LDS and a Catholic

[Jason_J]

Also, if anyone is interested in beginning studies into the relationship between the Lord's restored Church and ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs, I highly recommend, in addition to the articles listed, the book "Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity" by Barry Bickmore, as an intro to some historical evidences for a genuine restoration. It can be read in full at the link provided.

[Jason_J]

But, Jason_J was super excellent in giving you some material, so I'll not clutter the thread because Jason's stuff is awesome. By the way, he's like me - Catholic turned LDS... and fairly recently. And he is also very well-versed in Catholic doctrine.

Thanks :) I'm familiar with SteveVH from Catholic Answers Forum, since I used to post there when I was an amateur Catholic apologist (and I posted extensively against Mormonism as well as Eastern Orthodoxy (obviously for different reasons) for some time (I think I first posted there in 2004). I prefer not to reveal who I was there though I was also an LDS critic at Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, and they were VERY surprised when I said that I was being baptized into the Lord's Church. As I mentioned elsewhere (as well as in my testimony at my baptism), it was not an easy decision for me to make, coming from such an active (not just in reading Catholic apologetic works and posting in such environments, but also active in the Catholic Church) background.

Anyway, I'm glad SteveVH is here!

[SteveVH]

It doesn't make a difference as far as your comments go. It does change the way I would answer, though. Because, I have to take into consideration that you don't take anything from the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, or any of the teachings of the LDS Prophets as binding. So, I can't refer to any of those. But you do hold Catholic stuff binding, so I can use those. Make sense?

But, Jason_J was super excellent in giving you some material, so I'll not clutter the thread because Jason's stuff is awesome. By the way, he's like me - Catholic turned LDS... and fairly recently. And he is also very well-versed in Catholic doctrine.

Thanks anatess, yes it makes sense. It is always good to know where someone is coming from when having a conversation. I do wish that we could show our religious affiliations with our user names.

God bless.

[pam]

Thanks anatess, yes it makes sense. It is always good to know where someone is coming from when having a conversation. I do wish that we could show our religious affiliations with our user names.

God bless.

I will send a message to our technical support people and see what can be done if anything about this.

[SteveVH]

I think you misunderstood what she was saying. She was not saying that she believes Catholic doctrine still as a member of the Lord's restored Church, but was referring to the "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" belief.

I'm sure you're correct, but when she said:

Originally posted by anatess

I am Catholic, now LDS. The reason I say I AM Catholic instead of I am ex-Catholic is because according to Catholic doctrine, you can't really become "un-Catholic'd".

it sounded like she still believed it. No biggy.

Of course there are a number of similarities between a number of the Catholic sacraments and the ordinances of the LDS Church besides the name used.

Could you please tell me what you find similar? Following the Protestant traditions, the Mormon "sacrament" is considered a symbol, rather than the true presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Water has replaced wine, even though this was a clear command from Jesus and evidenced by the tradition of Passover when the cup of wine is passed at the end of the meal. Baptism, rather than cleansing us from our sins, both original and personal, and infusing supernatural life into our souls, is considered something entirely different by LDS. I would really be interested in any similarities.

The restored Gospel fits quite nicely with the Biblical record, from Genesis to Revelation. Latter-day Saints also believe our Church to be the fulfillment of Judaism, and a restoration of principles that have their beginnings from The Beginning...

It is difficult to remain brief when speaking of the "restored" Gospel. Suffice it to say that the "restoration" from where I sit has nothing in common with the beliefs of the early Church. A "restoration", by its very nature, means that one should take great care in knowing what the original looked like before attempting to restore it. Uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Church history, including Jewish history. I would call it more of a "make-over" than a restoration, but I'm always happy to consider evidence to the contrary.

That should be a good start to see that LDS beliefs fit nicely with historical Jewish beliefs, and it is amazing that with developments in research and scholarship, there are so many evidences of things that Joseph Smith and his associates supposedly made up...enjoy!

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[SteveVH]

I will send a message to our technical support people and see what can be done if anything about this.

Thanks Pam. It's not a big deal, just thought it might be helpful. By the way, I love your signature line.

[pam]

Others have suggested the same thing so I can at least ask if possible. Oh and thanks about the sig line. I kinda like it myself. :)

[Guest]

I will send a message to our technical support people and see what can be done if anything about this.

YEAY!!!!!!!!!!

You'll get another one of those pancit mixes if you figure out how to do this! :)

[pam]

Join Date: Apr 2009

Location: United States -

Posts: 3,033

Thanks: 506

Thanked 1,535 Times in 971 Posts

Laughs: 94

Laughs at 306 Times in 180 Posts

Religion: LDS

There do I get a pancit mix now? hahahahaha

[Jason_J]

Could you please tell me what you find similar? Following the Protestant traditions, the Mormon "sacrament" is considered a symbol, rather than the true presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

Actually, the LDS Sacrament does not follow the Protestant tradition at all. I assume by "Protestant" you are referring to the "low church" varieties, since many Anglicans and Lutherans accept some sort of "real presence" in the Eucharist. While Latter-day Saints do not accept the belief that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ while retaining their appearance, we also do not accept that the Sacrament does nothing and is merely a symbol. Instead, we believe that the Sacrament renews our baptismal covenants, and provides a remission of sins, as well as the Spirit to be with us as we keep God's commandments.

Water has replaced wine, even though this was a clear command from Jesus and evidenced by the tradition of Passover when the cup of wine is passed at the end of the meal.

We believe that the Lord provided revelation on the matter. The fact that both leavened and unleavened bread are used in the Catholic Church shows that it isn't necessary to use exactly what Jesus used at the Lord's Supper. However Latter-day Saints believe that God has provided further instructions through revelation in the latter days.

Baptism, rather than cleansing us from our sins, both original and personal, and infusing supernatural life into our souls, is considered something entirely different by LDS.

LDS believe that baptism is for the remission of sins. What is "entirely different" about how LDS view baptism (since it seems as if you are implying that Catholics believe that baptism cleanses us from our sins while LDS do not believe that)?

I would really be interested in any similarities.

Quite briefly, both Catholics and LDS believe that Confirmation provides the gift of the Holy Ghost, as well as various gifts of the Holy Ghost. Both Catholics and LDS believe that ordination must be done by the laying on of hands by someone that holds priesthood authority. Both Catholics and LDS believe that consecrated oil should be used to anoint the sick, and that it can have an actual healing effect. Both Catholics and LDS believe that major sins should be confessed to a priesthood authority. Both Catholics and LDS believe that baptism isn't just a symbol, but is for the remission of sins. There are clearly similarities besides just what the name of the sacrament/ordinance is.

It is difficult to remain brief when speaking of the "restored" Gospel. Suffice it to say that the "restoration" from where I sit has nothing in common with the beliefs of the early Church. A "restoration", by its very nature, means that one should take great care in knowing what the original looked like before attempting to restore it. Uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Church history, including Jewish history. I would call it more of a "make-over" than a restoration, but I'm always happy to consider evidence to the contrary.

Actually, the links that I have provided show that LDS beliefs are indeed a restoration, and are connected to ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs. I highly recommend that you peruse the links that I have provided to get a sampling of the scholarship that evidences a genuine restoration of the Lord's Church. They show that unique LDS beliefs were not simply invented by Joseph Smith and/or his associates in the 1800s, but can be found anciently. It simply is amazing how much has been restored based on what was known in the 1800s, especially with recent discoveries and historical research.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

No problem!

[SteveVH]

Actually, the LDS Sacrament does not follow the Protestant tradition at all. I assume by "Protestant" you are referring to the "low church" varieties, since many Anglicans and Lutherans accept some sort of "real presence" in the Eucharist. While Latter-day Saints do not accept the belief that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ while retaining their appearance, we also do not accept that the Sacrament does nothing and is merely a symbol. Instead, we believe that the Sacrament renews our baptismal covenants, and provides a remission of sins, as well as the Spirit to be with us as we keep God's commandments.

Thank you for the correction concerning my use of the word "Protestant". You are exactly right and this isn't the first time I've fumbled on that one. I have never understood, however, how a piece of bread can remitt my sins or bring the Holy Spirit into my soul. I can renew my baptismal promises simply by repeating them with a sincere heart. We also believe that the Eucharist remitts our sins, but it is because it is actually Jesus, not a piece of bread. Because God is one, when we receive the Eucharist we also receive the Holy Spirit in a very real way (as well as the Father). I will concede that your belief differs from those Protestants who only believe in a symbolic presence, but it is still very different than the Catholic belief.

We believe that the Lord provided revelation on the matter. The fact that both leavened and unleavened bread are used in the Catholic Church shows that it isn't necessary to use exactly what Jesus used at the Lord's Supper. However Latter-day Saints believe that God has provided further instructions through revelation in the latter days.

First of all, unleavened bread is never used in the Catholic Church. There are very strict rules governing this. If it is used, the priest who is using it would be in violation of Church teaching. It is wheat flour and water, only. No, we do exactly as Jesus instructed, even down to the exact words that He used. We also believe that God does not change His mind and so would reject any "new" revelation in that regard as false.

LDS believe that baptism is for the remission of sins. What is "entirely different" about how LDS view baptism (since it seems as if you are implying that Catholics believe that baptism cleanses us from our sins while LDS do not believe that)?

I suppose the substantive differences would surround orignial sin and the fact that we believe that Baptism infuses our soul with supernatural life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We believe that it is a channel of grace, an action on the part of God which can even be received by infants through the desire and promises of their parents, thus, not requiring repentance as a precondition, but rather the acceptance of a free gift from God.

Quite briefly, both Catholics and LDS believe that Confirmation provides the gift of the Holy Ghost, as well as various gifts of the Holy Ghost. Both Catholics and LDS believe that ordination must be done by the laying on of hands by someone that holds priesthood authority. Both Catholics and LDS believe that consecrated oil should be used to anoint the sick, and that it can have an actual healing effect. Both Catholics and LDS believe that major sins should be confessed to a priesthood authority. Both Catholics and LDS believe that baptism isn't just a symbol, but is for the remission of sins. There are clearly similarities besides just what the name of the sacrament/ordinance is.

Jason, as you know, I have been corresponding with Mormons for awhile now. Each time I have tried to find common ground in our beliefs, I have been amazed at the differences in belief when it finally gets down to the details. An entire thread could be used to discuss anyone of the sacraments (ordinances) stated above so I will not get into that kind of detail here. I mean it is as basic as saying that we both believe in Jesus, but when we finally get down to who Jesus is, his origin, his role in our salvation, his very identity, we find that we are miles apart in our beliefs. That is my point.

Actually, the links that I have provided show that LDS beliefs are indeed a restoration, and are connected to ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs. I highly recommend that you peruse the links that I have provided to get a sampling of the scholarship that evidences a genuine restoration of the Lord's Church. They show that unique LDS beliefs were not simply invented by Joseph Smith and/or his associates in the 1800s, but can be found anciently. It simply is amazing how much has been restored based on what was known in the 1800s, especially with recent discoveries and historical research.

I will admit that I find the entire concept of the need for a restoration, based upon the purported "Great Apostasy", completely lacking evidence. I just finished participating in a thread on this very subject that had over 1000 posts, asking for evidence of the Apsostasy and the removal of priesthood authority from the earth. While we had numerous posts by Mormon apologists, I am still waiting, as are all the other Catholic posters, for this evidence. So, in full disclosure, I have neither the time nor the inclination to sift through mounds of articles and books claiming to have this evidence. What it all boiled down to in the end was the testimony of Joseph Smith. I was told that the existence of the Mormon Church was evidence. We exist, therefore there was a need for a restoration. I even had the local Mormon bishop personally tell me that he didn't need history to support this claim. He had the testimony of Joseph Smith. So, rather than me having to sort through all of this, would you mind just stating what you believe is your most convincing evidence. We can go from there.

Thanks.

[Jason_J]

Thank you for the correction concerning my use of the word "Protestant". You are exactly right and this isn't the first time I've fumbled on that one. I have never understood, however, how a piece of bread can remitt my sins or bring the Holy Spirit into my soul.

Latter-day Saints do not believe that it is just a "piece of bread". I can eat a piece of bread anytime and it does not mean I'm participating in a sacred ordinance. LDS believe that the Sacrament is a covenant that we enter into with God, and is also a renewal of the covenants we made at our baptisms. Significantly, the elements used in the Sacrament must be blessed by priesthood authority. These are clear differences between how LDS view the Sacrament and how many Evangelicals view the symbolic Lord's Supper. For us, the elements do not have to be turned into the body and blood of Christ for us to enter into real covenants with the Lord and have a remission of sins.

I can renew my baptismal promises simply by repeating them with a sincere heart.

Sure, as we all can. However that isn't what an ordinance is.

We also believe that the Eucharist remitts our sins, but it is because it is actually Jesus, not a piece of bread.

See above. It isn't just about eating a piece of bread, which I can do at breakfast.

Because God is one, when we receive the Eucharist we also receive the Holy Spirit in a very real way (as well as the Father). I will concede that your belief differs from those Protestants who only believe in a symbolic presence, but it is still very different than the Catholic belief.

Agreed.

First of all, unleavened bread is never used in the Catholic Church. There are very strict rules governing this. If it is used, the priest who is using it would be in violation of Church teaching. It is wheat flour and water, only.

I think you meant to say "leavened bread is never used in the Catholic Church", since unleavened bread is of course used in the Latin rite.

But either way, I assume you are not familiar with the Eastern Catholic Churches, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome? They follow the Orthodox tradition of using leavened bread in the Eucharist. That is what I was referring to with having both leavened and unleavened bread being used in the Eucharist/Divine Liturgy in the Catholic Church.

No, we do exactly as Jesus instructed, even down to the exact words that He used. We also believe that God does not change His mind and so would reject any "new" revelation in that regard as false.

See above. Did Jesus use unleavened or leavened bread? If it was unleavened, then part of the Catholic Church (the Eastern Catholic churches) are not doing "exactly as Jesus instructed". This isn't problematic for us, however I'm trying to show you how that argument doesn't necessarily follow through. Further, at least in the West (I've attended multiple Divine Liturgies however I haven't seen up close what happens at the altar since it's behind the iconostasis), some holy water is mingled with the wine, which Jesus did not do either . There are of course multiple other examples.

I suppose the substantive differences would surround orignial sin and the fact that we believe that Baptism infuses our soul with supernatural life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We believe that it is a channel of grace, an action on the part of God which can even be received by infants through the desire and promises of their parents, thus, not requiring repentance as a precondition, but rather the acceptance of a free gift from God.

Right, I understand. For LDS, baptism is for the remission of sins (this is how it is referred to), and our sins are actually forgiven. Sins are further forgiven as we renew our baptismal covenants through the Sacrament.

Also, we believe that all ordinances are actions on the part of God, since they are done with priesthood authority, which is the power of God.

Jason, as you know, I have been corresponding with Mormons for awhile now. Each time I have tried to find common ground in our beliefs, I have been amazed at the differences in belief when it finally gets down to the details. An entire thread could be used to discuss anyone of the sacraments (ordinances) stated above so I will not get into that kind of detail here. I mean it is as basic as saying that we both believe in Jesus, but when we finally get down to who Jesus is, his origin, his role in our salvation, his very identity, we find that we are miles apart in our beliefs. That is my point.

I too have been corresponding with Mormons for many years, and was an LDS critic on CAF and on an LDS forum for some time. I agree that there are many fundamental differences, however there are many fundamental similarities. My point was that there are a number of similarities between Catholic sacraments and LDS ordinances beyond just what they are named.

I will admit that I find the entire concept of the need for a restoration, based upon the purported "Great Apostasy", completely lacking evidence. I just finished participating in a thread on this very subject that had over 1000 posts, asking for evidence of the Apsostasy and the removal of priesthood authority from the earth. While we had numerous posts by Mormon apologists, I am still waiting, as are all the other Catholic posters, for this evidence. So, in full disclosure, I have neither the time nor the inclination to sift through mounds of articles and books claiming to have this evidence. What it all boiled down to in the end was the testimony of Joseph Smith. I was told that the existence of the Mormon Church was evidence. We exist, therefore there was a need for a restoration. I even had the local Mormon bishop personally tell me that he didn't need history to support this claim. He had the testimony of Joseph Smith. So, rather than me having to sort through all of this, would you mind just stating what you believe is your most convincing evidence. We can go from there.

Thanks.

Steve, I hope that at some point you will engage the materials that I have provided. They provide documented evidences for the restoration using non-LDS sources. The scholarly historical research has been done and is available. This article provides a brief summary of some of those issues, and if anything, i hope that you will read that one. I am particularly fascinated by the evidences for the belief in the pre-mortal existence of souls, creation from pre-existing materials, and the Divine Council.

I am about to go to class, but tonight I'll post some excerpts from the articles I linked to previously that evidence that LDS beliefs do not originate from the 1800s, but can be found in ancient Judeo-Christian sources.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Jason_J

[ryanh]

I have never understood, however, how a piece of bread can remitt my sins or bring the Holy Spirit into my soul. I can renew my baptismal promises simply by repeating them with a sincere heart. We also believe that the Eucharist remitts our sins, but it is because it is actually Jesus, not a piece of bread. Because God is one, when we receive the Eucharist we also receive the Holy Spirit in a very real way (as well as the Father).

Very intersting that this very topic was a part of my study this morning. There is a fundamental difference between Catholic and LDS views on this preciely because of differing views of the process of coming to God, or bringing the Spirit into our lives. As you pointed out, Catholic belive the Eucharist is a vehicle. LDS belive the vehicle is the covenant made through ordinances. Water vs wine, leavened or unleavend in white, wheat, or cracker doesn't matter. It is the covenant that is made that truly matters - this seems to be not too different from what you are saying about renewing baptisimal promises through the heart.

The scriptures of the Restoration make it clear that ordinances such as baptism, priesthood ordination, and marriage are all based in covenants between men and God. The person receiving the ordinance has made certain covenants with God, and God in turn makes promises to the person. The ordinance is a public witness of these covenants. What we have not previously realized is that when the second‐century Christians redefined these ordinances as sacraments, they simultaneously abandoned their covenantal understanding of the ordinances. There were significant efforts in the Protestant Reformation to restore those covenantal understandings to the ordinances, but these all failed. Reinvented as sacraments, the ordinances were understood in traditional Christianity as the means by which God could bless a person with an infusion of divine grace, through the mediation of the priest. Once the covenantal understanding was lost, it made sense to bless everyone possible. So why would we deny baptism to infants if the recipient no longer was expected to be making a meaningful covenant in connection with that ordinance? A similar analysis applies to Christian sacraments such as last rites. This helps us understand what Nephi meant when he explained the apostasy by saying that “many of the covenants of the Lord have hey taken away” (1 Nephi 13:26).

Source: Noel B. Reynolds What Went Wrong For the Early Christians?

[ryanh]

To further understand why there are differences between Catholic and LDS beliefs in relation to the sacrament:

In the vision recorded in 1 Nephi 13, Nephi saw that the great and abominable church was formed in the first century when the record of the Jews went forth from the Jews to the Gentiles (v 25‐26) and that it was founded in opposition to the Church of God (v. 5), which tells us that the two existed simultaneously. Nephi saw further that the devil’s church took away many parts of the gospel, including the covenants, as verse 26 tells us, and later took away many precious things out of the Bible (v. 28). Now, in the first century, the Christian scriptures consisted principally of the Old Testament, available principally in a Greek translation, called the Septuagint. A few years ago I had a personal experience that confirmed Nephi’s account in a dramatic way. I was a guest of the director of the Vatican Library in Rome, and he brought out their fourth century copy of the complete Bible for me to see—Codex Vaticanus B. The first page we looked at had numerous erasures, additions, and changes written right on the page in different inks and different hands! I asked, pointing to some of these, “What is that?” The reply: “Oh, that’s where they made corrections.” Over the last two decades, many New Testament scholars have argued convincingly that the final texts of the gospels and the epistles that were eventually canonized, took shape during a long period in which they were modified as necessary to support the emerging theological orthodoxy among the leaders of the Christian churches. Their principal evidence comes from scriptural quotations in second century documents which are different and which would not have supported the theological orthodoxy that emerged later.

Nor did this process of change go unnoticed in those early centuries. Paul warned the Thessalonians that some people might try to stir them up with false letters addressed from the apostles. Peter said that many in his day were “wresting” the scriptures, or distorting their true meaning (2 Pet 3:15‐16). Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop who was martyred around 110 AD said that he could not write down all of the teachings of the apostles because they were too sacred. Justin Martyr, whom we mentioned before, accused Jewish leaders of deliberately removing passages from the Old Testament. During the second century, many bishops and writers in the church accused “heretics” of changing the scriptures. Tertullian of Carthage claimed that Marcion, a leader in what is now Turkey, deliberately cut out pieces of the scriptures that he did not like, and Clement of Alexandria accused some people of rewriting parts of the gospels. By the third century, the accusations of changes in the scriptures die down. However, we have virtually no texts predating the third century by which to verify this. Less than one percent of the existing New Testament fragments can be dated to the second century, and those are mere fragments. We also have other writings, letters primarily, from the second century which quote scriptures and these quotations frequently differ from what we have in the New Testament today.

Source: Noel B. Reynolds What Went Wrong For the Early Christians?

[Note, the author is clear he does not believe the great and abominable church to be the Roman Catholic church. In fact, the above text was taken from the section debunking a myth that The Roman Catholic church specifically is the great and abominable church spoken of in Nephi’s vision. The author is asserting that there were other forces that destroyed the first and second century Christian’s understandings of the true order of covenants before the foundation of “Traditional Christianity, as we know it, [which] was not established until the Nicene Council in 325 C.E. or during the fourth century.”]

Those parts of the scriptures that defined the doctrine of covenants and covenant making were lost in before there was a chance for "Traditional Christianity" to form. Those understandings have been restored, hence the difference in doctrine.

[Jason_J]

Uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Church history, including Jewish history.

Brief Historical Evidences of the Restoration

By "uniquely Mormon doctrines", I take it that you are referring to such doctrines as the Pre-mortal existence of souls, creation from pre-existing materials, the Godhead, eternal marriage, baptism for the dead, etc. As one can see from the links I provided earlier, it is clearly erroneous to state that "Uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Church history, including Jewish history. ". Here are a few brief examples as to why.

Pre-mortal Existence of Souls

The LDS doctrine on the pre-mortal existence states that our souls existed before we were conceived on the earth. We lived with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in Heaven. Traditional Christians reject such a notion, and instead believe that our souls come into existence at conception.

From "Restoring the Ancient Church":

"An intriguing account of the great council occurs in the apocryphal Apocalypse of Abraham, which had its origin in Judaism but in its present form has been modified by Jewish Christian groups. (Note the similarities between this ancient account of Abraham's vision of the council and that translated by Joseph Smith in Abraham 3, quoted above.)

'And everything I had planned to be came into being: it was already pre-figured in this, for all the things and all the people you have seen stood before me before they were created. And I said, Mighty and Eternal Ruler, who then are the people in this picture on this side and on that? And he said to me, Those on the left side are the many peoples which have existed in the past, and after you are appointed, some for judgement and restoration, some for vengeance and perdition, until the end of the age. And those on the right side of the picture, they are the people set apart for me from the people with Azazil [satan]. These are the people who are going to spring from you and will be called my people.' (The Apocalypse of Abraham 22, in H.F.D. Sparks, ed., The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), 384.)

Additionally, David Winston reports that the Bereshith Rabba and Ruth Rabba tell of God consulting the souls of the righteous before deciding to create the world.(David Winston, "The Iranian Component in the Bible, Apocrypha and Qumran," History of Religions 5 (1965): 212.). The Wisdom of Solomon, in the Apocrypha, states: "As a child I was born to excellence, and a noble soul fell to my lot; or rather, I myself was noble; and I entered into an unblemished body."(Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20 NEB). The Midrash Kee Tov states that all the souls of the righteous, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. "were with God before the creation of the world."(Sefer Haparshiyot, Midrash Kee Tov, "Alef" Machon Lehotzaat Sefarim, 31, quoted in Nissim Wernick, "A Critical Analysis of the Book of Abraham in the Light of Extra-Canonical Jewish Writings" (Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young University, 1968), 22).

...

Origen quoted a Jewish apocryphal document called the Prayer of Joseph, which asserted that Jacob was one of the archangels in his premortal existence:

Thus Jacob says: "I, Jacob, who speak to you, arid Israel, I am an angel of God, a ruling spirit, and Abraham and Isaac were created before every work of God; and I am Jacob, called Jacob by men, but my name is Israel, called Israel by God, a man seeing God, because I am the first-born of every creature which God caused to live."(Origen, Commentary on John 2:25, in ANF 10:341)

The Enoch texts also contain the common element of the pre-existence. (This is significant, since the early Christians apparently took at least one of these documents very seriously. Indeed, Jude referred to one of them in his general epistle. (See Jude 1:14) 2 Enoch states that, "all souls are prepared to eternity, before the formation of the world," (Secrets of Enoch 23:2, in Rutherford H. Platt, Jr. , ed., The Forgotten Books of Eden (New York: Random House, 1980), 89), and cites Adam as the prime example:

'And I placed on the earth, a second angel, honorable, great and glorious, and I appointed him as ruler to rule on earth and to have my wisdom, and there was none like him of earth of all my existing creatures . . . . I called his name Adam.' (Secrets of Enoch 30:12-13, in Platt, ed., The Forgotten Books of Eden, 92).

Also, 1 Enoch relates that before God created the world he held a consultation with the souls of the righteous. (1 Enoch 39:4-7, 40:5, 61:12. Quoted in Wernick, "A Critical Analysis of the Book of Abraham in the Light of Extra-Canonical Jewish Writings," 23.)

Interestingly, 1 Enoch is regarded as scripture by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church. A quick wiki also shows that apparently various Early Church Fathers such as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Tertullian regarded 1 Enoch as scripture (though we know of course that the Early Christians had a somewhat fluid canon, accepting works such as the Shepherd of Hermas as scriptural as well.

Anyway, that is just a beginning of the ancient Judeo-Christian evidences for the Latter-day Saint belief in the pre-mortal existence of the soul. Clearly we see that it did not originate in the 1800s, and that this unique Mormon doctrine is found in early Judeo-Christian history.

I'll get to the others either later tonight or tomorrow, I need to finish my chemistry homework! :)

[volgadon]

This is from Howard Schwartz's "Tree of Souls: the mythology of Judaism".

The souls of the righteous existed long before the creation of the world.

God consulted these souls in creating the universe, as it is said, They dwelt there in the king’s service (I Chron. 4:23).

God called upon the souls of the righteous, who sat on the council with the Supreme King of Kings, to come together.

He then took counsel with them before He brought the world into being, saying, “Let us make man” (Gen. 1:26).

So too did they help Him with His work.

Some assisted in planting and some helped create the borders of the sea, as it is said, Who set the sand as a boundary to the sea (Jer. 5:22).

Nor does God make any important decision without consulting the Council of Souls.

So too did God take counsel with the souls of the righteous.

He asked them if they were willing to be created. And that is how the souls of the righteous, including the souls of Abraham and the other patriarchs, came into being.

While there are traditions that God took council with the angels or a divine partner such as Adam in creating the world, here the phrase, “Let us make man” from Genesis 1:26 is said to refer to a Council of Souls (nefashot shel Tzaddikim), with whom God consulted before creating the world. These souls of the righteous are said to have

existed before the creation of the world. In fact, it is not specified that they were created

by God at all, but only called together by God before He created the universe.

Further, they not only give their consent for the creation of the world, but they participate

in it, assisting God in planting and creating the boundaries of the sea. Rabbi Levi

Yitzhak of Berditchev interprets God’s consulting with the souls of the righteous to

mean that He asked them if they were willing to be created.

Evidence of a divine council can be found in several biblical passages, such as

Psalms 82:1, which states that God stands in the divine assembly; among the divine beings

He pronounces judgment. Here the term for the divine assembly is “adat el.” In Canaanite

Myth and Hebrew Epic, Frank Moore Cross describes this council as the Israelite counterpart

of the Council of El found in Canaanite mythology, referring to El, the primary

Canaanite god. It would thus seem that this obscure Jewish tradition is directly drawn

from the Canaanite. Psalm 82 adds a strange twist to this myth: God appears to condemn

the gods of the Council of Gods to death: “I had taken you for divine beings, sons of

the Most High, all of you; but you shall die as men do, fall like any prince” (Ps. 82:6). This

might be interpreted to mean that monotheism declares the death of polytheism.

Jeremiah 23:18 also describes a divine council: But he who has stood in the council of

Yahweh, and seen, and heard His word—He who has listened to His word must obey. Another

reference to the divine council is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22, where God addresses the

host of heaven, asking who will entice Ahab, and a certain spirit came forward and stood

before the Lord and said, “I will entice him.” Other passages suggesting the existence of

heavenly beings with whom God discusses His decisions include Isaiah 6 and Job 1-2.

Usually the term, “the souls of the righteous,” refers to the souls of the pious who

have died, and whose souls have ascended to Paradise. By pre-existing, these souls

become identified as primordial gods, such as are found in other Near Eastern mythologies.

By calling them together as a council, God implicitly recognizes their power.

It must be assumed that the council of souls gave its approval for the creation of the

universe, since God proceeded with it after that.

Another possible explanation would be to identify “the souls of the righteous” in

this midrash with the angels. In other sources, God is said to have consulted with the

angels before creating man, and there are traditions and countertraditions of the notion

that the angels somehow participated in the creation of the world itself. See “Creation

by Angels,” p. 116. However, it would be highly unusual to refer to the angels as

“the souls of the righteous,” although Philo does refer to angels as “unbodied souls.”

A prooftext for the existence of such a council of souls or angels can be found in

Daniel 4:14: The matter is by decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy

ones. Both of these terms, the “watchers” and the “holy ones,” suggest some kind of

supernatural figures from the heavenly realm, whether angels, souls, or additional divinities.

The Council of Souls may also be identified with the heavenly court, and identified

as the Watchers. See “The Heavenly Court,” p. 208, and “The Watchers,” p. 457.

There are parallel myths about God consulting the angels, rather than souls, in the

creation of Adam. The text of Genesis 1:26 states that God said: “Let us make man in our

image, after our likeness.” But in the Pseudo-Yonathan Targum on Genesis 1:26, this is

changed to read: “And God said to the angels who minister before him, who were

created on the second day of Creation. `Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’”

See “Creation By Angels,” p. 116.

In Genesis Rabbah 8:9 the question of how many deities created the world is directly

broached: “How many deities created the world? You and I must inquire of the first

day, as it is said, For ask now of the first days (Deut. 4:32).” The rabbis subsequently

debate whether the first sentence of Genesis describes creation by one God or by many,

since Elohim is plural. Read this way, the first line of Genesis reads: “In the beginning

Gods created the heaven and the earth.” That such a debate can take place at all is

remarkable, considering the centrality of monotheism. But it is also a tribute to the open-ended willingness of the rabbis to explore even apparently heretical interpretations of the Torah. The existence of this discussion and the fact that it was recorded in

a primary text such as Genesis Rabbah, indicates that the “heretical” had some advocates among the rabbis.

Perhaps it harks back to a residual pagan myth, a Canaanite myth about a council of gods.

Such divine councils rule in Mesopotamian, Babylonian, and Canaanite mythology.

In the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish, Marduk is made head of the divine council

by defeating Tiamat, the personification of the sea. It is likely that the existence of

such a council in Jewish tradition is a remnant of such an ancient myth. Ugaritic texts

describe the abode of El, the primary Canaanite god, and his council on the mountain

of El, where the gods are seated at a table. El’s abode is said to be in the north. This

setting and location is echoed in Isaiah 14:13: “I will sit in the mount of assembly, on the

summit of Zaphon.” (Zaphon is Hebrew for “north.”)

God’s perplexing use of the first person plural in verses such as Let us make man in

our image (Gen. 1:26), Behold the man has become like one of us (Gen. 3:22), and Let us, then,

go down and confound their speech there (Gen. 11:7) can be explained as addressing the

divine council. This same usage is found in the Ugaritic texts. Most midrashic texts

interpret “Let us” as God addressing the angels.

Sources:

Genesis Rabbah 8: 7; Maggid Devarav le-Ya’akov 1; No’am Elimelekh, Bo 36b.

Studies:

Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic by Frank Moore Cross, pp. 36-43, 186-190.

“The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah” by Frank Moore Cross.

“The Council of Yahweh” by H. Wheeler Robinson.

“God and the Gods in Assembly” by Matitiahu Tsevat.

Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature by E.

Theodore Mullen.

[volgadon]

The Midrash on the Creation of the Child (Seder Yetzirat ha-Walad) details a child's life from the pre-existence of its soul through conception, the womb, and then birth. Upon birth an angel makes the child forget what he knew before. The midrash also has God pointing to exalted souls, who are exalted because they came to this earth. Kind of hard to say there are no LDS beliefs with counterparts in ancient Judaism.

[Jason_J]

The Midrash on the Creation of the Child (Seder Yetzirat ha-Walad) details a child's life from the pre-existence of its soul through conception, the womb, and then birth. Upon birth an angel makes the child forget what he knew before. The midrash also has God pointing to exalted souls, who are exalted because they came to this earth. Kind of hard to say there are no LDS beliefs with counterparts in ancient Judaism.

Volgadon, I'm so grateful that you are participating in this thread as well, because of your awesome knowledge of Judaism, both ancient and modern. And if I remember correctly, you live in Israel and are ethnically Jewish and religiously LDS?

Feel free to add more of your thoughts on our "uniquely Mormon doctrines" and ancient Israelite beliefs! :)

I'll add more later today.

[SteveVH]

Latter-day Saints do not believe that it is just a "piece of bread". I can eat a piece of bread anytime and it does not mean I'm participating in a sacred ordinance. LDS believe that the Sacrament is a covenant that we enter into with God, and is also a renewal of the covenants we made at our baptisms. Significantly, the elements used in the Sacrament must be blessed by priesthood authority. These are clear differences between how LDS view the Sacrament and how many Evangelicals view the symbolic Lord's Supper. For us, the elements do not have to be turned into the body and blood of Christ for us to enter into real covenants with the Lord and have a remission of sins.

I can appreciate that you give much more significance to the "sacrament" than purely symbolism, but the issue of the true presence is at the center of Catholic belief. We enter into the most intimate of covenants in the Eucharist precisley because we believe that it is a true giving of His life to us, as well as a true giving of our life to Him. This distinction cannot be ignored and causes a wide separation between us in our understanding.

I think you meant to say "leavened bread is never used in the Catholic Church", since unleavened bread is of course used in the Latin rite.

But either way, I assume you are not familiar with the Eastern Catholic Churches, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome? They follow the Orthodox tradition of using leavened bread in the Eucharist. That is what I was referring to with having both leavened and unleavened bread being used in the Eucharist/Divine Liturgy in the Catholic Church.

Did Jesus use unleavened or leavened bread? If it was unleavened, then part of the Catholic Church (the Eastern Catholic churches) are not doing "exactly as Jesus instructed". This isn't problematic for us, however I'm trying to show you how that argument doesn't necessarily follow through. Further, at least in the West (I've attended multiple Divine Liturgies however I haven't seen up close what happens at the altar since it's behind the iconostasis), some holy water is mingled with the wine, which Jesus did not do either . There are of course multiple other examples.

Yes, I did mean to say "leavened" bread, thank you. I am familiar with the Eastern Churches and am aware that some of them do use leavened bread and that it is accepted as valid. Even in the Eastern rite, however, the Armenians and the Maronites use unleavened bread. I thought you were referring to the Latin rite which must use unleavened bread. The Council of Florence in 1439 decided that either kind was sufficient for the validity of the sacrament, and that unleavened bread must be used in the Western Church and leavened in the Eastern Church. This is considered a matter of discipline within each rite, rather than dogma or doctrine, much like celibacy. In any event, your point is well taken, but only to a point. :) While there is little doubt that Jesus used unleavened bread as this was what was and is used at the Passover meal, He did not specify that it must be unleavened bread, but did specify that it was bread and wine.

As far as adding water to the wine, we cannot separate the last supper from the sacrifice on the cross. When the lance was thrust into Jesus' side, water and blood poured out. That is what is being signified by the addition of a few drops of water to the wine (blood).

Also, we believe that all ordinances are actions on the part of God, since they are done with priesthood authority, which is the power of God.

I understand, but that is not my point. If I may display my ignorance of the Mormon faith, in many non-Catholic denominations Baptism is considered as much a public statement by the one being baptized as anything else. I truly do not know how much a part this plays, if any, in Mormon baptism. My point is that there is nothing required of the one being baptized, in the Catholic faith, other than acceptance of the gift, and if it is an infant, the acceptance by the parents or guardians on the infant's behalf. In other words, one does not need to have reached the age of reason because it is completely an action on the part of God, a free gift if you will, that brings us into the family of God and gives us supernatural life.

I too have been corresponding with Mormons for many years, and was an LDS critic on CAF and on an LDS forum for some time. I agree that there are many fundamental differences, however there are many fundamental similarities. My point was that there are a number of similarities between Catholic sacraments and LDS ordinances beyond just what they are named.

Again, I understand what you are saying, however, I still maintain that the devil is in the details and when one finally sorts it out, they actually are not similar at all.

Steve, I hope that at some point you will engage the materials that I have provided. They provide documented evidences for the restoration using non-LDS sources. The scholarly historical research has been done and is available. This article provides a brief summary of some of those issues, and if anything, i hope that you will read that one. I am particularly fascinated by the evidences for the belief in the pre-mortal existence of souls, creation from pre-existing materials, and the Divine Council.

I am about to go to class, but tonight I'll post some excerpts from the articles I linked to previously that evidence that LDS beliefs do not originate from the 1800s, but can be found in ancient Judeo-Christian sources.

Jason I appreciate the trouble you have gone to in providing these materials and I will give them a read. I know you understand, as you have already stated, that when Mormon materials are backed up with quotes from Mormon scripture (BoM, D&C, etc.) I am not influenced as I believe they are false scriptures from the get go. Now, if I found a source that had just discovered an archaeological find evidencing a massive ancient civilization in the State of New York as described in the BoM I would be very inclined to give it due consideration.

Anyway, I do appreciate your time and effort in this discussion.

God bless you.

Edited March 10, 2011 by SteveVH

[Guest]

Jason I appreciate the trouble you have gone to in providing these materials and I will give them a read. I know you understand, as you have already stated, that when Mormon materials are backed up with quotes from Mormon scripture (BoM, D&C, etc.) I am not influenced as I believe they are false scriptures from the get go. Now, if I found a source that had just discovered an archaeological find evidencing a massive ancient civilization in the State of New York as described in the BoM I would be very inclined to give it due consideration.

Anyway, I do appreciate your time and effort in this discussion.

God bless you.

You believe in Noah and the great flood, yes? What archeological find do you use to support such a belief? What about the Garden of Eden? Yet, you give it due consideration, yes?

[SteveVH]

Very intersting that this very topic was a part of my study this morning. There is a fundamental difference between Catholic and LDS views on this preciely because of differing views of the process of coming to God, or bringing the Spirit into our lives. As you pointed out, Catholic belive the Eucharist is a vehicle. LDS belive the vehicle is the covenant made through ordinances. Water vs wine, leavened or unleavend in white, wheat, or cracker doesn't matter. It is the covenant that is made that truly matters - this seems to be not too different from what you are saying about renewing baptisimal promises through the heart.

I don't know where I said that the Eucharist is simply a vehicle, or that this is a Catholic belief. The Eucharist is the "new and everlasting covenant". In God's covenant with Abraham, all males had to be circumcised as sign of entering into this covenant. One could not, instead, cut off their ear lobe and say "it is the covenant that is made that truly matters". If you were not circumcised you had not entered into that covenant.

As far as the Eucharist is concerned, Jesus said "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will have no life within you." When the Passover took place, there were very specific rules to be followed. Besides sprinkling the blood of an unblemished lamb on your door post with a hyssop branch, you had to actually eat the lamb. Now if you didn't like lamb and asked mom to make you some lamb shaped cookies instead, you would have awoken the next morning to find your eldest brother dead. The sign of the covenant is evidence of a deeper reality, and this is as true of the Eucharist as it was for the Jews at Passover. Jesus is the Lamb of God and therefore we must do what was commanded. We must not only have the right intention, but we must carry through with that by eating His flesh and drinking His blood. In order for this to be a reality, the bread and wine must become the glorified body and blood of the Lamb.

As far as renewing baptismal promises, this presupposes that you have been legitimately baptized to beging with. Renewing my baptismal promises is not a sacrament (or ordinance). It is a reminder to myself of my true identity as a child of God and of my obligation to live up to that title. Now if one is baptized with Dr. Pepper, in the name of the sun, moon and stars, regardless of one's intention, this would not constitute a valid baptism. I think you would agree that there are strict rules, in the Mormon faith as well, that if not followed would result in an invalid baptism.

So covenants are not made simply with intentions, but rather by doing what has been instructed in order to enter into that covenant.

[Guest]

As far as renewing baptismal promises, this presupposes that you have been legitimately baptized to beging with. Renewing my baptismal promises is not a sacrament (or ordinance). It is a reminder to myself of my true identity as a child of God and of my obligation to live up to that title. Now if one is baptized with Dr. Pepper, in the name of the sun, moon and stars, regardless of one's intention, this would not constitute a valid baptism. I think you would agree that there are strict rules, in the Mormon faith as well, that if not followed would result in an invalid baptism.

So covenants are not made simply with intentions, but rather by doing what has been instructed in order to enter into that covenant.

And that's what we've been trying to say here... that there are similarities between Catholics and LDS that go deeper than the surface.

[SteveVH]

You believe in Noah and the great flood, yes? What archeological find do you use to support such a belief? What about the Garden of Eden? Yet, you give it due consideration, yes?

Absolutely, but only because I consider the Sacred Scriptures as the word of God, therefore worthy of belief. I believe the BoM to be "another gospel" not given to us by the Apostles, which we have been warned not to accept, even if given to us by an angel.

[SteveVH]

And that's what we've been trying to say here... that there are similarities between Catholics and LDS that go deeper than the surface.

We both believe in God. We both believe in Jesus. We both believe in baptism. We both believe in "communion" (Eucharist / sacrament). Yes, those are similarities. My point is that when you dig just under the surface you find that our beliefs concerning these seeming similarities are not, in reality, similar in the least.

My point in being on this forum is to try to understand how you arrive at your beliefs. I can only do this by comparing them to my own and how I have arrived at those beliefs. It is not my intention to pretend that we believe the same thing. We obviously don't or we would be under the same roof. This is not a negative thing in my mind and I don't think less of you because of your beliefs. I agree it is always best to find common ground as a jumping off point, but we cannot ignore the differences or we are not being intellectually honest.

I have great respect for Mormons. You live your lives with a high moral standard and together we can be a united front against the modern threats to marriage and family, such as abortion, gay marriage, etc., that plague our society today. We do stand on common ground in these areas especially, so please don't misunderstand my intentions here.

God bless you.

Edited March 10, 2011 by SteveVH

[Guest]

Absolutely, but only because I consider the Sacred Scriptures as the word of God, therefore worthy of belief. I believe the BoM to be "another gospel" not given to us by the Apostles, which we have been warned not to accept, even if given to us by an angel.

EXACTLY. I completely get where you're coming from. And there is completely nothing wrong with it.

The only thing that is wrong with it is painting the entire LDS doctrine as polar opposite of Catholicism only because you don't believe in the BoM...

It is the same wrongness for an LDS person to paint Catholicism as polar opposite of LDS only because they believe in the Great Apostasy....

You don't have to believe in it to see that there are a lot of things Catholics and LDS have in common. And no, it's not just gay marriage either.

For us, LDS folks, though, the scriptures you use to consider the BoM to be "another gospel" doesn't mean the same. Because, what is the gospel? The gospel is the Good News. That Jesus Christ Lives! It is the same exact gospel that the BoM is telling you. That Jesus is the Christ. The BoM doesn't claim that Spongebob is the Son of God... that would have been "another gospel".

But, there is nothing Jason_J, myself, or anybody else can show you, tell you, give you that will convince you of the truth of the BoM. NOTHING. Unfortunately, that kind of testimony is something only YOU can find out for yourself. Therefore, as LDS, we believe that we have the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and we allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may according to their own understanding. What is important is that you are continually searching, honestly and diligently going forward in your journey towards the Christ. And in that, we are completely the same.