Lds/mormon Pre - Existence

[Vance]

Most christians should accept the notion that Christ was pre-existent because the NT explicitly teaches that (John 1:1, 1 Peter 1:19-20, etc). From there I would equate Christ to us via verses like Hebrews 12:9 and Acts 17:21-22.

I would add Heb 2:14-17 to that last list, especially because it mentions us as "partakers of flesh and blood".

[Bikeemikey]

Of course I would completely disagree. The new doctrines that came about not only conflict with the orginal doctrines, but scripture itself.

No parallel found. BY never taught Adam/God and what he did teach regarding that was not doctrine anyway. The priesthood ban remains doctrine. It has not been repudiated but rather it's Divine origin has been reaffirmed in the latest 'essay' and it is merely prophecy fulfilled. Were you going to mention plural marriage? Same thing.

This is a far cry from the Biblical anthropomorphic tangible God morphing into the abstract god of the trinity and creation ex nihilo and the loss of numerous other significant doctrines.

The New Testament may suggest an anthropromorphic god, it doesn't seem to be super common from the OT perspective.

[saemo]

Saemo, it would be interesting to consider what the communities considered sacred writing. I agree it would have included none of the NT books initially, but it would have included Jewish writings. 2 Clement is one of the first to use Matthew authoritatively as scripture.

John was written later than the other gospels and as I understand it we just don't know for sure who wrote it, but it wasn't an apostle. We also don't know who wrote Mark most likely the earliest gospel (or Matthew and Luke who use Mark as a source).

The only first hand accounts are Paul's genuine letters. This is why Galatians is so intriguing because it hints at the differences between the Jerusalem communities headed by James and the Pauline communities. Paul eventually ends up in Jerusalem having met Peter and James, and almost gets himself killed, that's how deep the differences went.

Universal acceptance of documents that were shared among the churches is also one of the criteria used for the canon. Clements letters were strongly considered, but they do not fall under the "witness of Christ", that is they saw an importance that the teachings be Apostolic. Apostles were witnesses of Jesus life, death and most importantly His resurrection. So while Clement was contemporary to the Apostles, and is considers a successor to Peter, he is not one of the Twelve.

If you look at the canon of scripture across all the ancient churches, now surviving, you'll see the commonality. Some have extra books, but all have the NT books as seen in the Catholic and Orthodox canon. IIRCC Hebrews was the last book added, under controversy, but added.

I'm going off memory here, and not much time, but I can find the specific reference to Paul's journey to Jerusalem where he said he went to meet the "pillars of the Church". Where, his claimed calling was accepted, though, the Twelve were never on board with calling him one of the Twelve. He is an apostle, in the meaning of one who is sent. He is the Apostle to the Gentiles.

He and Peter disagreed, and Peter had a problem with changing, ie, after teaching that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised or follow the Law, we then find him influenced by the Judaizers. Paul calls him on it and the matter is settled. Peter refers to the writings of Paul, in 1 or 2 Peter. Later patristic writings list the canon of scripture. The table of contents as it is today in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles. Important to consider, especially as we just celebrated Pentecost Sunday, is that after the Holy Spirit descends on the Twelve and disciples, the wavering of Peter ends.

Paul has a special place, because of his experience on the road to Emaus (sp?). The foundation of the Church are the Twelve and Paul.

I brought up the Johannine communities because some Bible scholars see that the Johannine corpus comes from a community of believers. Disciples of John. What the Apostles were teaching was written down, widely accepted as a response to time and the martyrdoms of the Apostles. It was believed the return of Jesus was imminent, in their own lifetimes, and as time passed and people died, the need to record the Apostolic teaching grew in importance.

These writings were copied and shared across the churches, so you see them as the catholic, ie, universal teachings, which were eventually canonized. Catholics and Orthodox are not ones to follow the theological ideas of any one person. We accept what is universal, and any theology is out to that test. Is it a universal teaching? So the pulled quotes from one man or another, even one as esteemed as Origen, are not seen as scripture. Origen has some very insightful theologies, important to our faith, but where he went of on his own, outside the universal Church, he is declared anathema.

From a Catholic POV, the NT comes from Sacred Tradition, as does the interpretation. Not all that comprises Sacred Tradition is in the NT. Liturgy, being the most obvious, but we see in Revelations John teaching of the heavenly nature of the Liturgy. Called the Divine Liturgy by our brothers in the East.

Edited June 10, 2014 by saemo

[Abulafia]

Saemo, I guess we are getting off topic here, but I'll try and deal with your points.  
 

Universal acceptance of documents that were shared among the churches is also one of the criteria used for the canon. Clements letters were strongly considered, but they do not fall under the "witness of Christ", that is they saw an importance that the teachings be Apostolic. Apostles were witnesses of Jesus life, death and most importantly His resurrection. So while Clement was contemporary to the Apostles, and is considers a successor to Peter, he is not one of the Twelve.

 

I think this very much simplifies what was a very complex issue.  I'm not sure there ever was 'universal' acceptance, and I very much see Constantine as attempting to pacify various competing parties in their quest for a definition of orthodoxy.

Clement's letters weren't only strongly considered, some canon lists actually include them, as they do Hermas and Barnabas.  It was an imperfect process and the resultant 'canon' that we have today is a reflection of that.   

As for him being contemporary to the Apostles (Clement) that just isn't the case, and that is if Clement actually wrote both documents which have his name.  More likely on the first, less likely on the second.

Internal evidence in 1 Clement suggests that the death of Peter and Paul is long gone, though most likely some of the leaders appointed by the Apostles were still living.

As for (1) Clement being a Bishop of Rome, this is unlikely, though he was connected to Rome in some way, perhaps as a clerk.  Interestingly, though he refers to the words of Jesus, they are seemingly not from the forms preserved in 'our' 4 gospels.

I would highly recommend (my Catholic!! tutor has recommended them). ...The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Third Edition by Michael W. Holmes.

Also The Biblical Canon: It's Origin, Transmission, and Authority, by Lee Martin McDonald.

 

I'm going off memory here, and not much time, but I can find the specific reference to Paul's journey to Jerusalem where he said he went to meet the "pillars of the Church". Where, his claimed calling was accepted, though, the Twelve were never on board with calling him one of the Twelve. He is an apostle, in the meaning of one who is sent. He is the Apostle to the Gentiles.

 

Again, this is just an oversimplification of the historical reality (as far as it can be ascertained) in my opinion.  Paul's definition of Apostle was fundamentally different to that of any notion of a 'set' 12.    He had a much loser definition under which anyone who knew the living Jesus could be an Apostle, this is why for him Junia and others can be Apostles.  It is only the author of Luke/Acts who argues for a closed unit of 12.  
 

 

He and Peter disagreed, and Peter had a problem with changing, ie, after teaching that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised or follow the Law, we then find him influenced by the Judaizers. Paul calls him on it and the matter is settled. Peter refers to the writings of Paul, in 1 or 2 Peter.

 

 Yes, that is how the author of Acts wishes to portray the situation.  Whether it really was as neat and tidy as that is another matter.  Paul's version is somewhat different,(Galatians) and at some point he leaves Antioch, parts with Barnabas, and goes on his way, ticked off at Peter's hypocrisy with regard to table fellowship. Paul was a very controversial figure in his time. 

 

 I think it is important to see the distinction between how Jewish followers of Jesus and Gentile followers of Jesus were expected to behave.  Jewish followers 'didn't' give up circumcision or table fellowship or Kashrut although their strictness in following these 'Jewish' Laws was probably mixed.  

As for 1 and 2 Peter being written by Peter, that's unlikely since they were written between 80 and 180 and 2 Peter (as psuedepigrapha) was one of the most controversial documents in terms of its inclusion in canon (as was Hebrews).

 

It was believed the return of Jesus was imminent, in their own lifetimes, and as time passed and people died, the need to record the Apostolic teaching grew in importance.

 

Agreed!   

 

We accept what is universal, and any theology is out to that test. Is it a universal teaching?

 

But, if you take even the gospels, then each gospel (collected from disparate communities) contradict each other both in small details and in fundamental theology.  The obvious implication of this, is that each community was influenced by slightly different teachings, stories, oral tradition, collected works and sayings of Jesus, and so forth.  Perhaps, just as now, so then, those who came to be seen as heirs of Jesus 'way' differed because, not everything was left sown up when Jesus was crucified.  Even Paul 'changes' some of the things Jesus was recorded as saying, with which he is uncomfortable.  The best example I can think of is 'divorce'.  Jesus was much stricter than Paul.  

Edited June 10, 2014 by Abulafia

[Zakuska]

Oooh.. can I throw Lady Wisdom into the dicussion?

 

Proverbs 8

22-31 “God sovereignly made me—the first, the basic—
    before he did anything else.
I was brought into being a long time ago,
    well before Earth got its start.
I arrived on the scene before Ocean,
    yes, even before Springs and Rivers and Lakes.
Before Mountains were sculpted and Hills took shape,
    I was already there, newborn;
Long before God stretched out Earth’s Horizons,
    and tended to the minute details of Soil and Weather,
And set Sky firmly in place,
    I was there.
When he mapped and gave borders to wild Ocean,
    built the vast vault of Heaven,
    and installed the fountains that fed Ocean,
When he drew a boundary for Sea,
    posted a sign that said no trespassing,
And then staked out Earth’s Foundations,
    I was right there with him, making sure everything fit.
Day after day I was there, with my joyful applause,
    always enjoying his company,
Delighted with the world of things and creatures,
    happily celebrating the human family.

 

This causes problems for Catholics such as Saemo because here Lady Wisdom (aka Christ) is said to have been created/made by God. The very first thing he created. Before he created the heaven and earth. And we all know that Paul taught that Jesus the Christ was actually lady Wisdom.

 

1 Cor  1

24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

 

The problem this causes for Catholics is their teaching that Christ was just as eternal as the Father. Yet in the scriptures he had a starting point after the Eternal Father but before the creation of the world.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Zakuska

[saemo]

Saemo, I guess we are getting off topic here, but I'll try and deal with your points.

I think this very much simplifies what was a very complex issue. I'm not sure there ever was 'universal' acceptance, and I very much see Constantine as attempting to pacify various competing parties in their quest for a definition of orthodoxy.

Clement's letters weren't only strongly considered, some canon lists actually include them, as they do Hermas and Barnabas. It was an imperfect process and the resultant 'canon' that we have today is a reflection of that.

Right, I said a commonality can be seen in the canon of the ancient churches, with some having additional books. I think you try to simplify what I write. ;-)

It is a human process. Catholics don't hold a view that humans are perfect. We view the eventual canon as a result of the Holy Spirit working through imperfect humans.

As for him being contemporary to the Apostles (Clement) that just isn't the case, and that is if Clement actually wrote both documents which have his name. More likely on the first, less likely on the second.

yes, thanks. I was mish mashing documents and people in my haste.

Again, this is just an oversimplification of the historical reality (as far as it can be ascertained) in my opinion. Paul's definition of Apostle was fundamentally different to that of any notion of a 'set' 12. He had a much loser definition under which anyone who knew the living Jesus could be an Apostle, this is why for him Junia and others can be Apostles. It is only the author of Luke/Acts who argues for a closed unit of 12.

I was only speaking of and about Paul. Of course apostle has a wider meaning, which the 12 accepted. We are called as apostles, in the sense that we are all sent. It is the root of Mass, dismissal, which in meaning is that we are sent from, and into the world to give what we have received...Jesus Christ. We are all apostles, but none of us are an Apostle.

Yes, that is how the author of Acts wishes to portray the situation. Whether it really was as neat and tidy as that is another matter. Paul's version is somewhat different,(Galatians) and at some point he leaves Antioch, parts with Barnabas, and goes on his way, ticked off at Peter's hypocrisy with regard to table fellowship. Paul was a very controversial figure in his time.

I never get the idea we are cookie cutter in our gifts and how we use them, or that we will always get along with everyone. Obviously, Gentiles are Christians while not adhering to Jewish Law. Paul's theology is very clear, that the Law is fulfilled in Christ. The Judaizers were influential but they do not even adhere to the vision that Peter had where he knew the answer. That he could not follow what he knew is not a controversy. It is basic human weakness.

I think it is important to see the distinction between how Jewish followers of Jesus and Gentile followers of Jesus were expected to behave. Jewish followers 'didn't' give up circumcision or table fellowship or Kashrut although their strictness in following these 'Jewish' Laws was probably mixed.

. It is still the same today. There are Hebrew Catholics, who are absolutely Catholic and Jewish and follow both Covenants.

The Church sees nothing wrong with this. The wrong thinking is to insist that either Gentiles must become Jews in order to become a follower of Christ, or that all must follow the Mosaic law. The Abrahamic covenant remains in place. So Jews are essentially under two covenants with God. There isn't a controversy in this and never has been.

As for 1 and 2 Peter being written by Peter, that's unlikely since they were written between 80 and 180 and 2 Peter (as psuedepigrapha) was one of the most controversial documents in terms of its inclusion in canon (as was Hebrews).

Peter was most likely illiterate, so when I say Peter makes reference, I'm referencing the person. Any can write for him, what he taught, including a posthumous author. There is also a custom of claiming an esteemed, and righteous person before God, as the author in order to give weight of authority and importance to what is being taught. As is the case with Song of Songs. Catholics do not and never have had an issue with authorship. Authorship was never important to the ancients, but what is being taught is the importance. Inspired of God, does not mean authored by God.

But, if you take even the gospels, then each gospel (collected from disparate communities) contradict each other both in small details and in fundamental theology. The obvious implication of this, is that each community was influenced by slightly different teachings, stories, oral tradition, collected works and sayings of Jesus, and so forth. Perhaps, just as now, so then, those who came to be seen as heirs of Jesus 'way' differed because, not everything was left sown up when Jesus was crucified. Even Paul 'changes' some of the things Jesus was recorded as saying, with which he is uncomfortable. The best example I can think of is 'divorce'. Jesus was much stricter than Paul.

Paul is seen as the first to teach how to live as a Christian after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The book of James does the same, in a more classical wisdom literature sort of way. Paul addresses the practical, every day, the ministerial aspects. A minister deals with infighting, relationship issues, individual sins, community sins, etc. etc. So no, divorce is not allowed. But neither is forcing a spouse who wants to leave, to stay, because you are a believer, necessary. Paul allows for the unbelieving spouse to leave in peace, and the believing spouse to remarry if they must. Paul certainly recommends a celebate and single life as preferable to marriage, if one can manage it.

The apparent contradictions in the Gospels are not problematic for Catholics or Orthodox.

Edited June 13, 2014 by saemo

[why me]

Oooh.. can I throw Lady Wisdom into the dicussion?

 

The problem this causes for Catholics is their teaching that Christ was just as eternal as the Father. Yet in the scriptures he had a starting point after the Eternal Father but before the creation of the world.

True. It does cause a problem which their amateur apologists wish to avoid. Abu is also scoring points against saemo. But the problem is very simple. Some amateur catholic apologists are so immersed in disliking the lds church that they fail to see the problems in their own religion when it comes to history and doctrine. However, it is much easier to speak to them in person because any catholic who is critical of lds doctrine can be challenged verbally in their own doctrine and then they usually back away. It is the same when catholic apologists speak about MMM or other lds historical points. No catholic in their right mind can verbally attack lds history with someone without that person bringing up catholic history in return.

 

The lds understanding of a preexistence seems to be correct. It makes sense. How can one dispute is the question.

Edited June 13, 2014 by why me

[why me]

Not canonical. The canon did take time to form, but the major consideration for inclusion of one writing and not another is apostolic adherence. That is, does a writing support what the Apostles taught?

 

I think that we have very little of what the first apostles taught, if the NT is to go by. So, what the apostles taught on their travels seems lost from the canon. We also have so little from Paul. I am sure that he wrote and taught more than what we have in the bible. So, much is lost.

[saemo]

Oooh.. can I throw Lady Wisdom into the dicussion?

Proverbs 8

22-31 “God sovereignly made me—the first, the basic— before he did anything else.I was brought into being a long time ago, well before Earth got its start.I arrived on the scene before Ocean, yes, even before Springs and Rivers and Lakes.Before Mountains were sculpted and Hills took shape, I was already there, newborn;Long before God stretched out Earth’s Horizons, and tended to the minute details of Soil and Weather,And set Sky firmly in place, I was there.When he mapped and gave borders to wild Ocean, built the vast vault of Heaven, and installed the fountains that fed Ocean,When he drew a boundary for Sea, posted a sign that said no trespassing,And then staked out Earth’s Foundations, I was right there with him, making sure everything fit.Day after day I was there, with my joyful applause, always enjoying his company,Delighted with the world of things and creatures, happily celebrating the human family.

This causes problems for Catholics such as Saemo because here Lady Wisdom (aka Christ) is said to have been created/made by God. The very first thing he created. Before he created the heaven and earth. And we all know that Paul taught that Jesus the Christ was actually lady Wisdom.

1 Cor 1

24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The problem this causes for Catholics is their teaching that Christ was just as eternal as the Father. Yet in the scriptures he had a starting point after the Eternal Father but before the creation of the world.

Baruch, that is in my Bible names the Lady Wisdom in Proverbs as anything that is righteous and brings one to God, particularly, the Mosaic Law.

Catholics have believed for many hundreds of years that the Lady Wisdom of a Proverbs is a type of Mary, the Mother of God. She is created and existed in God's plan for the world. "Our Lady of Wisdom" being one of her titles. References to time, in relationship to God, being understood that God exists outside of time, and therefore, "before" is relative to us and not to God.

Also, Wisdom is a gift of the Holy Spirit, so in this understanding, the Lady Wisdom of Proverbs is the Spirit of God, who personifies God's creative work.

Jesus, most certainly is God's Wisdom, in the flesh, but Jesus is not created and so the Lady Wisdom of Proverbs as a type of Christ, cannot be viewed as a literal Created, but allegorical. Again the creative work of God personified by Lady Wisdom.

So you see, there are many views to a rich allegorical and poetic text, which can all be combined, really, to an understanding that Wisdom exists in God, and is Created in us by God, ie a gift. A grace. Our Salvation is Jesus, and Salvation is the Wisdom of God.

Edited June 13, 2014 by saemo

[3DOP]

The beauty and truth of Proverbs 8 is not be found in whether it solves a doctrinal controversy. Its purpose is to show us that before Creation, Wisdom...personified by the Son of God the Father...incarnate in Jesus Christ...existed to communicate all of Himself to us before we were conceived, before our first parents fell, before our first parents were made, before the heavens and earth were created. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, who have loved us from ages everlasting.

 

Because of this there IS a certain sense in which all of us have "pre-existence", according to Catholic thought. But it is not a pre-existence that can be severed, and made independent from the Creator of all good things. We are contingent beings whom God has loved from all eternity. If we existed in the mind of God for all eternity as Proverbs 8 demonstrates, it would offer an explanation for passages of Scripture that refer to this "pre-existence".

 

If Mormons are confident that their Scriptures teach that independently of God, all on their own, as intelligences, they have existed always, I have no quarrel. You have Scriptures with traditions and interpretations that I do not accept. That is enough to explain our disagreement on the matter. But for either side to quote a Scripture that happens to be shared by the mutual parties, believing that it proves the other side's position is irreconcilable with his own chosen canonical authorities, betrays a proud and smug confidence that is founded on a superficial understanding of the other party's points of view.  

 

I have spoken out on occasion against amateur Catholic apologists. I am sorry for their ignorance. To that I will add that I am more dismayed with the modern non-clerical professionals, trying to make a living by satisfying the ever-present and universal wish among party animals to see the other side in its worst possible light. I am sorry that they are paid in part by people eager to see Catholics ignorant of LDS thought and teaching measured against LDS Scripture and tradition. But may also say that if you Zakuska, or you why me, think you have shared some kind of silver bullet that shoots holes in the coherence of Roman Catholic doctrine, compared with its own Scriptures and Tradition, I am equally sorry for the dim light under which you are toiling. 

 

Whether we get paid for it or not, whether we consider ourselves "apologists" or not, let us when we speak of the other side, seek light away from, and ignoring the darkness of those who get their kicks, or make their money by greedily meeting the market demand to prove that somebody else is a dummy. Of course no one uses a word like stupid or dumb. That would be impolitic to be certain. In the spirit of Proverbs 8, I am suggesting that it is wise to assume that we will never ever find a way to prove that the other side is wrong, if we stick exclusively to the authorities which that side accepts.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rory 

Edited June 14, 2014 by 3DOP

[MiserereNobis]

The beauty and truth of Proverbs 8 is not be found in whether it solves a doctrinal controversy. Its purpose is to show us that before Creation, Wisdom...personified by the Son of God the Father...incarnate in Jesus Christ...existed to communicate all of Himself to us before we were conceived, before our first parents fell, before our first parents were made, before the heavens and earth were created. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, who have loved us from ages everlasting.

 

Because of this there IS a certain sense in which all of us have "pre-existence", according to Catholic thought. But it is not a pre-existence that can be severed, and made independent from the Creator of all good things. We are contingent beings whom God has loved from all eternity. If we existed in the mind of God for all eternity as Proverbs 8 demonstrates, it would offer an explanation for passages of Scripture that refer to this "pre-existence".

 

If Mormons are confident that their Scriptures teach that independently of God, all on their own, as intelligences, they have existed always, I have no quarrel. You have Scriptures with traditions and interpretations that I do not accept. That is enough to explain our disagreement on the matter. But for either side to quote a Scripture that happens to be shared by the mutual parties, believing that it proves the other side's position is irreconcilable with his own chosen canonical authorities, betrays a proud and smug confidence that is founded on a superficial understanding of the other party's points of view.  

 

I have spoken out on occasion against amateur Catholic apologists. I am sorry for their ignorance. To that I will add that I am more dismayed with the modern non-clerical professionals, trying to make a living by satisfying the ever-present and universal wish among party animals to see the other side in its worst possible light. I am sorry that they are paid in part by people eager to see Catholics ignorant of LDS thought and teaching measured against LDS Scripture and tradition. But may also say that if you Zakuska, or you why me, think you have shared some kind of silver bullet that shoots holes in the coherence of Roman Catholic doctrine, compared with its own Scriptures and Tradition, I am equally sorry for the dim light under which you are toiling. 

 

Whether we get paid for it or not, whether we consider ourselves "apologists" or not, let us when we speak of the other side, seek light away from, and ignoring the darkness of those who get their kicks, or make their money by greedily meeting the market demand to prove that somebody else is a dummy. Of course no one uses a word like stupid or dumb. That would be impolitic to be certain. In the spirit of Proverbs 8, I am suggesting that it is wise to assume that we will never ever find a way to prove that the other side is wrong, if we stick exclusively to the authorities which that side accepts.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rory 

 

Well spoken, Rory, as usual. 

[Storm Rider]

Rory, I am not sure I would agree that intelligences, in the LDS context, exist independently of God. I understand and believe that intelligences are eternal, but without the Father there is no possibility of further evolving.  It could easily be understood, imho, that as God organized matter to create the world that it could be explained that God organized the intelligences to create his spirit children or the next stage in his ultimate creation of those beings made in his image and likeness. 

 

As I read the Bible the preexistence of humanity makes sense; all things are first spiritual and remain so even in this life.  If I were to attempt to negate the preexistence the story of creation loses some of its grandeur and wonder.  I find a wonderful comfort that God is the Father of our spirits and waits for us to return to him with the bodies he has given us. 

 

Thank you for your thoughts. 

[3DOP]

Rory, I am not sure I would agree that intelligences, in the LDS context, exist independently of God.

 

Hey Storm Rider. Nor was I sure that I was stating a universally held belief. But even if it was so radical a view of pre-existence as to exclude God, as I said, I could have no quarrel, unless it was claimed that it derived from Catholic canonical authority alone.

Edited June 14, 2014 by 3DOP

[why me]

Jesus, most certainly is God's Wisdom, in the flesh, but Jesus is not created and so the Lady Wisdom of Proverbs as a type of Christ, cannot be viewed as a literal Created, but allegorical. Again the creative work of God personified by Lady Wisdom.

 

What you wrote doesn't make any sense. Jesus wasn't created? How can that be? For mormons it is rather simple: we were all created by heavenly parents and Jesus is our brother  who came to this earth to help us all to return to our heavenly parents. This is much more clearer than what you wrote.

[why me]

 

As I read the Bible the preexistence of humanity makes sense; all things are first spiritual and remain so even in this life.  If I were to attempt to negate the preexistence the story of creation loses some of its grandeur and wonder.  I find a wonderful comfort that God is the Father of our spirits and waits for us to return to him with the bodies he has given us. 

 

Thanks

And let us not forget our heavenly mother who also waits for our return and this should give us even more comfort that we will see our heavenly parents.

[3DOP]

What you wrote doesn't make any sense. Jesus wasn't created? How can that be? For mormons it is rather simple: we were all created by heavenly parents and Jesus is our brother  who came to this earth to help us all to return to our heavenly parents. This is much more clearer than what you wrote.

 

Maybe somebody doesn't want it to make any sense?

[Zakuska]

Allegorically created? What does that even mean?

[3DOP]

What I have found with saemo is that this person can write nice phrases on this board and they usually sound good but if one analyses them, they may not make any sense. Just a lot of beautiful words put together for affect. However, reading this posters posts on a different board, and one gets a person who is very critical of mormonism and mormons. No beautiful words put together for affect.

 

In this instance what she said makes sense in a certain context with a certain understanding of the word create. 

[3DOP]

Allegorically created? What does that even mean?

 

Why do you even care zakuska? Do you hope it means something?

[ChristKnight]

Rory, I am not sure I would agree that intelligences, in the LDS context, exist independently of God. I understand and believe that intelligences are eternal, but without the Father there is no possibility of further evolving.  It could easily be understood, imho, that as God organized matter to create the world that it could be explained that God organized the intelligences to create his spirit children or the next stage in his ultimate creation of those beings made in his image and likeness. 

 

 

From what I've always understood, it is LDS belief (or at least consistent with LDS belief) that intelligences, or some part of our core, has eternally existed, i.e. is co-eternal, along with God, and is uncreated.  Therefore, it would exist independently of God.  At some point, God then decided to organize the intelligences.  I believe I've read that this belief resolves the so-called problem of "theodicy".  I think that this also goes along with the LDS belief in matter being co-eternal with God, and is uncreated, i.e. exists independently of God (He didn't create it).  As articulated in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, by Stephen Robinson:

 

Since Mormons believe that the elements are eternal, it follows that they deny the ex nihilo creation. Rather, the universe was created (organized) out of preexisting elements that God organized by imposing physical laws. The Prophet Joseph Smith also taught that intelligence is also eternal and uncreated: "The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end…Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle" (TPJS, pp. 353-54).

 

Just as God organized preexisting matter to create the universe, so he organized preexisting intelligence to create the spirits that eventually became human beings. Consequently, Latter-day Saints do not view God as the total cause of what human beings are. Human intelligence is uncreated by God, and therefore independent of his control. Thus Mormons insist that human beings are free agents in the fullest sense, and deny both the doctrines of prevenient and irresistible grace, which make God's choice determinative for salvation or damnation. God will not coerce independent, self-existent wills. Though he desires the exaltation of all, and offers it equally to all, its achievement requires individual cooperation, a covenant relationship. In this way, LDS theology escapes the classical dilemma of predestination and theodicy imposed by believing that God created all things from nothing and is therefore solely responsible for the final products.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine#Doctrine:_LDS_Doctrine_Compared_With_Other_Christian_Doctrines

[ChristKnight]

What you wrote doesn't make any sense. Jesus wasn't created? How can that be? For mormons it is rather simple: we were all created by heavenly parents and Jesus is our brother  who came to this earth to help us all to return to our heavenly parents. This is much more clearer than what you wrote.

 

I think it makes sense, within the context of Catholic teaching.

[3DOP]

From what I've always understood, it is LDS belief (or at least consistent with LDS belief) that intelligences, or some part of our core, has eternally existed, i.e. is co-eternal, along with God, and is uncreated.  Therefore, it would exist independently of God.  At some point, God then decided to organize the intelligences.  I believe I've read that this belief resolves the so-called problem of "theodicy".  I think that this also goes along with the LDS belief in matter being co-eternal with God, and is uncreated, i.e. exists independently of God (He didn't create it).  As articulated in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, by Stephen Robinson:

 

Since Mormons believe that the elements are eternal, it follows that they deny the ex nihilo creation. Rather, the universe was created (organized) out of preexisting elements that God organized by imposing physical laws. The Prophet Joseph Smith also taught that intelligence is also eternal and uncreated: "The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end…Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle" (TPJS, pp. 353-54).

 

Just as God organized preexisting matter to create the universe, so he organized preexisting intelligence to create the spirits that eventually became human beings. Consequently, Latter-day Saints do not view God as the total cause of what human beings are. Human intelligence is uncreated by God, and therefore independent of his control. Thus Mormons insist that human beings are free agents in the fullest sense, and deny both the doctrines of prevenient and irresistible grace, which make God's choice determinative for salvation or damnation. God will not coerce independent, self-existent wills. Though he desires the exaltation of all, and offers it equally to all, its achievement requires individual cooperation, a covenant relationship. In this way, LDS theology escapes the classical dilemma of predestination and theodicy imposed by believing that God created all things from nothing and is therefore solely responsible for the final products.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine#Doctrine:_LDS_Doctrine_Compared_With_Other_Christian_Doctrines

Thank you Christ Knight.

 

That is what I thought without being certain, and with wondering if all LDS would go all the way with it. I concede that the LDS teaching above removes those classical problems. I also have no problem with Mormons insisting that they believe that human beings are free agents in the fullest sense. I believe in a moderate monotheism and I suppose a moderate free will. I am not concerned to belong to the church which teaches the most extreme form of human free agency that can be imagined.

 

I haven't thought about it much, and I have other priorities on which to spend my waning brain power, but I should be surprised if the doctrine of pre-existence as described above does not pose a few philosophical problems unique to that doctrine. Rather than the non-Mormon having to think them up, why don't the LDS offer them? I am sure they are resolvable anyway just like ours are.

Edited June 14, 2014 by 3DOP

[Flyonthewall]

I think it makes sense, within the context of Catholic teaching.

My thoughts exactly... LDS teachings will make more sense to LDS, and Catholic teachings will make more sense to Catholics, if for no other reason than that is what each were taught.

Now there will be LDS that have converted to Catholic that say Catholic teachings make more sense and Catholics that have converted to LDS will say LDS teachings make more sense.

Which teachings make more sense will depend on the background of the individual.

[why me]

My thoughts exactly... LDS teachings will make more sense to LDS, and Catholic teachings will make more sense to Catholics, if for no other reason than that is what each were taught.

Now there will be LDS that have converted to Catholic that say Catholic teachings make more sense and Catholics that have converted to LDS will say LDS teachings make more sense.

Which teachings make more sense will depend on the background of the individual.

So, what did saemo mean by the statements in that post? Can you clarify it? Like I said, it all sounds nice but I have no idea about christ not being created.

Edited June 15, 2014 by why me

[Storm Rider]

From what I've always understood, it is LDS belief (or at least consistent with LDS belief) that intelligences, or some part of our core, has eternally existed, i.e. is co-eternal, along with God, and is uncreated.  Therefore, it would exist independently of God.  At some point, God then decided to organize the intelligences.  I believe I've read that this belief resolves the so-called problem of "theodicy".  I think that this also goes along with the LDS belief in matter being co-eternal with God, and is uncreated, i.e. exists independently of God (He didn't create it).  As articulated in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, by Stephen Robinson:

 

Since Mormons believe that the elements are eternal, it follows that they deny the ex nihilo creation. Rather, the universe was created (organized) out of preexisting elements that God organized by imposing physical laws. The Prophet Joseph Smith also taught that intelligence is also eternal and uncreated: "The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end…Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle" (TPJS, pp. 353-54).

 

Just as God organized preexisting matter to create the universe, so he organized preexisting intelligence to create the spirits that eventually became human beings. Consequently, Latter-day Saints do not view God as the total cause of what human beings are. Human intelligence is uncreated by God, and therefore independent of his control. Thus Mormons insist that human beings are free agents in the fullest sense, and deny both the doctrines of prevenient and irresistible grace, which make God's choice determinative for salvation or damnation. God will not coerce independent, self-existent wills. Though he desires the exaltation of all, and offers it equally to all, its achievement requires individual cooperation, a covenant relationship. In this way, LDS theology escapes the classical dilemma of predestination and theodicy imposed by believing that God created all things from nothing and is therefore solely responsible for the final products.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Doctrine#Doctrine:_LDS_Doctrine_Compared_With_Other_Christian_Doctrines

 

Hello Chris, this is an area of our teaching where we have a limited understanding and unanswered questions.  For me, I believe that whatever intelligences are, they are eternal.  I don't read too much into the statement that we are co-eternal with God because there is a leap there that is too easy to misunderstand.  There was some degree of presence or existence however fundamental or elementary.  What is absolute is that we could not have progressed beyond that state without God.  In this sense I say that it is fair to state that we were created by God - not in a way that supports ex-nihilo creation.  In addition, matter is independent from God. It is not divine; it simply is (this also poses some logical problems). The statement that we are co-eternal with God or independent of God can lead a careless reader to incorrect understanding and/or incorrect conclusions. 

 

What we know is that intelligences (without any understanding of what an intelligence is in scope) is eternal without beginning or end.  God in his infinite love and compassion too us and organized us into spirit children. We know nothing of the process and thus we are comfortable with a range of appellations; we were created, we are God's spirit children being just two.  

 

It is relatively easy for us to agree with many things taught by other churches, but we always have caveats to their teachings.  We clarify and solidify the teaching that we are true pilgrims on this earth.  There is a plan and a purpose to this life and it is not simply to suffer; it is to overcome passions by purifying our heart, mind, and spirit to choose holiness through the grace that is offered to us through the Son of God. This is a brief summary and is not intended to be complete.