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

[Telstar]

Your questions show a lack of knowledge about the subject, even though you have said you have Latter-day Saint friends. (It makes me wonder about whether they are enough of a friend to ask them “delicate” questions.)

Most of my LDS friends are on an online forum that I don’t have access to. I really do miss ‘talking’ to them, but I’d have to pay for membership to post there. I really don’t want to do that for reasons unrelated to them.
Parker:

Those questions certainly do show a major difference between the religious backgrounds. I realize, since others have discussed this and I have also read about it in the newspaper, that there is what I now understand is the continuation of the law of Moses practice of the priest doing what we had discussed earlier–what could be called a “penance offering”, since as you noted the Douay Rheims translation uses the words “do penance” instead of the word “repent”.

All Catholics do penance. The most common are assigned to us by the Priest in confession. We offer them to God for our sins to be forgiven, and forgotten. Sometimes, he’ll only tell us to say a few prayers, maybe a Rosary, or do other acts of penance, depending on the nature and severity of our sins. There’s a distinction between more serious (mortal) sins, and less serious (venial) sins, but all sins that we remember, must be confessed. I think that’s something that LDS misunderstand about Catholics. We have to confess all of our sins to the Priest, not just those related to sex, no matter how small they are. All sins offend God, so they must all be absolved by a Priest.

Before we go to confession, we do a sincere examination of conscience, to remember all of our sins. Once we confess them, the Priest offers advice on how to avoid repeating them. Once the Priest absolves us, it also covers sins that we may have forgotten to include. However, it does not cover any that we know about, but obstinately refuse to confess. Our confession must be sincere, and complete, for us to be absolved. We must be truly sorry for offending God, and try hard not to sin again. We can’t hide our sins from God, and He can’t forgive them if we refuse to ask for His forgiveness through the Priest.
Parker:

So when the priest or the pope “does penance” and that is publicized, I realize that doesn’t mean there is some serious sin involved, but means that this is following what you earlier discussed about the “law of sacrifice” and “an offering”.

I’m not sure what you mean by “publicized”. All Catholics go to confession and do penance, including Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and the Pope, because no one is perfect or ‘without sin’, not even the Pope. They also do other extra forms of penance, to make reparation to God for their own sins, as well as for the sins of others. As I said, Catholics don’t just do penance for themselves. They will often offer up different kinds of penance for all sinners, to ask God to give them the grace and strength to resist sin, and change their lives for the better. We do it out of love for God, as well as others. Whether it’s through prayer, or offering up our own sufferings, or fasting, or doing charitable works, it’s done for the spiritual benefit and welfare of all souls.
Parker:

There is no need for Latter-day Saints to carry around with them any doubt as to whether any of these leaders has been unfaithful to their marriage covenant…

My questions were related to who the prophet and apostles of the LDS church would confess their sins to. I only mentioned “sexual” sins because of your indication that those are considered to be serious sins to Mormons. Are they the only sins that need to be confessed? What other sins do LDS consider to be ‘serious’? What about murder?

-but here is some important background:Latter-day Saint youth who are keeping the commandments…

It’s nice to know that LDS kids seem to be so virtuous, but that has nothing to do with my question about LDS leader’s confessions.
Parker:

There are also very careful, discerning interviews before a man is called as a leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and if they had ever had that kind of sin in their past, they wouldn’t be called as an apostle.

I thought it was God that directly called men to fill the offices of LDS apostles and prophets, not men? Wouldn’t He already know who was worthy to fill that office in the first place?
Parker:

A bishop would be excommunicated immediately if they took upon themselves that sin.

Do LDS really excommunicate people, just for being sinners? Or is it only for admitting it in confession? Is the whole family also expelled from the church? What if they don’t admit to it or confess it, because they don’t want to embarrass themselves and their whole family by being excommunicated?

Thank God Catholic Priests don’t excommunicate people just for being sinners! The Church would be empty!

ParkerD:

Some people are able to see purity in the eyes of a person they are seeing, whether on television or in person. I assure you that I can see purity in the eyes of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Seventy, and the women leaders who speak in General Conference. It shows in their eyes, just as the Savior said about the eyes. Purity is in their countenance, and they radiate the joy of living the gospel, as does their spouse.

A deceiving and sinful heart isn’t always perceptible in someone’s eyes, and only God can read what’s really in their hearts. It takes a very special gift from God, for us to ever be able to do that, and not very many people ever receive that special gift.

 

[Jerusha]

Not only what Telstar said, but the confession and repentance and penance are all private, between penitent and God, with confessor as an intermediary. The seal of the confessional is inviolable. It is a private thing, the individual is not held up to shame and ridicule before the community. If it were to become public, and others ridicule and shame, that is their sin, not part of the penitent’s punishment.

 

[ParkerD]

Telstar,

Here is a source to answer some of your questions:

lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng

As to your question about “murder”, of course that is the most serious of all sins except the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost wherein the person fights openly against Jesus Christ after having had a perfect knowledge that He is the chosen Savior of the world.

Other serious sins not listed which would require both confession to the bishop and going to lawful authorities would have to do with stealing or any of its forms, child abuse, spouse abuse, and any sexual sin whatsoever.

The family is not excommunicated, no, for the sin of one of the members of the family.

Excommunication was done in the original church as can be seen in the epistles of Paul and of Peter.

Someone who was excommunicated can still attend the sacrament meeting provided it is lawful for them if there was spouse abuse. They aren’t permitted to partake of communion.

Often the bishop will advise professional counseling if this appears to be the most healing avenue for the person to overcome the pattern of serious sin in their life.

 

[TexanKnight]

Telstar,

Here is a source to answer some of your questions:

lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-19-repentance?lang=eng

As to your question about “murder”, of course that is the most serious of all sins except the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost wherein the person fights openly against Jesus Christ after having had a perfect knowledge that He is the chosen Savior of the world.

Other serious sins not listed which would require both confession to the bishop and going to lawful authorities would have to do with stealing or any of its forms, child abuse, spouse abuse, and any sexual sin whatsoever.

The family is not excommunicated, no, for the sin of one of the members of the family.

Excommunication was done in the original church as can be seen in the epistles of Paul and of Peter.

Someone who was excommunicated can still attend the sacrament meeting provided it is lawful for them if there was spouse abuse. They aren’t permitted to partake of communion.

Often the bishop will advise professional counseling if this appears to be the most healing avenue for the person to overcome the pattern of serious sin in their life.

I prefer a forgiving Christ over an unforgiving LDS prophet

 

[Miriam1947]

Well we are getting close to the end of yet another thread about Mormonism.

Has the original question been answered? Why no, it hasn’t! It never is.

 

[batman1973]

Well we are getting close to the end of yet another thread about Mormonism.

Has the original question been answered? Why no, it hasn’t! It never is.

Odd, I was wondering the same thing! So, Is there Scriptural evidence for “pre-mortal existense”?

 

[SteveVH]

There are thousands and tens of thousands of Latter-day Saint youth who never have a sexual sin in their life–it would be anathema to them.

How could anyone possibly know that except God? Please.

 

[TexanKnight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkerD
There are thousands and tens of thousands of Latter-day Saint youth who never have a sexual sin in their life–it would be anathema to them.

Response: Not true at all. They are not as lilly white as LDS would have you think. There were at least 4 missionaries sent home from their mission during my time as a missionary due to sexual sin. Many BYU grads have talked about how there may not be a lot of alcohol at BYU, but there is plenty of sex.

I found that LDS youth are no different from any other youth

 

[Miriam1947]

I had a friend who told me that the Mormon boys were the worst. She had to practically fight them off because they were so randy.

She would not date Mormon boys anymore because of that. She wasn’t Mormon so maybe they thought she was fair game.

 

[KathleenGee]

What is the need for belief in pre mortal existence have to do in gaining salvation in Christ?

 

[ParkerD]

What is the need for belief in pre mortal existence have to do in gaining salvation in Christ?

Kathleen Gee,

This is a very good question. At the heart of the answer to it is the divergence into Aristotelian philosophy and the “First Cause” belief, as compared with a belief that humankind were sent here to earth to experience a “growth process” that is part of an “eternal progression” that began before the War in heaven where “the devil fought and his angels, and prevailed not”, and the devil and his angels were cast out of heaven down to this earth.

Gaining salvation in Christ is helped as a person realizes they need to totally trust and totally rely on the Savior for being their Teacher, their Guide, and being their One Intercessor and Advocate with the Father. As they do this, they will be repenting often (daily) through fervent prayer, and will no longer feel “cast out of the garden of Eden” because they will feel the guidance of the Savior and the Holy Ghost in their life, so their communication with Them will be part of their everyday experience, and they will feel answered and comforted.

 

[batman1973]

Kathleen Gee,

This is a very good question. At the heart of the answer to it is the divergence into Aristotelian philosophy and the “First Cause” belief, as compared with a belief that humankind were sent here to earth to experience a “growth process” that is part of an “eternal progression” that began before the War in heaven where “the devil fought and his angels, and prevailed not”, and the devil and his angels were cast out of heaven down to this earth.

Gaining salvation in Christ is helped as a person realizes they need to totally trust and totally rely on the Savior for being their Teacher, their Guide, and being their One Intercessor and Advocate with the Father. As they do this, they will be repenting often (daily) through fervent prayer, and will no longer feel “cast out of the garden of Eden” because they will feel the guidance of the Savior and the Holy Ghost in their life, so their communication with Them will be part of their everyday experience, and they will feel answered and comforted.

Woah. She asked a “yes” or “no” question and got a “What in the world” answer.
Hey, Parker, if you truly follow the teachings of Jesus, how bout the one that says “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”(Matt. 5:37)

 

[ParkerD]

Woah. She asked a “yes” or “no” question and got a “What in the world” answer.
Hey, Parker, if you truly follow the teachings of Jesus, how bout the one that says “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”(Matt. 5:37)

It sounded like a “thought question” to me. Paul and Peter and John didn’t write “yea, yea, nay, nay” all the time as though there were no such thing as thought questions and thoughtful answers.

“Yea, yea” and “nay, nay” has to do with not calling someone a “fool”, or words to that effect, and with not going around starting or trying to win arguments. It also has to do with seeking to have positive rather than negative communication responses.

 

[1voice]

Kathleen Gee,

This is a very good question. At the heart of the answer to it is the divergence into Aristotelian philosophy and the “First Cause” belief, as compared with a belief that humankind were sent here to earth to experience a “growth process” that is part of an “eternal progression” that began before the War in heaven where “the devil fought and his angels, and prevailed not”, and the devil and his angels were cast out of heaven down to this earth.

Gaining salvation in Christ is helped as a person realizes they need to totally trust and totally rely on the Savior for being their Teacher, their Guide, and being their One Intercessor and Advocate with the Father. As they do this, they will be repenting often (daily) through fervent prayer, and will no longer feel “cast out of the garden of Eden” because they will feel the guidance of the Savior and the Holy Ghost in their life, so their communication with Them will be part of their everyday experience, and they will feel answered and comforted.

Parker,
You have never proven pre-mortal existence, using the Bible.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
You have never proven pre-mortal existence, using the Bible.

1voice,

That is correct, nor would I want to “prove pre-mortal existence, using the Bible”–because that would mean I was trying to remove the opportunity for free will choice, which would mean I was going against what God established as the pattern for how He governs this world He created.

He governs it by providing free will choice, always, even in the Bible but especially in the Bible.

There are plenty of “evidences” of strong beliefs in pre-mortal existence, but if there were “proofs” then the reader would have had their free will choice taken away. That would directly contradict what God has in place in His plan of salvation, and would run counter to His purposes.

 

[TexanKnight]

1voice,

That is correct, nor would I want to “prove pre-mortal existence, using the Bible”–because that would mean I was trying to remove the opportunity for free will choice, which would mean I was going against what God established as the pattern for how He governs this world He created.

He governs it by providing free will choice, always, even in the Bible but especially in the Bible.

There are plenty of “evidences” of strong beliefs in pre-mortal existence, but if there were “proofs” then the reader would have had their free will choice taken away. That would directly contradict what God has in place in His plan of salvation, and would run counter to His purposes.

To the General Reader:

There will never be proofs for false doctrine. Joseph taught false doctrine. Whether it was the premortal existence, the idea that God was once sinful man, polygamy after being caught being unfaithful, that God is flesh after teaching God is Spirit, or many other false doctrines. Joseph is who Jesus warned us about when He warned us of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Peace

 

[SteveVH]

1voice,

That is correct, nor would I want to “prove pre-mortal existence, using the Bible”–because that would mean I was trying to remove the opportunity for free will choice, which would mean I was going against what God established as the pattern for how He governs this world He created.

He governs it by providing free will choice, always, even in the Bible but especially in the Bible.

There are plenty of “evidences” of strong beliefs in pre-mortal existence, but if there were “proofs” then the reader would have had their free will choice taken away. That would directly contradict what God has in place in His plan of salvation, and would run counter to His purposes.

I find it strange that you equate revealing truth with going against one’s free will. If what you say is true, it makes me wonder why Christ would have revealed the truth about himself. “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life…” Free will has do do with either accepting or rejecting truth. It has nothing to do with proving something true. Your statement implies that you could prove pre-mortal existence from scripture if you chose, but that you’re doing us all a favor by keeping it hidden. If that works for you, Parker, fine, but I find it completely unconvincing and not very honest.

 

[Miriam1947]

1voice,

That is correct, nor would I want to “prove pre-mortal existence, using the Bible”–because that would mean I was trying to remove the opportunity for free will choice, which would mean I was going against what God established as the pattern for how He governs this world He created.

He governs it by providing free will choice, always, even in the Bible but especially in the Bible.

There are plenty of “evidences” of strong beliefs in pre-mortal existence, but if there were “proofs” then the reader would have had their free will choice taken away. That would directly contradict what God has in place in His plan of salvation, and would run counter to His purposes.

Free will choice. ParkerD, there is no proof of pre-mortal existence in the Bible or you would have provided those proofs by now.

Joseph Smith was a false prophet and no matter how fervently you wish to believe that it is only through Joseph Smith that you can reach the final exaltation, it ain’t true.

 

[sallybutler]

1voice,

That is correct, nor would I want to “prove pre-mortal existence, using the Bible”–because that would mean I was trying to remove the opportunity for free will choice, which would mean I was going against what God established as the pattern for how He governs this world He created.

He governs it by providing free will choice, always, even in the Bible but especially in the Bible.

There are plenty of “evidences” of strong beliefs in pre-mortal existence, but if there were “proofs” then the reader would have had their free will choice taken away. That would directly contradict what God has in place in His plan of salvation, and would run counter to His purposes.

This is the biggest cop-out I’ve ever seen. If I proved it to you, then you’d have no choice but to believe, therefore I can’t prove it to you, because if you believed it based on my proof, it wouldn’t be true belief.

Are you serious?

 

[Jerusha]

This is the biggest cop-out I’ve ever seen. If I proved it to you, then you’d have no choice but to believe, therefore I can’t prove it to you, because if you believed it based on my proof, it wouldn’t be true belief.

Are you serious?

This is typical Mormon logic. Belief without evidence is a sign of faith, so the more evidenceless beliefs they have, the more faith they have, and that makes them better people than us more pragmatic Catholics.