Did we have a pre-premortal existence?
-
_gdemetz
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1681
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:59 pm
Re: Did we have a pre-premortal existence?
Actually, the spirits did not always exist. The Book of Abraham (which truth sprung out of the earth as the Bible prophesied) teaches that we were "intelligences" before our spirit birth from "the Father of spirits" (see Hebrews 12:9).
-
_Franktalk
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2689
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am
Re: Did we have a pre-premortal existence?
gdemetz wrote:Actually, the spirits did not always exist. The Book of Abraham (which truth sprung out of the earth as the Bible prophesied) teaches that we were "intelligences" before our spirit birth from "the Father of spirits" (see Hebrews 12:9).
So what are you saying? Is each spirit defined by God so that we are predestined to a judgment? Where does our variation come from?
-
_gdemetz
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1681
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:59 pm
Re: Did we have a pre-premortal existence?
God judged the intelligences before their spiritual birth. It was no accident that Christ was the first born spirit as the Bible teaches. He was the most advanced intelligence.
-
_Samantabhadra
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 348
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:53 pm
Re: Did we have a pre-premortal existence?
It was no accident that Christ was the first born spirit as the Bible teaches. He was the most advanced intelligence.
The Bible teaches no such thing and you are making your Gnostic heresy ever more obvious with every word you write.
-
_Drifting
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7306
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am
Re: Did we have a pre-premortal existence?
gdemetz wrote:Actually, the spirits did not always exist. The Book of Abraham (which truth sprung out of the earth as the Bible prophesied) teaches that we were "intelligences" before our spirit birth from "the Father of spirits" (see Hebrews 12:9).
It also teaches that our Sun gets its energy from Kolob.
Do you believe that as well?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
-
_jo1952
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:04 am
Re: Did we have a pre-premortal existence?
Madeleine:
Let's look at the history of the RCC's version of Original Sin, or, as I call it:
Original Sin and the heresy of the Baptism of Infants and young children.
First of all, this doctrine is NOT EVEN FOUND IN JUDAISM!! According to the RCC, she uses the scriptural foundation in the New Testament from Paul’s teachings; Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. It began to be developed by the 2nd-century Bishop of Lyon, Irenaeus, in dealing with his controversy with the dualist Gnostics. However, the RCC gives credit for the Original Sin dogma to St. Augustine (354-430).
That version of the Original Sin dogma was confirmed at the Second Council of Orange in 529 – but was rejected by the Eastern Churches. The Eastern Orthodox Churches still reject it to this day. Yet both East and West had the same in-common Early Church Fathers. Controversy over Original Sin continued even within the RCC for the next thousand years.
As such, the original sin dogma COULD NOT HAVE BEEN part of the Present Truth which Peter speaks about, and within which he claims the members of the church were established .
2 Peter 1:12 (KJV)
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
It seems to me that since such dogmas as Original Sin, Predestination, the Trinity, etc. must be understood correctly in order to be saved, would have been common knowledge as part of the Present Truth Peter refers to. Thus, these dogmas would have been handed down through Apostolic Succession, and would not have needed hundreds of years of clarification, or study to determine their correct interpretations. Especially, consider that it is not the Popes who developed these dogmas – as such these dogmas weren’t even created by Apostolic Successor’s; but rather by other individuals whose ideas and theories were then voted upon, and eventually the Popes would sign off on them making them ex-cathedra. I cannot recall any examples in the Bible where either laity or Disciples came to teach the Apostles the Gospel message, or make recommendations of clarification of doctrine TO the Apostles; rather, it was clearly the other way around. It is very clear to me that after the Apostles were gone, NO Pope has ever been the person through whom dogmas concerning salvation originated as having been taught to them by any member of the Godhead. Instead, the Popes (the Vicars of the very Christ) have received such salvific dogmas NOT from Christ, but from others and then claim the Holy Ghost has confirmed them; which isn't even the pattern established by Jesus or the Apostles.
Indeed, these dogmas should have already been knowledge clearly understood by the RCC from the very time of the Apostles; and not be things which needed to be discussed for hundreds or thousands of years. Jesus came to save the world; not to confuse the world so that even after people heard the Gospel and accepted Him, that mankind would still need to have Theologians to determine what exactly a convert then needed to understand and accept about Jesus’ teachings BEFORE the Atonement could save them. How ludicrous for the RCC to teach otherwise!
Also, inasmuch as the RCC has depended upon Church Fathers for obtaining “correct” interpretations, why would she look to those CF’s whose interpretations were taken from Paul’s works, rather than from Peter’s works? If Peter truly is their foundation, their first Pope, their first Vicar of Christ, it seems reasonable to expect that doctrine and dogmas which affect our very ability to be saved, should have come from Peter’s works as the Head of the Church and as part of the “Present Truth”; not from someone else.
Nevertheless, here is what Paul taught:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
The general translations in Greek for the words: “for” (G1909) and “that” (G3739) is: “ at which place all have sinned”….In other words all have sinned in the world. This makes much more sense when comparing Paul’s words in 1 Cor 15:22 where he re-iterates that in Adam all men die. The punishment for the sin of Adam and Eve, which caused their fall, is PHYSICAL DEATH and SPIRITUAL DEATH; which are passed on to all of humanity. There is no additional penalty for Adam and Eve’s sin; the cost for that sin has already been paid. Because we are spiritually “dead”, we must be reborn spiritually in order to return to God. We cannot return to the presence of God unless we are spotless. Christ has made this possible through His Atonement. We are held accountable for our own personal choices. When those choices are not in accordance with God’s will and in keeping with His commandments, that is when the Atonement cleanses us; though we need to repent of our wrong doing in order to access its power. Infants and young children aren't able to understand or make free will choices.
I would ask that you seriously consider why children do not participate in the Eucharist until they are able to understand it, at least a little. Why then, since the RCC claims an infant needs to be baptized, aren't they ready to take Holy Communion at that same time??? Why wait for eight years????? Do you not see the inconsistencies???
It is interesting to note that Paul teaches “in Christ shall ALL be made alive”; not just some, or a handful, or those who belong to any particular religion…ALL SHALL BE MADE ALIVE!!! Here is another place where the RCC has it wrong; for the RCC to claim that ANY soul will be lost, is in complete opposition to Paul’s teaching. Now, if the RCC wants to use this passage in the generation of her Original Sin dogma, then I think she should use the ENTIRE passage in her belief system; not just the few words which she thinks support her dogma concerning Original Sin.
In conclusion, since the RCC’s Original Sin Dogma, which has resulted in her teaching that infants and young children who die before being baptized will spend eternity in hell, which was NOT something established in the Present Truth spoken of by Peter, is absolutely FALSE! Especially abominable is the teaching that these infants and young children will be able to recognize the justice of their fate!!! What justice???? They never had a chance to use their free will!!!! It seems to me that in accordance with the RCC’s teachings these children who should be so unfortunate as to die before being baptized would have been better off not being born to anyone either in the RCC, or to anyone who has knowledge of the RCC. That is because the RCC has a much more lenient belief about those who have never heard their version of the Gospel message; which, in itself, is yet another contradiction within the RCC’s belief system.
Actually, being baptized by water is NOT a guaranty that a person has been reborn spiritually. It is spiritual rebirth which is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God.
Blessings,
jo
Let's look at the history of the RCC's version of Original Sin, or, as I call it:
Original Sin and the heresy of the Baptism of Infants and young children.
First of all, this doctrine is NOT EVEN FOUND IN JUDAISM!! According to the RCC, she uses the scriptural foundation in the New Testament from Paul’s teachings; Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. It began to be developed by the 2nd-century Bishop of Lyon, Irenaeus, in dealing with his controversy with the dualist Gnostics. However, the RCC gives credit for the Original Sin dogma to St. Augustine (354-430).
That version of the Original Sin dogma was confirmed at the Second Council of Orange in 529 – but was rejected by the Eastern Churches. The Eastern Orthodox Churches still reject it to this day. Yet both East and West had the same in-common Early Church Fathers. Controversy over Original Sin continued even within the RCC for the next thousand years.
As such, the original sin dogma COULD NOT HAVE BEEN part of the Present Truth which Peter speaks about, and within which he claims the members of the church were established .
2 Peter 1:12 (KJV)
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
It seems to me that since such dogmas as Original Sin, Predestination, the Trinity, etc. must be understood correctly in order to be saved, would have been common knowledge as part of the Present Truth Peter refers to. Thus, these dogmas would have been handed down through Apostolic Succession, and would not have needed hundreds of years of clarification, or study to determine their correct interpretations. Especially, consider that it is not the Popes who developed these dogmas – as such these dogmas weren’t even created by Apostolic Successor’s; but rather by other individuals whose ideas and theories were then voted upon, and eventually the Popes would sign off on them making them ex-cathedra. I cannot recall any examples in the Bible where either laity or Disciples came to teach the Apostles the Gospel message, or make recommendations of clarification of doctrine TO the Apostles; rather, it was clearly the other way around. It is very clear to me that after the Apostles were gone, NO Pope has ever been the person through whom dogmas concerning salvation originated as having been taught to them by any member of the Godhead. Instead, the Popes (the Vicars of the very Christ) have received such salvific dogmas NOT from Christ, but from others and then claim the Holy Ghost has confirmed them; which isn't even the pattern established by Jesus or the Apostles.
Indeed, these dogmas should have already been knowledge clearly understood by the RCC from the very time of the Apostles; and not be things which needed to be discussed for hundreds or thousands of years. Jesus came to save the world; not to confuse the world so that even after people heard the Gospel and accepted Him, that mankind would still need to have Theologians to determine what exactly a convert then needed to understand and accept about Jesus’ teachings BEFORE the Atonement could save them. How ludicrous for the RCC to teach otherwise!
Also, inasmuch as the RCC has depended upon Church Fathers for obtaining “correct” interpretations, why would she look to those CF’s whose interpretations were taken from Paul’s works, rather than from Peter’s works? If Peter truly is their foundation, their first Pope, their first Vicar of Christ, it seems reasonable to expect that doctrine and dogmas which affect our very ability to be saved, should have come from Peter’s works as the Head of the Church and as part of the “Present Truth”; not from someone else.
Nevertheless, here is what Paul taught:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
1Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
The general translations in Greek for the words: “for” (G1909) and “that” (G3739) is: “ at which place all have sinned”….In other words all have sinned in the world. This makes much more sense when comparing Paul’s words in 1 Cor 15:22 where he re-iterates that in Adam all men die. The punishment for the sin of Adam and Eve, which caused their fall, is PHYSICAL DEATH and SPIRITUAL DEATH; which are passed on to all of humanity. There is no additional penalty for Adam and Eve’s sin; the cost for that sin has already been paid. Because we are spiritually “dead”, we must be reborn spiritually in order to return to God. We cannot return to the presence of God unless we are spotless. Christ has made this possible through His Atonement. We are held accountable for our own personal choices. When those choices are not in accordance with God’s will and in keeping with His commandments, that is when the Atonement cleanses us; though we need to repent of our wrong doing in order to access its power. Infants and young children aren't able to understand or make free will choices.
I would ask that you seriously consider why children do not participate in the Eucharist until they are able to understand it, at least a little. Why then, since the RCC claims an infant needs to be baptized, aren't they ready to take Holy Communion at that same time??? Why wait for eight years????? Do you not see the inconsistencies???
It is interesting to note that Paul teaches “in Christ shall ALL be made alive”; not just some, or a handful, or those who belong to any particular religion…ALL SHALL BE MADE ALIVE!!! Here is another place where the RCC has it wrong; for the RCC to claim that ANY soul will be lost, is in complete opposition to Paul’s teaching. Now, if the RCC wants to use this passage in the generation of her Original Sin dogma, then I think she should use the ENTIRE passage in her belief system; not just the few words which she thinks support her dogma concerning Original Sin.
In conclusion, since the RCC’s Original Sin Dogma, which has resulted in her teaching that infants and young children who die before being baptized will spend eternity in hell, which was NOT something established in the Present Truth spoken of by Peter, is absolutely FALSE! Especially abominable is the teaching that these infants and young children will be able to recognize the justice of their fate!!! What justice???? They never had a chance to use their free will!!!! It seems to me that in accordance with the RCC’s teachings these children who should be so unfortunate as to die before being baptized would have been better off not being born to anyone either in the RCC, or to anyone who has knowledge of the RCC. That is because the RCC has a much more lenient belief about those who have never heard their version of the Gospel message; which, in itself, is yet another contradiction within the RCC’s belief system.
Actually, being baptized by water is NOT a guaranty that a person has been reborn spiritually. It is spiritual rebirth which is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God.
Blessings,
jo
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
_Franktalk
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2689
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am
Re: Did we have a pre-premortal existence?
gdemetz wrote:God judged the intelligences before their spiritual birth. It was no accident that Christ was the first born spirit as the Bible teaches. He was the most advanced intelligence.
Please reconcile this then:
Abraham 3:18
Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning: they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.
It is my understanding that spiritual birth or first born spirit are titles or rights of passage. It is my understanding that the spiritual nature of the intelligences is eternal. It is my understanding that the gathering of intelligences into a unique set gives us the ability to progress as a set. But the underlying structure of intelligence and spirit is eternal.
And I do agree that once gathered then God does know one from another and has chosen some over others. These are fine details but to me they are very important.
-
_gdemetz
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1681
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:59 pm
Re: Did we have a pre-premortal existence?
I see what you are saying FrankTalk, but that is not quite accurate. I have learned long ago, that when the prophets teach and write, one should take their teaching above the writing, and the prophets have taught that we had a spiritual birth. It really should read intelligences. Notice that in this same Book of Abraham, it states that it is the intelligences which have no beginning and no end.
-
_Drifting
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 7306
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am
Re: Did we have a pre-premortal existence?
Drifting wrote:gdemetz wrote:Actually, the spirits did not always exist. The Book of Abraham (which truth sprung out of the earth as the Bible prophesied) teaches that we were "intelligences" before our spirit birth from "the Father of spirits" (see Hebrews 12:9).
It also teaches that our Sun gets its energy from Kolob.
Do you believe that as well?
Bump for gdemetzneveranswersaquestion....
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
-
_jo1952
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:04 am
Re: Did we have a pre-premortal existence?
Madeleine,
I have a question for you. Inasmuch as Christ died for the sins of ALL mankind, do you think He included Adam and Eve's sin? As I see it, the penalty/punishment for that sin was that all mankind now suffers both physical and spiritual death. This, however, is necessary for the Plan of Salvation to take place.
It may seem confusing to try to separate penalty/punishment from actual forgiveness of sins. It takes spiritual understanding and spiritual maturity to comprehend these things. For instance, Jesus died for our sins. Yet, we are also taught:
"He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." (Rev.13:10 KJV)
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Mat 26:52 KJV)
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Mat 7:2 KJV)
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:" (Luke 6:37 KJV)
Or, how about this seeming contradiction:
"22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Mat 7:22-23 KJV)
or
10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thess 2:10 KJV)
YET
"3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim 2:3-4 KJV)
And how about this revelation:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," (1 Pet 1:3 KJV)
Now, since Peter is telling us that in God's abundant mercy He has begotten us AGAIN, it would seem that in order to be begotten AGAIN then we must have been begotten BEFORE. Is this alluding to reincarnation?
In fact, do ALL of the above passages, in order to make more sense of them, allude to reincarnation? Something to contemplate.
Meanwhile, I will reiterate the point I wanted to make about Jesus having sacrificed Himself for ALL sinners. Wouldn't this also include Adam and Eve? If not, then His sacrifice was NOT for all sinners. OTOH, if you are not able to accept that He did not also include Adam and Eve (since this would turn Jesus into a liar), you must look at why the RCC believes that babies are born with the guilt of Original Sin. Wasn't Jesus' sacrifice able to cover "Original Sin"??? And so it is I have found yet another reason to believe that the Orignal Sin dogma is false.
Blessings,
jo
I have a question for you. Inasmuch as Christ died for the sins of ALL mankind, do you think He included Adam and Eve's sin? As I see it, the penalty/punishment for that sin was that all mankind now suffers both physical and spiritual death. This, however, is necessary for the Plan of Salvation to take place.
It may seem confusing to try to separate penalty/punishment from actual forgiveness of sins. It takes spiritual understanding and spiritual maturity to comprehend these things. For instance, Jesus died for our sins. Yet, we are also taught:
"He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." (Rev.13:10 KJV)
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Mat 26:52 KJV)
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Mat 7:2 KJV)
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:" (Luke 6:37 KJV)
Or, how about this seeming contradiction:
"22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Mat 7:22-23 KJV)
or
10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thess 2:10 KJV)
YET
"3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim 2:3-4 KJV)
And how about this revelation:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," (1 Pet 1:3 KJV)
Now, since Peter is telling us that in God's abundant mercy He has begotten us AGAIN, it would seem that in order to be begotten AGAIN then we must have been begotten BEFORE. Is this alluding to reincarnation?
In fact, do ALL of the above passages, in order to make more sense of them, allude to reincarnation? Something to contemplate.
Meanwhile, I will reiterate the point I wanted to make about Jesus having sacrificed Himself for ALL sinners. Wouldn't this also include Adam and Eve? If not, then His sacrifice was NOT for all sinners. OTOH, if you are not able to accept that He did not also include Adam and Eve (since this would turn Jesus into a liar), you must look at why the RCC believes that babies are born with the guilt of Original Sin. Wasn't Jesus' sacrifice able to cover "Original Sin"??? And so it is I have found yet another reason to believe that the Orignal Sin dogma is false.
Blessings,
jo