mormonism and all its slippery teachings is about as easy as trying to catch a cheetah coated in grease with a butterfly net.

 

[KathleenGee]

The problem with Mormonism is that they cannot tell the difference between speculation…as that to us is what so much of Mormonism ‘does’…and teachings that are part of the Catholic faith.

They do not know who the Church Fathers are, foundational and developing orthodox theology…vs even an early Church Father when he is speaking from his own opinion…St. Augustine is quoted many times over his own speculative ideas…which they don’t or others realize, is not binding. St. Thomas Aquinas also had some personal opinions…that we have record of today…that no one believes.

St. Justin the Martyr and many others in that time, when the science of Christology was beginning to be developed, spoke speculatively. He did very well in fighting heresy, and was known for describing the Mass in clarity that coincides with the Mass today.

So…we do have human beings who are of great faith and understanding…but are nevertheless human beings…and not all their ideas or teachings are within orthodox Catholic teachings…

You have to go to the Catechism.

 

[StephenKent]

" . . . an early Church Father . . . speaking from his own opinion. . . . not all their ideas or teachings are within orthodox Catholic teachings . . . ."

Precisely the point regarding those one or two early “Church Fathers” in the Latter-day Saint tradition who held *personal *views about Roman Catholicism that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints *rejected *as not at all conveying the feelings, sentiments, teachings or doctrines of the LDS Church.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Perhaps Kathleen can feel inclined to modify her statement that it was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that referred to the Catholic Church as the “harlot church” (her phrase). The LDS Church has never, ever said any such thing.

To paraphrase a well-known authority on the subject: “early Church Fathers can speak from their own opinions but not all their ideas or teachings are within orthodox Church teachings.”

I’ll comment more on Origen at some other point later today. It is interesting that the first anathema against him on the point of pre-mortal existence of man does not mention any *scriptures * in otherwise countering the point he attempted to make whereby he did make reference to scriptures.

 

[Jerusha]

I know that you will not accept this, but BH Roberts did. Mormonism borrowed much from Ethan Smith. One of his books, which he was writing in 1830, very specifically states the belief that the harlot church is the Catholic Church. books.google.com/books/about/Key_to_the_Revelation.html?id=kTEAAAAAYAAJ His earlier works present the same anti-Catholic vitriol.

You are stuck with your scripture, and cannot change it. Even though you openly reject it. Many leaders of Mormonism were virulently anti-Catholic.

To me, if we Catholics see any characteristics in common between Catholicism and the harlot church, then we have the responsibility to participate in changing it. Prophecy is a warning, not a roadmap to the future. The second statement is your belief, which denies free will.

 

[entree_gratuite]

Entree…

Check out my posts 231-236…you may want to see Stephen Kent’s scriptural passages he thought mean we were born before hand…sorry it takes some time…

and my computer kept erasing them…took time…

Remember…God lives outside of time…He is knowing all the past, the present and the future…so in that sense He knows us…but for us we are creatures…we have our beginning at conception when God is the one Who makes things grow, Who gives the Spirit of Life…with the cooperation with our parents.

And get yourself a universal Catholic Church Catechism…we refer to it here as CCC…here the doctrine of the Creed, Christology, faith and morality, and prayer and social justice are here to ponder…

Believe me, if the Holy Spirit working through all the saints had us believe in pre mortal existance, we would have known it at the time of the Apostles Creed…it implies a totally different kind of world.

It will not make me disbelieve that I existed before in another life. What you must remember is that God had to create a church from among a hugely diverse population,with souls from the simplist,still in the church to those ,like John,who could ‘see’ beyond into other dimensions,of God’s creation. The main task of the RCC is to lead as many souls to purity in Christ ,and so she has to create a framework,and a ritual which can do this for the maximum number of people. May souls have not yet reached the stage,where 'remembering 'might not do harm,so it is left out,as much of science,and other
knowldege has been. When the RCC was set up, there were many aspects of knowledge of the world,and the unworldy [unseen] ,which while known to God,and to those who were
already His,would have been impossible to teach to ‘budding’ souls. It would ot only have ‘baffled’ them and confused them ,it would have led them in the wrong direction. Even Einstein would have been baffled by being explained his own theories /physics when he was 5 years old.We need to grow towards the truth,which in the wrong place at the wrong time could kill us.

 

[Jerusha]

If an individual heterodox Catholic privately believes in some morph of reincarnation, I can tolerate that. It is when such a belief denies free will, and the individual uses it as an excuse for not reaching for perfection, that it becomes an impediment to spiritual development.

We need to grow towards the truth,which in the wrong place at the wrong time could kill us.

 

[StephenKent]

Regarding our main topic – whether any scriptures evidence the pre-mortal existence of spirits – the corrollary question might also be asked, namely, whether any scriptures evidence that spirits do not pre-date the formation of the body in the womb. This question, too, will simply devolve down to a matter of conflicting interpretations, no doubt. I wonder what posters have to say about that related, and helpful, question.

The teachings of Jesus and the sacred writings of the apostles and prophets, of course, have long been amenable to varying interpretations. By the time we are speaking of insofar as concerns Origen, when Emporer Justinian issued his anathemas, it had already become important to the Christian religion to subject the writings of those interpreting the scriptures to Imperial edits.

"Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations. Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that:

"1. It is certain that the fifth general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it.

"2. It is certain that the council opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the question of the Three Chapters is treated.

"3. Finally it is certain that only the Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were submitted to the pope for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554.

"4. It is a fact that Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I (556-61), Pelagius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.

"5. It must be admitted that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the resistance of the pope, the bishops already assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).

"6. The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.

“7. It is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical council.”

(The above is quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XI, pp. 311, 312 [available at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm].)

“The council did not debate ecclesiastical discipline nor did it issue disciplinary canons. Our edition does not include the text of the anathemas against Origen since recent studies have shown that these anathemas cannot be attributed to this council.” (Norman P. Tanner, S.J., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1 pp. 105, 106.)

“It is most certainly improbable that the fifth Ecumenical Council drew up fifteen anathematisms against Origen, since the celebrated Origenist, Theodore Ascidas, was not only present at this Council, but was of the greatest influence there, and in fact, was the real originator of it.” (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of The Church. Vol. IV, p 224.)

Others beyond Origen also taught of the pre-mortal existence of souls, Nemesius, bishop of Emesa in Syria (380) and Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais (410), prominent among them. Indeed, although Origen’s arguments in favor of the pre-mortal existence of the souls of men were prominent among the early Church Fathers, others of the early Church Fathers also accepted the idea, including Saint Justin Martyr, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint Rufinius, none of whose writings or teachings on the subject were anathematized.

 

[theidler]

Precisely the point regarding those one or two early “Church Fathers” in the Latter-day Saint tradition who held *personal *views about Roman Catholicism that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints *rejected *as not at all conveying the feelings, sentiments, teachings or doctrines of the LDS Church.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Perhaps Kathleen can feel inclined to modify her statement that it was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that referred to the Catholic Church as the “harlot church” (her phrase). The LDS Church has never, ever said any such thing.

I’ll comment more on Origen at some other point later today. It is interesting that the first anathema against him on the point of pre-mortal existence of man does not mention any *scriptures * in otherwise countering the point he attempted to make whereby he did make reference to scriptures.

As for quoting Origen, now you’re cherry-picking from a personal favorite of mine, and I am obliged to jump in, once again.:nunchuk: Perhaps you have read what he also said of our horrible apostate church?? Allow me -
“I want to be a man of the church. I do not want to be called by the name of some founder of heresy, but by the name of Christ, and to bear that name which is blessed on earth. It is my desire, in deed as in spirit, both to be and to be called a Christian.
If I, who seem to be your right hand and am called presbyter and seem to preach the word of God, if I do something against the discipline of the Church and the rule of the Gospel so that I become a scandal to you, the Church, then may the whole Church, in unanimous resolve, cut me, its right hand, off, and throw me away.”
-Origen
The problem is precisely this - you are quoting, as an LDS member, from a figure within Christianity - the very kind your church claims as being apostate. What business do you have quoting from apostates and heretics (in your view) in order to support your own doctrines? Do you also hold to all the other ideas of Origen?And furthermore, do you not know that Origen’s On First Principles is a work of speculative theology, heavily influenced by pagan neo-Platonism in the vein of Plotinus? I don’t quote your one theologian (Bruce McConkie) on matters of doctrine, why do you go to ours to support your own doctrines?
What is most frustrating, I have found, is that continually, time and time again, when a Mormon is confronted with an embarassing statement of one of their so-called “prophets”, they then claim he was not speaking prophetically, or was not an actual prophet, or what have you. Which is it? When do they speak prophetically? Who are the official prophets and what are their official statements then? The LDS Church places Brigham Young in such high honor, and yet it seems that nowadays it completely disregards almost everything he said. I was flipping through a book of his published by the LDS, and not one mention of his racist views, not one mention of his 55 wives - is this part of so-called “continuing revelation” or is this simply blatant revisionism?
The basic fact is this - in order to support Mormon doctrine, it is absurd for a Mormon to seek support from the very Christendom that the Mormon Church says went apostate, whose creeds are an abomination. There is zero sense in this kind of seeking - for the Mormon Church, those 1700 plus years of abomination are by all common sense, off-limits, unless you are wishing to point out how wrong we are.

 

[theidler]

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Perhaps Kathleen can feel inclined to modify her statement that it was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that referred to the Catholic Church as the “harlot church” (her phrase). The LDS Church has never, ever said any such thing.

Here’s a little sauce for you Stephen.

Maybe it hasn’t verbatim, but:
“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

“And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign.” (DC 29:21)

“The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church is the great corrupt ecclesiastic power, represented by great Babylon which has made all nations drunk with her wickedness, and she must fall, after she has been warned with the sound of the everlasting gospel. Her overthrow will be by a series of the most terrible judgments which will quickly succeed each other, and sweep over the nations where she has her dominion, and at last she will be utterly burned by fire, for thus hath the Lord spoken. Great, and fearful, and most terrible judgments are decreed upon these corrupt powers, the nations of modern Christendom; for strong is the Lord God who shall execute His fierce wrath upon them, and He will not cease until He has made a full end, and until their names be blotted out from under heaven.”

• Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.84 - p.85

“And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.”
-1 Nephi 14:10-11

“But behold, that great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth, must tumble to the earth, and great must be the fall thereof.”
-2 Nephi 28:18

I’ve got many more if you’d like.

 

[StephenKent]

" . . . B. H. Roberts . . . very specifically states the belief that the harlot church is the Catholic Church . . . You are stuck with your scripture, and cannot change it . . . .

Equating what Brigham H. Roberts may have written in his own, personal published books with “scripture” is simply misguided or worse. Both Churches are and should be free from the imputation upon them of statements found either in the writings or teachings of individuals, even if those individuals otherwise adhere to the doctrines, tenents, dogmas and beliefs of either of the two respective Churches.

The Catholics rightly advance the following as a prerogative whereby the Church is free from being bound by the statements of individuals: “[W]hen we speak of the Church’s infallibility we mean, at least primarily and principally, what is sometimes called *active *as distinguished from *passive *infallibility. We mean in other words that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the Church’s teaching. . . .” (Toner, Patrick. “Infallibility.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 24 Jan. 2012 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.)

Similarly, the word “canon” is of Greek origin, originally meaning “a rod for testing straightness,” is used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to denote the authoritative collection of the sacred books used by believers in Christ in that denomination. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the “canon” refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known sometimes as the “standard works,” formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine. They are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and the book the Pearl of Great Price. Those are the LDS canon. “How do we measure whether or not one’s teachings are true or false? If anyone teaches beyond what the scriptures teach, we may put it down as speculation except one man who has the right to bring forth any new doctrine—that is the one man who holds the keys—the prophet, seer, and revelator who presides in that high place. And no one else. If anyone presumes to bring forth what he claims to be new doctrine you may know that it is purely his own opinion and you label it as such regardless of his position in the Church. If it contradicts something that is in the scriptures, you may label it immediately that it is false. That is why we call the scriptures our four Standard Church Works. They are the standards by which we measure all doctrine and if anything is taught which is contrary to that which is in the scriptures, it is false. It is just that simple” (Lee, Harold B. “Viewpoint of a Giant.” Address to religious educators, 18 July 1968, 6).

“All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. It ought to be found in the scriptures. We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures. If we want to measure truth, we should measure it by the four standard works, regardless of who writes it. If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” (“Using the Scriptures in Our Church Assignments,” Improvement Era, Jan. 1969, 13).

It would seem to me that the views of the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church regarding whether statements by individuals constitute infallible statements by the Church itself and and can be attributed to it as if it constituted its teachings are somewhat akin to those views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding what is and is not the measure against which the teachings by individuals must be measured and whether the statements of individuals constitute canonized statements binding upon the Church. In both cases, the Churches rise above statements made by individuals except where they qualify, respectively in Roman Catholic teaching as infallible and in Latter-day Saint teaching as canonical.

B.H. Roberts has uttered a grand total of *zero *words that have been canonized.

Moses, Aaron, Job, the Preacher, the Lord to Jeremiah, John the Beloved, and Paul the Apostle, on the other hand, concerning our main topic, have had numberless statements canonized. And they have been interpreted. And some of the interpretations of their canonized teachings have been subjected to the decrees of emperors.