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

[StephenKent]

" . . . Whitney was never able to identify this ‘learned doctor of divinity’ . . .

John A. Reiner. (See Orson F. Whitney’s autobiography, *Through Memory’s Halls: The Life Story of Orson F. Whitney, as Told by Himself *(Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1930), 222-23.)

 

[theidler]

John A. Reiner. (See Orson F. Whitney’s autobiography, *Through Memory’s Halls: The Life Story of Orson F. Whitney, as Told by Himself *(Independence, MO: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Company, 1930), 222-23.)

Stephen, are you even going to attempt to deal with my other posts, or? You didn’t even mention Aquinas’ reasons against pre-mortal existence, nor did you touch on any of my questions concerning the mining of our church fathers and saints for statements supporting official Mormon doctrine (if there even is such a thing, it’s always changing or being excused as unofficial), and you dismissed the rest. Can you at least make an attempt?
I’m getting a little tired of Mormons coming on to these forums, spreading their doctrines about, and then avoiding or excusing or slipping away from so many questions asked of them. I starting to think I should just report some of the goings-on here to the mods, as it’s starting to feel like something’s a little rotten in Denmark, as they say.

 

[StephenKent]

John M. Reiner:

tinyurl.com/7ccwoq3

tinyurl.com/7bbgqfu

 

[theidler]

John M. Reiner:

tinyurl.com/7ccwoq3

tinyurl.com/7bbgqfu

Yeah great - I agree, you’re totally right about Aquinas’ views of Origen’s Peri Archon as being completely in error.

Oh wait, those are just pictures of passports. Nevermind.

This is pointless.

 

[KathleenGee]

Problem is that Mormonism is one of polytheistic conceptions and vagaries that go together…contradicting passages referring to as premortal men vs the existence of God Himself which the Books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastics, Wisdom, Song of Songs – in Old Testament a nuptial bond, in the New Testament Christ and His Bride, the Church,-- and Sirach serve…to educate. These are the Books of Wisdom.

It is God Himself, Wisdom, the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit Who speaks in Proverbs 8:23-30…not some premortal man…

You by pass natural law, you then have to create…using man’s mind vs the Holy Spirit.

How anyone can see Early Church Fathers as corrupt…can only be if you are coming from a different form of God with a different mission and end…

It is through the Wisdom of God that this world was created, preserved, and man enlightened…Proverbs 8: 22-31…These books defined the the problems of life, that would be answered in the New Testament.

The Books of Wisdom ‘remain profoundly human, universal, fundamentally moral, and essentially religious and monotheistic…’ Publishers of New American Bible (Catholic).

Subsequently, Mormonism and Catholicism’s translation are in opposition to one another. Mormonism believes Joseph Smith the interpreter after the saving event of Christ vs Christianity…God creating us, coming to us to be restored back to Him through the Incarnation…the Holy Spirit the interpreter.

The Holy Spirit has never left the Church…people have left the Church and the Holy Spirit and have rejected Divine Authority at work, reducing faith to disconnected communities.

God is communion, and He is calling us all into this communion that brings us eternal life.

 

[StephenKent]

John M. Reiner in Utah newspapers shortly after his visit:

tinyurl.com/88crtdj

tinyurl.com/7nrn66o

tinyurl.com/7yhkbsx

 

[zaffiroborant]

That a Mr. Reiner did visit is obvious from the various Desert News articles posted, that what Mr. Whitney describes is accurate is not obvious. Mr.Reiner visited in 1898 Mr. Whitney’s memories were published in 1930 one year before his death in 1931. Even at the time Mr. Reiner’s backround was a matter of confusion thus the
The Deseret News “corrected” the gossip about him.

A statement has been published in this city to the effect that Dr. Reiner is a Jesuit, but he pronounces it and absurd error. He is a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but a lay member only. He never united with any ecclesiastical order, and is a married man. It has also been reported in the city that he is connected with an educational institution in New York city, but this is also untrue. He pursues the profession of literature, including specialties in journalism, is an author in the lines of historical and philosophical research and religious controversy, and has given much attention to ecclesiastical history and literary criticism. He occasionally appears before the public a a lecturer, and is an editorial contributor to several New York papers. He is a doctor of laws and philosophy, hence his title.

I also noticed in one of the Deseret News yellowed pages they felt the need to point out what was “wrong” with the church “headquartered in Rome”. It’s also interesting to note that 4 years after this denial of a connection to an education institution Mr. Reiner lists himself as a college professor on his passport application.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

Quick look but all of the people you list taught this before the 553 council, anyone you find after?

 

[StephenKent]

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.

We are taught that everything officially changed in A.D. 553. But we are also taught that the change actually was *not *official. The Catholic Encyclopedia itself acknowledges this forthrightly. (See Post 296.)

The question to be asked is whether there were any Church Fathers who taught it (yes) and any Church Fathers who taught against it (yes) and whether it, ultimately, in Catholic teaching is considered, perhaps, an unknown or a mystery (yes, apparently).

In the following, I am having trouble getting the Greek font to produce all the letters. But here’s my text anyway:

The idea of pre-existence of souls was accepted and supported by a number of Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, for example, by Didymus the Blind (Ὑπομνήματα εἰς τό περί Ἀρχῶν Ὠριγένους, in Ρ G 39 (as it is mentioned in Socrates’ Hist . Eccl. 4, 25)), Evagrius of Pontus (see his works in PG 40, 1214-1296), Nemesius of Emessa (Περί φύσεως τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ΡG 40, 508-518), Pierius of Alexandria (Photius, Bibl. Cod. 1 19, which mentions a book of Pierius of 12 Speeches with the Origenian teaching of pre-mortal existence, PG 103, 400), and St. Augustine, who later was undecided (Ε p . 7, Ρ L 33,58. 32, 590-4). Jerome accepted it in the beginning and Rufinus translated into Latin the work of Origen, “De Principiis,” in which the doctrine was contained.

On the contrary, the teaching of a pre-mortal existence of the soul was rejected and condemned by other great Doctors of the Church, such as by Clement of Alexandria (Ὁ Θεός ἡμᾶς ἐποίησεν οὐ προόντας . Στρωματεῖς 8 (Fragm. omissum ), Ρ G 9, 9), Methodius of Olympus (Περί τῶν γεννητῶν (this work is identified with the Speech about the Martyrs; fragments are mentioned by Photius in his Bibl. Cod. 235, Ρ G 103, 1137-1148), Peter of Alexandria (Περί τοῦ μηδέ προϋπάρχειν τήν ψυχήν, μηδέ άμαρτήσασαν τοῦτο εἰς σῶμα βληθῆναι; two fragments are mentioned by Leontius of Byzantium in his work Κατά Νεστοριανῶν καί Εὐτυχιανῶν 1, 1, Ρ G 86, 1273-1316), Gregory of Nyssa (Περί κατασκευῆς ἀνθρώπου, 28, 44, 229-232, although he was a great admirer of Origen), by Gregory of Naziansus (Λόγος 37,15, Ρ G 36, 300), Barsanufius (Διδασκαλία τοῦ Ἁγίου Βαρσανουφίου περί τῶν Ὠριγένους, Εὐαγρίου καί Διδύ*μου φρονημάτων, Ρ G 86, 891-902), Leo A (Ε p . 15,10, Ρ L 54, 684-5), Cyril of Jerusalem (Κατήχησις 4,19, Ρ G 33, 480), Irenaeus (Adv . Haer . 33 ; 3, Ρ G 7, 832), and St. Augustine (See PL, 32, 590) who changed his ideas only in his later works.

Finally, the teaching of a pre-mortal existence of souls was condemned by the Emperor Justinian in his Decree (543) against Origen (Εἰ τις λέγει ἤ ἔχει, προϋπάρχειν τάς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ψυχάς, οἵα πρώην νόας οὔσας καί ἁγίας δυνάμεις, κόρον δέ λαβούσας τῆς θείας θεωρίας καί πρός τό χεῖρον τραπείσας καί διά τοῦτο ἀποφυγείσας μέν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀγάπης, ἐντεῦθεν ψυχάς ὀνομασθείσας, καί τιμωρίας χάριν εἰς σώματα καταπεμφθεῖσας, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, a’ Anathema from Justian’ s Decree (543). Καρμίρη Ι., Τά Δογματικά καί Συμβολικά Μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολ . Ἐκκλησίας 2, vol . I ., Αthens 1960,184,198. Μansi J ., Sacrorum Concilirium vova et amplissima Collectio, Florentiae et Venetiis 17570 98, Parisiis 1899- 1927, IX, 533. J . Harduin, Acta Conciliorum, Parisiis, 1715, ff . III, 280-281), by the Council of Constantinople (543) (Καρμίρη, ο p . c . 184) and by the V Ecumenical Council (553) (Εἰ τις τήν μυθώδη προΰπαρξιν τῶν ψυχῶν καί τήν ταύτη ἑπομένην τερατώδη ἀποκατάστασιν πρεσβεύει, ανάθεμα ἔστω . ( Canon a’ of the the V Ecumenical Council ). Καρμίρη, ο p . c. IX, 396-400. Harduin, op. c., 284-288).

 

[Telstar]

“In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is entailed by its premises”
~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.

I think the obvious question was whether LDS would recognize any of those leaders and their doctrines as valid for LDS to believe.

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.

You forget that the New Testament is a collection of Catholic writings that were narrowed down from the many hundreds available. There could have been more included, but that would have made the Bible an unwieldy set of tomes. It was more important to use the writings of the Apostles, as the eyewitnesses. The rest of those documents comprise part of Holy Tradition, which includes many teachings that weren’t included due to space. I’m sure LDS can appreciate that problem, since ‘reformed Egyptian’ was used by the ancients of the BoM, because it took up less room on the ‘plates’. Maybe the RCC should have created a new language…

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?

Were any of the LDS leaders that taught those things (that LDS claim were ‘never taught’) ever excommunicated for teaching them, if they’re bad enough to want to cover them up now? Many of the men of the early RCC , that LDS often quote for showing ‘the truth’ of similar doctrines that they follow, were booted from the RCC for spreading those same heresies, ages ago. Those were never Catholic beliefs, at all. The ones that were correct in most of their beliefs, but held a few that were questionable, were later corrected by other theologians, after they better understood those doctrines through more lengthy study and discussion.

The RCC used those mistakes to show what the impact of spreading those errors can be in later years, as in the case of Origen that led to the heresy of Origenism, that was the direct result of some of his early errors. LDS tend to sweep that kind of stuff under the rug as if it never happened, hoping it’s forgotten and never sees the light of day again. That makes it a more glaring problem when those things are brought up in later years, when someone discovers the truth. It just makes the church look worse in the long run.

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.

The Pope is only infallible when teaching about Faith and Morals, and when speaking ex cathedra.“For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must be a decision of the supreme teaching authority of the Church (pope or College of Bishops); it must concern a doctrine of faith or morals; it must bind the universal Church; and it must be proposed as something to be held firmly and immutably.”
Neither the Pope, nor any Bishop would ever make a public speech, or speak to a congregation of the faithful about God, and make any remarks that could even be considered to be questionable, much less being so far apart from what the Church actually believes. They don’t make any public statements that are contrary to Church Doctrine. If they did, then they’d be subject to disciplinary action by their superiors. If it was a serious enough offense, they could even be excommunicated for their actions.

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.

It’s not very helpful to anyone, if the things you bring up are already seen by us as heresies that the Church refuted, centuries ago. That just makes it even more clear to us that your beliefs are heretical. Or, if you use small passages pulled out of context, where the whole context supports the opposite view than you’re trying to show, as being the same as what you believe.

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.

If I told you there was a TV show, many years ago, that had an android, a chief engineer that wore a special visor to see, a bald captain, a woman doctor with red hair who’s son was made a member of the crew, with an empath for a ship’s counselor, would you know what TV show it was without mentioning any names?

 

[StephenKent]

" . . . [whether] what Mr. Whitney describes is accurate is not obvious."

" . . . Oh wait, those are just pictures of passports. Nevermind. This is pointless.

PART ONE (OF TWO PARTS):

Here’s a refresher on why there was any discussion at all about Professor John M. Reiner.

Kathleen diverted from our main topic when she asserted that the LDS Church had caricatured the Roman Catholic Church and its clergy as “akin to the great harlot church.” (Post 219.) I responded and indicated that while some LDS leaders, in personal writings, had asserted it (one of them being Bruce R. McConkie, who, himself, *rescinded *his statement), the LDS Church itself has never made any such assertion and is not at all bound by the personal statements of such individuals who make such an assertion. (Posts 226, 227.)

Pablope contested my postings, stating that many such assertions have been made (by individuals). (Post 238.) Zaffiroborant added that McConkie was simply reiterating what previous individuals had taught. (Post 246.) I responded with an analysis of the earlier statements by these individuals, showing they actually did not constitute statements by those individuals in any way identifying the Roman Catholic Church as “akin to the great harlot.” (Posts 247, 248.)

PaulDupre responded by quoting (1) Orson Pratt’s personal writings in a publication called The Seer, and (2) two quotations from the Times and Seasons newspaper, which PaulDupre attributed to John Taylor. (Post 251.) I responded (1) that Orson Pratt’s writings were, wholesale, condemned by the Church and ordered destroyed and (2) that the first of the two statements in the Times and Seasons was an anonymous statement and cannot be attributted to John Taylor, as Paul Dupre had done, and that the second statement in the Times and Seasons was something authored by a person writing from *Germany *(John Taylor was in Illinois). (Post 272.)

Kathleen remarked about Origen (on the main topic of whether the scriptures set forth any evidence of a pre-mortal existence of souls) that as an early Church Father, Origen was “speaking from his own opinion . . . which is not binding.” (Post 291.) I responded, that therefore what is good for the Roman Catholic Church vis-à-vis Origen and pre-mortal existence of souls ought to be good enough for the LDS Church vis-à-vis early personal statements of some LDS leaders, speaking personal opinions, identifying the “harlot” of the Book of Revelation. (Post 292.)

Jerusha brought up B. H. Roberts, stating “you are stuck with your scripture.” (Post 293, my emphasis.) I responded that B. H. Roberts produced zero canonized, binding statements for the LDS Church. (Post 299.)

Theidler meanwhile quoted (1) a number of non-canonized, non-binding statements of individuals that did mention the Catholic Church and (2) some passages of LDS scripture that say nothing about the Catholic Church. (Post 298.) I responded that theidler was misinterpreting the words in the quotation he supplied. (Post 305.)

Meanwhile, theidler also requested an “official list” of the canonical teachings of the LDS Church. (Post 302.) I supplied it. (Post 312.)

But back to postings numbers 298 and 305 (mentioned two paragraphs above). More specifically regarding theidler’s post number 298, he had quoted the “old apple tree” analogy by Joseph Smith and in my response (in post number 305) I not only pointed out that he misread and misinterpreted the analogy, I also gave one example of a similar discussion of that theme by a Roman Catholic doctor of divinity himself (the “A-Catholic-Opinion” quotation by Orson F. Whitney in post number 305).

In response to that, PaulDupre stated that the quotation was merely a “story” (meaning it was a fiction) and that Whitney “was never able to identify this ‘learned doctor of divinity.’” PaulDupre also stated that “this is just another of those faith-promoting stories that the LDS love.” (Post 317.)

In response, I cited Orson F. Whitney’s own autobiography where he identified the man that PaulDupre stated Whitney had never been able to identify. I supplied the name (John M. Reiner). (Post 320.)

In my post number 322 I provided two links to images that prove John M. Reiner to be a real human being and in my post number 325 I provided three links attesting to his January 1898 visit to Utah.

 

[StephenKent]

PART TWO (OF TWO PARTS):

I here now provide two other links concerning Professor Reiner:

tinyurl.com/88fe2fm

tinyurl.com/8367w5n

Zaffiroborant states that whether “what Mr. Whitney describes is accurate is not obvious.” That’s correct. PaulDupre asserted that Whitney was never able to identify this learned doctor. To him, it was obvious that Whitney was not doing anything other than simply making up a “story” and, indeed, making up the person, too.

What is obvious, however, is that Dr. John Max Reiner, Ph. D., LL. D., a professor at Villanova University, located in Villanova, Pennsylvania, was sufficiently impressed with the Latter-day Saints – if I might be so bold as to use the neutral word “impressed” without fear of offending anyone who might think such a word is inappropriately too strong (notwithstanding it is a neutral word) to use in relation to a Catholic university professor’s attitude about the Latter-day Saints – that it was said not only that shortly after his visit to Salt Lake City and his return home he wrote “some of his observations in Utah to the eastern press” but also that “the result [was] that a number of educated gentlemen ha[d] formed a society in New York City for the disinterested study of Mormonism and to this end hold weekly meetings.” (Davis County Clipper, April 1, 1898, page 2.)

“Disinterested” is perhaps a strange word, indeed; one would hope that on this forum the discussion and study could be “disinterested” but it is not always so, apparently. On this account, note that the very first posting in this entire discussion – Post Number 1 – the question asked concerns what SteveVH says is “the heart of the differences between many Mormon and traditional Christian beliefs.” He specifically directs his question to readers concerning “this doctrine [of pre-mortal existence] . . . so basic to Mormon thought.” And his statement of the question refers to “the LDS Church” and the “LDS.” In his posting number 321, theidler states that he is “getting a little tired of Mormons coming on to these forums, spreading their doctrines about . . . .”

Huh? Last time I read the Welcome Page, it stated, “Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.” And notwithstanding some posters have repeatedly made personal attacks on me (contrary to Conduct Rule 1) and notwithstanding Conduct Rules 5 and 6 admonish us all to be respectful of one another and of our respective beliefs and practices – and I have done my best in this regard (read my posts if you think you disagree) – I truly do not think that it is in any way inappropriate, not in the least, for Latter-day Saints to come onto this forum, to which they expressly have been welcomed, to answer questions such as the present one, that is expressly directed to and about the Latter-day Saints’ belief.

So the Davis County Clipper newspaper says that Dr. Reiner gathered “educated” men to meet “weekly” to “study” Mormonism, of all things, and to do so “disinterested[ly].” Paraphrasing Zaffiroborant, whether what the Davis County Clipper describes is accurate is not obvious. That also is correct.

Of course, Dr. Reiner had some sort of associations with one or more Latter-day Saints (while still a Catholic professor) even in December of 1898, back in Elizabeth, New Jersey (where he lived, 90 miles from Villanova). (See The Sun [newspaper] (New York, N.Y.), December 14, 1898, page 1, col. 3 (“One introduced himself as John M. Reiner, the other was a Mormon elder, or had been one.”).)

Paraphrasing Zaffiroborant, whether “what The Sun describes is accurate is not obvious.” True. It’s not obvious.

At some point, the urge to find (or assign) error and to simply conclude that a Latter-day Saint (in this case, Orson F. Whitney) simply cannot have been telling the truth in the account he related about Dr. Reiner’s “alleged” statement about the Mormon position reaches a point of absurdity. Okay. Fine. We know for sure. There is nothing obvious. Whitney is a liar. We know because . . . well, just because . . . though we were not there and have no evidence otherwise . . . it’s just so. Dr. Reiner – as an intelligent Roman Catholic, who went to Utah and met with the Latter-day Saints and there taught in their meetinghouses and then promptly set up a weekly discussion group to talk dispassionately about Latter-day Saints in New York – simply could not have said anything to Orson F. Whitney, much less have said what Orson F. Whitney said he had said. It just ain’t so. We know that for sure because . . . because we are we. We in 2012 are omnicient about everything that happened in 1898. Orson forgot. Orson was senile. Orson did not keep a journal or a diary. Orson was a liar. So there.

 

[StephenKent]

“Most Catholics are totally unaware . . . that [in the] 13th chapter of 1 Nephi . . . the ‘church’ [there disparagingly spoken of is the same one] that wrote and spread [the Bible, which church] is clearly the R[oman] C[atholic] C[hurch], [and] which is unceremoniously referred to as the ‘great and abominable church’ . . .”

PART ONE (OF TWO):

The above quotation is clipped to get to the essence of what Telstar states, and I hope my editing is a fair rendition of that portion of his point that I wish here to address.

It is not at all a teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that 1 Nephi 13 identifies or is intended to identify the Roman Catholic Church. Try as hard as one might to say it is a teaching of the Church, all one has to rely on are the misguided statements – either withdrawn by their authors (McConkie) or ordered by the Church to be destroyed (Pratt) or misattributed (Taylor), etc. (see my earlier posts) – and one can rely on absolutely no statements by the Church itself to support the above-quoted point. None. And that is so because there are none. No poster has yet identified any statement made by the Church itself to that effect. And no poster ever will. It’s not there. Never has been. Is not. Will not be.

Many Protestant denominations, following the lead of Martin Luther, have declared, officially, as churches, that they link the evil force described in Revelation 17 with the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not do so. Never has. Does not.

Nephi apparently speaks typologically rather than historically. He identifies all the enemies of the faithful followers of Christ with the church (congregation) of the devil (1 Ne. 14:9—10; 2 Ne. 10:16). They are those from all nations and all time periods who desire “to get gain, and . . . power over the flesh, and . . . to become popular in the eyes of the world, . . . who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity” (1 Ne. 22:23).

Given the dependence of the early LDS writers on Protestant historians, who were themselves often anti-Catholic in orientation, it is not surprising that a number of Latter-day Saints tended to interpret Nephi’s vision in this way. (Many early converts to the LDS faith had been Protestants themselves, and old teachings had to be lopped off for many of them.)

Telstar’s states a concern that the text of 1 Nephi 13 logically identifies the Roman Catholic Church because that is the Church which, historcally, “wrote” and “spread” the Bible. However, even though it is an unquestionable historic fact that the Catholic Church preserved and spread the Bible, that fact does not force anyone to conclude that the reference in 1 Nephi 13 to the writing and speading of the Bible text constitutes a reference to the “writing” and “spreading” of the Bible by the Catholic Church. And therefore, the reference in chapter 13 to a “church” does *not *necessarily, and does *not *even possibly, refer to the Roman Catholic Church). Indeed, the text of 1 Nephi13 actually *disallows *such an interpretation.

Chapter has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church’s dealings with the Bible. The Church’s otherwise laudable and effective and wonderful efforts in preserving and disseminating the Bible text are undisputed. The entire world, including all Latter-day Saints, mind you, owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Roman Catholic Church for its work in preserving that text over the centuries.

 

[StephenKent]

PART TWO (OF TWO):

Rather, 1 Nephi 13 has to do with earlier modifications of the scripture text. I invite all to read Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) (I read it the week it came out), and Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003). Many New Testament scholars have shown convincingly that the final versions of the gospels, and the epistles that were eventually canonized, took shape during a long period in which they were modified as necessary to support the emerging theological orthodoxy among the leaders of the Christian churches (there were many Christian churches besides the Orthodox Church: Ebionites, Syrian and Egyptian churches, Donatists, Gnostics, Marcionites, and so on).

Early struggles between Christian “heresy” and “orthodoxy” affected the transmission of the documents over which, in part, the debates were waged. Proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries occasionally altered their sacred texts for polemical reasons – for example, to oppose adoptionists like the Ebionites, who claimed that Christ was a man but not God, or docetists like Marcion, who claimed that he was God but not a man, or Gnostics like the Ptolemaeans, who claimed that he was two beings, one divine and one human. Many of textual changes that prior scholars had dismissed as “harmonizations” or “errors” actually have now been shown to have had an underlying apologetic thrust logic that betrays their deliberate nature.

Indeed, this should not at all be surprising to us. Early Christian writers forthrightly expressed their belief the scriptures had been altered or twisted in many ways. Evan as early as in the writings of Paul himself we find warning to the Thessalonians that some people might try to stir them up with forged apostolic epistles. Peter said that many in his day were already “wresting” the scriptures, or distorting their true meaning (2 Peter 3:15—16). Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop martyred around A.D.110, said that he could not write down all of the teachings of the apostles because they were too sacred. Justin Martyr accused Jewish leaders of deliberately removing passages from the Old Testament. During the second century, many bishops and writers in the church accused heretics of changing the scriptures. Tertullian of Carthage claimed that Marcion deliberately cut out pieces of the scriptures that he did not like, and Clement of Alexandria accused some people of rewriting parts of the Gospels.

By the third century, the accusations of changes in the scriptures died down. However, we have virtually no texts predating the third century by which to measure the changes. Less than one percent of the surviving New Testament fragments can be dated before the third century, and those are mere fragments. We also have other writings, letters primarily, from the second century which quote scriptures, and these quotations frequently differ from what we have in the New Testament today.

The first page of the fourth-century copy of the complete Greek Bible—Codex Vaticanus B—has numerous erasures, additions, corrections, and changes written right on the page in different inks and different hands.

In short, the mention in 1 Nephi 13 of alterations and changes in the original early texts of the Bible has nothing to do with the excellent work of preservation by the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church in later decades. Those changes predate the time when the Catholic Church performed the work of preservation that resulted in the collection of manuscripts and texts now presently available.

Niether does a plain reading of 1 Nephi 13 nor does any reasonable interpretation of that chapter support the fear that it pertains in any way to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

What I read was terribly anti-Catholic in one of your LDS bookstores next to the state temple…in a very affluent and well educated neighborhood.

I called the LDS in SLC…and when I came back to verify the title of the book, it had been removed…just like the Mormon links that are given us by a poster…and when that poster returned to them awhile later, they were gone.

Or the attitude of Mormons towards Catholics behind closed doors or when a Mormon wants to leave Mormonism…or the indifference shown to us in misrepresenting our beliefs to prove Mormonism.

There was no great apostasy. The institutional Catholic Church did not promote false doctrines, but on the contrary its greatest aim and duty is to teach us the truth of Jesus Christ.

That is your biggest problem. And the Church is the only one…there is no record of other churches. You have the jurisdictions and patriarchs…there was a thread last year on the Mormons now being able to build their temple in the countryside of Rome where St. Justin the Martyr spoke of the Mass being said there in the countryside in 155 AD. As the thread was ending, a former Mormon came on saying they (ex-Mormons) were reading this thread with much interest, implying they grew up in anti-Catholicism…and now seeing the Mormons begin building their temple along side the Vatican.

Creepy.

Only the Catholic/Orthodox Church truly has its apostles as its foundation with Christ. To imply that the Church decided to create its own doctrines to contradict God is from Lucifer.

The Catholic Church alone has the full deposit of faith in Christ, the final Revelation of God…God of God…no man prophet 1800 years after the fact…

I would think if I am looking at a new source claiming to be authentic with an 1800 year old gap, I would assume there must be a break, a big break on what is authentic and what is not…a tremendous lack of events.

You cannot make a simple sweeping statement and say the Catholic Church and its doctrines are false or that there was no apostolic succession…because then you are not following Joseph Smith, really, but following another single man, Martin Luther.

Luther, a broken faith, was the one who created the story the pope is the antiChrist…Babylon…Babylon no longer exists…it symbolizes the world, the flesh…there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that uses the word Babylon as Church. There is nothing in Catholic spirituality that teaches we follow the flesh and our feelings and senses.

It is Luther who decided alone, outside of the gathering as Church, to remove Wisdom, Sirach that teach you clearly that God Himself is Wisdom. Subsequently, man made religions are just that, founded by carnate men…and bear the fruit of carnate man…divisions and misinterpretations.

Our God is calling in go something higher, more deeply human, more universal and the belief system based and founded on God Himself, not man.

There are too many real life behaviors and actions and words and teachings by Joseph Smith…simply with a sweep of the hand stating all is corrupt…that defies objective education. There is nothing that he has proclaimed outside of Christianity and solid theology that is true.

Christianity does not need man made myths and beliefs that contradict itself.

Sorry, you don’t convince, Stephen.

 

[theidler]

there was a thread last year on the Mormons now being able to build their temple in the countryside of Rome where St. Justin the Martyr spoke of the Mass being said there in the countryside in 155 AD. As the thread was ending, a former Mormon came on saying they (ex-Mormons) were reading this thread with much interest, implying they grew up in anti-Catholicism…and now seeing the Mormons begin building their temple along side the Vatican.

Creepy.

Actually, the word sad comes to mind.
It`s about the same as the church where the council of Nicaea was held being turned into a mosque.

I have spoken to the moderator about all the Mormon-related threads, as they are going nowhere, and seem to be merely becoming soapboxes from which LDS members can spread their doctrines.
The world will find out how bankrupt and fraudulent the Mormon church is one day - all we can do is pray for them. The days of St. Athanasius are truly gone.

 

[StephenKent]

“I have spoken to the moderator about all the Mormon-related threads, as they are going nowhere, and seem to be merely becoming soapboxes from which LDS members can spread their doctrines.”(

1. “Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.” (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116150)
2. The question posed by SteveVH (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=615408) expressly invites discussion of Mormon belief in the doctrine of pre-mortal existence and asks where in biblical Scripture there is any evidence of the teaching of the “LDS Church” on pre-mortal existence of souls.
3. At the top and bottom of every page of this forum topic is a reminder that this discussion is found at: “Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions.”

If what you want to do is push to change the Forum to be one in which only Roman Catholics talk to each other about LDS beliefs, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from Latter-day Saints themselves regarding LDS beliefs, then ask the moderator to change the Forum Rules and the Forum invitation.

I, for one, feel perfectly comfortable with my efforts to discuss matters in a cicumspect manner, with a moderate tone, and in as best a spirit of charity of which I am capable – which, of course, is not at all near any degree of perfection. I have sought to answer questions that expressly have been asked about my faith and both regarding the central question posed (do Biblical scriptures at all evidence, even in a slight way, any notion that man existed as a soul or spirit prior to his formation in the womb?) and regarding the question prompted by Kathleen’s post (where she asserted – I contend erroneously – that the LDS Church itself takes the position that the Catholic Church is the harlot referred to in the book of Revelation).

Here is one – only one – example of what I was stating earlier concerning the changes that were made to the texts of the scriptures themselves, prior to the time the Catholic Church got involved in preserving and transmitting the Bible text to the world. See tinyurl.com/7uxc9j7 (from the Ehrman text, regarding Luke 22:43-44); the Roman Catholic Church had nothing at all to do with this and other similar changes, omissions, addtions, and the like. They occurred in the Second Century.

Hence, 1 Nephi 13 was not talking about Roman Catholcism.

 

[theidler]

1. “Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.” (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=116150)
2. The question posed by SteveVH (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=615408) expressly invites discussion of Mormon belief in the doctrine of pre-mortal existence and asks where in biblical Scripture there is any evidence of the teaching of the “LDS Church” on pre-mortal existence of souls.
3. At the top and bottom of every page of this forum topic is a reminder that this discussion is found at: “Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions.”

If what you want to do is push to change the Forum to be one in which only Roman Catholics talk to each other about LDS beliefs, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from Latter-day Saints themselves regarding LDS beliefs, then ask the moderator to change the Forum Rules and the Forum invitation.

I, for one, feel perfectly comfortable with my efforts to discuss matters in a cicumspect manner, with a moderate tone, and in as best a spirit of charity of which I am capable – which, of course, is not at all near any degree of perfection. I have sought to answer questions that expressly have been asked about my faith and both regarding the central question posed (do Biblical scriptures at all evidence, even in a slight way, any notion that man existed as a soul or spirit prior to his formation in the womb?) and regarding the question prompted by Kathleen’s post (where she asserted – I contend erroneously – that the LDS Church itself takes the position that the Catholic Church is the harlot referred to in the book of Revelation).

Here is one – only one – example of what I was stating earlier concerning the changes that were made to the texts of the scriptures themselves, prior to the time the Catholic Church got involved in preserving and transmitting the Bible text to the world. See tinyurl.com/7uxc9j7 (from the Ehrman text, regarding Luke 22:43-44); the Roman Catholic Church had nothing at all to do with this and other similar changes, omissions, addtions, and the like. They occurred in the Second Century.

Hence, 1 Nephi 13 was not talking about Roman Catholcism.

Thanks for a reminder about the obvious, as well as completely misunderstanding what I said.

 

[Telstar]

Here is one – only one – example of what I was stating earlier concerning the changes that were made to the texts of the scriptures themselves, prior to the time the Catholic Church got involved in preserving and transmitting the Bible text to the world. See tinyurl.com/7uxc9j7 (from the Ehrman text, regarding Luke 22:43-44); the Roman Catholic Church had nothing at all to do with this and other similar changes, omissions, addtions, and the like. They occurred in the Second Century.

Hence, 1 Nephi 13 was not talking about Roman Catholcism.

Just an FYI, I have a policy not to click on any link that’s been shortened through tinyurl because I don’t trust them. I prefer knowing where the link will be taking me on the web because I’ve had problems with their links in the past. “Once burned, twice shy.” So, I just won’t click on them anymore.

Besides, I’m not really interested in any of Ehrman’s opinions. Since he promotes the idea that the early Church wasn’t a unified body, he’s already off the mark in his beliefs regarding the orthodoxy of the early teachings of the Church. While there were many separate cities where ‘churches’ had been established by the Apostles and their followers, they were all originally under the full guidance of the Apostles and the rest of the early hierarchy of the Church, as the meeting of the Council at Jerusalem testifies. The Roman Catholic Church has existed as an entity from the day of Pentecost.

The problems and disputes arose from among those separate segments of the Church, when they formed opinions and made changes that were not sanctioned by those in authority over them. Just because the the designation as “Roman” was later added to differentiate it from the broken away factions, doesn’t change the fact that it was always the central origin with full Authority over all of the Church that Jesus established on Peter. Those that broke away, or were excommunicated for their promotion of heresies, were all originally part of that One True Church established by Jesus Christ. So, to say that the RCC only began in the 4th or 5th century is completely erroneous.

Therefore, the BoM has to be referring to the RCC in Nephi and elsewhere as the “church of the devil”, since God would be well aware of all those facts, and the BoM was supposedly ‘inspired’ by Him. If you wish to deny those facts, then you would also have to deny that God inspired the BoM. That’s your choice. But, you can’t have it both ways.

PS: I’m not a guy. Read my sig that I changed to clear up any confusion about that.

 

[zaffiroborant]

We are taught that everything officially changed in A.D. 553. But we are also taught that the change actually was *not *official. The Catholic Encyclopedia itself acknowledges this forthrightly. (See Post 296.)

The question to be asked is whether there were any Church Fathers who taught it (yes) and any Church Fathers who taught against it (yes) and whether it, ultimately, in Catholic teaching is considered, perhaps, an unknown or a mystery (yes, apparently).

In the following, I am having trouble getting the Greek font to produce all the letters. But here’s my text anyway:

The idea of pre-existence of souls was accepted and supported by a number of Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, for example, by Didymus the Blind (Ὑπομνήματα εἰς τό περί Ἀρχῶν Ὠριγένους, in Ρ G 39 (as it is mentioned in Socrates’ Hist . Eccl. 4, 25)), Evagrius of Pontus (see his works in PG 40, 1214-1296), Nemesius of Emessa (Περί φύσεως τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ΡG 40, 508-518), Pierius of Alexandria (Photius, Bibl. Cod. 1 19, which mentions a book of Pierius of 12 Speeches with the Origenian teaching of pre-mortal existence, PG 103, 400), and St. Augustine, who later was undecided (Ε p . 7, Ρ L 33,58. 32, 590-4). Jerome accepted it in the beginning and Rufinus translated into Latin the work of Origen, “De Principiis,” in which the doctrine was contained.

On the contrary, the teaching of a pre-mortal existence of the soul was rejected and condemned by other great Doctors of the Church, such as by Clement of Alexandria (Ὁ Θεός ἡμᾶς ἐποίησεν οὐ προόντας . Στρωματεῖς 8 (Fragm. omissum ), Ρ G 9, 9), Methodius of Olympus (Περί τῶν γεννητῶν (this work is identified with the Speech about the Martyrs; fragments are mentioned by Photius in his Bibl. Cod. 235, Ρ G 103, 1137-1148), Peter of Alexandria (Περί τοῦ μηδέ προϋπάρχειν τήν ψυχήν, μηδέ άμαρτήσασαν τοῦτο εἰς σῶμα βληθῆναι; two fragments are mentioned by Leontius of Byzantium in his work Κατά Νεστοριανῶν καί Εὐτυχιανῶν 1, 1, Ρ G 86, 1273-1316), Gregory of Nyssa (Περί κατασκευῆς ἀνθρώπου, 28, 44, 229-232, although he was a great admirer of Origen), by Gregory of Naziansus (Λόγος 37,15, Ρ G 36, 300), Barsanufius (Διδασκαλία τοῦ Ἁγίου Βαρσανουφίου περί τῶν Ὠριγένους, Εὐαγρίου καί Διδύ*μου φρονημάτων, Ρ G 86, 891-902), Leo A (Ε p . 15,10, Ρ L 54, 684-5), Cyril of Jerusalem (Κατήχησις 4,19, Ρ G 33, 480), Irenaeus (Adv . Haer . 33 ; 3, Ρ G 7, 832), and St. Augustine (See PL, 32, 590) who changed his ideas only in his later works.

Finally, the teaching of a pre-mortal existence of souls was condemned by the Emperor Justinian in his Decree (543) against Origen (Εἰ τις λέγει ἤ ἔχει, προϋπάρχειν τάς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ψυχάς, οἵα πρώην νόας οὔσας καί ἁγίας δυνάμεις, κόρον δέ λαβούσας τῆς θείας θεωρίας καί πρός τό χεῖρον τραπείσας καί διά τοῦτο ἀποφυγείσας μέν τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀγάπης, ἐντεῦθεν ψυχάς ὀνομασθείσας, καί τιμωρίας χάριν εἰς σώματα καταπεμφθεῖσας, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω, a’ Anathema from Justian’ s Decree (543). Καρμίρη Ι., Τά Δογματικά καί Συμβολικά Μνημεῖα τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολ . Ἐκκλησίας 2, vol . I ., Αthens 1960,184,198. Μansi J ., Sacrorum Concilirium vova et amplissima Collectio, Florentiae et Venetiis 17570 98, Parisiis 1899- 1927, IX, 533. J . Harduin, Acta Conciliorum, Parisiis, 1715, ff . III, 280-281), by the Council of Constantinople (543) (Καρμίρη, ο p . c . 184) and by the V Ecumenical Council (553) (Εἰ τις τήν μυθώδη προΰπαρξιν τῶν ψυχῶν καί τήν ταύτη ἑπομένην τερατώδη ἀποκατάστασιν πρεσβεύει, ανάθεμα ἔστω . ( Canon a’ of the the V Ecumenical Council ). Καρμίρη, ο p . c. IX, 396-400. Harduin, op. c., 284-288).

Again a quick look, but all of the people you list taught this before the 553 council, have you found anyone teaching it after that? And I do not see any support for this “whether it(a pre-mortal existence), ultimately, in Catholic teaching is considered, perhaps, an unknown or a mystery (yes, apparently).” nor is there any support for this position in the CCC there has been no question on the Catholic churches position regarding a “pre-mortal existence” since this council.