LDS and a Catholic

[Jason_J]

Hi SteveVH, thanks for responding :)

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 agree that the distinction cannot be ignored, and I hope that I was not implying that it should be ignored or was trivial. My point in the quote you responded to was that just because we don't believe that the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine does not mean that the bread is "only bread" for us, no different than having bread for breakfast. As a priesthood ordinance, the bread and water are blessed by God, and are part of a sacred covenant that we are entering into with God through the Sacrament, as well as renewing the covenants that we made with God at our baptisms, thus effecting a remission of sins, as well as the presence of the Spirit to be with us continually. So, while our view of the Eucharist/Sacrament is different from the Catholic view in various ways, our view is also different from the low-church Protestant symbolic view, especially because we firmly believe that the priesthood of God is involved and actually blesses and sanctifies (words used in the prayers of blessing) the bread and water.

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.

Right i know By "Catholic Church", I was referring to the entire "universal church", including all 23 particular churches.

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.

Right, however I hope you understood my point as far as your comment that you are doing "exactly as Jesus instructed".

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).

Right, yes, I understand the symbolism. I was mentioning this for the same reason as above, on the point of doing "exactly as Jesus instructed". Jesus did not instruct us to do that. I don't have a problem with it (I like the symbolism), I'm just responding to that point.

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.

For Latter-day Saints, baptism is also a free gift from God, brings us into the family of God, and makes us a new creature (we are "spiritually reborn"). We do not follow the low-church Protestant view of baptism of it being merely a symbol of something that has already happened (as you say, a "public statement"), and we firmly believe that baptism saves and is for the remission fo sins. In contrast to many Evangelicals, we believe that priesthood ordinances actually do something, and are effected by the power and authority of God.

We also believe that, as an ordinance, baptism is a covenant that is made between us and God.

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.

That's fine, my view is that there are clear similarities besides just what they are called, and that there are of course differences (my view that there are similarities besides the name does not detract from the clear differences, which, as a Latter-day Saint, I of course accept as a distinction between our two faiths).

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.

None of the links and information I and others provided are attempting to evidence the historical authenticity of the Restoration of ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs by referring to the unique LDS scriptures. completely understand what you are saying though, and we typically only refer to our unique scriptures in these discussions when showing why we believe something, since they are part of our doctrine and explain our doctrine.

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.

If we are talking about historical and archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, I believe that there are many such examples (I've read all about the supposed anachronisms and problems with the Book of Mormon, since as a former critic, I used to refer to such issues many times ), which of course is a whole other issue. I also think that the statement "evidencing massive ancient civilization in the State of New York as described in the Book of Mormon" is making an assumption about where the Book of Mormon takes place that most LDS apologists don't hold to, but that great topic is probably best for a separate thread devoted to it.

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

God bless you.

Thank you Steve, and I'm glad you're participating here. Also, as I mentioned before, if you would like even more perspectives, perhaps you would be interested in the more active Mormon Discussion and Dialogue Board.

[SteveVH]

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.

Anatess, the entire basis of the Mormon faith rests on my Church being in apostasy and loosing priesthood authority. If you place yourself in my shoes you will see that this belief alone places us at odds. But it is not just that. Our beliefs concerning the very nature of God, the origin of mankind, the nature of creation and our eternal destiny are not even close. I completely support your right to believe what you choose to believe.

The Book of Mormon does contain the "Good News", no doubt about it. But that is not all it contains. It is also contains statements that some of us find at least questionable, if not doubtful. A document containing 98 percent truth and 2 percent error is more dangerous than one that is completely and obviously in error. Prudence dictates that we should be very careful when something is presented that is different from that which we received from the Apostles. Do you see where I am coming from?

In any regard, I appreciate your comments and especially your attitude. Everyone that has responded to me has been more than charitable and generous. Thank you very much for that.

God bless.

[Guest]

Anatess, the entire basis of the Mormon faith rests on my Church being in apostasy and loosing priesthood authority. If you place yourself in my shoes you will see that this belief alone places us at odds. But it is not just that. Our beliefs concerning the very nature of God, the origin of mankind, the nature of creation and our eternal destiny are not even close. I completely support your right to believe what you choose to believe.

The Book of Mormon does contain the "Good News", no doubt about it. But that is not all it contains. It is also contains statements that some of us find at least questionable, if not doubtful. A document containing 98 percent truth and 2 percent error is more dangerous than one that is completely and obviously in error. Prudence dictates that we should be very careful when something is presented that is different from that which we received from the Apostles. Do you see where I am coming from?

In any regard, I appreciate your comments and especially your attitude. Everyone that has responded to me has been more than charitable and generous. Thank you very much for that.

God bless.

LOL... I've been there, Steve! I know exactly what you're saying and where you are coming from! Yep, I even said those same exact words! I remember very clearly when I told my mother, "I was born Catholic, I am Catholic, I will die Catholic!" when she expressed concern that I'm associating with Mormons. I was a very devout Catholic... I didn't go into LDS lightly. Years and years of study was not even enough. Because for every point that a Mormon poses about the Great Apostasy, I had a counter argument. It is not really something you can gain faith in through debate. Not at all. It just makes people angry - especially those who would take it as an attack on their faith instead of a scholarly debate.

I never said that LDS is THE SAME as Catholicism. Nope. I said - there are similarities.

And for Christians to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ - to Love They Neighbor... it is always better to look for the similarities instead of insisting on the differences. Makes things easier to find compassion.

Believe it or not, when I became LDS, I gained even more appreciation for Catholicism... and I'm truly blessed to have come from that background in my journey. It is this appreciation that keeps my relationship with my family - especially my mother - solid even when they fear for my salvation.

Edited March 10, 2011 by anatess

[Jason_J]

SteveVH, whenever you get a chance, I would appreciate your thoughts on these posts discussing just a few of the historical evidences for the LDS belief in the pre-mortal existence of souls (in response to your statement that "Uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Church history, including Jewish history."):

http://www.lds.net/forums/573316-post40.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/573389-post41.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/573394-post42.html

I know there's a lot going on in this thread since you are "The Non-LDS" in this thread, so I understand if you need some time. Now you see how the LDS at CAF feel, haha!

[Guest]

I know there's a lot going on in this thread since you are "The Non-LDS" in this thread, so I understand if you need some time. Now you see how the LDS at CAF feel, haha!

Oh no... I was at CAF for a while... and I was attacked...The moderators here don't go for that. PrisonChaplain will be the first to knock you down a notch pretty quick. Yeah, my love for Catholics don't extend to CAF. Waaaaa.

[Jason_J]

Oh no... I was at CAF for a while... and I was attacked...The moderators here don't go for that. PrisonChaplain will be the first to knock you down a notch pretty quick. Yeah, my love for Catholics don't extend to CAF. Waaaaa.

It's gotten a little better. I don't post there anymore, but I do lurk. They have a new moderator that doesn't tolerate the stuff that used to go on, and has banned many non-Catholics AND Catholics for not following the rules. Some stuff does get by him, but it's such an active forum that it's hard to get it all.

[SteveVH]

Hi SteveVH, thanks for responding :)

I agree that the distinction cannot be ignored, and I hope that I was not implying that it should be ignored or was trivial. My point in the quote you responded to was that just because we don't believe that the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine does not mean that the bread is "only bread" for us, no different than having bread for breakfast. As a priesthood ordinance, the bread and water are blessed by God, and are part of a sacred covenant that we are entering into with God through the Sacrament, as well as renewing the covenants that we made with God at our baptisms, thus effecting a remission of sins, as well as the presence of the Spirit to be with us continually. So, while our view of the Eucharist/Sacrament is different from the Catholic view in various ways, our view is also different from the low-church Protestant symbolic view, especially because we firmly believe that the priesthood of God is involved and actually blesses and sanctifies (words used in the prayers of blessing) the bread and water.

Right i know By "Catholic Church", I was referring to the entire "universal church", including all 23 particular churches.

Right, however I hope you understood my point as far as your comment that you are doing "exactly as Jesus instructed".

Right, yes, I understand the symbolism. I was mentioning this for the same reason as above, on the point of doing "exactly as Jesus instructed". Jesus did not instruct us to do that. I don't have a problem with it (I like the symbolism), I'm just responding to that point.

For Latter-day Saints, baptism is also a free gift from God, brings us into the family of God, and makes us a new creature (we are "spiritually reborn"). We do not follow the low-church Protestant view of baptism of it being merely a symbol of something that has already happened (as you say, a "public statement"), and we firmly believe that baptism saves and is for the remission fo sins. In contrast to many Evangelicals, we believe that priesthood ordinances actually do something, and are effected by the power and authority of God.

We also believe that, as an ordinance, baptism is a covenant that is made between us and God.

That's fine, my view is that there are clear similarities besides just what they are called, and that there are of course differences (my view that there are similarities besides the name does not detract from the clear differences, which, as a Latter-day Saint, I of course accept as a distinction between our two faiths).

None of the links and information I and others provided are attempting to evidence the historical authenticity of the Restoration of ancient Judeo-Christian beliefs by referring to the unique LDS scriptures. completely understand what you are saying though, and we typically only refer to our unique scriptures in these discussions when showing why we believe something, since they are part of our doctrine and explain our doctrine.

If we are talking about historical and archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, I believe that there are many such examples (I've read all about the supposed anachronisms and problems with the Book of Mormon, since as a former critic, I used to refer to such issues many times ), which of course is a whole other issue. I also think that the statement "evidencing massive ancient civilization in the State of New York as described in the Book of Mormon" is making an assumption about where the Book of Mormon takes place that most LDS apologists don't hold to, but that great topic is probably best for a separate thread devoted to it.

Thank you Steve, and I'm glad you're participating here. Also, as I mentioned before, if you would like even more perspectives, perhaps you would be interested in the more active Mormon Discussion and Dialogue Board.

Thanks Jason. You are very reasonable and I find nothing in your comments with which I disagree. I will check out the "Mormon Discussion and Dialogue Board". I'm still getting use to this forum and am a long way from checking out evertything. Thanks for the tip.

[SteveVH]

LOL... I've been there, Steve! I know exactly what you're saying and where you are coming from! Yep, I even said those same exact words! I remember very clearly when I told my mother, "I was born Catholic, I am Catholic, I will die Catholic!" when she expressed concern that I'm associating with Mormons. I was a very devout Catholic... I didn't go into LDS lightly. Years and years of study was not even enough. Because for every point that a Mormon poses about the Great Apostasy, I had a counter argument. It is not really something you can gain faith in through debate. Not at all. It just makes people angry - especially those who would take it as an attack on their faith instead of a scholarly debate.

I never said that LDS is THE SAME as Catholicism. Nope. I said - there are similarities.

And for Christians to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ - to Love They Neighbor... it is always better to look for the similarities instead of insisting on the differences. Makes things easier to find compassion.

Believe it or not, when I became LDS, I gained even more appreciation for Catholicism... and I'm truly blessed to have come from that background in my journey. It is this appreciation that keeps my relationship with my family - especially my mother - solid even when they fear for my salvation.

Thanks for the background. I look forward to many discussions with you.

[SteveVH]

SteveVH, whenever you get a chance, I would appreciate your thoughts on these posts discussing just a few of the historical evidences for the LDS belief in the pre-mortal existence of souls (in response to your statement that "Uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Church history, including Jewish history."):

http://www.lds.net/forums/573316-post40.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/573389-post41.html

http://www.lds.net/forums/573394-post42.html

I know there's a lot going on in this thread since you are "The Non-LDS" in this thread, so I understand if you need some time. Now you see how the LDS at CAF feel, haha!

Yes, I have always admired and have been amazed at the Mormon posters on CAF, and have told them so. It takes great courage and perseverance on their part, and, the posts are not always as charitable as they should be. As much as I hate to admit it, the conversations can be come quite heated and I have responded in ways I later regret. I always try to respond to each post directed to me and I can see that it could become quite the job. Everyone on this forum has made that very pleasurable so far. You guys are awesome.

I'll check out posts you referenced.

Thanks.

[SteveVH]

It's gotten a little better. I don't post there anymore, but I do lurk. They have a new moderator that doesn't tolerate the stuff that used to go on, and has banned many non-Catholics AND Catholics for not following the rules. Some stuff does get by him, but it's such an active forum that it's hard to get it all.

When were you actively posting on CAF? You are correct about the new moderator not putting up with offensive posts and posters. I've seen several threads shut down recently that were getting out of hand. However, there are many very knowledgeable and charitable posters as well and I have learned much from them.

[Jason_J]

When were you actively posting on CAF? You are correct about the new moderator not putting up with offensive posts and posters. I've seen several threads shut down recently that were getting out of hand. However, there are many very knowledgeable and charitable posters as well and I have learned much from them.

I agree. I was actively posting on CAF from about 2005 to the middle of last year. I've gotten into many spirited debates with ParkerD, dianaiad (mostly surrounding abortion, the Trinity, and the more difficult issues in Catholic history), mfbukowski (who I've also debated at the other Mormon board I mentioned, and who was utterly surprised at my conversion) and of course zerinus.

[SteveVH]

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. "

You hit it on the head.

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! :)

Jason, first of all sorry. I just missed this post somehow.

Other than a few obscure references from the deuterocanonical Wisdom books, which I would interpret differently than does the Ph.D from BYU, I see nothing real convincing. Don't misunderstand me here. As for the non-biblical texts, I am unfamiliar with them, which says nothing about their authenticity, obviously, it just makes it hard to comment. Now I am the last one to say that unless it's the Bible it isn't true. However, the Jews believed a lot of things, at various times, even in the Egyptian gods, to which they kept returning. In their favor, the fullness of revelation in Christ had not yet occurred, unfortunately when it did many did not recognize him. My point is, the fact that even the Jews did not include these books in the Old Testament means something. The Sadducees did not even believe in heaven. So, while I don't disregard your sources, I don't necessarily buy into all Jewish beliefs, and it certainly would depend on what point in Jewish history these were written. I'll try to dig a little deeper.

Edited March 11, 2011 by SteveVH

[Jason_J]

Other than a few obscure references from the deuterocanonical Wisdom books, which I would interpret differently than does the Ph.D from BYU, I see nothing real convincing. Don't misunderstand me here. As for the non-biblical texts, I am unfamiliar with them, which says nothing about their authenticity, obviously, it just makes it hard to comment. Now I am the last one to say that unless it's the Bible it isn't true. However, the Jews believed a lot of things, at various times, even in the Egyptian gods, to which they kept returning. In their favor, the fullness of revelation in Christ had not yet occurred, unfortunately when it did many did not recognize him. My point is, the fact that even the Jews did not include these books in the Old Testament means something. The Sadducees did not even believe in heaven. So, while I don't disregard your sources, I don't necessarily buy into all Jewish beliefs, and it certainly would depend on what point in Jewish history these were written. I'll try to dig a little deeper.

Latter-day Saints would most certainly agree on not buying into all Jewish beliefs, especially depending on the time period of Israelite history we are talking about. While I would disagree as to whether the references are "obscure" (well, they maybe considered obscure compared to the Biblical texts, definitely), I think that from the sources listed (which are only just a few on the specific topic of pre-mortal existence), we see a clear presence of this doctrine in Israelite history, in response to your belief that "Uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Church history, including Jewish history." Also, if I remember correctly, one of the early Ecumenical Councils actually condemned the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, which was being taught by Origen of Alexandria.

Also, just to add, I found this interesting list by Kevin Barney in his article One Preexistence in the Bible:

Bracketing for the time being the biblical evidence, which we shall consider

below, the first unambiguous references to preexistence of the soul in Judaeo-Christian

sources (such as the Apocrypha, Josephus, Philo, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,

Rabbinic literature, Gnostic Christian texts and Patristic literature) appear beginning in

the Second Temple period. A sampling of some of the more important examples follows:

1. Wisdom of Solomon. This first century B.C. text, which exhibits platonic

influence (as Holding notes), portrays Solomon as offering the following

prayer: “As a child I was by nature well endowed, and a good soul fell to

my lot; or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body.” (8:19-20)13

2. Josephus on the Essenes. Josephus (first century A.D.), in a passage

possibly reflecting Greek influences, reports that the Essenes, who

denigrated the body, believed that “the soul is immortal and imperishable.

Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled, as it were,

in the prison house of the body, to which they are dragged down by a sort

of natural spell.” (Jewish War, 2.8.11)14

3. Philo of Alexandria. Philo (first century A.D.), who interpreted the Bible

allegorically, saw in the three Hebrew terms ruach, nephesh and

neshamah a confirmation of Plato’s tripartite view of the soul (the rational,

the spiritual and the seat of desire). The rational part is preexistent and

immortal. (De Opificiis Mundi 1:648) As a divine being, the soul aspires

to be freed from its bodily fetters and to return to the heavenly spheres

whence it came. Presumably Philo believed that the spirit is condemned

to be imprisoned for a certain time in the body in expiation of some sin

committed in its former state.15

4. Jubilees. This second century B.C. work portrays God as creating

everything during the six days of creation, including “all of the spirits of

his creatures which are in heaven and on earth.”16

5. First Enoch. Enoch speaks of an assembly of the holy and righteous

ones in heaven under the wings of the Lord of the spirits, with the Elect

(the Messiah) in their midst. (39:4-7; 40:5; 41:12).17 (First Enoch is a

conglomeration of texts ranging from pre-Maccabean times to just before

the Christian era; this section is perhaps early first century B.C.)

6. Second Enoch. This text (perhaps first century A.D.) reflecting

Jewish ideas states that “all the souls are prepared for eternity, before the

composition of the earth.” (23:5)18

7. Third Enoch. The whole of Chapter 43 presumes the preexistence of

souls.19 (This work contains old traditions going back to the Maccabean

era, but the work itself dates to perhaps the fifth or sixth centuries A.D.)

8. Testament (Assumption) of Moses. In this first century A.D. text Moses

says: “But he did design and devise me, who (was) prepared from the

beginning of the world, to be the mediator of his covenant.” (1:14)20

9. Testament of Abraham. In this work (about A.D. 100), Michael, the

Lord’s commander-in-chief, tells Abraham at the end of his life that “the

day has drawn near on which you are to depart from the body and once

again go to the Lord.” (Rec. A 15:7)21

10. Prayer of Joseph. Origen quotes this fragment from a first century

A.D. pseudepigraphal work in his Commentary on John (2:25) to support

his view that John the Baptist was an angel who became incarnate to bear

witness to Jesus: “I, Jacob, who is speaking to you, am also Israel, an

angel of God and a ruling spirit. Abraham and Isaac were created before

any work. But, I, Jacob, who men call Jacob but whose name is Israel am

he who God called Israel which means, a man seeing God, because I am

the firstborn of every living thing to whom God gives life.”22

11. 4 Ezra. Preexistence is assumed throughout this work (about A.D. 100),

as in 4:33-42, a section stating that the souls who yearn for their reward

must wait until all souls come to earth.23

12. Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch. This early second century A.D. text states

“And it will happen at that time that those treasuries will be opened in

which the number of the souls of the righteous were kept, and they will go

out and the multitudes of the souls will appear together, in one

assemblage, of one mind. And the first ones will enjoy themselves and the

last ones will not be sad.” (30:2-3)24

13. Bereshith Rabba, 8, represents God as taking counsel with the souls of the

righteous before he created the earth.25

14. Tanhuma, 3, states that all souls which were to enter human bodies were

formed during the six days of creation and were in the Garden of Eden.

15. Hagigah, 12b, has it that before their descent to earth the souls are kept in

the seventh heaven (but Sifre 143b says in the storehouse).

16. Abodah Zarah, 5a, says that the Messiah will come when all the souls in

the guph [i.e., the superterrestrial abode of spirits] have passed through the

earthly life.

17. Sanhedrin, 90a, indicates it is not settled whether the soul comes to earth

at the time of conception or after the embryo has taken form.

18. Gospel of Thomas, Saying 4, dating to perhaps the early second century

A.D.: “Jesus said: The man old in his days will not hesitate to ask an

infant of seven days concerning the place of life, and he will live.”26 The

idea is that an uncircumcised baby has retained an impression of the

“place of life.”

19. Gospel of the Egyptians, 50:12-14, portrays Adam as a premortal great

one who associated with the “holy men of the great light,” “men of the

Father.”27

20. Second Treatise of the Great Seth, 50:1-24, portrays the heavenly Seth as

having proposed the gathering of a council of premortal souls, then

spelling out a plan “to the whole multitude of the multitudinous assembly”

which was received with rejoicing by “the whole house of the Father of

Truth.”28

21. Origen. Among the early Church Fathers, the most notable

proponent of the preexistence of souls was Origen (A.D. 182-251).

Origen taught that the souls of man had a separate, conscious, personal

existence in a previous state, and are sent to this world on account of sin,

condemned to be born in a material body.29 The justice of God demands

that “all rational creatures [be] of one nature, and it is only on this ground

that the justice of God in all his dealings with them can be defended,

namely, when each contains within himself the reasons why he has been

placed in this or in that rank of life.” (De Principiis 3.5.4)30

Now, not all of these examples exactly mirror the LDS doctrine, however I think that we can safely conclude that the belief in the pre-mortal existence of the soul is found in early Jewish and Christian history, and is but one example of the historicity of LDS beliefs, and that "uniquely Mormon doctrines" are not as unique as one may think.

Hope that was helpful to see where we're coming from on this!

[madeleine1]

21. Origen. Among the early Church Fathers, the most notable

proponent of the preexistence of souls was Origen (A.D. 182-251).

Origen taught that the souls of man had a separate, conscious, personal

existence in a previous state, and are sent to this world on account of sin,

condemned to be born in a material body.29 The justice of God demands

that “all rational creatures [be] of one nature, and it is only on this ground

that the justice of God in all his dealings with them can be defended,

namely, when each contains within himself the reasons why he has been

placed in this or in that rank of life.” (De Principiis 3.5.4)30

Origen says this is his opinion. I thought Mormons were looking for supposedly lost doctrines? A pre-existence has never been a doctrine of the Catholic Church, east or west.

[volgadon]

Define doctrine, then and now, please.

[madeleine1]

The faith handed on, once and for all.

[volgadon]

The faith handed on, once and for all.

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

[Jason_J]

21. Origen. Among the early Church Fathers, the most notable

proponent of the preexistence of souls was Origen (A.D. 182-251).

Origen taught that the souls of man had a separate, conscious, personal

existence in a previous state, and are sent to this world on account of sin,

condemned to be born in a material body.29 The justice of God demands

that “all rational creatures [be] of one nature, and it is only on this ground

that the justice of God in all his dealings with them can be defended,

namely, when each contains within himself the reasons why he has been

placed in this or in that rank of life.” (De Principiis 3.5.4)30

Origen says this is his opinion. I thought Mormons were looking for supposedly lost doctrines? A pre-existence has never been a doctrine of the Catholic Church, east or west.

So an Ecumenical Council took the time to condemn a belief that was merely Origen's opinion? I think from the evidence listed (which is only partial), we see that the pre-existence of souls was more widely taught and known in the ancient Israelite and Christian world than just Origen's opinion.

[madeleine1]

So an Ecumenical Council took the time to condemn a belief that was merely Origen's opinion?

Origen had quite a few opinions that were condemned as anathema. Do you accept them all as doctrine? For example, is this now a doctrinal belief for you that the sun, moon and stars are fallen beings?

"IF anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable beings, and that they have only become what they are because they turned towards evil: let him be anathema."

My belief is, that the ecumenical councils have at their head the Bishop of Christ's Church. Who, being led by the Holy Spirit, protect the faithful from what is false, and maintain the pure faith. In this instance, to protect against the heresies of Origen, who was preaching another gospel. That is, a different faith than that handed down from the Apostles.

I think from the evidence listed (which is only partial), we see that the pre-existence of souls was more widely taught and known in the ancient Israelite and Christian world than just Origen's opinion.

Yet, you have rejected the Eucharist, which is clearly taught by Origen, is taught the NT, and has always been believed. I don't say this as a condemnation, but only to point out that you haven't presented a clear argument for accepting one heresy over another, while rejecting truth.

Edited March 11, 2011 by madeleine1

[Guest]

Origen had quite a few opinions that were condemned as anathema. Do you accept them all as doctrine? For example, is this now a doctrinal belief for you that the sun, moon and stars are fallen beings?

"IF anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable beings, and that they have only become what they are because they turned towards evil: let him be anathema."

My belief is, that the ecumenical councils have at their head the Bishop of Christ's Church. Who, being led by the Holy Spirit, protect the faithful from what is false, and maintain the pure faith. In this instance, to protect against the heresies of Origen, who was preaching another gospel. That is, a different faith than that handed down from the Apostles.

Yet, you have rejected the Eucharist, which is clearly taught by Origen, is taught the NT, and has always been believed. I don't say this as a condemnation, but only to point out that you haven't presented a clear argument for accepting one heresy over another, while rejecting truth.

Madeleine, you are missing the point of the thread...

We are not arguing which is true doctrine or not. We do respect Catholic's viewpoints on the matter and do not insist that you believe what we believe.

The point of the thread was to demonstrate the LDS claim of a "restoration". That is, that these beliefs existed before 1800's, was lost, and is now restored.

Make sense?

If it was never true, there's no point in it getting restored.

[Guest]

P.S. Took a peek at CAF and wow, yeah, it took until the 2nd page of the Non-Catholic forum to find any mention of Mormons! Interesting! And AWESOME! I mean - before, there would be at least 5 on the first page, all derogatory...

[Jason_J]

Origen had quite a few opinions that were condemned as anathema. Do you accept them all as doctrine? For example, is this now a doctrinal belief for you that the sun, moon and stars are fallen beings?

"IF anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable beings, and that they have only become what they are because they turned towards evil: let him be anathema."

My belief is, that the ecumenical councils have at their head the Bishop of Christ's Church. Who, being led by the Holy Spirit, protect the faithful from what is false, and maintain the pure faith. In this instance, to protect against the heresies of Origen, who was preaching another gospel. That is, a different faith than that handed down from the Apostles.

Yet, you have rejected the Eucharist, which is clearly taught by Origen, is taught the NT, and has always been believed. I don't say this as a condemnation, but only to point out that you haven't presented a clear argument for accepting one heresy over another, while rejecting truth.

Madeleine, as anatess stated, you are misunderstanding what the purpose of the latest posts in this thread are about. I am not concerned with all the beliefs that Origen held, nor am I even focused solely on Origen. What I am concerned with is the statement that "uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Christian history, including Jewish history". The examples I have provided on the pre-mortal existence of the soul show that this is simply not true, and Origen is but one example out of many. Whatever else he taught has no bearing on addressing that statement, and again, I am not focusing on Origen in the first place. In addition to all of the extra-biblical evidences provided, we also believe that the pre-mortal existence is also taught in the Bible.

[Jason_J]

P.S. Took a peek at CAF and wow, yeah, it took until the 2nd page of the Non-Catholic forum to find any mention of Mormons! Interesting! And AWESOME! I mean - before, there would be at least 5 on the first page, all derogatory...

I know! Well, there is one thread ("my wife is joining me") on the first page from someone saying that he and his wife are leaving the Church for the Catholic Church, and he says that the LDS Church is "a business", lol. But it definitely is an improvement!

[SteveVH]

Madeleine, you are missing the point of the thread...

We are not arguing which is true doctrine or not. We do respect Catholic's viewpoints on the matter and do not insist that you believe what we believe.

The point of the thread was to demonstrate the LDS claim of a "restoration". That is, that these beliefs existed before 1800's, was lost, and is now restored.

Make sense?

If it was never true, there's no point in it getting restored.

Anatess, is this not ciruclar reasoning? You are saying that the fact that something was purportedly "restored" by the LDS church makes it true. If it wasn't true it would not have been restored. I have heard this same logic used in defending the "Great Apostasy". If there wasn't an apostasy, there would be no LDS church. The existence of the LDS Church is therefore proof of the apostasy.

There have been many beliefs proffered by individuals since the time of Christ. The Catholic Church has been fighting heresy since its inception. The fact that you may find a particular belief being knocked around in antiquity does not mean that it was ever accepted as truth by the Church which you claim to have restored. The heresy of Arianism was widely spread and believed by many people. This has nothing to do with its truthfulness. The Church condemned it as heretical. If one wishes to restore heresies, there are many from which to pick. The fact that they can be found and may have been believed in, even by a great number of people, is no indication of their validity.

[Jason_J]

Anatess, is this not ciruclar reasoning? You are saying that the fact that something was purportedly "restored" by the LDS church makes it true. If it wasn't true it would not have been restored. I have heard this same logic used in defending the "Great Apostasy". If there wasn't an apostasy, there would be no LDS church. The existence of the LDS Church is therefore proof of the apostasy.

There have been many beliefs proffered by individuals since the time of Christ. The Catholic Church has been fighting heresy since its inception. The fact that you may find a particular belief being knocked around in antiquity does not mean that it was ever accepted as truth by the Church which you claim to have restored. The heresy of Arianism was widely spread and believed by many people. This has nothing to do with its truthfulness. The Church condemned it as heretical. If one wishes to restore heresies, there are many from which to pick. The fact that they can be found and may have been believed in, even by a great number of people, is no indication of their validity.

I'm about to get ready for work, but I thought I'd briefly comment.

Actually, anatess did not comment on whether what we are discussing makes the LDS Church true (she specifically stated that "We are not arguing which is true doctrine or not."), so I do not see circular reasoning here at all. We aren't saying that if something wasn't true it would not have been restored.

Instead, in this thread, what we are arguing is that many if not most unique LDS beliefs are found in ancient Judaism and Christianity, in contrast to the claim that "uniquely Mormon doctrines are nowhere to be found in early Christian history, including Jewish history". Such an argument does not necessitate saying that therefore makes the LDS Church the Lord's Church, and none of us are making that argument (even though we of course believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's Church). Instead, we are commenting on an historical issue, and showing that unique LDS doctrines are quite clearly found in early Christian and Jewish histories, well before the 1800s.

Whether or not something is a heresy of course depends on the perspective taken. Jews would of course find the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity as heretical, as well as the Christian belief that God came to this earth and incarnated. The other sides would clearly disagree that these beliefs are heretical.

Have a good day!