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

[zaffiroborant]

Theological injections of men? Oh you mean like Mormonism…founded by a man,NOT God. …

With more than 75 different manuals written by men.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

I hear you out. I remember a friend of mine who is a Mormon, once told me:

God is also confined to gravity?

eek: :ehh:

 

[Nicea325]

With more than 75 different manuals written by men.

Amen to that brother!

 

[Telstar]

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.

Just because they weren’t included as part of the Gospels, or the other parts of the New Testament that were included, that doesn’t mean they are any less significant. As St. John the Evangelist clearly stated, there were many more things that were done and taught by Jesus that would require an endless number of books to be written, to include them all. The Bible was intended to include only those things that were of the most importance for our salvation, that were judged to be considered actual inspired scripture, by all who read it. It was used by the Catholic Church as a guide (teaching tool/manual) that would show those basic teachings in an abbreviated manner, that could also be used for scripture readings during the Liturgy of every Mass.

It only included those examples that were written from the perspective of the actual eyewitnesses, that saw all of those things take place with their bodily eyes, or learned them directly from the mouths of the Apostles, themselves. The other teachings were either written elsewhere, or passed on to others through the teaching and examples of their direct successors. Since the Catholic Church was the only Church established by Christ, there was no need to include everything else in the Bible because the teachings of Holy Tradition, always “filled in the blanks”. The Holy Spirit is the true Source of all Holy Scripture, as well as Holy Tradition. If you doubt that the Holy Spirit has the kind of power, to do all that Jesus Christ promised His followers, then that’s a sad reflection on your own lack of faith, and not on us.

Could anyone just pick up an LDS teaching manual, or the BoM, to learn everything there is to know about what your church teaches? Or, are there other important parts that are only available from other sources, that would also be necessary to learn everything, correctly? Can they learn everything without someone teaching them how to understand them? Isn’t that just “Mormon tradition”?

If you really want to take the “sola scriptura” stance in judging all of the RCC’s Holy Tradition/traditions to be invalid or “made up by men”, then you should never believe anything that’s not specifically stated in the BoM. You can throw out the D&C, PoGP and all the rest of it, including the Bible (because LDS believe it’s defective), because others might also see that as a ‘strange practice’ for LDS to do. If you don’t, then I can say that your church is just “making stuff up as it goes along”, and you’d never have any grounds to argue my point if what you claim to believe isn’t in the BoM. Are you really sure you want to go there? “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.”

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.

I don’t think I misread anything. You stated, “My point is that the scriptures were never written to ‘Gentiles’”. The term “Gentiles” specifically refers to anyone outside the Jewish faith. Much of the New Testament was written to the Romans, Greeks and many other people that were all considered to be “Gentiles” by the Jews, even those Jews that chose to follow Jesus. I stand by my statement that the Word of God (Jesus) spoke to everyone that would listen to what He said, and follow Him. If your statement means that it must be interpreted by the proper Authority to understand its true meaning, then I would certainly agree with that. The only source of that teaching Authority, is the Catholic Church that received its Authority directly from Jesus, Himself, through Peter and his successors.

Perhaps in the future you should say what you mean and mean what you say in the first place, so there won’t be any question or confusion about what you actually mean.

~to be continued~

 

[Telstar]

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.

Steve is only surprised that LDS insist that the Bible teaches things that only they seem to see written in it, and those things that they claim to be missing and important to their own beliefs, were never taught by Jesus, nor were they ever mentioned by any of the Apostles, or anyone else in the early Church. Many of them were more like some of the heresies that were promoted by the Gnostics and others, that refused to believe what the Apostles and Bishops of the Church taught, and chose to embellish their beliefs with erroneous interpretations of what Jesus actually taught, instead. They considered themselves to be more “enlightened” than the true leaders of the Church. Apparently, JS and other LDS leaders chose to believe and follow their errors, as well. The only mentions of any of them from the Early Church Fathers, were to refute their errors that were pulling people away from the true Faith.

The RCC (contrary to what JS and other LDS leaders imply or claim) has never removed anything that Jesus ever taught, either from Holy Scripture or from Holy Tradition. Catholic Doctrine (unlike the revolving door of LDS beliefs) can never be changed or deleted by anyone, ever. The Church has to answer to God for “every tittle” that would change what Jesus actually taught. The Church leaders are well aware that our salvation depends on every word of Jesus, and they’re the ones responsible for protecting every single word, to the end of time. Those words and beliefs have **never **been changed. Many have been further defined in more detail as they became more fully understood, but the original meaning of everything remains fully intact. No Doctrine can even be further defined without a great deal of study and discussion by many theologians and Doctors of the Church, and it must all be agreed upon and approved by the Magisterium before even one word is ever added to its definition.

The LDS church has absolutely no authority to “restore” anything that was never taught by Jesus Christ. We’re all certainly entitled to our own opinions, and to follow whoever we trust to tell us the truth, no matter how far away that may be from the actual truth. But, in the end, we will all have to answer to God for everything we choose believe, so it’s always good to make sure we choose wisely.

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…

The Bible is a Catholic book, written specifically for Catholics, so if you look at it from that perspective, no one else has any right to use it, interpret it or alter it’s meaning in any way.

If LDS insist that the Bible is flawed, then I would suggest they write a new book from their own perspective, and just not call it a Bible. The LDS already have their own book of scriptures, so they could just reformat that. Maybe they can create a new and more creative ‘translation’ of the Greek and Hebrew scriptures that would be more acceptable to them, and add back in everything they think is missing from the original. Then, they could combine that version with the BoM, and put their own unique name on it. Many Protestant scholars have already written their own versions (KJV, etc.), as have Jehovah’s Witnesses, so I’m sure the LDS could translate their own and add whatever they want to it, to back up their own unique beliefs. Then they won’t have to use any ‘defective’ versions, or claim they have the same beliefs as any Christian church. I don’t know why they’ve never thought of doing that, before.

 

[Telstar]

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.

When they’re used that often, they’re an obvious priority. They’re always placed in quotes to emphasize their importance as “secret combinations” that are always understood in a way unique to LDS. Human relationships are totally different than our love of God. “Matthew 5:[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?”

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’m sorry, but those two sentences are unclear to me. Could you rephrase them so I can figure out whether I agree with you, or not? The way I’m reading it, I don’t think so.

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.

There is. I posted what the Catechism teaches about man’s creation and Original Sin. You can read it, there.

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?

God’s creations are perfect. But, the effect of Original Sin is not the same as the effect of actual, personal sin, that’s consciously committed by a person that’s reached the age of reason. It’s a defect in all humans from the moment of conception. (See the CCC.)

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.

Yes

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,

By their own free will, they sinned.

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);

Yes

secondly their bodies beame susceptible to death (Romans: "the wages of sin is death);

Yes

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’).

All of the physical part of creation was corrupted by their sin, from that point on.

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.

Only as far as the physical part of creation is concerned. Procreation is part of the physical world. Everything in the physical plane of existence contains imperfections due to their sin, however, the spiritual part of creation (Heaven) remains unaffected and pure. God creates each and every soul (spirit), individually, to place into the body at the moment of conception. Because the soul is fused with the body, it also becomes subject to corruption at that point. (BTW… even ‘seedless’ grapes and other fruits and vegetables have seeds, but they’re rendered impotent through genetic engineering, so the seeds can’t fully develop. aka: Artificial contraception in plants.)

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.

Adam & Eve were both created perfectly by God, but even they were susceptible to sin. They always had free will to choose. Their sin occurred as soon as they made the decision to eat the fruit, not after they ate it. Why would we be any different? We’re even more prone to sin since we’re born into an imperfect world, and not in the Garden of Eden.

Therefore there must be some element to us that is not a direct creation from Him.

Wrong. All creation comes directly from Him. He’s not just some kind of a puzzle master, that only puts the pieces together. He creates everything out of nothing. If He didn’t create everything, where did it come from? Who was the first cause that created those all of those puzzle pieces? Do you believe that it all just popped into existence like the atheistic scientists that can’t explain the *cause *of the Big Bang? Is your conception of God so imperfect and weak that He’s incapable of creating anything from nothing?

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.

Why couldn’t it? The God we believe in is Almighty God, with no limitations to what He can do. He’s not subject to the constraints of the physical universe or its laws, because He created it all with a single thought. No offense, but how can you believe in a god that’s such a weakling?

 

[zaffiroborant]

I don’t think I misread anything. You stated, “My point is that the scriptures were never written to ‘Gentiles’”. The term “Gentiles” specifically refers to anyone outside the Jewish faith.

The trouble is with the word gentile, again it’s one of those words where the LDS make up their own definition. We really need a dictionary of words redefined by the LDS.

 

[Telstar]

The trouble is with the word gentile, again it’s one of those words where the LDS make up their own definition. We really need a dictionary of words redefined by the LDS.

Yeah, they refer to anyone that’s not LDS as ‘gentiles’. They seem to think they’re the ‘new Jews’ (new Jerusalem?), the ‘new’ chosen people of God.

I know I’d buy one of those books, that’s for sure. I bet they could make hundreds of dollars selling ‘special dictionaries’, with translations of Mormon-speak that also includes the secrets of the combinations of other common LDS words and phrases, especially if they target frustrated forum posters like us to sell them to.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

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.

How are you defining Eternal here?
One name we understand to refer to God the Father is ‘The Eternal One’. We believe that some aspect of our being has always existed, was never created and will never end: this does not make us gods, it is just an aspect of our nature.

As Mormonism is a new religion and is now developing its theological source to compensate the obsolecism of ‘milk before meat’

Not in the slightest.
All of our scriptures, study resources and teaching manuals are available to everyone, free of charge on the Internet or through the ‘Gospel Library’ apps for both android and iOS; and are also available from our distribution centres, also not restricted to members only.
Everything is there and available for anyone to read and study, but a knowledge, understanding and ideally a testimony of the truth of the basics is really the only sure foundation for understanding of deeper doctrine.

With more than 75 different manuals written by men.

I’d love to meet the chap who gave God a pencil and paper to produce the Chatechism?

I hear you out. I remember a friend of mine who is a Mormon, once told me:

God is also confined to gravity?

eek: :ehh:

I’ve never head this, but I may be able to shed a glimmer of light on where it might have originated in your friend’s mind. I have heard the suggestion that God works by ‘natural laws’ used by a number of knowledgeable members, although I do not know the original source, I do believe it to be widely held belief, if not officially published and taught doctrine. Obviously it doesn’t automatically follow that He would be bound by the physical laws as we understand them.

.Could anyone just pick up an LDS teaching manual, or the BoM, to learn everything there is to know about what your church teaches? Or, are there other important parts that are only available from other sources, that would also be necessary to learn everything, correctly? Can they learn everything without someone teaching them how to understand them? Isn’t that just “Mormon tradition”?

a reasonable explanation, and a fair point.

I don’t think I misread anything. You stated, “My point is that the scriptures were never written to ‘Gentiles’”

In which case there’s both a mis-reading and a misunderstanding.
I specifically chose the word to over for because while all scripture was written for everyone, both ‘Jew and Greek’, the specific writings we use we’re written with a specific audience in mind: those who already believe in Christ and have some basic knowledge and understanding.
‘Gentile’ refers to those who are not of the house of Israel, not only non-Jews. Upon being baptised into Christ’s true church we become partakers the covenant that the Lord made to Abraham, and are effectively adopted into the house of Israel.

The only source of that teaching Authority, is the Catholic Church that received its Authority directly from Jesus, Himself, through Peter and his successors.

The only source of correct interpretation is God, the source.

Many of them were more like some of the heresies that were promoted by the Gnostics and others,

Many people throughout the ages have recognised what they believed to be differences between Catholic teaching, and what they understood the Bible to say. Catholics call these heretics, others call them correct.

Many have been further defined in more detail as they became more fully understood, but the original meaning of everything remains fully intact.

The Trinity, infant baptisms and transubstantiation (for example) are nowhere explained in scripture in the way Catholics teach, they are just one Interpretation of the writings of the early Apostles and of the words of Christ. They were not accepted officially by the church until many years after the death of the original apostles, and that after much debate, with church members and leaders holding opinions on all sides. Any who refused to align their view with what he church theologians decided were promptly pronounced heretics.

No Doctrine can even be further defined without a great deal of study and discussion by many theologians and Doctors of the Church,

Combined with the previous comment, this is not a pattern that is found anywhere else in scripture: Isaiah, Moses, Abraham, Elijah etc. were an individual, solely responsible for receiving God’s divine word and interpreting it for teaching to the people. There was no theological difficulty, no debate over possible interpretation: God said it and that was the end.

The LDS church has absolutely no authority to “restore” anything that was never taught by Jesus Christ.

And has never tried.

The Bible is a Catholic book, written specifically for Catholics,

No, it’s God’s book, written specifically for His followers.

If LDS insist that the Bible is flawed,

The Bible is the word of God, but only when correctly translated and true to the original intention of its writers.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

I’m sorry, but those two sentences are unclear to me. Could you rephrase them so I can figure out whether I agree with you, or not? The way I’m reading it, I don’t think so.

In essence our intent is at least as important as our actual actions.

God’s creations are perfect. But, the effect of Original Sin is … a defect in all humans from the moment of conception.

(BTW… even ‘seedless’ grapes and other fruits and vegetables have seeds, but they’re rendered impotent through genetic engineering, so the seeds can’t fully develop. aka: Artificial contraception in plants.)

I was just making a joke about the grapes. I don’t really consider it genetic engineering to choose varieties that produce fewest seeds and breed them, continuing to choose those which produce fewest. That’s just selection, albeit artificial. Do Catholics disagree with IVF and other extra-uterine conception techniques? The only reason I ask is because you appear to disapprove of seedless grapes (do you avoid buying them?), and by the way you describe it I fully understand why in light of Catholic teaching. I just see it that the grapes are being farmed and caused to continue producing, despite their being bred not to have seeds, and I pretty much equate that with IVF.

Adam & Eve were both created perfectly by God, but even they were susceptible to sin.

I can’t really see the sense in that. If they were created by God from nothing at all, then they were perfect. He creates all things perfectly. You have described Original Sin as a ‘defect’: this could not possibly exist, else God has created something and made a mistake.

Why couldn’t it? The God we believe in is Almighty God, with no limitations to what He can do. He’s not subject to the constraints of the physical universe or its laws, because He created it all with a single thought. No offense, but how can you believe in a god that’s such a weakling?

You also believe that God is actually incapable of sinning or doing anything wrong: this similarly demotes Him from omnipotence.
As above, if Original Sin is a ‘defect’ in everybody, it could not have possibly existed in Adam and Eve as God created them perfectly.

I know I’d buy one of those books, that’s for sure. I bet they could make hundreds of dollars selling ‘special dictionaries’, with translations of Mormon-speak that also includes the secrets of the combinations of other common LDS words and phrases, especially if they target frustrated forum posters like us to sell them to.

I’ve been looking for a home business idea
Already been done though:
True To The Faith

 

[zaffiroborant]

With more than 75 different manuals written by men.
Mormon_Cultist;8825342:

I’d love to meet the chap who gave God a pencil and paper to produce the Chatechism?

Who was it that advised us to read the scriptures so we’d be safe from the ideas of men? Oh look it was you, imagine that.

Stick to reading The Scriptures and listening to the Spirit. That way you’ll be safe from the theological and philosophical interjections of men.

Maybe you’d be better off if you took your own advice and eschewed your plethora of manuals and stuck with scripture. If you find yourself unable or unwilling to give up all your manuals you should at the very least refrain from hypocritically advising others to “stick with reading the scriptures”.

 

[KathleenGee]

Zaffiroborant,

With 75 manuals written by non-witnesses of Our Majesty or Joseph Smith, and 75 different meanings for every single word in the Mormon books pose a scenario where we do not ever know what is really actual of Mormonism and what is a slant???

 

[KathleenGee]

God’s pencil and the ‘Chatecism’…

The foundation of Catholicism is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; in essence we are solely Christian with no other (name removed by moderator)ut than Christ, His Apostles and followers themselves.

A young woman was raised in a Christian but anti-Catholic family. She began to search on her own for the truth. She decided to see the earliest beliefs of Christians…and came to an old form of the catechism explaining ancient beliefs.

Then she got hold of a modern catechism…and was so surprised to see our teachings did not change.

What you are witnessing is the one Holy Spirit at work in the Apostles, their successors and followers for 2,000 years.

 

[Telstar]

How are you defining Eternal here?

Probably, the way any Catholic defines it when it’s used in relation to God: having no beginning, and no end.

Not in the slightest. All of our scriptures, study resources and teaching manuals are available to everyone, free of charge…

But, they come via ‘special delivery’ by LDS missionaries.

I’d love to meet the chap who gave God a pencil and paper to produce the Chatechism?

It came the same way as the Bible. God uses holy men as ‘pencils’ in the Hand of the Holy Spirit.

I’ve never head this, but I may be able to shed a glimmer of light on where it might have originated in your friend’s mind. I have heard the suggestion that God works by ‘natural laws’ used by a number of knowledgeable members, although I do not know the original source, I do believe it to be widely held belief, if not officially published and taught doctrine. Obviously it doesn’t automatically follow that He would be bound by the physical laws as we understand them.

God created all ‘natural law’, but He doesn’t have to abide by any of them. He only created them for the physical plane of existence. They don’t apply to Him because He’s pure Spirit.

a reasonable explanation, and a fair point.

I knew that. That’s why I said it.

In which case there’s both a mis-reading and a misunderstanding. I specifically chose the word to over for because while all scripture was written for everyone, both ‘Jew and Greek’, the specific writings we use we’re written with a specific audience in mind: those who already believe in Christ and have some basic knowledge and understanding.

‘Gentile’ refers to those who are not of the house of Israel, not only non-Jews. Upon being baptised into Christ’s true church we become partakers the covenant that the Lord made to Abraham, and are effectively adopted into the house of Israel.

My only misunderstanding was due to the ‘Mormon-speak’ used in your statement. All scripture was meant to be taught to everyone, only by those who understand it’s true meaning, as I also said. Those receiving instruction in the scriptures do not need to believe in Jesus until they fully understand it, correctly. But, I do agree that the teachers have to know and completely understand it, or they can never expect to teach it, correctly. ‘Amateurs’ will only confuse themselves and their students by attempting to do it without learning it, first.

The Old Covenant was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Promised Messiah has come. We’re Baptized into His Body (the Church), which is the New and Everlasting Covenant, not the ‘house of Israel’. We don’t become Jews through Baptism, we become Christians.

The only source of correct interpretation is God, the source.

The only earthly Authority is the Church that Jesus established through Peter and his successors.

Many people throughout the ages have recognised what they believed to be differences between Catholic teaching, and what they understood the Bible to say. Catholics call these heretics, others call them correct.

All of those people were wrong.

The Trinity, infant baptisms and transubstantiation (for example) are nowhere explained in scripture in the way Catholics teach, they are just one Interpretation of the writings of the early Apostles and of the words of Christ. They were not accepted officially by the church until many years after the death of the original apostles, and that after much debate, with church members and leaders holding opinions on all sides. Any who refused to align their view with what he church theologians decided were promptly pronounced heretics.

Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom that grant him and his successors full authority to define and propagate all of the teachings of Jesus Christ, until He returns to Judge all of mankind. They’ve done that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit for 2000 years. Anyone that disagrees with their teachings, does so at their own peril.

Combined with the previous comment, this is not a pattern that is found anywhere else in scripture: Isaiah, Moses, Abraham, Elijah etc. were an individual, solely responsible for receiving God’s divine word and interpreting it for teaching to the people. There was no theological difficulty, no debate over possible interpretation: God said it and that was the end.

It was established by Jesus Christ for His Church. It’s His Law that rules over the faithful, now. He fulfilled the Old Law and established His own.

And has never tried.

Joseph Smith did just that.

No, it’s God’s book, written specifically for His followers.

2 Peter 3:[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

The Bible is the word of God, but only when correctly translated and true to the original intention of its writers.

Jesus Christ is the True Word of God, in the flesh. He gave full Authority to His True Church to spread His Everlasting Gospel to the world. She always has, and always will.

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

Probably, the way any Catholic defines it when it’s used in relation to God: having no beginning, and no end.

In which case yes, we are co-eternal with God.

But, they come via ‘special delivery’ by LDS missionaries.

Nope. All available online. If you want the physical books,then you place an order from our distribution centres, it’ll just arrive in the post.

It came the same way as the Bible. God uses holy men as ‘pencils’ in the Hand of the Holy Spirit.

I’ll admit to being slightly facetious with my comment.
Each of our “75 manuals” were written by direct inspiration and revelation from God, under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

The only earthly Authority is the Church that Jesus established through Peter and his successors.

And that’s what we’re here for.

All of those people were wrong.

in your opinion. Many of hem had hangs right: correctly recognising the differences between Carholic teaching and the simple truths stated in the Bible.

Joseph Smith did just that.

Joseph Smith began restoring things that Jesus and His apostles taught in the early church. Things like baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, performed without delay upon showing signs of faith and repentance; the purity and innocence of little children who have no need of baptism; baptism by proxy for the dead to ensure that the essential ordinance of baptism is extended to all who have lived; the true power and authority of The Priesthood, particularly the scope of the sealing power as bestowed upon Peter; the necessity of a prophet to continue to expound and reveal the word and will of God, and how these things apply to us today.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
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.

Mormon_Cultist:

How are you defining Eternal here?
One name we understand to refer to God the Father is ‘The Eternal One’. We believe that some aspect of our being has always existed, was never created and will never end: this does not make us gods, it is just an aspect of our nature.

I beg your pardon? It is not HOW I define Him,but what moreover…WHO God is…Eternal: No…past…no future,no beginning or ending. Wrong! You as a human have always had a beginning,whether it is in space,time and matter or in the spiritual world. Again,for you to claim who have ALWAYS existed makes you are Eternal and you are NOT Eternal. That makes us co-Eternal with God. Your theology is wacked my friend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telstar
Probably, the way any Catholic defines it when it’s used in relation to God: having no beginning, and no end.

Mormon_Cultist:
In which case yes, we are co-eternal with God.

WRONG! You apparently have no understanding of God and His Eternal existence. You are making yoursefl out to be a mini-god and that is heresy.

 

[Telstar]

In which case yes, we are co-eternal with God.

We’re God’s creatures. We never existed, at all, before He created us by His Omnipotent Power, through a mere thought, a simple action of His Eternal Mind. We were given our existence, through the goodness and mercy of God. It’s a gift of His love, to us. We’re all created entirely by God, body and soul (aka: spirit). Our intelligence is also a gift from God that He created. It’s part of what separates us from animals. Another part that separates us from the animals is our immortal soul, that was also created by Him, at the moment we were conceived in our mother’s womb, as a result of our parents’ love. No creature that has ever existed is comparable to God, in any way, shape or form.

Nope. All available online. If you want the physical books,then you place an order from our distribution centres, it’ll just arrive in the post.

That wasn’t the experience of another poster that ordered a BoM, just to read it, and it showed up on his doorstep in the hands of an LDS missionary.

I’ll admit to being slightly facetious with my comment.
Each of our “75 manuals” were written by direct inspiration and revelation from God, under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

No kidding?

But, only one of our statements can be true. We probably both think it’s ours. I’ll stick with the one that has historical evidence behind it, that really hasn’t changed much for 2000 years.

And that’s what we’re here for.

“Staring at each other, across the neutral zone!”

in your opinion. Many of hem had hangs right: correctly recognising the differences between Carholic teaching and the simple truths stated in the Bible.

I’m guessing the above statement is an indication of the fingers not listening to the brain.

It’s also the opinion of billions of other Catholics that have faithfully followed Her teachings ever since the beginning. The Catholic Church has been dedicated to protecting the real Truth of Jesus Christ from any errors that might seep into it via ‘teachers with itching ears’, that wish to distort the true meaning of Her doctrines and divert Her path away from that Truth, ever since She was founded by Jesus Christ. She is His faithful Bride, that has the guidance of the Holy Spirit that was given to Her, by Jesus, to ensure that She never fails in Her holy mission. As the Bride of Christ, She is One in Body and One in Spirit with Him until the very end, just like any faithful wife should be, completely dedicated to her husband. * [2 Timothy 4:][3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry.*

Joseph Smith began restoring things that Jesus and His apostles taught in the early church. Things like baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, performed without delay upon showing signs of faith and repentance; the purity and innocence of little children who have no need of baptism; baptism by proxy for the dead to ensure that the essential ordinance of baptism is extended to all who have lived; the true power and authority of The Priesthood, particularly the scope of the sealing power as bestowed upon Peter; the necessity of a prophet to continue to expound and reveal the word and will of God, and how these things apply to us today.

No, he created a whole new religion. It’s a composite of Judaism, Christianity and freemasonry, that’s only loosely based on the Bible. It’s so different from all other Christian religions that it’s not even recognized as Christian by most people. That was his main purpose. Then he didn’t have to explain why so many of his beliefs were not “Christian”. He didn’t want them to be.

He supposedly came to the conclusion that all churches were wrong (debatable as being his real motive), so he decided to make one up that would fit his own purposes, because that was his ‘only choice’. Everything he did was to convince people that he was right, including producing the mystery of the BoM and all of his stories about seeing ‘visions’, so they’d follow him without asking too many questions. He wanted to be a leader, not just a follower, because he liked being the center of attention. His ego wouldn’t allow him to follow anything other than his own ideas. That’s why he didn’t want to be just one member of any other church. He wanted all the glory that he associated with being the church leader, because that’s what he thought he saw in all those other churches.

So, that’s exactly what he did, and what he demanded from the people that followed him. Having them freely give him their money whenever he ‘needed’ or asked for it? Building him a new house, because he told them that ‘God said’ they should? They even gave him their own wives and daughters because he claimed ‘God demanded’ they do it to prove they were ‘worthy’ to follow him. Those were just some of the perks that sweetened the pot for him, and were likely his true motivation for doing it all. What better way is there to do all that, than to proclaim yourself to be a ‘prophet’, the only one that really knows what God wants? I can’t think of any.

When you objectively look at all he did, then consider his idea that God is just an ‘exalted man’ from another world, how can anyone not see the epitome of Narcissism in his thinking? A mere, mortal man, somehow became the all powerful ‘God’? We can, too? Really? Sign me up! :extrahappy:

Who wouldn’t want to believe it?

 

[Nicea325]

Joseph Smith began restoring things that Jesus and His apostles taught in the early church.Things like baptism by immersion for the remission of sins

:ehh: Really? Where does Jesus and the 12 teach baptism is ONLY valid by immersion?

 

[KathleenGee]

The name of God is “I Am Who Am”…transcendant of time and human events…God never changes and is always present…

 

[Miriam1947]

The problem, as I see it, is that Mormons don’t seem to know the difference between eternal and immortal.

I have an immortal soul, I am not eternal.

eternal |iˈtərnl|
adjective
lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning

immortal |i(m)ˈmôrtl|
adjective
living forever; never dying or decaying