T
TexanKnight
Guest
Yes. We understand. When a Mormon Apostle or Prophet says something you later find to be distateful, you run away from it and claim it was really nothing
- Status
S
StephenKent
Guest
What started here with post number 219 is what could simply be called the “I-want-to-be-a-victim-and-the-facts-do-not-matter” approach. It goes like this: I am going to quote early converts who changed their affiliation from some strain of Protestantism to the Latter-day Saint movement. Those early converts brought with them teachings and biases of Protestantism, including attitudes toward Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, I will quote them and hold them out as statements made by the LDS Church. The statements will be ones made generally within the first five years of the 1830 organization of the Church. They will be ones made in the pages of the new converts’ own publications. And I will simply announce, free of constraint, that they were therefore statements made by the LDS Church and that she is bound by them.
Such an approach is akin to holding Christians accountable today for the statements and of early Judaizers. (*See *newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm.) We are told in these postings (see e.g.,post 338) that the Catholic Church began on the Day of Pentecost. Accept that as true. Then hold the Catholic Church accountable for the teachings of the early Catholics who taught circumcision is required for salvation. And, for that matter, hold the Catholic Church accountable for Origen’s teachings. He said, “In the beginning all intellectual natures were created equal and alike, as God had no motive for creating them otherwise” (*De Principiis *II.9.6). Hold the Catholic Church accountable for Origen’s teaching admiting “an uncreated matter.” (*De Principiis *II.1.5; “In Genes.”, I, 12, in Migne, XII, 48-9.) Origen was forced to admit a double infinite series of worlds before and after the present world. (newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm; my emphasis.)
Concerning the equality of created spirits, Origen taught, “In the beginning all intellectual natures were created equal and alike, as God had no motive for creating them otherwise” (*De Principiis *II.9.6). Their present differences arise solely from their different use of the gift of free will. The spirits created good and happy grew tired of their happiness (op. cit., I, iii, 8), and, though carelessness, fell, some more some less (I, vi, 2). Hence the hierarchy of the angels; hence also the four categories of created intellects: angels, stars (supposing, as is probable, that they are animated, *De Principiis *I.7.3), men, and demons. But their rôles may be one day changed; for what free will has done, free will can undo, and the Trinity alone is essentially immutable in good.
And concerning the essence and raison d’être of matter, Origen taught that matter exists only for the spiritual; if the spiritual did not need it, matter would not exist, for its finality is not in itself. But it seems to Origen – though he does not venture to declare so expressly – that created spirits even the most perfect cannot do without an extremely diluted and subtle matter which serves them as a vehicle and means of action (*De Principiis *II.2.1, I.6.4, etc.). Matter was, therefore, created simultaneously with the spiritual, although the spiritual is logically prior; and matter will never cease to be because the spiritual, however perfect, will always need it. But matter which is susceptible of indefinite transformations is adapted to the varying condition of the spirits. “When intended for the more imperfect spirits, it becomes solidified, thickens, and forms the bodies of this visible world. If it is serving higher intelligences, it shines with the brightness of the celestial bodies and serves as a garb for the angels of God, and the children of the Resurrection” (*De Principiis *II.2.2).
In the Second Origenist Crisis, in the sixth century, the emperor writes his “Liber adversus Origenem”, containing – in addition to an exposé of the reasons for condemning it – twenty-four censurable texts taken from the “De principiis”, together with ten propositions to be anathematized, including, of course, the one proposition that mankind had a pre-mortal existence.
So the Roman Catholics are free to reject those teachings of that early Church Father (who was not speaking as did the Judaizers, who taught as early converts from their recent Protestant . . . er, I mean, recent Jewish background). And the Roman Catholics point to an early council, convened by an Emperor and held over the protestations of Pope Vigilius, etc. (*See *post 296 above). The Roman Catholic Church feels perfectly free in rejecting Origen’s statements but the LDS Church simply cannot be allowed the same courtesy.
Members of the LDS Church then and now are not bound by the statements made by the early converts you quote just as the Catholic Church is not bound by what Origen taught. The LDS Church did *not *make the statements that you quote from and that were made by those early LDS converts. The one exception to this whole scenario, insofar as concerns the Latter-day Saints’ leaders, is the one statement made by non-convert, born-to-LDS-parents Bruce R. McConkie who in the 1950s spouted an anti-Catholic Protestant-like rant that he imposed as his own personal interpretation of the Book of Mormon. He got called on the carpet for it immediately by others in the Church, and recanted it in an immediate second edition. His first edition (and second, too) both declared, unequivocally, that he did speak for the Church. But in the “I-want-to-be-a-victim-and-the-facts-do-not-matter” approach, that does not matter. In the victimhood approach, it is more important to quote him and others and impose that on the LDS Church.
S
StephenKent
Guest
But do we understand clearly? Here’s an interesting comparison between two timelines(all dates are Anno Domini):
TIMELINE ONE:
33…100…200…300…400…500…533
A…B…C…D
KEY:
A = AD 33 = Pentecost (when the Roman Catholic Church is said to have begun) (Post no. 338)
B = AD 185 = Birth of Origen
C = AD 232 = Origen leaves Alexandria, having already written De Principiis
D = AD 533 = Council that anathematized Origen’s comments (or so it is thought) (see, however, last topic at newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm)
TIMELINE TWO:
…1830…1900…2000 2012
…E.F…G…H…I
KEY:
E = AD 1830 = Date Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized
F = AD 1832 = Orson Pratt made personal, derogatory statement about the Catholic Church
G = AD 1865 = The Church of Jesus Christ condemned Orson’s derogatory writings and ordered them destroyed (see post 272)
H = AD 1955 = McConkie made a similar derogatory comment in a personal writing, which was immediately condemned and the personal book edited
I = AD 2012 = Today
QUESTIONS:
What was the status of Origen’s teachings for that entire period from no later than AD 232 to AD 533 (a period of 300 years)? What is the status of his teachings today?
What was the stauts of Orson Pratt’s statements for that entire period from AD 1832 to AD 1865 (a period of 33 years)? What is the status of his statements today?
T
TexanKnight
Guest
You follow the habits of your prophets. You pick and choose words you like and throw away the rest. What I said was:
Yes. We understand. When a Mormon Apostle or Prophet says something you later find to be distateful, you run away from it and claim it was really nothing
Address THAT
Yes. We understand. When a Mormon Apostle or Prophet says something you later find to be distateful, you run away from it and claim it was really nothing
Address THAT
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Ok…you are comparing an Apostle to a writer. We should be on the same footing. Are you agreeing, by your inane comparison, that Pratt was not a real “Apostle”?
P
Pepband_Mom
Guest
Kent
I wasn’t aware that you had an actual “church” back then or these days for that matter - Non-Christian World Belief System perhaps. (always wondered how people could draft off of “Christian” title if they don’t believe Jesus is God, believe: Jesus & satan are “brothers”, multiple gods, spirit children, & all the rest of it…)
As per Pratt & Evening & Morning Star, nice try.
Did anyone EVER tell them to cease printing damaging words about the Catholic Church? “Official church” have the integrity to hold them accountable & print a RETRACTION? NOT! No damage control by Smith & Co. - probably enjoyed reading every morsel about the “TRUTH” of the Catholic Church DON’T 'YA THINK. They * believed * it apparently - not coming from the “official church” as you say doesn’t fly, makes zero sense - as *bought into it *in the first place - didn’t correct it, wouldn’t correct it.
Sadly by serious OMISSION, missed opportunity to correct an falsehood in print made to The Bride of Christ.:bighanky:
A thought about early Converts.
Immigrants & early converts victims of an American-grown brand of hyper-Protestantism that evolved, spinning more out of control as they left Europe, a continuing disintegration into 1000’s of groups/sects that followed are further evidence of pattern of fragmentation, of dis-unity. This did not happen to such a vast, crazy extent in Europe especially in the 1700, 1800’s because of the Catholic Churches around to keep things on the level. Immediately out of the gate & eventually LDS fragments into 50+ groups, the glowing result of Joseph Smith’s & followers’ promotion of “God’s” restorative perfect plan.
Christ Jesus prayed we all be One. Unity is one of the 4 Transcendentals
but this is for another thread.
I wasn’t aware that you had an actual “church” back then or these days for that matter - Non-Christian World Belief System perhaps. (always wondered how people could draft off of “Christian” title if they don’t believe Jesus is God, believe: Jesus & satan are “brothers”, multiple gods, spirit children, & all the rest of it…)
As per Pratt & Evening & Morning Star, nice try.
Did anyone EVER tell them to cease printing damaging words about the Catholic Church? “Official church” have the integrity to hold them accountable & print a RETRACTION? NOT! No damage control by Smith & Co. - probably enjoyed reading every morsel about the “TRUTH” of the Catholic Church DON’T 'YA THINK. They * believed * it apparently - not coming from the “official church” as you say doesn’t fly, makes zero sense - as *bought into it *in the first place - didn’t correct it, wouldn’t correct it.
Sadly by serious OMISSION, missed opportunity to correct an falsehood in print made to The Bride of Christ.:bighanky:
A thought about early Converts.
Immigrants & early converts victims of an American-grown brand of hyper-Protestantism that evolved, spinning more out of control as they left Europe, a continuing disintegration into 1000’s of groups/sects that followed are further evidence of pattern of fragmentation, of dis-unity. This did not happen to such a vast, crazy extent in Europe especially in the 1700, 1800’s because of the Catholic Churches around to keep things on the level. Immediately out of the gate & eventually LDS fragments into 50+ groups, the glowing result of Joseph Smith’s & followers’ promotion of “God’s” restorative perfect plan.
Christ Jesus prayed we all be One. Unity is one of the 4 Transcendentals
but this is for another thread.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
By the way, I called it inane because you keep wanting to compare your apostles and prophetrs with people who never made the claim your prophets and apostles make regarding “prophets, seers and revelators”.
Why do you keep dodging the issue that by your comparisons, YOU ARE ADMITTING YOUR LEADERS ARE NOT PROPHETS AND APOSTLES
Come home to the true Church. We welcome you
Why do you keep dodging the issue that by your comparisons, YOU ARE ADMITTING YOUR LEADERS ARE NOT PROPHETS AND APOSTLES
Come home to the true Church. We welcome you
K
KathleenGee
Guest
StephenKent…
The universal Church, was named Katholic, Greek for universal, after persecutions ceased, and Emperor Constantine gave Christianity the right to public worship.
The Catholic Church is the Mother Church. It always has been. If you were to speak of that church in the 1830’s to Americans…they would atleast know the reference is to the Roman Catholic Church. You have to look at the culture of those times that Smith lived in. The Puritans several hundreds of years earlier, were extremely anti-Catholic.
(It would be nice to know if it were true that Smith said before his death, that the ‘old church had it right’…)
And as I indicated to you, the Church was already established as an institution by 100 AD with most Scriptures approved except that of Hebrews, and shortly before that, the Gospel of John as verified written by him, the ecclesial hierarchy established after also an attempt at the conciliar, and the Apostles Creed securing our faith in Christ as given to us by the Apostles, and finally the form of worship, that is retained by early church writers and fathers.
You cannot look to Origen as representing the Deposit of Faith. You can never as a Catholic look to any single writer, theologian, bishop, pope for the deposit of faith because it is the faith of Christ’s Church based on the apostles, not on men or ideas following.
Origen’s ideas did not conform to Christ and the Apostles Creed…so I do not know why you keep referring to him…
The universal Church, was named Katholic, Greek for universal, after persecutions ceased, and Emperor Constantine gave Christianity the right to public worship.
The Catholic Church is the Mother Church. It always has been. If you were to speak of that church in the 1830’s to Americans…they would atleast know the reference is to the Roman Catholic Church. You have to look at the culture of those times that Smith lived in. The Puritans several hundreds of years earlier, were extremely anti-Catholic.
(It would be nice to know if it were true that Smith said before his death, that the ‘old church had it right’…)
And as I indicated to you, the Church was already established as an institution by 100 AD with most Scriptures approved except that of Hebrews, and shortly before that, the Gospel of John as verified written by him, the ecclesial hierarchy established after also an attempt at the conciliar, and the Apostles Creed securing our faith in Christ as given to us by the Apostles, and finally the form of worship, that is retained by early church writers and fathers.
You cannot look to Origen as representing the Deposit of Faith. You can never as a Catholic look to any single writer, theologian, bishop, pope for the deposit of faith because it is the faith of Christ’s Church based on the apostles, not on men or ideas following.
Origen’s ideas did not conform to Christ and the Apostles Creed…so I do not know why you keep referring to him…
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Catholics are ecclesial deists…you can read about this on www.calledtocommunion.com, developed by a convert who is experiencing what we experience…the communion with God as Church…not based on single men’s thinking.
At the time of Arianism, the nature of Christ was not clearly defined, this heresy pointing the need for greater defining…Christ is of the same substance of the Father…He is Him…in the state of being…Who became carnate…at the Incarnation.
However, as I implied before…to say that we had a prior spirit existence…is not conforming to our separateness from God as creatures. We are finite. We are made of matter and soul, and because of matter, we live in linear time…But we are called to God…
And we cannot deny the contribution of our existence, the way we look, our own giftedness…our very DNA…to our parents.
God simply gave us our soul through His Holy Spirit, with that from our parents.
He is all knowing…and in that sense, in the transcendent sense, He knows all of us who ever live, live now, and will now, in His being…but we are not puppets…He created us with free will…and that is another issue of opposing pre mortal existence…is that there is no pre fully cognizant human spirit…deciding to comply to do God’s will to will to be born…
Rather…the onus of bringing forth human life comes from the parents themselves…and there is a tremendous harm to society when people have sex and conceive children they do not want or abort them.
So pre mortal existence and full cognizance removes responsibility from the conceiving parents…sexuality is always connnected with the potential conception of the human being…and in today’s time, the sex industry has made a great victory in separating promiscuous, irresponsible sex from the creation of an innocent human being.
At the time of Arianism, the nature of Christ was not clearly defined, this heresy pointing the need for greater defining…Christ is of the same substance of the Father…He is Him…in the state of being…Who became carnate…at the Incarnation.
However, as I implied before…to say that we had a prior spirit existence…is not conforming to our separateness from God as creatures. We are finite. We are made of matter and soul, and because of matter, we live in linear time…But we are called to God…
And we cannot deny the contribution of our existence, the way we look, our own giftedness…our very DNA…to our parents.
God simply gave us our soul through His Holy Spirit, with that from our parents.
He is all knowing…and in that sense, in the transcendent sense, He knows all of us who ever live, live now, and will now, in His being…but we are not puppets…He created us with free will…and that is another issue of opposing pre mortal existence…is that there is no pre fully cognizant human spirit…deciding to comply to do God’s will to will to be born…
Rather…the onus of bringing forth human life comes from the parents themselves…and there is a tremendous harm to society when people have sex and conceive children they do not want or abort them.
So pre mortal existence and full cognizance removes responsibility from the conceiving parents…sexuality is always connnected with the potential conception of the human being…and in today’s time, the sex industry has made a great victory in separating promiscuous, irresponsible sex from the creation of an innocent human being.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I would clarify here that you have to understand what teachers, theologians and Early Church Fathers beliefs supported the deposit of faith given us by Christ through His apostles…
Origen had stated some correct view points…he is remembered, but alot of what he said was not conforming to the truth of Christ.
And remember, the need to develop a science of Christology was still forthcoming…and its need came to light at the time of Arianism.
Our Nicene Creed would implicity deny premortal existence…as indicated by us…implying man and God live in the transcendence when only God does.
And…from what I had learned so far…the Mormons refused the Catholic bible…based on translation…All the bible is translated by man…but the interpreter is the Holy Spirit…in light of the tradition of faith passed down since Abraham.
St. Jerome copied the Hebrew and Aramaic text literally from their actual text…so I don’t see what the problem is…I see him more as a big help. I mean, I don’t know Hebrew or Aramaic…there is a priest in town who is American Lebanese Maronite…and he recites Aramaic and Syrian (spelling)…approved by Church for the Mass…and he talks with a prominent mid Atlantic East coast accent…
I would think it only recently that Mormons are now reading various books of the bible…
It is very clear to me when Wisdom is spoken of as referring to the gift of the Holy Spirit in God vs that of Solomon speaking nuptials…and then re interpreting it as Church and Bride of Christ…
Thought I had made it clear so many posts back…
How about this for a timeline…6 6 6
First 600 years after Christ, Islam.
Second 600 years after Christ, the effects set in place for the coming dismantling of Christianity through Sola Scriptura and the Enlightenment begun by Descartes…
And the following 600 years…1800’s when man makes himself god. Think of Marx, Hegel, and Nietzche primarily, but it seems prominent movement began in this century for man making himself god…and with the subsequent century…its effect with millions of people dying because of the State.
Origen had stated some correct view points…he is remembered, but alot of what he said was not conforming to the truth of Christ.
And remember, the need to develop a science of Christology was still forthcoming…and its need came to light at the time of Arianism.
Our Nicene Creed would implicity deny premortal existence…as indicated by us…implying man and God live in the transcendence when only God does.
And…from what I had learned so far…the Mormons refused the Catholic bible…based on translation…All the bible is translated by man…but the interpreter is the Holy Spirit…in light of the tradition of faith passed down since Abraham.
St. Jerome copied the Hebrew and Aramaic text literally from their actual text…so I don’t see what the problem is…I see him more as a big help. I mean, I don’t know Hebrew or Aramaic…there is a priest in town who is American Lebanese Maronite…and he recites Aramaic and Syrian (spelling)…approved by Church for the Mass…and he talks with a prominent mid Atlantic East coast accent…
I would think it only recently that Mormons are now reading various books of the bible…
It is very clear to me when Wisdom is spoken of as referring to the gift of the Holy Spirit in God vs that of Solomon speaking nuptials…and then re interpreting it as Church and Bride of Christ…
Thought I had made it clear so many posts back…
How about this for a timeline…6 6 6
First 600 years after Christ, Islam.
Second 600 years after Christ, the effects set in place for the coming dismantling of Christianity through Sola Scriptura and the Enlightenment begun by Descartes…
And the following 600 years…1800’s when man makes himself god. Think of Marx, Hegel, and Nietzche primarily, but it seems prominent movement began in this century for man making himself god…and with the subsequent century…its effect with millions of people dying because of the State.
S
StephenKent
Guest
When Early Church Fathers say something a Roman Emperor later finds to be distateful, you run away from it and claim it was really nothing. Address THAT.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Finally, you have agreed your leaders are NOT prophets and apostles. After this admission, you have started the road to recovery.
And I will never let you forget that you have admitted your leaders are not prophets and apostles
S
StephenKent
Guest
Not one person has posted any cogent thoughts or analysis about the passages I quoted from Wisdom chapter 8 and Wisdom chapter 15. Why are those passages not being discussed? They have been advanced as “scriptural evidence for ‘pre-mortal existence.’”
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Because I am to excited that you have admitted your leaders are not prophets and apostles. You are the first LDS on this board to admit that
S
StephenKent
Guest
Nice try.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Stephen…
I thought I had answered you…there is an interplay between God of Wisdom…greatest fruit of the Holy Spirit…along side the quest for wisdom by Solomon that then goes into nuptials…of love between man and woman…but I see no evidence of any of it pertaining to a premortal human existence.
To say that we existed as spiritual beings before our existence as mortals is to say we are of the same substance as God. The Nicene Creed covered Who God is and who we are not back in the mid 300’s AD…the Nicene Creed, through clarification of the Church and seeing its need for theological discipline and science of Christology now beginning.
Again our interpreter is the Holy Spirit…who affirms and guides the Church, not any single man or group of unauthorized men…and our doctrine of faith must also resonate with the communion of believers…there have been periods in the Church where the faithful were strong but the bishops weak…the Holy Spirit is our guide and strength, and we put no faith in man alone, including our popes.
I thought I had answered you…there is an interplay between God of Wisdom…greatest fruit of the Holy Spirit…along side the quest for wisdom by Solomon that then goes into nuptials…of love between man and woman…but I see no evidence of any of it pertaining to a premortal human existence.
To say that we existed as spiritual beings before our existence as mortals is to say we are of the same substance as God. The Nicene Creed covered Who God is and who we are not back in the mid 300’s AD…the Nicene Creed, through clarification of the Church and seeing its need for theological discipline and science of Christology now beginning.
Again our interpreter is the Holy Spirit…who affirms and guides the Church, not any single man or group of unauthorized men…and our doctrine of faith must also resonate with the communion of believers…there have been periods in the Church where the faithful were strong but the bishops weak…the Holy Spirit is our guide and strength, and we put no faith in man alone, including our popes.
T
theidler
Guest
What do you mean “nice try” - he’s already got you on that one. Now the rest of us can watch you squirm out from underneath that anvil and slip away with another bit of sophistry, or come to realize that the Mormon Church is built on nothing but lies and forgeries.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
Nope. YOU have admitted it. You keep comparing people you allege are “prophets, seers and revelators” to people who have never made that claim. I have warned you how ludicrous that is. but, because you have nothing else, you continue to do so, thereby placing your folks on the same level as our folks BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION. IF they are on the same level as our folks, as YOU insist, then they are not prophets and apostles.
YOUR admission. Not mine.
And I thank your for your insisted admission
T
theidler
Guest
K
KathleenGee
Guest
To clarify the parts on Wisdom…Solomon is cleaving to Wisdom as he would to his bride…but he is not cleaving to some premortal person…
Church and Judaism have never taught it…you may have a few people out there who have survived many years…but they are representing their own reflections and not the body of true faith in God.
So I see an ongoing dilemma of Mormonism going back and forth as to what is of man and what is of God…and we have the Church to avoid such uncertainty of beliefs.
Church and Judaism have never taught it…you may have a few people out there who have survived many years…but they are representing their own reflections and not the body of true faith in God.
So I see an ongoing dilemma of Mormonism going back and forth as to what is of man and what is of God…and we have the Church to avoid such uncertainty of beliefs.
- Status