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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kathleen, I’ll save you the trouble of typing Chapter 15 out. Copy/Paste works better. 😉
*Douay-Rheims, Book of Wisdom 15: [1] But thou, our God, art gracious and true, patient, and ordering all things in mercy. [2] For if we sin, we are thine, knowing thy greatness: and if we sin not, we know that we are counted with thee. [3] For to know thee is perfect justice: and to know thy justice, and thy power, is the root of immortality. [4] For the invention of mischievous men hath not deceived us, nor the shadow of a picture, a fruitless labour, a graven figure with divers colours, [5] The sight whereof enticeth the fool to lust after it, and he loveth the lifeless figure of a dead image.

[6] The lovers of evil things deserve to have no better things to trust in, both they that make them, and they that love them, and they that worship them. [7] The potter also tempering soft earth, with labour fashioneth every vessel for our service, and of the same clay he maketh both vessels that are for clean uses, and likewise such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of these vessels, the potter is the judge. [8] And of the same clay by a vain labour he maketh a god: he who a little before was made of earth himself, and a little after returneth to the same out of which he was taken, when his life which was lent him shall be called for again. [9] But his care is, not that he shall labour, nor that his life is short, but he striveth with the goldsmiths and silversmiths: and he endeavoureth to do like the workers in brass, and counteth it a glory to make vain things. [10] For his heart is ashes, and his hope vain earth, and his life more base than clay:

[11] Forasmuch as he knew not his maker and him that inspired into him the soul that worketh, and that breathed into him a living spirit. [12] Yea and they have counted our life a pastime, and the business of life to be gain, and that we must be getting every way, even out of evil. [13] For that man knoweth that he offendeth above all others, who of earthly matter maketh brittle vessels, and graven gods. [14] But all the enemies of thy people that hold them in subjection, are foolish, and unhappy, and proud beyond measure: [15] For they have esteemed all the idols of the heathens for gods, which neither have the use of eyes to see, nor noses to draw breath, nor ears to hear, nor fingers of hands to handle, and as for their feet, they are slow to walk.

[16] For man made them: and he that borroweth his own breath, fashioned them. For no man can make a god like to himself. [17] For being mortal himself, he formeth a dead thing with his wicked hands. For he is better than they whom he worshippeth, because he indeed hath lived, though he were mortal, but they never. [18] Moreover they worship also the vilest creatures: but things without sense compared to these, are worse than they. [19] Yea, neither by sight can any man see good of these beasts. But they have fled from the praise of God, and from his blessing.*
 
And, Chapter 8…*Douay-Rheims, Book of Wisdom 8: [1] She reacheth therefore from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly. [2] Her have I loved, and have sought her out from my youth, and have desired to take her for my spouse, and I became a lover of her beauty. [3] She glorifieth her nobility by being conversant with God: yea and the Lord of all things hath loved her. [4] For it is she that teacheth the knowledge of God, and is the chooser of his works. [5] And if riches be desired in life, what is richer than wisdom, which maketh all things?

[6] And if sense do work: who is a more artful worker than she of those things that are? [7] And if a man love justice: her labours have great virtues; for she teacheth temperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude, which are such things as men can have nothing more profitable in life. [8] And if a man desire much knowledge: she knoweth things past, and judgeth of things to come: she knoweth the subtilties of speeches, and the solutions of arguments: she knoweth signs and wonders before they be done, and the events of times and ages. [9] I purposed therefore to take her to me to live with me: knowing that she will communicate to me of her good things, and will be a comfort in my cares and grief. [10] For her sake I shall have glory among the multitude, and honour with the ancients, though I be young:

[11] And I shall be found of a quick conceit in judgment, and shall be admired in the sight of the mighty, and the faces of princes shall wonder at me. [12] They shall wait for me when I hold my peace, and they shall look upon me when I speak, and if I talk much they shall lay their hands on their mouths. [13] Moreover by the means of her I shall have immortality: and shall leave behind me an everlasting memory to them that come after me. [14] I shall set the people in order: and nations shall be subject to me. [15] Terrible kings hearing shall be afraid of me: among the multitude I shall be found good, and valiant in war.

[16] When I go into my house, I shall repose myself with her: for her conversation hath no bitterness, nor her company any tediousness, but joy and gladness. [17] Thinking these things with myself, and pondering them in my heart, that to be allied to wisdom is immortality, [18] And that there is great delight in her friendship, and inexhaustible riches in the works of her hands, and in the exercise of conference with her, wisdom, and glory in the communication of her words: I went about seeking, that I might take her to myself. [19] And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. [20] And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.

[21] And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, except God gave it, and this also was a point of wisdom, to know whose gift it was: I went to the Lord, and besought him, and said with my whole heart: *
 
Lori…

My son came in a rush, showed me how in a second…and rushed out…have to wait for him to come back…it really keeps me back from drawing on past references, links, etc…

But I think we answered Stephen…and StephenVH showed very clearly that the one Scriptural passage from Wisdom shows God breathing the spirit into a person…premortal shows same existence as God…

Here is the translation we are now using for the Nicene creed which is the most literal translation we can get from Latin we recite at every Feast of the Resurrection, every Sunday:

"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were mad e.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
(Bow)…and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried,
And rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Reflecting on our Nicene Creed…the final revelation of Jesus Christ, meditating on every phrase, we believe in One God, Creator of all life, Christ consubstantial with the Father, through Christ all things were made…the Lord created as well all that is invisible to our eyes…we have beginning and end…but we hope and look forward to the resurrection of the dead … and the life of the world to come…

It was St. Athanasius, who was exiled 5 times, from his position as bishop, who foresaw the need to completely define Christ’s humanity along with His divinity…Christ is…no beginning or end…otherwise St. Athanasius saw such a belief would bring Christianity back to polytheism,…multiple gods, and then eventually, the return of paganism.
 
Yes…for Solomon…embracing Wisdom, God’s first fruit, would indeed enable him to desire immortal life…yet as God’s prophetic voice revealed over the ages…Jesus, the final prophet, said we would find our nourishment in Him…Jesus is Wisdom…consubstantial with the Father…
 
Lori…

My son came in a rush, showed me how in a second…and rushed out…have to wait for him to come back…it really keeps me back from drawing on past references, links, etc…

But I think we answered Stephen…and StephenVH showed very clearly that the one Scriptural passage from Wisdom shows God breathing the spirit into a person…premortal shows same existence as God…

Here is the translation we are now using for the Nicene creed which is the most literal translation we can get from Latin we recite at every Feast of the Resurrection, every Sunday:

"I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
(Bow)…and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried,
And rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Reflecting on our Nicene Creed…the final revelation of Jesus Christ, meditating on every phrase, we believe in One God, Creator of all life, Christ consubstantial with the Father, through Christ all things were made…the Lord created as well all that is invisible to our eyes…we have beginning and end…but we hope and look forward to the resurrection of the dead … and the life of the world to come…

It was St. Athanasius, who was exiled 5 times, from his position as bishop, who foresaw the need to completely define Christ’s humanity along with His divinity…Christ is…no beginning or end…otherwise St. Athanasius saw such a belief would bring Christianity back to polytheism,…multiple gods, and then eventually, the return of paganism.
Thank you for posting the latest translation of the Creed, Kathleen. It’s beautiful. I think it’s much closer to the older version, before Vat II, and is much clearer in defining God as the Trinity that has always existed, long before any other spiritual or material thing was ever created by Him. Nothing ever existed except for Him. No protons, no neutrons and no electrons, not even a quark existed before He created them.
Yes…for Solomon…embracing Wisdom, God’s first fruit, would indeed enable him to desire immortal life…yet as God’s prophetic voice revealed over the ages…Jesus, the final prophet, said we would find our nourishment in Him…Jesus is Wisdom…consubstantial with the Father…
I think I posted something about Jesus being the embodiment of Wisdom in another thread where Chapter 8 was brought up in the past. I tend to believe that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Wisdom and Jesus is Wisdom in the flesh. The whole Trinity, together, is the ultimate Source of Wisdom.
 
Lori,

What you are defining is Christ as the Bridge, the Crucified Lord to the Heavenly Father…to fulfill all Sacred Scripture, to be Wisdom incarnated.

Yes, your describing Wisdom as Christ, the embodiment of the Word through which the world was made, Who shows us the face of God…Christ clearly our Lord…Who came to us as man…Yes…Jesus is the fulfillment incarnated in Wisdom.

With Christ, True God and True Man, as the Incarnated Word of God, Christ the Man as Incarnated Wisdom, now…the feminine, interpreted by the Holy Spirit working today…is the Church…Who is the Bride of Christ, Who is the Mother who nurtures and guides in the Lord for the Lord.
 
Stephen Kent…

Subsequently, as I have spoken to you of the Deposit of Faith, this is its definition in the universal Christian Church, so as not to cause any more questioning of what we are talking about.

The profession of faith as Christians has been proclaimed for 2,000 years at daily Mass in the Apostles Creed. With the rise of dissenting heresies, the Creed had to be refined to proclaim the true nature of Christ as God, One with the Father and Holy Spirit. The Truth of Christ as God and Man was clarified in the early 300’s, in the Nicene Creed.

**I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things
visible and invisible.
Code:
  I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
  born of the Father before all ages, 
  God from  God, Light from Light,
  true God from true God,
  begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
  through him all things were made.
  For us men and for our salvation 
  he came down from heaven,
(Bow) and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
Code:
 For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
 he suffered death and was buried,
And rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
Code:
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.**

All sacred theology must affirm this deposit of faith, because this deposit of faith is the action of the Holy Spirit that has been proceeding from the Son since Pentecost.

The One True God does not come to us, then withdraw His Spirit from the Church because of some nebulous and undefined ‘Great Apostasy’, which names no individual or event.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Heavenly Father through the prophets of ancient times, proclaiming God’s law, to be faithful to Him, to not have strange idols – which really are outward signs signifying the wanton desires of carnal man – and the coming of the Messiah, the New Adam to free us from our sins.

There is no other message, because faith in Christ in His established Catholic Church is complete.

And please note in the use of language, that consubstantial is the word created by the Church to mean the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of the one, same substance: God. Consubstantial is not used outside the Church.
 
Looks like one head of the Hydra has been severed and cauterized. Let’s move on to the next one.
 
Did he use Soren’s intention to get hold of the references he gave to check out for awhile???

The Deposit of Faith defined was given to us by the Church, many people consecrated in truth and spirit.

John Paul II said our beliefs bear the fruit of its foundation. If we believe that Joseph Smith re-wrote the interpretation of salvation, then the fruit of his interpretation is carnate man’s flesh and bones…that do not provide us eternal life.
 
Thank you for the postings about the passages in Wisdom of Solomon chapters 8 and 15:
“Solomon is speaking of his relationship with the Wisdom of God.”
I agree.
“The entire book is about him speaking of God’s Wisdom by personifying it, as if it were a woman.”
I agree.
“It was one of God’s greatest gifts to him.”
I agree.
[Wisdom 8:19-20] “describes the soul that was created for him by God, being a special gift that was given to him, for the purposes that God had ordained for him to fulfill.”
I agree.
“God knows everything that will ever happen, long before it does.”
I agree (at least to the extent that God’s foreknowledge does not conflict with the moral agency He himself has given to his children).
“That’s just more proof of the amazing, true power of God, . . . .”
I agree.
" . . . and certainly not that we ever existed before we were born."
This states a conclusion but does not mention any of the premises upon which the conclusion is based. Solomon states: “I was a boy of happy disposition, I had received a good soul as my lot, or rather, being good, I had entered an undefiled body.” If we enter a room, we may well have existed prior to passing into the room. How do we jump from Solomon’s phrase “I entered” to the notion “I did not exist prior to”? What are the premises upon which one makes the logical leap from the one to the other?

Solomon states: “he [the wicked man] failed to know the one who formed him and inspired him with an active soul and breathed into him a living spirit.” If an active soul is “inspired” into us and God breathes into us a living spirit, does that necessarily mean that the spirit did not exist before the act of inspiring/breathing into? How does one jump from Solomon’s phrases “inspired” and “breathed into” to the notion that the soul that was breathed into did not exist prior to its having been breathed into? What are the premises upon which one makes the logical leap from the one to the other?
" . . . on Charpter 15. I see nothing there that implies a pre-mortal soul. I fail to see how the fact that God ‘breathed’ a soul into man translates into an sic] pre-existing soul."
I see nothing there that implies the non-existence of a pre-mortal soul. I fail to see how the fact that God ‘breathed’ a soul into man translates into the non-existence of a pre-mortal soul.
“What it does imply is that man did not possess a soul until it was given to him by God, . . .”
I agree in the following sense: Man was not a soul until God created him as such. What you essentially are stating, using the phraseology you employ, is that the “man” did not “possess” a “soul” until it was “given” to him by God. By “man” do you mean the body? I think Latter-day Saints, at least, and probably Catholics to, little doubt, consider “man” (meaning a man or woman) is both body and soul. The mortal parents are given by the Creator the power to create the body and God creates the soul. The implications raised by your use of the word “until” (in your statement “man did not possess a soul *until *it was given to him by God”) are perfectly acceptable and agreeable. But the moment you make that “until” mean at the moment the soul was placed by God in the man’s body, you have simply stated an ipse dixit. What is the logical reasoning you employ to jump from the statement that God “inspired him [man] with an active soul and breathed into him a living spirit” to the notion that the creation of that spirit or soul took place at the moment it was breathed into the man?
" . . . therefore God is the origin of that soul.
I agree! All we are talking about here is “when” it was that the soul was created. I am asking for some analysis that looks at Solomon’s statements and that spells forth exactly how it is that statements describing that God breathed into man his soul constitute statements that the timing of the creation of the soul coincides with the placement of that soul in the body.
 
Look to the concept of God, then, in our Deposit of Faith. God has no beginning or end…but we as creatures, flesh and bones, do.
 
Look to the concept of God, then, in our Deposit of Faith. God has no beginning or end…but we as creatures, flesh and bones, do.
I think this is the best place to start.

A belief in a spiritual pre-existence denies the “mannishness” of man: we are physical beings. Dust you are, to dust you shall return. The promise of the resurrection is to live again in a physical body.

The whole thing seems kinda gnostic to me.
 
Yes…the Old Testament speaks of not holding on to riches and power that moths will eat…and we return to dust…as did the Old Adam.

Instead of looking back and it is like conjecturing about pre mortals…why I said before it seems to have no purpose…but another musing…that we as Catholics look instead to the final resurrection the life of the world to come.
 
Thank you for the postings about the passages in Wisdom of Solomon chapters 8 and 15:
You’re welcome. I figured it would be much easier for anyone reading the thread if they had the full context of the chapters we were discussing, so they wouldn’t have to search for them. I’m glad we agree on the points you indicated. At least, it’s a start.
I agree (at least to the extent that God’s foreknowledge does not conflict with the moral agency He himself has given to his children).
God always knows the decisions we’ll make by our own free will. He would never force any of us to make any choices, but He knows every thought we have before we think it. After all, He’s Omniscient.
This states a conclusion but does not mention any of the premises upon which the conclusion is based. Solomon states: “I was a boy of happy disposition, I had received a good soul as my lot, or rather, being good, I had entered an undefiled body.” If we enter a room, we may well have existed prior to passing into the room. How do we jump from Solomon’s phrase “I entered” to the notion “I did not exist prior to”? What are the premises upon which one makes the logical leap from the one to the other?
In the Douay-Rheims, that line is worded differently. “[19] And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. [20] And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.” Solomon tells us that God gave him a special gift of having “a good soul” that was “undefiled” when God created it for him. He was also given the special gift of having exceptional intelligence and great wisdom from an early age (“a witty child”). He also acknowledges that his gift of intelligence would be wasted if he didn’t recognize where it came from, namely the Wisdom of God, the source of all human intelligence.
Solomon states: “he [the wicked man] failed to know the one who formed him and inspired him with an active soul and breathed into him a living spirit.” If an active soul is “inspired” into us and God breathes into us a living spirit, does that necessarily mean that the spirit did not exist before the act of inspiring/breathing into? How does one jump from Solomon’s phrases “inspired” and “breathed into” to the notion that the soul that was breathed into did not exist prior to its having been breathed into? What are the premises upon which one makes the logical leap from the one to the other?
The analogy of God “breathing” the soul into the body certainly implies that the soul comes directly from God at that very moment. At the time of the Old Testament, writers had no knowledge that air (breath) contained anything at all because it was invisible to their naked eyes, just as a soul is invisible. So, the analogy certainly seems to suggest that they believed the soul came directly from the “breath of God” (which was equivalent to it coming from ‘nothing’ in their perspective), and became a living soul through the power of God. Perspective is always important to remember. The “potter” was wicked because he failed to see the true God that created him and gave him his talent, and instead worshiped idols that he created from his own mind, with his own hands.
I agree in the following sense: Man was not a soul until God created him as such. What you essentially are stating, using the phraseology you employ, is that the “man” did not “possess” a “soul” until it was “given” to him by God. By “man” do you mean the body? I think Latter-day Saints, at least, and probably Catholics to, little doubt, consider “man” (meaning a man or woman) is both body and soul. The mortal parents are given by the Creator the power to create the body and God creates the soul. The implications raised by your use of the word “until” (in your statement “man did not possess a soul *until *it was given to him by God”) are perfectly acceptable and agreeable. But the moment you make that “until” mean at the moment the soul was placed by God in the man’s body, you have simply stated an ipse dixit. What is the logical reasoning you employ to jump from the statement that God “inspired him [man] with an active soul and breathed into him a living spirit” to the notion that the creation of that spirit or soul took place at the moment it was breathed into the man?
While parents are partners with God in the creation of a child, God still controls whether or not conception will occur. God then creates the soul at the moment of conception. From that point on, even though the body is mortal, the soul is immortal. It can’t be ‘destroyed’ as far as being blotted out of existence. A soul can only be ‘destroyed’ in a spiritual sense by unforgiven mortal sin, but it will still exist forever, though in hell. Souls don’t exist at all before God creates them, to give spiritual life to the physical body. (See above)
I agree! All we are talking about here is “when” it was that the soul was created. I am asking for some analysis that looks at Solomon’s statements and that spells forth exactly how it is that statements describing that God breathed into man his soul constitute statements that the timing of the creation of the soul coincides with the placement of that soul in the body.
The “when” is only small part of the problem that stems from misunderstanding the enormous difference between God and His creations, such as human beings. Unless we know Who God really is, we can never fully understand any of His creation, nor His Holy Scriptures.
 
I applaud you and thank you for your truly civil and informative response. So very refreshing to dialogue in a respectful manner as you have done.
 
I applaud you and thank you for your truly civil and informative response. So very refreshing to dialogue in a respectful manner as you have done.
Thank you very much. I think the only way we can truly understand each other, and show where our differences come from, is by trying to show the logic and reasoning behind our beliefs. God gave us logical minds, along with our intelligence and wisdom, for a reason. So, we need to make the most of our gifts to help others to understand God better, and really appreciate His gifts for what they truly are.
 
“I think there is another question here that has not been adressed. To discuss whether or not our soul came into existence prior to our body is one thing. But there is something else that exists in Mormonism that is most troubling to me, and that is that the ultimate source of the human being was not created by God, but is thought to be self-existent; co-eternal with God in the form of some vague ‘intelligence.’ . . . I would appreciate your thoughts on this.”
We were invited earlier to address a new and second question (see above quotation). This is my initial posting in an effort to respond to that invitation.

What do the Latter-day Saints believe to be the “ultimate source” of the human being? Let me state at the start: (1) I do not speak for the LDS Church; and (2) I believe the LDS Church teaches that the ultimate, beginning essence of humans is some sort of “intelligence,” whatever that is. The “source” of men’s spirits is, of course, God. The world around us was created by God.

Hints at this “intelligence” can, again, be found in the teachings of Origen (which teachings, so far as I know) were never anathematized. He argues that God had made other worlds before this one, and would make more in the future (De Prinicipiis, 2.5.3). In creation, “we are to suppose that God created so great a number of rational or intellectual creatures (or by whatever name they are to be called), which have formerly termed understandings, as he foresaw would be sufficient” (De Prinicipiis, 2.9.1).

To deny the eternality of the soul was to do no less than deny God’s omnipotence, he believed. The soul must be preexistent and eternal because, “as no one can be a Father without having a son, nor a master without possessing a servant, so even God cannot be called omnipotent unless there exist those over whom he may exercise his power; and therefore, that God may be shown to be almighty, it is necessary that all things should exist.” “He must always have had those over whom He exercised power, and which were governed by Him either as king or prince” (De Prinicipiis, 1.2.10).

Origen argues that “If the soul of a man, which is certainly inferior while it remains the soul of a man, was not formed along with his body, but is proved to have been implanted strictly from without, much more must this be the case with those living beings which are called heavenly.” Furthermore, “How could his soul and its images be formed along with his body, who, before he was created in the womb, is said to be known by God, and was sanctified by Him before his birth?” (De Prinicipiis, 1.7.4).

Origen appealed to Romans 9:10-13 to conclude that Jacob and Esau, “being not yet born,” were capable of being objects of divine love and divine hatred.

Of the preexistence of Moses mention is made in Assumptio Mosis (i. 14): “He designed me and prepared me before the foundation of the world that I should be the mediator of the Covenant”; similarly in an apocryphon entitled “Joseph’s Prayer,” quoted by Origen in Johannem xxv., opp. iv. 84, where Jacob says, “I am an angel of God and a primeval spirit, the first-born of all creatures, and like me were Abraham and Isaac created before any other work of God. I am invested with the highest office in the face of God and invoke Him by His ineffable name.”

As I understand the Latter-day Saint belief, the Old Testament uses the word “nepes” to refer to the “soul,” the essence of man in the totality of his being. The breath of life breathed into the body of Adam created “a living nepes” (Gen. 1:20; 2:7; Ex. 1:5). The soul is something that can hunger and thirst (Psa. 107:5) and can be distressed (Gen. 42:21). It is often used for the essence of self (Job 16:4; Psa. 124:7). In the New Testament, the soul (psyche) is the life principle (Acts 20:10; Rev. 8:9) which is distinct from the body. John sees the “souls of those who had been slain,” not “those who had been slain” (Rev. 6:9 cf. 20:4; Matt. 10:28; Luke 21:19; Jam. 1:21; 5:20).

As far as concerns the “intelligence” referred to in LDS scriptures, however, I do not believe much is known. The LDS scriptures talk of it (lds.org/scriptures/gs/intelligence-intelligences?lang=eng) but the meaning of the words “intelligence” and “intelligences” has not been, so far as I know, *authoritatively *defined in any *canonized *source.
 
Wow, lots happened since I was last here.
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
Not in the slightest. We do not believe that any statement made by any individual, regardless of what that individual may claim regarding it, to be infallible or to be automatically true and correct. Before anything can be formally stated as a point of doctrine it is ratified by the council of the quorum of the twelve apostles in conjunction with the first presidency. Only upon their formal ratification is anything, regardless of its source, considered a doctrine of the church.
Agreed, Brigham Young claimed that many of the things he stated were doctrine; and went so far as to claim that every word he spoke could be taken as doctrine. This does not make him a liar (i.e. intentionally misleading), merely mistaken.
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
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
No, we have not. We compare statements made by individuals that you do not hold to be infallible, to statements made by individuals that we do not hold to be infallible.
Not scripture; show me it canonised into our standard works?
The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks *ex cathedra *— that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals . . . .”

In short, popes themselves can speak in their private capacity as theologian, preacher or allocutionist, or in their capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome and they thereby do not claim infallibility.

For an *ex cathedra *decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. In other words, his intent must be to demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. The presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

Such a teaching about the infallibility of the pope is both reasonable and acceptable. The Church should not be bound by statements not intended to be ex cathedra. And yet the pope is still the pope and should be honored as such.
LDS leaders have made similar statements;
Joseph Smith stated that “A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such” (meaning both that they must be at that moment be speaking from their position as a prophet; not as a father, or a secular teacher, or a scientist etc.etc.etc.; and also that they must be living their life in a manner befitting the prophet of the Lord)
The church released a statement to the effect as I stated above; that statements made by individual members or leaders are not automatically included as doctrine; although the statements are no doubt made after much personal study, consideration and with the best of intentions.
Joseph Smith and his partners borrowed Gnostic beliefs from Masonry, Solomon Spalding, Emanuel Swedenborg, Islam, the Eastern religions, and many others. He re-interpreted the Bible according to his beliefs. They built their own religion out of pre-existing Gnostic beliefs. A study of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies makes that clear. Maybe they even borrowed from his description of Gnostic beliefs. :rolleyes:
Believe as you will; but consider that similarities between two things is not automatic evidence that the one was derived from the other.
Some may be surprised to realise that genetically a salmon and a trout are no more related than a lion and a bear; despite the fact they appear so similar (and both are labelled as ‘fish’).
 
However, I have to agree with Kathleen Gee that a Mormon is not in a position to cite the Wisdom of Solomon as a “scriptural source.” You might accept Wisdom as a good book and a historical witness to ancient Jewish belief, but not as a source for doctrine in the way scripture is. Because it is scripture to us, you are right to hold us accountable to it, but only by accepting the Catholic canon hypothetically, for the sake of argument. Perhaps that is all you intend, but I didn’t find it to be clear in your other posts.
Why so? We do not believe in Sola Scripture either, and are free to find spiritual benefit from whatever source the Lord provides

With regards to the scriptures in Wisdom; the scripture states that God breathed into man a living soul. This suggests (or at least can be interpreted) that the soul was living during the act of breathing, not that it became living at the moment it entered the body. Either way for the soul to be breathed in, there must be an existence while it is breathed, prior to mortal life. The scripture still leaves it open to interpretation whether this is the point at which the spirit is created (Catholic interpretation) or if God inspires a spirit which He has already created into the body which is just being formed (LDS interpretation). The scripture neither bolsters, nor denies either view.
 
Hints at this “intelligence” can, again, be found in the teachings of Origen (which teachings, so far as I know) were never anathematized. " (De Prinicipiis, 1.7.4)
I follow what your saying Stephan, however as to Origen and “De Prinicipiis”? Let me just add a cut and paste from the CE to put this particular work in perspective politely. I have a great deal of respect for the man and he certainly wrote a lot, some profound, almost all directly in line with the Apostolic Church. This particular work? Well here…

The origin and destiny of rational beings

"Here we encounter an unfortunate amalgam of philosophy and theology. The system that results is not coherent, for Origen, frankly recognizing the contradiction of the incompatible elements that he is trying to unify, recoils from the consequences, protests against the logical conclusions, and oftentimes corrects by orthodox professions of faith the heterodoxy of his speculations. It must be said that almost all the texts about to be treated of, are contained in the “De principiis”, where the author treads on most dangerous ground. The system may be reduced to a few hypotheses, the error and danger of which were not recognized by Origen.

(1) Eternity of Creation

Whatever exists outside of God was created by Him: the Alexandrian catechist always defended this thesis most energetically against the pagan philosophers who admitted an uncreated matter (De Principiis II.1.5; “In Genes.”, I, 12, in Migne, XII, 48-9). But he believes that God created from eternity, for “it is absurd”, he says, “to imagine the nature of God inactive, or His goodness inefficacious, or His dominion without subjects” (De Principiis III.5.3). Consequently he is forced to admit a double infinite series of worlds before and after the present world.

(2) Original Equality of the Created Spirits.

“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.

(3) Essence and Raison d’Être of Matter

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).

(4) Universality of the Redemption and the Final Restoration

Certain Scriptural texts, e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:25-28, seem to extend to all rational beings the benefit of the Redemption, and Origen allows himself to be led also by the philosophical principle which he enunciates several times, without ever proving it, that the end is always like the beginning: “We think that the goodness of God, through the mediation of Christ, will bring all creatures to one and the same end” (De Principiis I.6.1-3). The universal restoration (apokatastasis) follows necessarily from these principles.

On the least reflection, it will be seen that these hypotheses, starting from contrary points of view, are irreconcilable: for the theory of a final restoration is diametrically opposed to the theory of successive indefinite trials. It would be easy to find in the writings of Origen a mass of texts contradicting these principles and destroying the resulting conclusions. He affirms, for instance, that the charity of the elect in heaven does not fail; in their case “the freedom of the will will be bound so that sin will be impossible” (In Roman., V, 10). So, too, the reprobate will always be fixed in evil, less from the inability to free themselves from it, than because they wish to be evil (De Principiis I.8.4), for malice has become natural to them, it is as a second nature in them (In Joann., xx, 19). Origen grew angry when accused of teaching the eternal salvation of the devil. But the hypotheses which he lays down here and there are none the less worthy of censure. What can be said in his defence, if it be not with St. Athanasius (De decretis Nic., 27), that we must not seek to find his real opinion in the works in which he discusses the arguments for and against doctrine as an intellectual exercise or amusement; or, with St. Jerome (Ad Pammach. Epist., XLVIII, 12), that it is one thing to dogmatize and another to enunciate hypothetical opinions which will be cleared up by discussion."

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top