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

[ParkerD]

Parker,

You should explain to the others here what you think is the scriptural basis for these assertions, which you say come from Joseph Smith. If memory serves, you once defended it to me that from D&C 107. I didn’t find that text persuasive at all, since it was clearly about a different topic, but maybe you have more to say. If so, say it, becuse everything you are saying seem to me like arbitrary assertions. To really consolidate your case, you have to show that your standards for determining doctrine are supported in Mormon doctrine itself, in scripture or such unified presentations of doctrine as you describe. Otherwise, it is your private opinion, and no one needs to be accountable to it in explaining what Mormonism teaches.

Soren1,

There ought to be no question to anyone who becomes familiar with Doctrine and Covenants 107:22-31 as to whether there is an importance for Latter-day Saints, of “the unanimous voice” of the quorums that include the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (verses 27 and 23), and that “unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings…” and “the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.”(verse 31)

Section 107 is one of the important “priesthood government” sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, which those familiar with the operation of the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would know beginning at as early as the age of twelve when they begin paying attention to the word “priesthood” and what it means to them personally for the young men. They are reminded about that section, and also sections 20 and 84, in priesthood classes. It would be a case where they would grow in awareness of their importance as they get older and study the gospel more in their personal life, and prepare to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood if they are a young man.

The concept of the united voice of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency and also of the Quorum of Seventy have been increasingly emphasized during my lifetime, and the basis of that increased emphasis has to do with the principle of “coming to the unity in the faith” (Ephesians 4:13), and the principle of learning to counsel together and take counsel including within marriages but also within ward councils and stake councils and the councils noted in Section 107.

“Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” (Proverbs 11:14)

The concept of “becoming one with God” points toward learning to counsel together and learn from each other in a council situation where there is give and take and the Spirit thrives through people listening to each other with their heart engaged and thus each one having the love of God and the love of neighbor fully invested in how they counsel together.

Learning to counsel together without any contention is absolutely an essential quality of following Biblical patterns of this principle.

So, there you now have “more”.

Rather than jumping ahead to criticize people for misrepresenting LDS teaching, be cognizant first that your view of LDS authority is only one particular interpretation, which is as much in need of defense as anything else. Consider also that many people, myself included, actually see no need to confine 100% of our criticisms only to doctrines that are official by the toughest doctrinal standards.

Anyone certainly can do that, but as far as anyone saying they are presenting accurate Latter-day Saint doctrine as far as “what is taught” then unless they follow the standard for what is doctrine, they aren’t unless they have the united voice principle fully understood and follow it in how they present or describe “LDS teachings”.

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation to Soren1:

A lot of us hold, for logical and biblically defensible reasons, that the testing of a prophet is based first and foremost upon what he personally teaches in the capacity as prophet. That is a logically distinct question from what his organization does or does not accept. By that standard, there are plenty of claims Joseph Smith made about receiving revelation that can in principle be used to measure his credibility. For instance, no one will argue that the Zelph revelation is an official LDS doctrine, but who can reasonably hold that Smith spoke falsely about it while still considering him as a prophet? (Joseph Fielding Smith believed the Zelph story was necessarily true, and could not be denied without denying revelation, so this example isn’t just an anti-Mormon concoction.)

Here is a well-written article about “Zelph”:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelph

Since the Book of Mormon speaks of many migrations by members of the house of Israel to the islands of the sea, and the lands of the Americas are presented in the Book of Mormon as “islands of the sea” from the perspective of Nephi, Lehi, Jacob, Mormon and Moroni, then among those many migrations the idea of there being a descendant among the house of Israel named “Zelph” who was a warrior leader is not implausible to me at all, particularly in light of the teachings of Isaiah, whom I consider a singularly important prophet who spoke of the atonement of Jesus Christ in rich splendor and also spoke of the scattering and gathering of Israel and of the last days (the end times before and during the Millennium).

Or what about the so-called Civil War prophecy? That is part of the LDS canon, but was not entered into D&C until the Civil War itself broke out. Does that mean it could be discounted as a speculation prior to that, even though the text obviously claims to be revealed?

The Civil War prophecy was known to exist by many members after it was given in December 1832. I would say that the decision to place Section 87 into the Doctrine and Covenants was made with cognizance that it includes prophecies pertinent to the entire period leading up to the Second Coming of Christ, so although I personally disagree as to your second sentence, the importance of that Section has to do with present events on the earth and still-future events.

If a critic of Mormonism had found fault with that text in the interim, would he have been misrepresenting LDS teaching?

If they said the text originated when it was published or when it was placed into the Standard Works, then yes it would be a misrepresentation since it originated in December 1832.

If you want to set serious standards for your critics to live up to, you need standards that can take things like that into account. Simply asserting that only official teachings matter and then asserting a particular, debatable theory about it just doesn’t cut the mustard.

I think this statement refers back to the original point, which I have already responded to, and has to do with those who claim to be presenting accurate Latter-day Saint teachings and “doctrines”.

Have a good day, and thanks for having spurred me to spend more time thinking about Romans chapters 8 through 12, which was a great additional source of insight for me about the depth of Paul’s knowledge about foreordination within the plan of salvation.

 

[Telstar]

Joseph Smith was inspired to establish the principle of the unanimous vote of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve and of voting in general conference about acceptance of the scriptures as they were prepared. But my point was that what is taught is found on the website lds.org and that website is intended for members to use as a resource regarding teaching.

He was inspired to make it that way by those who wrote the US Constitution. He always wanted to be “President”, so this was his next best way to do that. In just one office, he could be a ‘prophet’ and a ‘president’. He was obsessed with being shown respect, as well as ruling over others. What other titles could he have chosen for himself, that would require him to be held in such high esteem by all those around him?
"ParkerD:

I suppose you have heard of the “Monroe Doctrine”?

Since you were talking about LDS church doctrine, that use of the word is completely irrelevant, unless your church really is a political entity. I certainly see a lot more politics in it than spirituality, but that’s just my own opinion.

My statement had to do with the general use of the word “doctrine”, so I modified its use to include the word “religious” as the adjective to narrow the subject.

No, it didn’t. We’re discussing religious doctrine. This just makes me wonder if LDS hold doctrines that are completely unrelated to religion, but I seriously doubt any of those would ever be made public.

ParkerD:

They counsel together giving many different points of view, and thus the collective decision is agreed upon after counseling together. This matches what was taught in Proverbs and what was done by the ancient apostles.

It more closely matches the Presidency, Senate and House of Representatives. I don’t think they’ve ever had a unanimous vote in their entire existence.

ParkerD:

I would say we differ substantially on those points. I did mean it when I said I believe the apostle Paul about God’s mercy toward the Jews (whether they believed in Christ or not) and toward the Gentiles. He also showed that God’s timing is important, in that epistle.

I have no doubt that you believe in your LDS interpretations. I still find it disturbing that LDS have such a condescending attitude toward anyone that’s not LDS, like the Pharisees and Sadducees had toward anyone that wasn’t Jewish, or didn’t measure up to their standards.

ParkerD:

I believe in personal accountability to God, and that if I have guidance of the Holy Ghost to do a particular thing that is in a teaching mode, then I should do it–but leave the accountability between the person being taught, and God. I don’t see that praying “for their souls” is taught in the Bible.

We are responsible for our own salvation, and will be held accountable for everything that we do in this life. But, there’s a significant difference between Catholic spirituality and the teachings of LDS. LDS believe they’re only accountable for themselves, which is very self-centered. They even shun their own family members who leave the church. It’s also the opposite of what Jesus taught about us all being members of His Body. So, the spiritual health of each member affects the whole body, not just the individual. We are responsible for healing others, spiritually, through our love and prayers for their souls.

That kind of attitude also flies in the face of His commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves. “1 John: [20] If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not? [21] And this commandment we have from God, that he, who loveth God, love also his brother.” John didn’t qualify his statement by defining who our brother is, because all of us are brothers and sisters in God’s eyes. Jesus also referred to all of our neighbors as our brothers. He even commanded us to love and pray for our enemies. God loves them all, and so should we.

ParkerD:

I trust that God is truly in charge of all that has to do with the salvation of souls, and that everyone will ultimately have exercised their choice regarding how much they trusted in Him and obeyed Him, and all will have a fair opportunity.

Not exactly. While God will certainly be the final judge of our hearts, and all of our works, He does not decide who will be saved, beforehand. In the end, we’re fully in charge and responsible for our own salvation. How we choose to live our lives, is all up to us to decide for ourselves. Only those who truly love God, and do their best to live by the teachings of Jesus, will be saved. So, if we don’t have true love for God and our neighbor, then we’ll fall short of salvation, no matter what else we do. If we don’t have any compassion for the spiritual well being of all others around us, then we’re not really following the teachings of Jesus. Are we?

ParkerD:

Never heard of this person. No LDS scripture given context and cross references to understand a particular passage, contradicts another one. They give a consistent doctrine throughout, if context is applied.

He’s a character in the movie “The Princess Bride”, and that’s a very well known quote to all those who’ve seen it. I thought it was appropriate in this case, because LDS are always using their own definition of words, that no one else understands in the same context that they seem to.

I completely disagree with your conclusion that there are no contradictions in LDS teachings, doctrine and scripture. There have been numerous examples posted in every thread on this forum, regarding LDS beliefs. It’s the main sticking point that all non-LDS find in those beliefs, and the reason why they see them as being blatantly erroneous.

 

[ParkerD]

To the general reader,

My not responding to Telstar does not mean I have agreed with her on any of her conclusions, but that I have given up on the communication process with her.

As far as the concept of “praying for someone’s soul”, it is an evidence of the apostasy since it is not a Biblical concept. Jesus prayed sufficiently for all the souls of humankind, and His teaching to pray for our enemies was not about praying for their soul.

The Savior suffered sufficiently for the souls of everyone who has ever lived, and neither He nor Father in Heaven needs to be persuaded by anyone’s prayers “for their soul”.

A wish of peace to all readers. That point was just something from Telstar’s post that I wanted to clarify about the Sermon on the Mount, which the Latter-day Saints certainly do believe in following. I wasn’t trying to be offensive, though it may come across as that–sorry. I just wanted to make it clear that Latter-day Saints believe the Sermon on the Mount, and again that our beliefs directly correspond with Biblical teachings, including those in the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[TexanKnight]

To the general reader,

My not responding to Telstar does not mean I have agreed with her on any of her conclusions, but that I have given up on the communication process with her.

It is because she speaks the truth and you cannot overcome truth. And when you have dug yourself a whole, stop digging.

As far as the concept of “praying for someone’s soul”, it is an evidence of the apostasy since it is not a Biblical concept. Jesus prayed sufficiently for all the souls of humankind, and His teaching to pray for our enemies was not about praying for their soul.

That is simply wrong. And the only apostasy evident is the one involving Joseph Smith. How odd that you would consider praying for the soul apostasy, but believe God once being a sinful man is sound doctrine. You show me ANYWHERE where Jesus said not to pray for the soul.

A wish of peace to all readers. That point was just something from Telstar’s post that I wanted to clarify about the Sermon on the Mount, which the Latter-day Saints certainly do believe in following. I wasn’t trying to be offensive, though it may come across as that–sorry. I just wanted to make it clear that Latter-day Saints believe the Sermon on the Mount, and again that our beliefs directly correspond with Biblical teachings, including those in the Sermon on the Mount.

Again, that is not true. How in the world can you claim to believe in the Savior Jesus Christ when the person you believe in is not even Biblical?

 

[Telstar]

I meant to make this post yesterday, but didn’t get the chance.

Continuation to Testar (Lori):

So it happens that we disagree completely about the meaning of Malachi 3. Probably of Malachi 4 also, I assume.

I’d have to assume that you’re correct, and we probably don’t agree on chapter 4, either.

I think you are thinking of the rebuilt temple at the time of Christ. The tabernacle at the time of Moses and the temple at the time of Solomon would be far more comparable than what one reads in the New Testament about how the Jews at that time used the temple where Jesus cast out the money changers. You might think about how only certain people could go into the tabernacle, and into the Holy of Holies. You might think about the “Ark of the Covenant”. Those things are more to be associated with Latter-day Saint temples, than the rebuilt temple of the Jews at the time of Christ. Earlier, there were only certain people who entered, and certainly the example of Samuel versus the sons of Eli show a need for worthiness.

The Temple of the New Testament was no different than the Temple of Solomon. Their allowing of moneychangers in the Temple at the time of Jesus was due to the evil of the Priest’s own personal greed. They were extremely angry with Jesus because He hit them in their own pocketbook by kicking the moneychangers out.

There were always open places in the Temple for the people to go and worship God, and pray for all their needs, both temporal and spiritual. There was a separate area set aside for men and another for women, but it was always open to all. The only place that was forbidden for anyone to enter, except the High Priest, was the Holy of Holies. It was surrounded by a heavy curtain, and hidden from view, to protect the people who were not worthy to behold it. It was only done that way to protect them and keep them safe. That was the curtain that was rent asunder at the same moment Jesus died on the cross, as a sign that God had left and no longer dwelt in the Temple, because the Jews had rejected their Messiah.

Personally, I don’t believe Mormon temples contain anything like the Holy of Holies in their multitude of temples. There is only one God, and He is the Holy of Holies. That’s why there was only one Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, where the holiest of their traditional sacrifices were performed by the High Priest in the true presence of God. The Tabernacles of the Catholic Church are the new Holy of Holies, that all contain the true Presence of Jesus Christ in the form of the Holy Eucharist. All people can see God with their own eyes in that form, and all Catholics can partake of the Holy Eucharist that is the true Bread of Life, Jesus Christ, Who truly feeds our souls and gives them eternal life in Him.

Living the law of tithing has blessed me all the days of my life, and has blessed every member of my family, including all my siblings and their children and my children. I would be turning my back on those blessings were I to not say that they aren’t real, and just as powerful in the “windows of heaven” as promised by Malachi, who was speaking prophetically as guided by the Holy Ghost.

I have no doubt that tithing has blessed you and your family. But, that doesn’t change the fact that Jesus never demanded using any set formula for tithing from any of His followers. Tithing is meant to be a voluntary thing that we do as a personal act of love for God, and not as a requirement that’s forced upon us. There is no amount set for anyone to give. But, we should always help to support the work of the Church as we’re led by our own hearts, and inspired by the Holy Spirit to do.

The poor should never be expected to tithe, when they can barely make ends meet and provide for their own families. Tithes are supposed to be used to help support them, not to put a further burden on them that they can’t afford. If they do choose to give to the Church, it’s a sure sign of their personal spirituality and love of God, like the poor woman that Jesus mentioned in the Gospel. Although she was very poor, she gave all that she had to God, from her loving heart, which was worth much more in the eyes of God than all the gold that the rich men put into the coffers, just to appear to be more generous to all those who were watching them.

Tithing was certainly never to be used by the Jews as a means of identifying who was worthy to enter the Temple of God to pray. The Temple was always meant to be a place of prayer, and never a means to fill the Priest’s coffers with gold for their own nefarious purposes. That was why Jesus chased out the moneychangers, whose sole purpose was to make a huge profit from all those who came to worship and pray to God.

But I certainly agree that the “true pearl of great price is the love of God”.

The Love of God is always a good subject for all of us to deeply meditate on, especially during this time of year, leading up to Easter, when we celebrate God’s great love for all mankind. It’s a time to remember that God sent His Only Begotten Son to die for us because He loves us. He wants us all to be able to share His love in Heaven, forever.

I truly pray that the love of God fills your heart to overflowing, Parker.

 

[Telstar]

To the general reader,

My not responding to Telstar does not mean I have agreed with her on any of her conclusions, but that I have given up on the communication process with her.

I must say that I’m deeply disappointed in your decision, Parker, but I’m not surprised.

As far as the concept of “praying for someone’s soul”, it is an evidence of the apostasy since it is not a Biblical concept. Jesus prayed sufficiently for all the souls of humankind, and His teaching to pray for our enemies was not about praying for their soul.

If Jesus prayed ‘sufficiently’ for all souls, then why did He tell the Disciples to pray for one another? Was He only interested in them praying for things of this world? Why did He tell them to love and pray for their enemies? What do you think is more important in the eyes of God, the eternal salvation of our souls, or the preservation of our life in the flesh? Are we only supposed to pray for things related to this world, such as things that will make our life on earth a little easier, or more bearable for us? What are we supposed to pray for if not for the most important spiritual things in the eyes of God? Which is a more worthy subject of our fervent prayers, to pray for the salvation of someone’s immortal soul, or to pray that God curses our enemies, as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young often did? Jesus taught us to forgive our enemies, particularly when He asked His Father to forgive those who crucified Him, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”. Did He ask His Father to curse them, or to punish them with retribution for what they had done? No! So, why would we ever think to pray for God to curse anyone that we might see as our enemy?
[Matthew 5:] "[43] You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: [45] That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

[46] For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? [47] And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? [48] Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."

The Savior suffered sufficiently for the souls of everyone who has ever lived, and neither He nor Father in Heaven needs to be persuaded by anyone’s prayers “for their soul”.

If Jesus ‘suffered sufficiently’ for all, then why did He tell us to pick up our cross, daily, and follow Him? Why does God still allow there to be suffering in the world, if there’s no longer any purpose for it to exist, since Jesus suffered ‘sufficiently’ for all? If Jesus already did everything that was necessary to save us, then why would we ever have to do anything else? Why should we have to live by the commandments? Why should we even follow Him, at all? Are we all saved automatically, without anything more required of us? If He did all that was required, then there really isn’t any need for us to pray for anyone’s salvation, even our own. But, you’ll have to pardon me if I choose to continue to pray for the salvation of all souls, because I know that we all need all the prayers we can get, to be able to stay strong and make it through to the end. Without our willingness to pray for the salvation others, how can we expect God to want to save us?

A wish of peace to all readers. That point was just something from Telstar’s post that I wanted to clarify about the Sermon on the Mount, which the Latter-day Saints certainly do believe in following. I wasn’t trying to be offensive, though it may come across as that–sorry. I just wanted to make it clear that Latter-day Saints believe the Sermon on the Mount, and again that our beliefs directly correspond with Biblical teachings, including those in the Sermon on the Mount.

I’ll still keep praying for your soul, Parker, whether you like it or not.

 

[ParkerD]

I must say that I’m deeply disappointed in your decision, Parker, but I’m not surprised.

Telstar,

You shouldn’t be surprised, since by showing an unwillingness to try and understand the word “doctrine” using an example, it showed an unwillingness to have a meaningful conversation. But since now you’ve asked a whole bunch of questions, it leaves me with the need to answer because of other readers and that I do have an obligation to God that if someone happens to need any of these answers, then I ought to answer.

If Jesus prayed ‘sufficiently’ for all souls, then why did He tell the Disciples to pray for one another?

He didn’t, actually. You won’t find it to have been so unless there has been a translation that has been mistranslated. But Paul taught to pray to be supported and strengthened in the missionary work he and others were doing, and James taught to pray for people’s health.

Was He only interested in them praying for things of this world?

He taught many things about prayer and gave examples of what to pray for, but He never taught to pray “for their souls”, nor did the apostles. “Give us this day our daily bread” is a “thing of this world” that He certainly taught to pray for.

Why did He tell them to love and pray for their enemies?

The context is thus:

Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

It is not about praying for their souls. It is about praying “for them” (which implies the present life, not the afterlife), and about the fact that God sends sunshine and rain for the just as well as for the unjust. It could be for their heart to be softened, or it could be for their weather conditions or their health. It would be to be spiritually sensitive to become aware of what the Spirit would inspire to be the prayer about “them”.

What do you think is more important in the eyes of God, the eternal salvation of our souls, or the preservation of our life in the flesh?

Eternal salvation, which the Savior has provided for and has shown how to gain access to exaltation through His grace, which included His having been the Great High Priest and given, once and for all time, the Intercessory prayer which was the Great High Priestly prayer for all humankind for all time.

Are we only supposed to pray for things related to this world, such as things that will make our life on earth a little easier, or more bearable for us?

Those would be fine to pray for.

What are we supposed to pray for if not for the most important spiritual things in the eyes of God?

I haven’t said one shouldn’t pray for “the most important spiritual things in the eyes of God.” Jesus taught that the most important spiritual thing in the eyes of God is to know Him and know His Father through praying to know Them by the power of the Holy Ghost, who bears witness of Them if one is sincere in praying to know Them.

Which is a more worthy subject of our fervent prayers, to pray for the salvation of someone’s immortal soul, or to pray that God curses our enemies, as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young often did?

If you have a quote in mind, then provide the quote about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young so that readers can be made aware of the context. The concept of the Lord “fighting our battles” means that there are times when a prayer can involve asking God to do that.

Praying “for the salvation of someone’s immortal soul” shows a lack of faith in Jesus Christ and His intercessory power and grace, in His omniscience, and specifically in His intercessory prayer. It also shows doing something that He never taught to do, and is contrary to what the Intercessory prayer showed as His role in our salvation.

Jesus taught us to forgive our enemies, particularly when He asked His Father to forgive those who crucified Him, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.”. Did He ask His Father to curse them, or to punish them with retribution for what they had done?

He was praying to His Father about the Roman soldiers who really and truly did not know what they were doing because they had not been taught anything about the Messiah of the Jews.

No! So, why would we ever think to pray for God to curse anyone that we might see as our enemy?

It would be if the Spirit said we should do that in keeping with the concept of letting God “fight our battles”, and it would be after the third offense of the offender.

[Matthew 5:] "[43] You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: [45] That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.

[46] For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? [47] And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? [48] Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect."

 

[ParkerD]

If Jesus ‘suffered sufficiently’ for all, then why did He tell us to pick up our cross, daily, and follow Him?

Continuation:

Because He knew that this life included “crosses” to bear, while He is doing His work of helping us “be ye therefore perfect” by our becoming more compassionate, repenting often (hopefully repenting daily), forgiving others daily, learning to love others more completely and love God with more devotion and trust.

Why does God still allow there to be suffering in the world, if there’s no longer any purpose for it to exist, since Jesus suffered ‘sufficiently’ for all?

He suffered for our sins as you know, which means no one need think they need to pray as though their own prayer is going to impact that other person’s forgiveness from God. Jesus was God the Son, God with us, and could pray that a person’s sins be forgiven because He had that mission from His Father in Heaven. We don’t have that same mission.

So the kind of suffering I was discussing was the suffering that involves “our soul” which implies the afterlife and preparing for our resurrection. Jesus suffered for our sins, so we don’t have to suffer for our own sins. He also suffered our pains and sicknesses, so that He can succor us and relieve our distresses and ultimately will give us a perfect body in the resurrection.

If Jesus already did everything that was necessary to save us, then why would we ever have to do anything else?

It was conditional on our repentance, but not on our being prayed for by others regarding our salvation, since He did that sufficiently for all time in His Intercessory prayer.

Why should we have to live by the commandments? Why should we even follow Him, at all?

Mostly for our present day happiness, today and tomorrow and the next day. See the parable of the lilies in the field. Heaven will be a wonderful blessing also, but we ought to understand that living by the commandments blesses us with happiness right now, and following Him blesses us right now with happiness and joy and feelings of love, forgiveness and peace. Those are priceless blessings, right now, today.

Are we all saved automatically, without anything more required of us?

No, but praying for someone’s soul is not part of what is required of anyone. Jesus already did that for all time, for all humankind.

If He did all that was required, then there really isn’t any need for us to pray for anyone’s salvation, even our own.

Correct. We should have enough faith in Him that we know that through our repentance and trust in Him, that He isn’t expecting us to pray for our own salvation, nor anyone else’s. A prayer of “God, receive my soul” is a prayer of complete trust and faith and knowing one has been repentant throughout their life and is ready to meet God.

But, you’ll have to pardon me if I choose to continue to pray for the salvation of all souls, because I know that we all need all the prayers we can get, to be able to stay strong and make it through to the end. Without our willingness to pray for the salvation others, how can we expect God to want to save us?

Because Jesus prayed the Great High Priestly intercessory prayer, and it shows a lack of faith in Him and in His role as our Intercessor and Advocate with the Father.

I’ll still keep praying for your soul, Parker, whether you like it or not.

So as you do that, then what God will sustain will be my having the Holy Ghost, and being taught through the Holy Ghost how to answer this kind of a set of questions. So I guess it’s OK if you want to do that, just like Paul asked others to pray for his efforts in teaching the gospel.

 

[batman1973]

Parker hasn’t seen “The Princess Bride”? That’s sad. You should. It’s a great film.
Back on topic. So, In case I missed it, Parker, you can, substantiate Pre-Mortal existence from the Bible? Not just cherry picking a few verses here and there, but conclusivly show pre-mortal exsistance? Enlighten me, please.

 

[TexanKnight]

Telstar,

You shouldn’t be surprised, since by showing an unwillingness to try and understand the word “doctrine” using an example, it showed an unwillingness to have a meaningful conversation. But since now you’ve asked a whole bunch of questions, it leaves me with the need to answer because of other readers and that I do have an obligation to God that if someone happens to need any of these answers, then I ought to answer.

Brother Parker, you are actually well known for dodging those who’s truths you cannot dispute. You are also well known for dodging issues with those of us who know the truth about your church

He didn’t, actually. You won’t find it to have been so unless there has been a translation that has been mistranslated. But Paul taught to pray to be supported and strengthened in the missionary work he and others were doing, and James taught to pray for people’s health.

Did you not hear about the Lord’s Prayer? He taught them to pray it. "Forgive US, OUR trespasses.,…deliver US from evil…etc. Sure sounds like He taught them to pray for each other…I understand you missing this. I suggest you open the Bible sometimes and not concentrate on the Book of Mormon so much.

He taught many things about prayer and gave examples of what to pray for, but He never taught to pray “for their souls”, nor did the apostles. “Give us this day our daily bread” is a “thing of this world” that He certainly taught to pray for.

He taught to pray for each other…our souls are part of us…

Be Blessed.

 

[Miriam1947]

I meant to make this post yesterday, but didn’t get the chance.

I’d have to assume that you’re correct, and we probably don’t agree on chapter 4, either.

The Temple of the New Testament was no different than the Temple of Solomon. Their allowing of moneychangers in the Temple at the time of Jesus was due to the evil of the Priest’s own personal greed. They were extremely angry with Jesus because He hit them in their own pocketbook by kicking the moneychangers out.

There were always open places in the Temple for the people to go and worship God, and pray for all their needs, both temporal and spiritual. There was a separate area set aside for men and another for women, but it was always open to all. The only place that was forbidden for anyone to enter, except the High Priest, was the Holy of Holies. It was surrounded by a heavy curtain, and hidden from view, to protect the people who were not worthy to behold it. It was only done that way to protect them and keep them safe. That was the curtain that was rent asunder at the same moment Jesus died on the cross, as a sign that God had left and no longer dwelt in the Temple, because the Jews had rejected their Messiah.

Personally, I don’t believe Mormon temples contain anything like the Holy of Holies in their multitude of temples. There is only one God, and He is the Holy of Holies. That’s why there was only one Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, where the holiest of their traditional sacrifices were performed by the High Priest in the true presence of God. The Tabernacles of the Catholic Church are the new Holy of Holies, that all contain the true Presence of Jesus Christ in the form of the Holy Eucharist. All people can see God with their own eyes in that form, and all Catholics can partake of the Holy Eucharist that is the true Bread of Life, Jesus Christ, Who truly feeds our souls and gives them eternal life in Him.

I have no doubt that tithing has blessed you and your family. But, that doesn’t change the fact that Jesus never demanded using any set formula for tithing from any of His followers. Tithing is meant to be a voluntary thing that we do as a personal act of love for God, and not as a requirement that’s forced upon us. There is no amount set for anyone to give. But, we should always help to support the work of the Church as we’re led by our own hearts, and inspired by the Holy Spirit to do.

The poor should never be expected to tithe, when they can barely make ends meet and provide for their own families. Tithes are supposed to be used to help support them, not to put a further burden on them that they can’t afford. If they do choose to give to the Church, it’s a sure sign of their personal spirituality and love of God, like the poor woman that Jesus mentioned in the Gospel. Although she was very poor, she gave all that she had to God, from her loving heart, which was worth much more in the eyes of God than all the gold that the rich men put into the coffers, just to appear to be more generous to all those who were watching them.

Tithing was certainly never to be used by the Jews as a means of identifying who was worthy to enter the Temple of God to pray. The Temple was always meant to be a place of prayer, and never a means to fill the Priest’s coffers with gold for their own nefarious purposes. That was why Jesus chased out the moneychangers, whose sole purpose was to make a huge profit from all those who came to worship and pray to God.

The Love of God is always a good subject for all of us to deeply meditate on, especially during this time of year, leading up to Easter, when we celebrate God’s great love for all mankind. It’s a time to remember that God sent His Only Begotten Son to die for us because He loves us. He wants us all to be able to share His love in Heaven, forever.

I truly pray that the love of God fills your heart to overflowing, Parker.

What a great post!

 

[Miriam1947]

Parker D:

He taught many things about prayer and gave examples of what to pray for, but He never taught to pray “for their souls”, nor did the apostles. “Give us this day our daily bread” is a “thing of this world” that He certainly taught to pray for.

Parker have you really thought about this part of the Lord’s Prayer?

Give us this day our daily bread is not about dinner. It’s about the Eucharist. The bread from heaven.

 

[1voice]

He taught many things about prayer and gave examples of what to pray for, but He never taught to pray “for their souls”, nor did the apostles. “Give us this day our daily bread” is a “thing of this world” that He certainly taught to pray for.

He never told us to pray for God’s protection over our pets either… He didnt have to list every specific thing. He taught the principle. He proved that we have access to God through the mechanism of prayer… and he gave examples to establish the principle… he never said that our prayers must be limited to only certain things … in fact … Jesus/God’s word, the Bible, specifically/ clearly states that we can pray for anything…
Philippians 4:6
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.

Jesus told Peter that Satan had asked to sift him like wheat… Then he said … But … I have prayed for you…Peter was a man with a body,soul and spirit. When Jesus prayed for Peter he did not say that he was not praying for Peter’s soul. In fact Jesus said that he had prayed for his Apostles and all those that God would save through them.

Jesus came to seek and save … the lost. He said clearly that a soul can be … lost.
Mark 8:36
Jesus said… What is the profit if a man gains the whole world … and forfeits/ loses his soul . If Jesus specifically mentions the soul here… It is clearly important … and if, as Jesus states, it is a key focus in his mind, and must be ours as well… and a soul is the thing that can be lost … do you think that Jesus was not praying that Peter would not lose his soul?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker D:

Parker have you really thought about this part of the Lord’s Prayer?

Give us this day our daily bread is not about dinner. It’s about the Eucharist. The bread from heaven.

Miriam,

I completely disagree. If He had wanted it to be understood that He was teaching to pray "give us this day our daily (Bread of life), He would have taught about this during the same Sermon on the Mount. He taught about the Bread of life later, and taught about the Last Supper and its meaning, much later. They were different situations, and He was truly the world’s Greatest Teacher.

 

[ParkerD]

He never told us to pray for God’s protection over our pets either… He didnt have to list every specific thing. He taught the principle. He proved that we have access to God through the mechanism of prayer… and he gave examples to establish the principle… he never said that our prayers must be limited to only certain things … in fact … The Bible specifically states that we can pray for anything…
Philippians 4:6
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.

Jesus told Peter that Satan had asked to sift him like wheat… Then he said … But … I have prayed for you…Peter was a man with a body,soul and spirit. When Jesus prayed for Peter he did not say that he was not praying for Peter’s soul.

Jesus came to seek and save … the lost. He said clearly that a soul can be … lost.
Mark 8:36
Jesus said… What is the profit if a man gains the whole world … and forfeits/ loses his soul . If Jesus specifically mentions the soul here… It is clearly important … and if, as Jesus states, it is a key focus in his mind, and must be ours as well… and a soul is the thing that can be lost … do you think that Jesus was not praying that Peter would not lose his soul?

1voice,

No–He specifically prayed “that thy faith fail not” in that situation (Luke 22:32), so that prayer was about right then and in the near future, when Peter needed to be ready to “strengthen thy brethren”. Jesus knew all things–He knew about Peter’s soul and what Peter’s life was going to be thereafter, but also about Peter’s need for greater faith.

In the Intercessory prayer, the words show that Jesus was praying “that our faith fail not” also, in the way that He prayed for all of us.

 

[1voice]

1voice,

No–He specifically prayed “that thy faith fail not” in that situation (Luke 22:32)

… and what does the shield of faith protect?

 

[ParkerD]

… and what does the shield of faith protect?

It protects against all the “fiery darts of the adversary”–which means a similar thing to the statement that “Satan desireth to have thee, that he may sift thee as wheat”, except that it is broader.

A similar message is conveyed in the metaphor of the man who built his house “upon a rock”, and the rain, the winds, and storms and floods are similar to “the fiery darts of the adversary”, so the faith necessary is the faith to build that house upon the Rock of Jesus Christ, with faith in Him sufficient that “thy faith fail not”. We take the shield of faith in Christ to protect against all the wiles and temptations of the devil, who will tempt every way that he is allowed to tempt. We build our house upon the Rock of Christ, also.

 

[1voice]

… and what does the shield of faith protect?

It protects against all the “fiery darts of the adversary”

… and what would those fiery darts penetrate … if the shield of faith were not in place?

 

[ParkerD]

… and what does the shield of faith protect?

… and what would those fiery darts penetrate … if the shield of faith were not in place?

1voice,

For other readers, see Ephesians 6:10-17, to understand the entire set of metaphors about the “whole armour of God”.

The fiery darts need to be “quenched”, which means “put out”. Otherwise they “harm” the person who didn’t hold their “shield of faith” in place and didn’t have their “loins girt about with truth”. They harm the person because the adversary is able to detract the person from repenting, or is able to discourage them, or is able to lead them down a wrong path of sin and then to discourage them all the more unless they recognize the deception and move back onto a path of repentance and of faith in Christ, their Redeemer, their Rock, and He who would be their Good Shepherd.