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

[Telstar]

Thank you for all the love and respect you have shown me.

When you’re corrected by your parents or fellow LDS, do you think they do it because they don’t love you? Why would you think we’re any different? We try to correct people’s view of God so they can come to a better understanding of Who He really is, because we love Him, and them. We don’t do it just to win a stupid argument. We want everyone to find the truth about God, so they can get closer to Him.

I can never accept that we are sinners because of bummer DNA. If that were true, why would we be responsible for anything we do, we’re nothing but automations, pre-programmed from our DNA?

Our DNA is flawed because of the corruption that occurred as a result of sin. I know you’d rather just think we’re all born as perfect human beings. That would be nice, but if it was true, we’d all be born in the Garden of Eden. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen that Garden. If it was true, why would we need a savior? You still didn’t answer that question.

How does being born with Original Sin make us automatons? Are we robots? Do we all have the same thoughts, like the Borg? Of course not. We have free will to do whatever we want. We decide whether to sin or not. Our own sins just add to the Original Sin.

Adam & Eve’s transgression (sin to you Catholics) brought death into the world. It’s a jump to say it also brought corruption. The spiritual death was being cut off from the presence of the Lord.

How do LDS define sin?TRANSGRESSION
an act, process, or instance of transgressing: as an **infringement or violation of a law, command, or duty **

SIN
1: an offense against religious or moral law
2: a: transgression of the law of God a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God A transgression against God is a sin, no matter which word you use. Adam & Eve sinned, by their own choice. Their punishment was the death penalty, not just for them, but for every human being, plant and animal on earth that was ever created by God. How serious do you think God thought that sin really was, if it caused Him to punish it by allowing all that destruction to fall upon the whole world? (God really hates evil… a lot.) Death is caused by the corruption and decay of all living matter. Before they sinned, nothing *ever *died. No plant, animal or human being, was ever meant to die. Sin is what caused all death in this world. Sin is evil, and it corrupts everything that exists in the universe, not just mankind. There would never be any pain in this whole world without sin.

I think it’s time to whip out the catechism again. What is our spirit? Isn’t the part of us that decides everything, based on our values? If God made that part perfect and then Satan corrupted it, then Satan is in charge of our salvation. He’s the one who decides who is good or evil.

Our ‘spirit’ is our soul, basically. It’s the part of us that’s immortal (not to be confused with eternal). Once God creates it, it can never be destroyed. But, it’s not composed of any kind of matter. It’s more like a thought. We know it exists because God told us it does, but it’s a completely different substance, that’s not made of any kind of physical ‘material’. We won’t completely understand what it is until we pass over the veil. There’s actually a very good article here that discusses what a soul is believed to be and what it does. The soul certainly influences all of our thoughts and actions, but our values are learned from our parents and the world around us. They affect the moral choices of our will.

The influence of Satan (evil/sin) is what ultimately corrupted the world. He tempted Adam & Eve to sin. That’s why God punished him and sent him into the earth before them. His evil is what caused the corruption. He’s certainly not ‘in charge’ of our salvation, nor does he decide who chooses between good and evil. He wants us to go to hell and suffer the same fate as him, eternal damnation. He’s the reason we needed Jesus to save us, because Satan is very powerful and only God can defeat him. No mortal man ever could. Jesus is God, and always has been. He defeated Satan by His death on the cross. He reopened Heaven to righteous souls that live according to God’s law, and follow Him. He doesn’t save our bodies from physical death. He saves our souls from eternal damnation. Spiritual ‘death’ is eternal damnation.

Lucifer was the highest, most powerful and most intelligent angel ever created by God. He was also the most loved and favored, but it went to his head. Pride made him want more than God was willing to give him. He wanted to be worshiped like God because he knew how wonderful he was. When God wouldn’t give him what he wanted, he rebelled like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum. That’s why he hates humans, because God still loves us. He gave us a second chance when Satan deceived Adam & Eve. The angels already knew what they were doing when they made their choice, but Adam & Eve had no knowledge of evil before they ate the fruit, that’s why we get a second chance.

Both God and the devil can inspire us to take certain actions, but we always make the final choice between listening to the devil, and listening to God. Those are always our two possible choices. (Some of us already said that, several times in this thread.) Original Sin is a stain on our souls when we’re born. It gets washed away, along with all of our actual sins, through Baptism. It doesn’t affect our free will at all. We always choose which way we’ll go, to follow good or evil, God or the Devil.

 

[SteveVH]

I agree. While we cooperate with God in the process of reproduction, God is the one who actually performs the action of creating all life, through the physical action of the parents. God is responsible for deciding whether or not conception occurs at all. The entire process is ultimately God’s handiwork, and He decides all of the details of the conception. You’re right about the difficulty in trying to explain the body and soul as separate parts of creation, because you can’t really have one without the other. I probably didn’t do a very good job of explaining it, by trying to describe how God creates the (perfect) soul, while the parents ‘create’ the (imperfect) flesh. I probably should have used the term “donate”, to refer to the flesh that parents are responsible for contributing to that process. It might have made it more clear. Mea culpa. Sorry, for any confusion I might have caused.

No problem, Telstar. I had read several posts that were hinting in that direction and I thought it important to comment. My intended audience was actually the Mormon posters who seem to have a very strange idea of exactly what a human being is and who is responsible for our existence. The entire idea that we, in our most basic form, were co-eternal with God is absoulutely amazing to me. It effects all of their doctrines and I cannot, for the life of me, fathom where this idea originated. To believe that there is no cause for our existence (or for the existence of inanimate matter) defies reason as well as both scientific and revealed truth. It diminishes God’s omnipotence by making him dependent upon something already in existence; yet at the same time they will tell you they belive in God’s omnipotence. Anyway, it is not you that is causing the confusion.

 

[Telstar]

No problem, Telstar. I had read several posts that were hinting in that direction and I thought it important to comment. My intended audience was actually the Mormon posters who seem to have a very strange idea of exactly what a human being is and who is responsible for our existence. The entire idea that we, in our most basic form, were co-eternal with God is absoulutely amazing to me. It effects all of their doctrines and I cannot, for the life of me, fathom where this idea originated. To believe that there is no cause for our existence (or for the existence of inanimate matter) defies reason as well as both scientific and revealed truth. It diminishes God’s omnipotence by making him dependent upon something already in existence; yet at the same time they will tell you they belive in God’s omnipotence. Anyway, it is not you that is causing the confusion.

Thanks, Steve. But, I still think I might have contributed to the confusion. It still confuses me how it all happens, so I can imagine how it looks from the outside, looking in. I’m looking in the Catechism for some clarification and a better explanation.

 

[Telstar]

From the Catechism:
III. ORIGINAL SIN
Freedom put to the test

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:
What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288
The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

 

[KathleenGee]

Remedy to our condition…and is the key to understanding Sacred Scripture is the Mass.

When we participate in the Mass, we with Christ in the sacrifice of the Mass are all united in the atonement of sin. As we hear at every Mass, the priest at the offertory asks the Lord to wash him free of all his iniquities.

The sacrament of confession absolves us and perfects us and heals us; the Word and Eucharist renew and restore us and give us new life.

The Mass is the greatest power of goodness and when we stand with the Lord at Mass, evil and sin and suffering and despair are broken. References to it in Revelations…come back to this.

So essentially the answer to Original Sin is the Mass…the Daily Sacrifice.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

If one is expecting LDS to “prove” their beliefs from one book of scripture to the exclusion of other books of scripture…what THEY would consider scripture…that is like Protestants saying the Catholic church must prove all it’s beliefs using scripture only…as had been said often all Catholic “distinct” beliefs can be read as “implied” in scripture if not “implicitly stated”…using latter day revelation in a similar matter Catholics use “sacred tradition” to “flesh out” those “obscure passages” in scripture which “implies” a distinctive Catholic belief…

An excellent point: there is plenty can be brought against Catholicism that has only tentative biblical evidence and needs to be supported by ‘tradition’.

It just seems to me that if this is the case that we would see at least something written about it in the Bible; kind of a big thing to just be left out altogether

Actually no; as Catholics you realise the importance of underlying knowledge, things that everyone is pretty much assumed to know when dealing with scripture. Isn’t this in part the importance of your tradition, and of the Chatechism? Do correct me if I’m wrong, as I definitely know that I don’t know that much about Catholicism.
My point is that the scriptures were never written to ‘Gentiles’; they have always been written to those ‘already in the know’, and therefore sometimes things are never stated explicitly as it was just expected that the audience already had this basic underlying understanding,

The Mormon answer to these questions would have to be "I was floating around as an “intelligence”, or, "I was with you as your “spirit child”, which would then contradict the very point of the passage which is that we were not there.

Not really; the ‘where we’re you’ can also be understood to mean ‘what did you do that was of any significance’; as in ‘where was your help’; it doesn’t have to refer solely to where was your physical presence. Or it could mean that we were not involved in the actual creation, even though we were around.
The question that is really being asked isn’t one of location, rather one of (name removed by moderator)ut.

What I see in Mormonism is a constant “man-centeredness” rather than a “God-centeredness”. It is all about what they can achieve and aspire to and what power and dominion they can possess, rather than worshipping God in humility and desiring nothing more than to be perfectly united with Him.

As ex-LDS you really ought to know that this is not true at all; and if you don’t then I understand one reason that may have led you to leave, and I am sorry for that.
However, the entire purpose of this earth, this life and this creation is centred on us (who are currently ‘man/men’ [and, of course, never forgetting women]). God would be God with or without creating this world for us: He doesn’t need it, we do.

Telstar, that was just a misunderstanding. But I can’t really accept that He would create our spirits because He would have created them perfectly. No Hitlers, just all Adams. What am I missing here?

Adam and Eve were created perfectly, without fault and not susceptible to disease, corruption or death.

The only reason that you can’t understand it is because you don’t see any imperfection in Adam. When Adam (and Eve) was created, he was a perfect human being, in both body and soul because that is how God created him. The thing that changed him (and Eve) was eating the forbidden fruit. That’s when he opened himself up to the influences of evil, and corrupted his own soul. That was the after effect of his “Original Sin”, of disobeying God’s command. That’s also why God had warned them not to touch it, because He knew it would allow the devil to have much more influence over them. Before they ate it, they were completely innocent. But after they ate it, their souls became corrupted by the influence of understanding what evil really was. That’s also why they felt guilty when they realized they were naked, and that they had done an evil thing by disobeying God, so they hid themselves from Him.

Every human being that’s been born ever since Adam, has that knowledge and is subject to the same influence and corruption of that evil. The whole purpose for mankind needing a Redeemer in the first place, is to wash away the corrupting influence of evil (sin) that became a part of every human soul, and to reconcile them with God. Baptism is the very first step in washing away that sin and its influence from our souls. As long as we remain free from sin, after Baptism, then we’ll grow even stronger in resisting all sin. But, as soon as we fall back into sin, we open ourselves up, again, to even worse sin than we committed before our Baptism. That’s why we also need the Sacrament of Reconciliation to keep our souls washed clean of sin. "John 13:[10] Jesus saith to him: He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. And you are clean, but not all. " ‘He that is washed’ refers to those who are Baptized. The ‘washing of the feet’ is a symbol of the reconciliation that’s necessary to rewash our souls, when we fall back into sin.

Sounds to me like this could have come right out of an LDS lesson in effect…

 

[Telstar]

An excellent point: there is plenty can be brought against Catholicism that has only tentative biblical evidence and needs to be supported by ‘tradition’.

The difference is the Catholic Church is responsible for gathering all scriptures into a cohesive compilation of inspired scripture, unaltered in their original meaning. She was the one that was inspired by the Holy Spirit to produce the book, in order to protect those scriptures from being changed or misinterpreted by newcomers that were inclined to err, due to their unfamiliarity with the whole body of works and their proper interpretation.

The Church didn’t come from the book, the book came from the Church. All of the original writers and Early Church Fathers, were the very roots of Catholicism. She’s guarded and preserved that knowledge for almost 2000 years. She knows what it really means because She received it directly from God. The New Testament is directly from Jesus and the Apostles, themselves. The Gospels are chronicles of the eyewitnesses that actually lived with Jesus, and were taught by Him. The Epistles and Acts were from the Apostles and some of their closest followers. All the NT is from those that received teaching from Jesus by firsthand knowledge, or directly from the true Apostles.

Actually no; as Catholics you realise the importance of underlying knowledge, things that everyone is pretty much assumed to know when dealing with scripture. Isn’t this in part the importance of your tradition, and of the Chatechism? Do correct me if I’m wrong, as I definitely know that I don’t know that much about Catholicism.

Holy Tradition is another part of the early compilation of the knowledge of God, that never made it into the Bible, mostly because some of it was not directly written down by the Apostles, but by those that followed and succeeded them, and continued to carry forward into later generations, all of those early traditions. Those practices were still passed down by the Apostles and their successors, and were teachings that came from Jesus, Himself. All Doctrine and Holy Tradition are basically unchanged from the beginning. Doctrines may be further explained in more detail, but they can never be completely altered from the original meanings.

The Catechism is a guide to understanding Catholic beliefs, that’s meant to be a teaching tool. That’s why it has so many footnotes and references to other sources for more detailed explanations of all it contains. None of it has ever been kept a “secret” from anyone.

My point is that the scriptures were never written to ‘Gentiles’; they have always been written to those ‘already in the know’, and therefore sometimes things are never stated explicitly as it was just expected that the audience already had this basic underlying understanding,

Why do you think any part of the Bible wasn’t meant for all people? It’s the Word of God, given to the world. The OT is the precursor to the Word coming into the world, and the NT is the Good News that reveals the Word is Jesus Christ, the Messiah. He fulfills the Old Testament. Jesus didn’t just come for a chosen few that have ‘special knowledge’. He came to save the whole world. The only one that has the authority to interpret scripture is the Church founded by Jesus, but that information is always free to everyone. He draws us all into the Church that He established, as one family of believers. Unfortunately, the unity of the Church has been broken into fragments, but it can never be completely destroyed because He made a promise that He would remain with us until the end, through the Holy Spirit. He has.

Not really; the ‘where we’re you’ can also be understood to mean ‘what did you do that was of any significance’; as in ‘where was your help’; it doesn’t have to refer solely to where was your physical presence. Or it could mean that we were not involved in the actual creation, even though we were around.
The question that is really being asked isn’t one of location, rather one of (name removed by moderator)ut.

Man couldn’t even be created until there was a place to put him. God created everything from scratch, including all matter and spirit (no blueprints). Man was nothing but a twinkle in God’s Almighty “eye” at that point (and I don’t mean an actual “eye”).

As ex-LDS you really ought to know that this is not true at all; and if you don’t then I understand one reason that may have led you to leave, and I am sorry for that.
However, the entire purpose of this earth, this life and this creation is centred on us (who are currently ‘man/men’ [and, of course, never forgetting women]). God would be God with or without creating this world for us: He doesn’t need it, we do.

I agree that the world was created with us in mind. But, most LDS on the forum seem to confirm everything he said. The most common words used by them are “power”, “glory”, “rulers over many things (nations)”, all related to “exaltation”, so it seems LDS are obsessed with, “What’s in it for me?”.

Adam and Eve were created perfectly, without fault and not susceptible to disease, corruption or death.

Yes, but they chose to listen to the devil instead of God, and the whole world was corrupted by it.

Sounds to me like this could have come right out of an LDS lesson in effect…

I doubt it, from the previous LDS responses. I’m sure rmcmullan would disagree with you. He doesn’t believe Adam & Eve’s sin brought corruption into the world, or affected the rest of us and made us less than perfect. He thinks we’re all born perfect. That doesn’t make any sense when we consider how many children are born with birth defects, or miscarried before they reach full term.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

The difference is the Catholic Church is responsible for gathering all scriptures into a cohesive compilation of inspired scripture, unaltered in their original meaning. She was the one that was inspired by the Holy Spirit to produce the book, in order to protect those scriptures from being changed or misinterpreted by newcomers that were inclined to err, due to their unfamiliarity with the whole body of works and their proper interpretation.

Holy Tradition is another part of the early compilation of the knowledge of God, that never made it into the Bible, mostly because some of it was not directly written down by the Apostles, but by those that followed and succeeded them, and continued to carry forward into later generations, all of those early traditions. Those practices were still passed down by the Apostles and their successors, and were teachings that came from Jesus, Himself. All Doctrine and Holy Tradition are basically unchanged from the beginning. Doctrines may be further explained in more detail, but they can never be completely altered from the original meanings.

This has always been a sticking point for me: that important truths were just omitted from the Bible like that. I do not see explicit enough references to various Catholic teachings amongst the canon of scripture in The Bible to be able to accept these as being true, or as having been taught by the early Apostles or, indeed, Christ Himself. It seems odd to me that these things would be omitted, except if the only references to them came much later, and were never taught by the Apostles or Christ therefore the creation of ‘tradition’ (i.e. in some written form as opposed to verbal and conventional knowledge: this being the reason I use ’ ', not being rude) was necessary to define once and for all exactly what later minds had decided particular scripture referred to. If this is the case then it strikes me as very strange For Christ (who came to teach His Apostles all they needed to know to administer His kingdom upon the earth) not to have made these things clear in His teachings, or for the Aostles motto have made them explicit in their writings. Christ because of His Divine power and authority, and the Apostles by the power of The Holy Ghost all knew that these things needed to be taught and recorded as clearly as possible.

Why do you think any part of the Bible wasn’t meant for all people?

I fear you mis-read my statement: I wrote that the scriptures were not written to the Gentiles (using that to mean anyone not familiar with Jesus and His teachings). I absolutely agree that they were written for everyone.

What I was trying to get at was the point made by SteveVH about something being ‘missing’ from the bible (like pre-existence). His point is similar to mine above in a sense:
SteveVH (and probably most Catholics) does not see references to some Latter Day Saint teachings in the Bible. Despite the fact that he believes that those men choosing the canon held the same beliefs that he does, he is surprised that such references are not to be found (I.e. we’re not selected for inclusion). Assuming that the 4th century leaders held the same set of beliefs as current day Catholics (and I agree this is likely): then it should come as no surprise that teachings restored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints should not be found in the selected canon, this being the very reason they need to be restored.
My response was that the scriptures as we have them were not written for those who had no background knowledge of what was being spoken of. There is a level of assumed knowledge that the reader is expected to have already, so it is not entirely surprising to me that the epistles in particular do not necessarily have all these references. However, in general (as has been shown previously, and will continue to be) in general the scriptures and references are there: however Catholics and Latter Day Saints disagree over the interpretations…

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

I agree that the world was created with us in mind. But, most LDS on the forum seem to confirm everything he said. The most common words used by them are “power”, “glory”, “rulers over many things (nations)”, all related to “exaltation”, so it seems LDS are obsessed with, “What’s in it for me?”.

If you ask about pre-existence, or our views and teachings about our post-mortal existence then you can expect to hear about it. Just because we know these things, doesn’t mean we are obsessed with it. In my experience if there is one thing that we as LDS are obsessed with, it is family.
We are taught (as, I expect, are you?) that you can do good things for the wrong reasons, and they still benefit you hardly any more than if you had not done them to begin with. If we spend our time deciding whether or not to follow God’s words based on what is in it for us in the end, it still profits us very little.

I doubt it, from the previous LDS responses. I’m sure rmcmullan would disagree with you. He doesn’t believe Adam & Eve’s sin brought corruption into the world, or affected the rest of us and made us less than perfect. He thinks we’re all born perfect. That doesn’t make any sense when we consider how many children are born with birth defects, or miscarried before they reach full term.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here.
From what I read I got the impression that rmcmullan’s argument stemmed from his understanding that Catholics believe that God creates both our body and spirit from scratch. Because God’s creations are perfect then both of these ought to be perfect too, and so sin could not exist. I believe he has misunderstood the Catholic position, yes?
As far as I am aware we are in accord around much of this teaching:
God created Adam and Eve: being direct creations of Him they were perfect, as was everything around them. Their conscious decision to eat of the fruit of the tree (I’m keeping this simple as I know we do disagree on some of the finer points) was a sin, and this caused three things to occur: firstly they could no longer be in God’s direct presence (being now tainted by sin and therefore imperfect); secondly their bodies beame susceptible to death (Romans: "the wages of sin is death); and thirdly the rest of the creation on the world was also subject to death (yes, 2&3 could be combined and simply say that ‘death entered the world’).
As part of creation, God does not directly create each individual as He had to with Adam & Eve; instead He set a natural order by which procreation is made possible, and all living things produce seed after their own kind. (except seedless grapes: but they’re tasty so we’ll let them off). Thus imperfection begets imperfection and we remain in our imperfect state, relying ultimately on His grace.
rmcmullen’s issue seems to me to be this (I think):
If both our spirit and body are created directly from God, then neither of them ought to be susceptible to sin and corruption, being perfect. Therefore there must be some element to us that is not a direct creation from Him. While for all of us it is reasonable to say that this is our body; the same reasoning does not work of Adam and Eve as both of their bodies were created by God directly. If the same is true of their spirits, then sin and corruption could not possibly have entered into the world. It follows that there must be some element to us not created directly by God’s hands.
My opinion/understanding on the subject is as follows (although I do not have LDS teaching to hand to back up every part of this, I believe it to be consistent):
In the same way as there is a natural order that our physical bodies can reproduce after their own kind in this mortal life; and that those mortal, frail, corruptible bodies can house an immortal, incorruptible spirit: there is a natural order in the eternities where God begets Spirit children, which spirit (being formed from purer, more refined matter than our physical bodies) can house ‘intelligence’. It is this ‘intelligence’ that is our ‘spark’ so to speak which animates us and makes us free to think and choose independently

 

[Nicea325]

It seems that at the heart of the differences between many Mormon and traditional Christian beliefs lies the doctrine of pre-mortal existence; the idea that we have co-existed from eternity with God as eternal “intelligences” who then become “spirit children” of God and then came to earth to take on human flesh in order to begin the process of exaltation for the final purpose of becoming gods ourselves. Within this doctrine is also the belief that even inert matter is co-eternal with God, having no beginning. This doctrine is so basic to Mormon thought that it governs nearly all of its subsequent theology and is the cause, in my opinion, of much misunderstanding. If I have mis-stated anything here I am open to correction.

My question is this. Where in biblical Scripture is there any evidence of this? The best I can find are verses such as “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations.” (Jer 1:5). It does not appear though, that this conveyed the meaning held by the LDS Church to anyone but the LDS, rather it is interpreted by most Christians to mean that God is omniscient, or “all knowing”.

Since this doctrine is so basic to Mormon theology, and so oppossed to traditional Christian theology, I thought it was worth discussion.

Now I am no theologian,but from what I have read, ONLY God is eternal,no past,no future, beginning or end. All creations were created at one point in time,space and matter. I once had a Mormon tell me our souls are eternal? I told him how is that possible when we are not eternal,but had a beginning? Our souls may continue,but that does not mean we are eternal like God.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

Now I am no theologian,but from what I have read,

Stick to reading The Scriptures and listening to the Spirit. That way you’ll be safe from the theological and philosophical interjections of men.
Because I’m unaware that this:

ONLY God is eternal

Is stated in scripture. I see many scriptures, however, that indicate time before we were physically born on earth.

 

[rmcmullan]

Just to simplify the discussion let’s go to the Garden of Eden. So God created Adam, body and spirit so his soul was perfect. No original sin to complicate matters. But then Adam goes and disobeys his Father. I guess God wanted to create a creature to disobey Him? If it was what He wanted, why banish Adam, it was what he was designed to do. If God didn’t want Adam to disobey Him, he should have just created him that way. The third possibillity is that Adam’s spirit was eternal and he was made Man in the garden. The free will came with him being a spirit of his own. An eternal spirit. Just like Jesus who was made man.

 

[Jerusha]

Original sin is claiming the attributes of God. Adam and Eve wanted to become gods in their own right. Mormonism claims that God placed Adam and Eve in a position where they HAD to eat the apple. Therefore, Mormons believe that man took on the attributes of God. Man (especially Mormons) claim the right to be eternal (that is, having no beginning or end), judge, control people, knowing all (especially Mormon prophets), etc. As such, Mormonism is Gnostic at the least.

We only seek to be united with God, through submission to Him. That is the journey that each individual must take, with support and guidance from the Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

Mormon Cultist…

When you state Catholicism has only a tentative grasp of Scripture, are you referring to the Mormon tv program, ‘The King James Bible’?

 

[KathleenGee]

Mr McMullen…

Show me perfect parents. Some where. Some place…I am now beginning to remember a popular song, ‘some where…some place…’

Looking to Scripture, the only references I can find in regards to those not born are these:

“Even before I was born, God had chosen me to be His” (Galatians 1:15).

“For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb…Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be”. Psalm 139:13, 16).

“Your hands shaped me and made me…Did You not clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life” (Job 10:8-12).

“This is what the Lord says----He who made you, who formed you in the womb” (Isaiah 44:2).

" Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?" (Job 31:15).

Also…if premortals were fully cognizant…they had to have self-knowledge…and free will…and in spirit with full mental capacities…you cannot call them children or preschoolers or infants…but akin to angels…with a different purpose.

Sacred Scripture is very clear that our beginning existence is in the womb of our mothers…

Parents plant the seed, but God makes it grow.

Again, it is God Who gives life, not premortals deciding and choosing themselves to enter into human life…as semi-gods…growing in exaltation to return to to a cycle in their own domain after passing through this earth…

 

[KathleenGee]

Only Christ can atone for sin. The Orthodox do not believe in St. Augustine’s understanding of Original Sin. But they do believe with our free will, that we must refuse to sin again…but as St. Paul says, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

Furthermore…the entrance of sin and rebellion and mistrust of God and depending on self affected the entire universe. Sin ruptured the relationship between God and man.
We do not realize the great depth of damage with God sin can cause.

Premortals sound like aliens entering human bodies…but if this were so…the Mormons are really bodies with spirit people…?..Already it is sounding like two people in one body. And nevertheless, Mormons are inclined to sin just as all other Christians are.

 

[Nicea325]

Stick to reading The Scriptures and listening to the Spirit. That way you’ll be safe from the theological and philosophical interjections of men.
Because I’m unaware that this:

Is stated in scripture. I see many scriptures, however, that indicate time before we were physically born on earth.

Theological injections of men? Oh you mean like Mormonism…founded by a man,NOT God. The time BEFORE we were physically born on earth? Okay,that does not mean we are Eternal. God created everything at one point in time,even if you believe we existed before our earthly lives. ONLY God is Eternal and no amount of perversions of scripture will support your novelty.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am beginning to see the lack of recognition of God’s transcendence in Mormon thought. This of course reflects on God as Creator.

Sacred Scrpiture in its praise of God…I think…is very clear about Who He is…and there is no mention of this in His Word…and I do not see the purpose of thinking and believing in premortals…except as mini gods…to then decide to come to this Valley of Tears to do some kind of physical, even spiritual/athletic feat in this world to earn their own kingdom some day…

Sounds like another form of early American fables. I do not mean to sound offensive…but all these stories are those of myth makers. That was a form of entertainment in early American history.

 

[Nicea325]

I am beginning to see the lack of recognition of God’s transcendence in Mormon thought. This of course reflects on God as Creator.

Sacred Scrpiture in its praise of God…I think…is very clear about Who He is…and there is no mention of this in His Word…and I do not see the purpose of thinking and believing in premortals…except as mini gods…to then decide to come to this Valley of Tears to do some kind of physical, even spiritual/athletic feat in this world to earn their own kingdom some day…

Sounds like another form of early American fables. I do not mean to sound offensive…but all these stories are those of myth makers. That was a form of entertainment in early American history.

I agree. Mormon thought and theology is a bit odd. ONLY God is Eternal and to have the belief we too are eternal is absurd,thus it makes us co-existing gods and therefore, there is no one true Eternal God.

 

[KathleenGee]

Nicea,

We know now how Mormons believe in the beginning of man…more or less.

As Mormonism is a new religion and is now developing its theological source to compensate the obsolecism of ‘milk before meat’ – because of information access through the internet, I pray they will some day do a theological work on their beliefs of the origin of God.

Or else, they will let God go, be more truthful and just keep their focus on man.