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

[theidler]

And a little more sauce for the subject of the OP:

From St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I:90:4

"Article 4. Whether the human soul was produced before the body?

Objection 1. It would seem that the human soul was made before the body. For the work of creation preceded the work of distinction and adornment, as shown above (66, 1; 70, 1). But the soul was made by creation; whereas the body was made at the end of the work of adornment. Therefore the soul of man was made before the body.

Objection 2. Further, the rational soul has more in common with the angels than with the brute animals. But angels were created before bodies, or at least, at the beginning with corporeal matter; whereas the body of man was formed on the sixth day, when also the animals were made. Therefore the soul of man was created before the body.

Objection 3. Further, the end is proportionate to the beginning. But in the end the soul outlasts the body. Therefore in the beginning it was created before the body.

On the contrary, The proper act is produced in its proper potentiality. Therefore since the soul is the proper act of the body, the soul was produced in the body.

I answer that, Origen (Peri Archon i, 7,8) held that not only the soul of the first man, but also the souls of all men were created at the same time as the angels, before their bodies: because he thought that all spiritual substances, whether souls or angels, are equal in their natural condition, and differ only by merit; so that some of them–namely, the souls of men or of heavenly bodies–are united to bodies while others remain in their different orders entirely free from matter. Of this opinion we have already spoken (47, 2); and so we need say nothing about it here.

Augustine, however (Gen. ad lit. vii, 24), says that the soul of the first man was created at the same time as the angels, before the body, for another reason; because he supposes that the body of man, during the work of the six days, was produced, not actually, but only as to some “causal virtues”; which cannot be said of the soul, because neither was it made of any pre-existing corporeal or spiritual matter, nor could it be produced from any created virtue. Therefore it seems that the soul itself, during the work of the six days, when all things were made, was created, together with the angels; and that afterwards, by its own will, was joined to the service of the body. But he does not say this by way of assertion; as his words prove. For he says (Gen. ad lit. vii, 29): “We may believe, if neither Scripture nor reason forbid, that man was made on the sixth day, in the sense that his body was created as to its causal virtue in the elements of the world, but that the soul was already created.”

Now this could be upheld by those who hold that the soul has of itself a complete species and nature, and that it is not united to the body as its form, but as its administrator. But if the soul is united to the body as its form, and is naturally a part of human nature, the above supposition is quite impossible. For it is clear that God made the first things in their perfect natural state, as their species required. Now the soul, as a part of human nature, has its natural perfection only as united to the body. Therefore it would have been unfitting for the soul to be created without the body.

Therefore, if we admit the opinion of Augustine about the work of the six days (74, 2), we may say that the human soul preceded in the work of the six days by a certain generic similitude, so far as it has intellectual nature in common with the angels; but was itself created at the same time as the body. According to the other saints, both the body and soul of the first man were produced in the work of the six days.

Reply to Objection 1. If the soul by its nature were a complete species, so that it might be created as to itself, this reason would prove that the soul was created by itself in the beginning. But as the soul is naturally the form of the body, it was necessarily created, not separately, but in the body.

Reply to Objection 2. The same observation applies to the second objection. For if the soul had a species of itself it would have something still more in common with the angels. But, as the form of the body, it belongs to the animal genus, as a formal principle.

Reply to Objection 3. That the soul remains after the body, is due to a defect of the body, namely, death. Which defect was not due when the soul was first created."

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Stephen,

I honestly appreciate you attempts to draw lines between the statements of prominent LDS individuals and official statements of LDS doctrine. But continuing to ignore Telstar’s post #228 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8858884&postcount=278 kind of gives the game away.

Regardless of what individual LDS prophets and apostles may or may not have said, your own scriptures clearly teach that the RCC is the “harlot” and “Great Babylon” from Revelation.

 

[theidler]

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.

Alright then, give us the official list of canonical teachings of the prophets in your church. I assume it will be all but emptied of any controversial statements, but at least we will have the official list. I’m tired of hearing all these excuses…I’m starting to think you guys don’t really have any prophets, or they don’t actually do anything prophetic at all but twiddle their thumbs.

 

[theidler]

Great…now no response…just like the other thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=615660&page=4

Hopefully this thread doesn’t go dead too.

 

[Jerusha]

Great…now no response…just like the other thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=615660&page=4

Hopefully this thread doesn’t go dead too.

I am just grateful for the temporary lull.

 

[StephenKent]

PART ONE (OF TWO PARTS):

“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?”.

1. The phrase “worth more” in the above quotation is not the equivalent of the word “worthless.” (See, generally, any dictionary you choose.)
2. The word “if” (used three times in the quoted passage) is not the equivalent of the word “is.” (See ibid.)
3. The passage quoted above simply reflects a common theme discussed among people in the 1800s and early 1900s, reiterated even by the Catholics themselves, to wit, the following two examples:

"A Catholic Opinion.–Many years ago there came to Salt Lake City a learned doctor of divinity, a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen, languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy, and was never weary of displaying his vast erudition. One day he said to me: “You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. If we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we really have, as we claim, the apostolic succession from St. Peter, there was no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.” (Orson F. Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, Part 3 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1921), 63-64.)

“I remember a circumstance of a certain learned Baptist preacher, rising in a congregation where I had been preaching, and stating that the Baptists had all the authority of the Gospel Priesthood that was required in the Baptist church, and that it had come to them from the Apostles, pure and unadulterated, by way of the Waldenses, and that he was prepared to prove the channel through which it had come. I do not know but his congregation believed what he said; but at any rate, the gentlemen declined to produce his evidence when I called upon him to do so, and all the evidence that he could have adduced was, that about the year 1160, in Lyons, a man named Peter Waldo, hired a catholic priest to translate the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; and they formed a church, which took the name of its mercantile founder. And this is as far as the authority can be traced by the Baptists; this method of tracing authority is of no use, unless they adopt the authority of the pope; and if the Catholic church be taken as authority, then when the Catholic church brings out the edict of expulsion, it certainly deprives those whom it expels of all their authority, for it is impossible for a stream to rise higher than its fountain.” (JD 2:325, George Albert Smith, June 24, 1855)

 

[StephenKent]

PART TWO (OF TWO PARTS):

“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)

In this quotation from the book of Doctrine and Covenants, we see no mention whatsoever of the Roman Catholic Church. All we see is the same thing the Catholic Church condemns. (See, for example, paragraphs 35, 36, and 39 of “On Christ and Antichrist.” Translated by J.H. MacMahon. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0516.htm.)

“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.”

The above quotation is not binding on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Pratt was free to believe whatever he wanted to believe. He was not free to dictate what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes or teaches.

“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.”

In this quotation from the Book of Mormon, we see no mention whatsoever of the Roman Catholic Church. Any individuals are free to believe whatever they wanted to believe and to interpret this passage in the way they want to. But they are not free to dictate what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes or teaches regarding this passage.

“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.”

In this quotation from the Book of Mormon, we see no mention whatsoever of the Roman Catholic Church. Any individuals are free to believe whatever they wanted to believe and to interpret this passage in the way they want to. But they are not free to dictate what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes or teaches regarding this passage.

In short, try as hard as you might, you’ll simply never find a statement made by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that says what you seemingly want it to have said.

 

[Jerusha]

The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it.

And does this explain your compulsion to debate with us?

 

[KathleenGee]

Kenneth,

You are totally bypassing the main idea…you can point out early Christian writers or recent ones out of millions in our 2000 year countless believers, to justify some premortal existence…you take early writers as speaking truths…the main problem is that your religion has denied Christianity…by naming doctrines and Church…anybody knows Mormonism in veiled language is targeting the Catholic Church, and I read Smith’s anti-Catholic statements, people here are bringing for his anti-Catholic statements.

Ours is the foundation of Jesus Christ, bringing us new life and restoration. Yours is a belief that is based on claiming it is the right one and all else is an abomination…and other bad words, which reflect the limits of a man made religion.

You do not understand the nature and mission of the Church. Subsequently you are misusing Catholic sources or believers in Christ to justify Mormonism.

Mormonism contradicts history by claiming the true church ended after the last death of the apostles, or some time after that or at the beginning of the Dark Ages…etc, etc, etc…Isn’t this another practice of Mormonism reflecting of heretical prejudice and deliberate ignorance, and not seeking the truth through reason and history?

What about those who are in Mormon families and want to leave for Christianity, let alone to Catholicism, and the fear of losing their children?  It has happened...or getting our sacramental records,...sacred to us, to use for your baptisms of the dead?  Even John Paul II was 'baptized' 6 times in your religion.

Your religion is based on Joseph Smith, eighteen hundred years after the event…the Church is here, the Catholic Church is founded by Jesus Christ and His apostles.

Mormonism is preventing you from understanding the nature and mission of Christ’s Church. That is why you and other Mormon teachers, who are now finally opening up their minds to history, – God bless them for that and may they eventually find the Truth, are working to draw ancient figures, glean them, and then find ideas to support Mormonism…but fail. You try, but fail to prove anything…and do not understand the full deposit of faith that only the Catholic faith has…

You simply cannot justify Mormonism with Catholicism…the two are opposite.

The foundation of your religion is not Christ, but in denying His Church, proclaiming yourselves saints for not being part of ours., tit for tat, you against Catholics, tit for tat, you against Christians…that is Mormonism’s make up…I put my energy on faith in Christ, I find my sanctification in Him alone. I don’t need to feel superior towards others in the name of religion because that will lead me to damnation.

 

[TexanKnight]

PART TWO (OF TWO PARTS):

In this quotation from the book of Doctrine and Covenants, we see no mention whatsoever of the Roman Catholic Church. All we see is the same thing the Catholic Church condemns. (See, for example, paragraphs 35, 36, and 39 of “On Christ and Antichrist.” Translated by J.H. MacMahon. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0516.htm.)

The above quotation is not binding on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Pratt was free to believe whatever he wanted to believe. He was not free to dictate what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes or teaches.

In this quotation from the Book of Mormon, we see no mention whatsoever of the Roman Catholic Church. Any individuals are free to believe whatever they wanted to believe and to interpret this passage in the way they want to. But they are not free to dictate what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes or teaches regarding this passage.

In this quotation from the Book of Mormon, we see no mention whatsoever of the Roman Catholic Church. Any individuals are free to believe whatever they wanted to believe and to interpret this passage in the way they want to. But they are not free to dictate what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes or teaches regarding this passage.

In short, try as hard as you might, you’ll simply never find a statement made by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that says what you seemingly want it to have said.

So, you ignore MY posts regarding a Catholic Priest used as an agent of Satan in the temple and my comments about McKonkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”…hmmmmm

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes…the priest ritual where the Mormon men clutch their chokes and gag…that is bigoted cult behavior…and threatening people with physical harm if they reveal ‘temple secrets’…where the baptism of the dead take place…this is cult practice.

 

[StephenKent]

And does this explain your compulsion to debate with us?

You ask this “does-this-explain” question after quoting a Roman Catholic priest’s statement. (The word “this” in your question has as its antecedent the Roman Catholic priest’s statement.) All that the priest’s statement explains is his view of the relative positions of the two Churches.

What the priest said has nothing at all to do with any “compulsion” and has nothing at all to do with any “debate.” (We are all quoting texts).

 

[StephenKent]

Alright then, give us the official list of canonical teachings of the prophets in your church.

See lds.org/scriptures/gs/canon?lang=eng&query=canon

 

[StephenKent]

“. . . Roman Catholic priest’s statement . . . .”

I should have typed " . . . Roman Catholic doctor of divinity’s statement . . . ."

 

[KathleenGee]

What we uphold is in our deposit of faith, not speculations of any one man, even Christian or a Catholic priest…consider Origen’s standing that has endured to this day…I don’t know if the Catholic priest with his credentials in Divinity will hold the same…and I am sure the priest would agree.

Again, you are not understanding the nature and mission of the Church, and your standards come out of man, willfully severed from Christianity.

 

[Jerusha]

I would suggest a thorough reading of this book:
newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm
In his description of the problems of Gnosticism, he describes Mormonism.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

And this the core of the issue. Would you consider the theology of JW’s vaild?

“In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is entailed by its premises”
Catholic teaching is valid
JW Teaching is valid
etc.etc.etc.
If it were not the case that each has a reason and argument for everything it teaches then they could not survive; members would simply leave.

The other core issue is your religion flat out denies the Trinity and if you care to discuss the Trinity using the Bible-only,by all means-go for it. I’ll provide scores of verses clearly showing a Triune God.

By your interpretation of them, they do indeed.
By a simple reading of them, all they indicate is that we have one God which we praise and worship, and that there are three beings/personages each with the power of God.
Anything further than this relies on interpretation of the scripture over and above what is simply and plainly stated; it is this on which we disagree.

The issue is numbers of falsehoods and false teaching and truly awful comments that have come from LDS leaders. That alone shows the LDS is false.

So what would be your response if I began judging you by the teachings of early fathers and leaders who you later labelled as heretical - treating each of them as true? Would you consider this to be a reasonable way to judge your church?
Or how about judging you by pope after pope who the record shows committed oh so many crimes?

But your other leaders, follow the teachings of your infallible leaders, don’t they? If they are giving you teachings…which later are incorrect, then if follows that the source or sources of their teachings…your infallible leaders, were incorrect in the first place.

You’re right; the two can’t be compared; your pope is hailed to be infallible while our leaders are not.
You also need to get round that difficult fact that the statements you pluck out against us, are not doctrinal and have never been binding on the church. They are individual remarks, albeit spoken with conviction on the individual’s behalf.

To all Mormon posters, it is unethical to use Catholic sources to prove your belief in the forbidden fruit, the downfall man…and likewise consider us and our priesthood as corrupt.

We do not attempt to use your sources to prove anything, because your logic is sound that if something Catholic were the only proof of something we believe, then Catholicism must be correct. What we do is try and point out similarities amongst your teachings in an attempt that you might understand ours better. However, it is becoming apparent that understanding is that last thing on many minds here.

Regardless of what individual LDS prophets and apostles may or may not have said, your own scriptures clearly teach that the RCC is the “harlot” and “Great Babylon” from Revelation.

You have failed to provide any evidence that our scriptures connect ‘Catholicism’ with these terms. Yes, just as other prophets have done in the Bible, the Book of Mormon describes the state of ungodliness that is ever present in the world today as the church of the devil. Nowhere is this connected with any specific organisation. And nowhere in our official doctrines is this connection made either; in fact it has been specifically rebuked by a number of authorities.

 

[PaulDupre]

"A Catholic Opinion.–Many years ago there came to Salt Lake City a learned doctor of divinity, a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I became well acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen, languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy, and was never weary of displaying his vast erudition. One day he said to me: “You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. If we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we really have, as we claim, the apostolic succession from St. Peter, there was no need for Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.” (Orson F. Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, Part 3 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1921), 63-64.)

Stephen,
I hope you realize that Orson Whitney’s story was just that - a story. Whitney was never able to identify this “learned doctor of divinity” nor produce any witnesses to his tall tale. This is just another of those faith-promoting stories that the LDS love. It reminds me of Paul H. Dunn.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[theidler]

So I come home to this? That’s it Stephen? You dealt with some nitpicking about your prophets and scriptures - no talk of Origen, no answering questions on why you quote our saints and thinkers when they are “apostate”, no addressing Aquinas. Brilliant.

I might as well go debate the cat.

 

[TexanKnight]

I would say that you are truly desperate to compare things from many centuries ago in foreign languages with folks your false prophets and apostles said less than 200 years in English. I would say that you have just admitted your folks like joseph smith are not really prophets since you compare them with people who are not prophets and you would NEVER be as small as to compare prophets with non prophets to make a point. That is what I would say.