Don and Rayola Larson are Latter-day Saints who have served in various leadership roles in the Mormon Church. They have been teachers at two Church-owned and operated schools, and completed two proselyting missions. Of their mission to England, they write,
“We began holding classes and taught groups of people…It soon became apparent that some of the members had no foundation in the basic teachings of the gospel. They had retained very little from the discussions that were taught when they joined the church, so we decided to write a study guide on the Plan of Salvation.” (Plan of Salvation, 2004, vii)
The first chapter of this self-published book explains the Mormon doctrine of the pre-existence in simple and easy language, covering the high points of the teaching that all human beings existed in a spiritual state with Heavenly Father before coming to earth and becoming mortal. Apart from the absence of any mention of Heavenly Mother, and the odd statement that “our Father, with his superior technology, probably showed each of us an earth similar to the one where we would all go,” the Larson’s study guide pretty much presents what would be expected. But it got more interesting for me when I got to the proof texts they provide.
Under the heading “Spirit Children” the Larsons include Proverbs 8:22-31:
“The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, …rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.” (The Plan of Salvation, 8, ellipsis in the original.)
That sure sounds like the Mormon doctrine of pre-existence — until you read the passage in its context. The subject of Proverbs 8 is wisdom. In fact,
“The main subject of Proverbs chapters 1–9 is wisdom, which is an abstract quality or character trait rather than a person, but wisdom is treated as a woman from the first chapter right through chapter 9. Wisdom is portrayed as a woman of dazzling attractiveness and virtue, who teaches in the marketplace of the town (1:20), who is romantically embraced (4:8–9), who can be addressed as ‘my sister’ (7:4), who utters a long speech commending herself to the public (chap. 8), and who builds a house and invites people to an alluring banquet (9:1–6).” (Leland Ryken, “Who Is Wisdom in Proverbs 8?”)
Proverbs 8 begins, “Does not wisdom call? Does not understanding raise her voice?” (v. 1) “…at the entrance of the portals she cries aloud: ‘To you, O men, I call, and my cry is to the children of man’” (vv. 3-4). “Hear, for I will speak noble things…” (v. 6). “I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion” (v. 12). Throughout Proverbs 8 it is wisdom personified who speaks, not Heavenly Father’s spirit children. It is wisdom who was from the beginning, wisdom who was present when the heavens were prepared, wisdom who was God’s daily delight. If the Larsons intended to say this passage of scripture supports the idea that spirit children were “brought forth” before the hills were formed, they have severely misused it. But perhaps this was not their intent.
The LDS edition of the Bible explains that Proverbs 8 says “the Lord and the sons of men possessed wisdom in the premortal life.” Therefore, perhaps the Larsons meant to focus on the words at the end of the quoted passage: “my delights were with the sons of men” (v. 31). One could reason, if this was before “ever the earth was,” and there were “sons of men” with whom wisdom delighted, the sons of men must also have existed “when there were no depths.” Voila! Spirit children.
But this doesn’t work for the Mormon position, either. In Proverbs 8 wisdom begins with God before creation, and continues with Him as He forms the earth, establishes the clouds, sets the boundaries of the sea…through creation to the point where wisdom rejoices in God’s inhabited world because, as God declared, “it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).
Proverbs 8 does not support the Mormon doctrine of pre-existence. As is so often the case with Mormon proof texts, they have been dangerously twisted to mean something God never intended (2 Peter 3:16).
“You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:17-18)
Mormonism starts out with various premises and then tortures the Scriptures to make the Word support what they want it to say. To me, this article by Sharon, isn’t really about the “pre-existance” but is about the poorly laid foundation on which Mormonism rests. In my tenure here on MC, I’ve come to see how Mormons have no firm grasp of the basic rules of Biblical interpretation.
When the article began quoting Proverbs 8 I immediately thought, “What does Wisdom have to do with supporting the Mormon notion of pre-existance?” Then as I read the Mormon interpretation all I could think was, “You’ve got to be kidding me!”
Mormonism is a very childish and immature religion. The depth of knowledge and understanding by Mormons of the history of the Christian faith, the doctrines of the orthodox Christian faith and a lack of a systematic theology makes Mormonism subject to any current whim or fad of their apostles and prophets.
Joseph Smith set the ground rules for Mormonism as he skipped about here and there experimenting with various contemporary thoughts on the nature of God, the nature of man, the salvation of the soul and social order. Leaders after him have been impressed by their own random thoughts supposing they were getting regular news flashes and updates from one of the gods within the Mormon pantheon of gods.
The study guide produced by these Mormon folks is just one more example of the amateur night mentality that permeates Mormonism.
Jeremiah 1:5 “ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
This is also a verse orthodox Christians shy away from, screaming “let him be anathema.” Excommunicate the apostate for even allowing the false interpretation of preexistence.
The Lord existed before the foundations of the earth, so did His wisdom, and as the scripture indicates, so did the sons of men, that is Proverbs 8
Job 38:4-7
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
So the real issue is who are the sons of God? or the sons of men? are they angels? or are they preexistence spirits, ready to come and receive their First Estate.
Zechariah 12:1
The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Question? does this sound like being formed from clay? no, God is literally our Father in Heaven.
Proverbs 8 — It says in verse 31 —- “rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.”
Likewise, the Lord and wisdom delighted with us, because we existed.
According to Hugh Nibley, “Brigham Young said that more Latter-day Saints apostatize because of the doctrine of preexistence than for any other reason—more than polygamy, more than the trials and hardships, more than the teaching of the Law of Consecration.” While it is hard to imagine that this doctrine has the impact ascribed to it, the significance of this doctrine can hardly be overstated. As Nibley also pointed out, “this was a teaching that had enormous impact. It makes all the difference on how we look at our situation on earth, doesn’t it?”
The Old Testament seems to be prime ground for modern day prophets who seek to
establish a beach-head for their newly revealed doctrines . The Mormon doctrine of
pre-existence is a classic example. The couple above tries to twist Prov.8 to fit this
doctrine. Another example is Terry Ball, dean of Religious Studies at BYU , at a
devotional address in March 2008 he uses Isa. 28:24-28 . Prof. Ball also has a degree
in the field of botany so he proceeds to use the “wheat”, ” barley” , “rie” as well as the
” fitches” and “cummin” mentioned here in Isaiah to teach a deeper truth:
” Obviously Isaiah is trying to do something more here than teach us about Old Testament
agriculture . I believe Isaiah wants us to liken the farmer to our Heavenly Father and the
seeds to ourselves. Have you ever wondered why you were born where and when you were
born ? Why were you not born 500 years ago in some primitive aboriginal culture in some
isolated corner of the world? Is the timing and placing of your birth capricious? For Latter
Day Saints the answer is no. Fundamental to our faith is the understanding that before we
came to this earth we lived in a premortal existence with a loving Heavenly Father.”
He goes on to teach that because based on obedience , God determined where these spirits
would be born on earth and under what circumstances they would be born . He likens us
to the wheat , or barley , or rie , or the fitches or cumin , and we would grow where the
farmer plants. Sadly this doctrine was used to justify not giving Blacks the priesthood.
Sadly the doctrine of preexistence once taught as doctrine is now anathema. Just like God is invisible.
The true doctrine is anything but what orthodox Christian invented.
John 4:24 is a case in point ,noted “is” was never in this verse. Another corrupted word inserted in translating the Septuagint. Truth, Septuagint only says “God Spirit” (transliterated “Theos pneuma”). Wonder why some think it important to add too the Word of God by inserting a verb that was never meant to be there. Changes that our past scribes and scholars (men) added to the Word of God and now we see a apostate group of people who ascribe too false beliefs and doctrine.
In the newest article it says
Maybe it’s just me, but since when do these Avrage Joe Missionay/LDS people get to write books on the plan of salvation?
I cant tell you how many times we have seen over the years, that us Christians quote some member of the Church, Like Bruce Mc for example, Then LDS reply with, they are not the prophet or presdient or they have no real say in the matter. I can see it know, Years from now we/I or some christian will quote these guys and the reply from LDS will be, You cant quote them, they are not speaking for the Church. So why can they do it now?
Then in the article it says
The word that really jumped out at me was (PROBABLY). Really? are you kidding me, They say Probably, Do you guys know what that means? It might have happened or it might not have happened, we cannot know for sure, so we will say It probably did. But if I said it Porbably did not happen, then thats not ok, because LDS hang their eternal salvation on a (Probably) Did, we have no evidence other than some non-athourtity saying it probably did, but thats good enough for me.
Sharon has written another terrific article pointing out the doctrinal heresies of the Mormon Church coupled with their terrifying and sloppy handling of the Bible when it comes to proper interpretation and exegesis. The Bible can be used to prove or say almost anything if not read and interpreted in context. Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. I never really understood what this was until I studied biblical interpretation in Bible college. Proper interpretation is methodical and numerous concerns and issues come into play not only with every verse but with each individual word of a text.
The LDS error in Proverbs 8 is a rookie error. I say this because our Mormon friends have not read the verses before and after their “cherry-picked” verses (22-31) to identify the context and what/who is being addressed. Sharon’s explanation above in her article of what this text means in context is exactly correct. From a Christian church history perspective, the heretic, Arius, tried to use this same text to prove that Christ was a creature. Athanasius used this text to prove Christ’s human nature.
In Proverbs chapters 1-9, wisdom is figuratively endowed with human qualities. This text is speaking metaphorically of God’s eternal wisdom and how it was “brought forth” (v. 24) to take part in the creation of the universe. Proverbs 8 is not saying that wisdom came into being at a point in time. And it certainly is not saying that Jesus is a created being, since the passage is not dealing with Jesus but with wisdom personified.
Following LDS exegesis, we would have to conclude that all preexistent spirits are female since the pronoun “I” throughout verses 22-31 refers to the female gender in Proverbs 8:2-3 with the pronoun “she.” This is repeated again in Proverbs 9:1 with “her.”
I have read Ecclesiastes 12:7 in context which means taking in the whole canon of Scripture (the Bible) on what it has to say regarding this subject. Obviously, this is something the Mormons haven’t done and I would recommend they do so in attempting to understand God’s Word – the Bible. The cults are terrible exegetes of Scripture due to their “cherry picking” to create doctrines. Ecclesiastes 12:7 simply states that God is the creator. He gives life. There is nothing in the passage that says spirits lived with God before coming to earth.
Please read Zechariah 12:1 closely. The spirit of man is formed WITHIN HIM, not outside of man and sent TO him. In Mormonism, a spirit child is created in the womb of their heavenly mother after LITERAL procreation by their god living near Kolob…big difference!
Let’s look at Psalm 139:13-16. David was wove IN his mother’s womb, not outside of his mother’s womb and sent TO it. David was saying that he was created as a human being in his mother’s womb “in the depths of the earth” (Isa 44:23; Psa 68; Eph 4:7-10). David was an unformed substance in God’s “eyes” (the mind of God) in His will of decree for creation.
Helen referenced Jeremiah 1:5. Jeremiah was formed IN THE WOMB. This coincides with the texts above. This shows harmony in the interpretations of all the texts. God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb. The text doesn’t say of Jeremiah that “You knew me.” God’s foreknowledge is undeniable (Isa 46:9-10; Psalms 147:5). The context of this verse is referring to Jeremiah’s preordination to a special ministry. God knowing someone in this context shows a special love relationship with a person that is very different from His other creatures that He created.
The Lord existed before the foundations of the earth, so did His wisdom, and as the scripture indicates, so did the sons of men, that is in Proverbs 8 also.
So the real issue is who are the sons of God? or the sons of men? are they angels? or are they preexistence spirits, ready to come and receive their First Estate.
Helen,
Please read, translate, and transliterate the following verse:
πνευμα ο θεος και τους προσκυνουντας αυτον εν πνευματι και αληθεια δει προσκυνειν
Please let me help you.
Transliteration: pneuma o theos kai tous proskunountas auton en pneumatic kai aletheia dei proskunein.
English (in order from left to right): spirit those God and those who worship him in spirit and truth it is necessary to worship.
Key phrase: πνευμα ο θεος; this is translated as “spirit the God.” For our English understanding it would be “God is Spirit.” The only contention among Christians, a minor one at that, is the insertion of the word “a” (God is a Spirit) into the translation. This is done so for ease of the English language. Either way the text is not disturbed in its meaning.
Make sense? I’m sure it doesn’t and that would go for your “apostles” and “prophets” who cannot read Greek either. If they could, they should translate the Bible correctly for the world so they can scratch off LDS article/creed no. 8 and quit whining about the Bible not being translated correctly.
This is John 4:24 in the original language of the New Testament book of John. The Septuagint does NOT contain the New Testament. Therefore, John 4:24 is not in the Septuagint! Where are you getting your information? Do you know how to read Greek? How do you know what, how, where and when Greek verb forms are used in a verse? Are you qualified to exegete and criticize biblical texts written in Greek? If so, please inform this board if you have those skills. If you do not, I beg you to please stop now for the sake of your own integrity. You have no idea what you are talking about. That is the nicest way I can say it.
Man Andy…….you are sure a kill-joy!
You’re taking all Helen’s Mormon Fun away from her expecting that she actually know what she’s talking about.
You see Mormons don’t need proper exegesis because they receive their knowledge via revelation. That’s a lot more fun then actually having to do some work beyond accessing a FAIR/FARMS website.
The brain trust at those organizations couldn’t find the truth even if the boys in Salt Lake lent them Joseph Smith’s magic rock and his hat to put it in. This is a religion that doesn’t depend on actual scholarship. It depends on a person receiving messages from the spirit that inhabits Mormonism and feeling good about it.
Joseph Smith actually thought he could rewrite the Bible without a clue as to what the Hebrew and Greek actually say. I don’t think he even depended on his magic rock. He just changed the Bible to say what he thought it should say.
And Mormons follow this dufos.
According to Hugh Nibley, “Brigham Young said that more Latter-day Saints apostatize because of the doctrine of preexistence than for any other reason—more than polygamy, more than the trials and hardships, more than the teaching of the Law of Consecration.”
That is, until Young started teaching that Adam was God. _johnny
I would have to agree with the statement of this post. I have done a bit of studying, mainly the institute manual for the second half of the old testament. It does appear that it personifies wisdom. It is a call for God’s children to seek wisdom as it was established before the creation of the world.
I am glad we dodged the bullet on that one and not scrapped the “Preach My Gospel” manual for Bro. and Sis. Larsons. Thanks a bunch Mormon Coffee.
However as this may have been discounted, the discounting does not go to disprove our belief in the premortal/antemortal existence (sorry to LDS and non-LDS alike, we have updated our lexicon as we don’t believe in a point in which we didn’t exist, thus we don’t say preexistence).
However, we do have other scriptures that are not so vague.
Ecclesiasties 12:7 – How do our spirits return to a place that we have never been in the first place? Our physical bodies return to the earth, but our spiritual bodies return to God.
Hebrews 12:9 – What does it mean to be a Father of spirits? Did God not create our spirits? Did our spirits come into being only when our physical bodies come into being, or did they exist before coming to earth? Our spirits did exist with God.
Job 38:7 – When were the sons of God shouting for joy? Are we not sons (and daughters) of God? So, either we are not sons of God, or we did not shout for joy. I say we are sons (and daughters) of God and we have existed in various forms (intelligences, spririts, physical beings) for eternity. God is the Father of our spirits.
This is kind of a fun doctrine for Mormons.
They have a mother god and father god that give them spiritual birth and at some point these spirit children get to have actual human birth parents. I’m wondering if these spirit baby offspring of the mother/father god are birthed fully grown or if they go through a developmental sequence sort of like the Mormon gods do?
So the mother/father god duo then cheer their spirit off spring on, hoping that they will catch fire, so to speak, and really get after it as far as becoming gods themselves. Of course this is all clearly out-lined in the Bible, OT as well as NT. Paul addressed it at length in the letters he wrote to the first century believers, right? I’m afraid this doctrine, like polygamy and the WoW and Christian temples etc., must be one that got left out of the Bible by the Catholic monks who copied the ancient texts.
Mormons believed that blacks were not as valiant in the pre-existence thus for a long time they couldn’t receive the priesthood which would mean they couldn’t become gods. Blacks can now become gods. Quite a change! I guess a different revelation was forth-coming because the other explanation wasn’t really all that well received by those outside of Mormonism.
I am sorry falcon, did I actually make those statements are are they just preschool rants.
If you actually want to ask me if I proscribe to these doctrines, like Jeopardy, you need to form it as a question.
All in all, I would have to say as to the wording you use, I would have to say I do not believe in the “fun doctrines” which you have stated above. If you wish to know just what I believe in, feel free to ask me. I would be more than welcome to answer them. However, I will reject your statements of “fun doctrine” which you claim to be believed by our church.
Now as far as the “spirit baby offspring” you refer to, would you like to know what kind of spiritual poop they put out or were you not serious about that joke.
Here is a free one. We are created as fully formed spirits in form, much like our fully grown physical forms look but without any possible physical deformaties. However, this is how I understand the situation and don’t quote me as saying actual church doctrine.
I still haven’t received any answers on the reason as to why our black members couldn’t receive the priesthood, but I do not believe the idea that you put down. If you wish to read further on this matter, if you haven’t already done so, here is the link to President Hinckley, then Elder Hinckley.
http://lds.org/ensign/1988/10/priesthood-restoration?lang=eng
I know you are going to bring up other quotes made by past prophets. But, none-the-less this is my belief.
Andy Watson , thanks for your take, it always is nice to see how Orthodox Christians interpret scripture.
What was not mentioned is also very interesting since you brought up the following:
Quote, “I’m sure it doesn’t and that would go for your “apostles” and “prophets” who cannot read Greek either. If they could, they should translate the Bible correctly for the world so they can scratch off LDS article/creed no. 8 and quit whining about the Bible not being translated correctly.”
Joseph Smith Translation, horrors, no please not this! God is a Spirit? You admit the a is for more clarity and that he original does not use “is”.
Quote, “Key phrase: πνευμα ο θεος; this is translated as “spirit the God.” and then you state:
Quote, “For our English understanding it would be “God is Spirit.”
Quote JST, John 4:26 — For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth.
The word pneuma, which is translated spirit, also means ‘life’ or ‘breath’. The King James Version of Revelation 13:15 renders ‘pneuma’ as life. Thus “God is life,” or “God is the breath of life” are potential alternative translations of this verse.
The Roman Catholic scholar Raymond E. Brown states:
This is not an essential definition of God, but a definition of God’s dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because he gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: “God is light” (I John i 5), and “God is love” I John iv 8). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5)
Here’s a thought,
How do LDS handle the world wide flood of Noah in light of the pre-existence?
Why would God send the most valient men here, then allow them to fall into sin, the allow them to become so wicked that the Lord Must destroy the entire earth with a fllod?
Then after Noah and His family leave the ark and they start having more kids, are those children sent down from God from the pre-existence? If so, then he send down more cursed black skinned people? If not, then were the only people sent down from the pre-existence only before the flood.
Are kids being born today from God via the pre-existence. If not why not? If so, how can you prove that? When does the pre-existence spirit people stop being sent to earth? If it has already stopped, then does that mean everyone born is now simply a human that did not come from the pre-existence.
I mean if we followed this thinking out, it really makes no sense and you cannot prove what you believe one way or the other. You can only assume and say, yes I believe it or no I dont.
Here’s a thought Rick B. why did God ever allow sin at all? maybe, just maybe he gave man his own will or agency.
Are kids today being born into sin, Adams sin and being held responsible for the Action of Adam?
LDS know that we are only responsible for ourselves and don’t have to repent for Adams disobedience.
Think on that!
Helen said
Well I guess you better go read Romans, Then after you read it you will reject everything it says, so then you might as well not call yourself a christian which LDS are not. But if you want to reject what the Bible says, thats your choice.
Yes Adam fell/sinned, as a result we are all born into sin, the Bible is very clear on this. Then for you to say,
This says you clearly reject Scripture and it implies you are all born perfect and sinless, so then how do you explain that no man outside of Jesus has even been born sinless and perfect. If what you said was true, then their is no need for a saviour and you should be able to live a perfect life, even just one LDS member should, but none have and they cannot. So how do you explian LDS being born sinless and then somehow falling into sin? Then how do you ignore all the scripture that states Adam fell and we are sinners as a result of that. Go back and read Romans as I said.
I think we need to come at the pre existence from another angle. It’s in the Book of Abraham. All one really needs to do is research the Book of Abraham and it’s origins. It has been debunked over and over again. The book is a fraud. I can see Mormons using Proverbs 8 and I think Andy (and others) have pretty much covered that one. What about the BoA??? Mormons, please go study this out. Check out the facsimiles and the history on the papyrus. This is where I started my journey out of Mormonism. Not exactly like Brigham Young says, but it’s the same book. Could it be that instead of people leaving because of the doctrine of the pre existence, they were leaving because they didn’t believe JS translated the papyrus? The story is pretty far fetched. Buying ordinary funeral scrolls in with some Egyptian mummies from a man touring the states with them. Joseph got ALL of the Egyptian characters wrong! No amount of twisting and spinning can change that fact. All of this has been looked at by expert Egyptologists. The pre existence comes from those translations, it’s a false doctrine.
Helen,
“Jeremiah 1:5 “ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
This is also a verse orthodox Christians shy away from, screaming “let him be anathema.”
I don’t have a problem with this and I don’t shy away from it either. Of course God knew us before he formed us. God knows the end from the beginning. He knew I would be born. He knew he would form me in the womb. He knew what I would be and where I would live, who I would marry, how many children I would have and so on. He knows the end from the beginning.– Isaiah 45:9-10 No problem. The fact is, nowhere but the BoA do we see spirit children and the pre existence.
That should be Isaiah 46:9-10
Jacob5,
Am I missing something? I don’t remember addressing you personally. In fact, I don’t even remember reading your comment that preceded mine. So if you’re personalizing what I wrote, that’s in your head.
But now that you bring it up, of course it’s a fun doctrine for Mormons. It’s blue sky. It’s the mental meanderings of some guys who enjoyed religious innovation and creativity. This pre-existance “doctrine” wasn’t gleaned from the Bible. It’s just part of the religious creation along with adam-god, polygamy, men becoming gods, temple rituals, the priesthood and any number of doctrines, beliefs and practices that go along with the religious experimentation of the 19th century.
It’s made up from whole cloth.
I really don’t have a question for you regarding what you personally believe because what you believe makes no difference in the large scheme of things. I go by what Mormon apostles and prophets have said on these matters.
Of course this is a fun doctrine for Mormons.
You guys can muse about it and discuss it at length along with all of the various aspects and discuss what the Mormon god has personally revealed to you about it and what kind of feeling you got as a result.
It’s all religious entertainment.
It doesn’t exist in reality any more than reincarnation does.
But it gives you something to do and provides some structure and meaning to your life.
The problem is that without the Biblical Jesus, you have no hope.
Dear Helen,
Thanks for sharing Jeremiah 1:5. This is a beautiful verse. It reminded me of the first chapter of Ephesians, among the most meaningful chapters in the Bible for me personally.
Do I believe that God knew me before I was born? Absolutely. I believe that God has known everything forever. In this way, I believe God knew me before I even existed. As humans, we can’t really comprehend this: to know someone before they even came into existence. For us, that is impossible. One of many, many reasons we are not God.
This verse in Jeremiah is yet another verse that looks at foreordination.
Okay, everybody, as I stated before. The official term is premortal or antemortal existence or pre-earth life. The term preexistence can be misleading and confusing since there was never a point in which we didn’t exist. This is what we use whether you believe us or not. So from here on out I will consider you informed and will disregard any further use of preexistence. (I don’t care how many past leaders you may quote)
Rick B
As pertaining to your questions with regards to our premortal existence and the antedeluvial world. The premortal existence refers to a time and place where we all existed before we were sent to be with physical bodies on earth. This does not describe a preflood point in time. The purposes of the flood were mainly because the world had become completely corrupt save for 8 people. The righteous line had all but died off, the last being Methuselah (as some believe his name refers to his name meaning the coming of the flood).
Every single person born from Adam to today came from the premortal state. Every single one of us had chosen to follow God’s plan. As far as I have been taught, there were no fence sitters. We had a choice and we made it.
God does not force us to choose salvation on earth. That is not His way of doing things. It was Satan who wanted to force man to do good all the time that not one soul will be lost.
I am happy to clear things up for you on the matter.
Falcon
I am sorry that you hadn’t the chance to read my post. I assumed that since your post came after mine you would have read it. I only assume this since Reggie was berated for not reading every post. I know you are better than that, right?
As far as your later reply, I will say that it makes no difference to me whether you take my word on my belief or not. I still, however, reject your charicatured version of the things I believe in.
Kate
A fraud? Proven to who? To you? not to me.
I was watching an interesting program the National Geographic channel the other day. It was talking about, at one point, the validity of the Old Testament. Although the more religious minded scholars showed no doubt as the the validity of the Old Testament text, there were other scholars, who I am sure had impressive resumes, were claiming that most of the scriptures pre-babylonian exile were just the Jewish priests making up scripture just to show the world they actually had a history.
Now, I am sure they may be able to point out many bits of data to prove their assumption, but I still believe it is factual scripture.
But that is the thing. I was speaking with my catholic friend who said that many in the catholic faith believe that much of the scriptures were not literal and just there to promote good spiritual feelings. Not for me, budy. Although I understand that metaphor is used in a lot of the text of the scriptures, I still believe the words at face value. But this belief never came from scientific data.
Helen,
Why are you referencing the Joseph Smith Translation (JST)? This is not part of the LDS Standard Works. Your church has opted for the KJV Bible. The LDS Church does not own the copyright to it. I had to purchase mine from the Community of Christ Mormons in Missouri directly at Price Publishing Co. The CoC ditched the KJV Bible. You have to argue your position with the four works that are approved by Salt Lake City, and the JST isn’t one of them.
Again, I don’t know where you get information, but wherever you get it, I would look for another source. The JST was not translated from Hebrew or Greek. Joseph Smith didn’t know how to read any of these languages. He barely had a handle on the English language with his elementary school education. Joseph Smith used the KJV Bible as his guide in re-writing the Bible and calling it his translation. Today they call that plagiarism. The JST is an English-to-English translation; it’s not a Greek-to-English translation because Smith didn’t know Greek!
I know what pneuma means in Greek. Do you think pneuma has the same meaning every time it is used? Revelation 13:15 has nothing to do with John 4:24 – different context. The Greek alphabet and language is not the same as English. We have words they don’t have and vice versa. This is not difficult to understand.
Why are you referencing Roman Catholic scholars? They are apostate according to Mormons; they aren’t your spiritual friends. Raymond Brown would join me in saying anathema in the LDS spin of John 4:24 in the heretical view that God was once a man (sinner) who exalted himself and became God. Mormons have no Christian allies in this heresy. Raymond Brown would tell you that you’re wrong.
Raymond Brown most likely got it right, even though there claim (Catholics) to fame is much closer then any of the orthodox Evangelical religions. Peter had the Keys of the Kingdom and so we can pretty much trace the true NT Church along the lines ofPeter, Apostles, then Bishops called by authority to serve by them. Bishops, after the Apostles were pretty much killed off, were all that was left with any Church authority if any at all.
Brown again:
This is not an essential definition of God, but a definition of God’s dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because he gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: “God is light” (I John i 5)
Now as for the standard works, I have a quad and in it is the King James Bible along with references to the JST which we cross reference all the time when looking for more truth and clarity.
Now for our less the educated JS, who seemed to have a gift for translation, especially the JST.
I could point out many things that are better stated there then in any of the Bibles published today.
This would make for a great conversation someday, hope the do a topic on it.
Mormons believe what they believe because a man with a magic rock convinced them that he had spiritual beings appear to him and hence forth his evolved god provided him with revelation.
So Mormons really don’t exercise any other option but to accept what this seer and those who followed him, tell them. So if Mormons are told that their are many gods, that men can become gods by following a certain prescribed program, that their are many gods, and that there are a mother/father god that give birth to pre-mortals.
Now where do such notions come from? Mormon seers make it up and call it revelation. There’s no other support for such notions any where in Scripture. These things can’t even be found in the BoM. These revelations change with time and with the seers.
The one reliable standard by which to measure what any self-appointed seers proclaim isn’t how it makes someone feel. It’s if it agrees with God’s Holy Word the Bible.
A mother/father god who give birth to spirit off-spring who then are born of human parents so that they might become gods has no basis in Scripture or in the tradition of the Church. To say that these things are a “restoration” of what first century Christians believed and practice is pure fantasy.
The burden of proof is on Mormons. Testifying as to how they “know” such things based on spiritual feelings just doesn’t cut it.
Jacob05,
I have been reading your posts with interest. You seem like a nice guy, very respectful. You also seem like a guy who is very versed in Mormon doctrine–for the most part. When you responded to Falcon, ” I still haven’t received any answers on the reason as to why our black members couldn’t receive the priesthood,” I had to ask myself a couple of questions: 1. has the LDS Church stopped teaching that the Blacks were denied the priesthood because they were not deemed to be valiant in their premortal existence? 2. did you somehow miss that lesson? I think it might be interesting to know how old you are. I am finding that younger Mormons have never heard of a lot of the teachings to which I was exposed when I was LDS. Nevertheless, what Falcon has outlined as Mormon doctrine is true.
Jackg,
I was born in june 1977 which puts me about one year prior to the revelation. So, in a since, I have only met black male members of my church who were ordained to the priesthood; both American, African, and Brazillian. I have heard the presented doctrine of which you speak. However, I have not been presented this doctrine in the form of a sunday school lesson, sacrament meeting talk or a priesthood quorum discussion. I generally regard it as human speculation for something that has yet to be picked apart and disected in a full expose. Some probably do. What I was told through official means was that we all had a choice to follow God’s plan. All those who were born to this planet had chosen. I don’t know how to classify who diserved what blessings as they were picking their sides in the war in heaven. I know about myself through my patriachal blessing, but I cannot say for anyone else. That is not my calling.
There are millions of people born into this world under different circumstances. What are we to say for the countless generations of orientals who didn’t even have the teachings of either the gospel or the authority of the priesthood. Are we to classify them as less valiant.
Christ best sums this up in the parable talking about the laborers. The one promised to work from the beginning, while they other stalled by accepted the work later. Whether we come to accept the gospel now or later, the Lord accepts all with open arms.
With regards to Falcon.
I once heard Bill Maher (no friend of religion at all) refer to God sending His only begotten Son on a suicide mission. Now, it is true that Christ was to sacrifice Himself for our sins, to degrade the most supremely selfless act ever committed to just someone taking their own life it ghastly.
I have the same regard to the way Falcon choses to word our beliefs. These beliefs have been carefully deliniated by most if not all of the LDS posters on this forum, yet simply trying to use the terms as we describe them, he chooses to phrase them in a supersilious form which degrades the purpose of our discussion. Whether he believes these things to be true or not makes no difference to me. It is clear here that this is not a sight for conversion to one belief or another, but you have to engage in a certain level of respect with even those you disagree with. Isn’t it not of Christ when you engage in a spirit of discord.
JacobO5,
Why can’t Mormonism stand on it’s own two feet? We are discussing the pre existence and the BoA. Mormons can’t wait to throw something ANYTHING out there that they think the Bible compares with. Isn’t the Bible part of your standard works? I’m blown away by the Mormons who have posted on this site, it seems the Bible is thrown under the bus at every turn. Yes the BoA has been debunked. In the 60’s even. A long time before you were born! Now, you could easily do your own homework on this but Bill McKeever has written a fantastic article and I will link you to that.
http://www.mrm.org/book-of-abraham
J/5
I use the terms I use to draw attention to what Mormons accept as revealed doctrine to articulate exactly what it is they believe. What happens in Mormonism is the attempt to make sacred and holy a blasphemous view of the nature of God and His promised plan of salvation. I call it the way it is and describe in a no-holds-barred manner what Mormons have done to our Blessed Lord and Savior. Why should I speak in hushed and reverential tones regarding the degrading manner with which Mormons view Jesus? I don’t care how sincerely Mormons believe what they believe or the devotion with which they hold their aberrant views; claiming theirs is a restoration of first century Christianity.
How are Christians to speak with reverence regarding what Brigham Young taught about God the Father having actual sexual relations with the Virgin Mary? I could make a long list of pronouncements by past Mormon leaders that Mormons of their era held in high esteem. These things deserve no respect or reverence but should instead be condemned and repudiated in the strongest terms. Excuses shouldn’t be made for how blacks were disrespected by the Mormon religion for years. This disrespect was an integral part of the pre-mortal existence doctrine of the Mormon church.
Should we speak with respect and reverence regarding the segregation policies of the south prior to the civil rights movement? Should we say that the members of the KKK were misunderstood and taken out of context?
Transfer the righteous indignation we have about these things and there will be understanding regarding how Christians feel about having God degraded and His plan of salvation demeaned.
Read in the OT about how God feels about those who take pagan gods before Him.
Jacob said
Tell me Jacob, Who gave you the authority to say that it is no longer the pre-existance, yet that is what past leaders called it, then you say you dont care what the past leaders said. Wow, no wonder LDS dont know what they belive, they dont care what was taught and dont care what their leaders said.
Jacob, I meant to add in my last post to you. Your not a leader of the church, or at least you have not stated you were. Since when can Non-leaders usurp the authority of the leaders and say, I dont care what they said, I believe this instead?
Rick B. I don’t know that anyone can tell me what to believe, I have my own opinion about a lot of old theories, opinions and sermons that todays young members may differ with me on , even some Bishops and Stake Presidents would differ with me. As long as my personal opinions are not taught in Church, or preached from the pulpit at Sacrament Meetings I’m free to think and act for myself.
I would like to know more about Adam God, more about blood atonement, more about why pure wine is not served at Sacrament Meetings which to my knowledge is still not a commandment or any rule stating it can’t be served. Water is the choose, but wine is still acceptable.
I do care what the past leaders stated, I do agree with many of their sermons and much of what BY preached.
I don’t worry about why the Blacks were not worthy at one time to have the priesthood, none of this changes in any degree the truthfulness of God Kingdom here on earth and that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God.
Here is an official First Presidency Statement on the Priesthood Ban. Not policy, but doctrine. Not speculation, but a commandment from God. Read on.
August 17, 1949
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle.
President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”
President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”
The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is
given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.
The First Presidency
George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark
David. O. McKay
I hope this clears things up, since Official First Presidency Statements are considered as authoritative. (But with Mormons today, you never know). But Mormon ‘prophets’ have never been consistent when it comes to their ‘revelations’ about the so-called ‘pre-existence’, with all kinds of crazy things being said by each succeeding ‘prophet’, like each one didn’t have the same source as the last one. (imagine that).
And who can blame Mormons today for not wanting to ‘own’ their previous ‘prophets’ statements, when they are so confused, contradictory, and downright illogical? The sheer amount of ignorance regarding Mormon history and teachings (that they think they are so confidently expounding upon) by many of the Mormons that come here never ceases to amaze me. _johnny
MORMON CYCLE OF THE GODS
I. God Evolution By One Who Claimed To ‘Know’
It’s hard to tell what Mormons believe or what god they claim to worship. Why? Because they keep changing it. In 1830, when Smith penned the Book of Mormon, he claimed there was only one God, who was called the Father. He taught that this Father God came to earth and was made flesh and became the Son God.
At this time the Holy ‘Ghost’ (as Mormons call it – or him, depending) was only the MIND of this God. Later, the Book of Mormon was changed to try and erase these concepts, but luckily we have copies of the first printing and can compare the changes.
Then, by 1838 Smith was teaching that there were three gods, (the holy ‘ghost’ got promoted to a god) and that the father and son were now separate gods. Translating the Bible in 1831 he uses ‘And I God,’ in Genesis, claiming he ‘fixed’ the Bible, and in 1838 when he ‘translated’ the Book of Abraham it says ‘the gods’, (plural) for the same verses.
In Smith’s early years, he called the father, elohim JEHOVAH, or just Jehovah. Mormons kept that name for the father until the 1880’s, when they started calling Jesus Jehovah. Brigham Young in 1852 went off the deep end, and called the Father yahovah michael, or Adam from the garden of Eden, and claimed he was the father of all the spirits of men. Then, when the church started calling Jesus Jehovah, they called Brigham Young’s teachings about Adam-god false, and started calling the father Elohim with a capital E. From about 1910 we have them ‘officially’ stating that the father is Elohim, the Son Jehovah, and the Holy ‘Ghost’ a spirit god.
They, of course never explain how a pre-mortal spirit can become a god, when they teach it is necessary to get endowments in mortality and be married before anyone can become a god.
II. The Endless Cycle
In 1843, Smith decided to enlighten the world on how their god came to be a god. Smith said that there was a thing called ‘intelligence’ that floats around the cosmos, that can never be created and just apparently was always around, because Smith said intelligence or the ‘light of truth’ (whatever that is) cannot be created or made.
These intelligences were somehow ‘organized’ by a god, (how that first god got to be a god we are never told) or how there got to be a goddess wife for that matter. Anyway, these two gods had spiritual sex or something, and these intelligences were somehow put into the spiritual bodies of their spiritual children. While this was going on this god creates planets for his goddess wife to put his spirit babies on, so they can become ‘like’ them. This god does this by the ‘priesthood’, and again how the first god even got the priesthood has never been told.
After creating the planets, these gods go there, and (according to Brigham Young) eat the food and become mortal again so they can bear their spirit babies. They also choose their first born spirit son to be a ‘saviour’ so he can atone for their own disobedience to their own commandment not to eat the food that they created and placed there. Since after 1905 or so, the church called that teaching false, Mormons now teach that the first mortal, who is ALWAYS called Adam for some reason, just another spirit son,
(probably the 2nd or 3rd born – cause the rebellious one who they call Satan was probably one of the two) who they ‘placed’ there so they could command him NOT to fall, but not really mean it, so they could have their first born spirit son die a horrible death to make up for them setting things up so that the first man would actually sin when he was told not to.
When all the spirit babies are born for all the worlds they have created (and how they know when to stop making spirit babies for each world is not revealed either) the first born spirit son, who was resurrected if he successfully completed his mission to die that horrible death, kicks rebellious 2nd (or 3rd) born’s butt, casts him into ‘outer darkness’ where he languishes and dissolves back into an intelligence (along with all other apostates), to be recycled by some future god someday. After this, the first born resurrects all those that obeyed his gospel and got his priesthood, so they too can become gods and do the whole thing over and over again. Now Brigham Young taught that these ‘sons of perdition’ as they are called, would be recycled, but a later prophet refuted this and called that ‘false doctrine’ too.
Now, since all mortals born on earth are ‘spirit babies’ of these gods, they are considered ‘gods in embryo’ only becoming gods if they ‘accept the gospel, live ALL the commandments, and get the priesthood. They must marry as many women as they can, because the more wives they have, the more goddess wives they get, thus making it easier for those gods to make more of those spirit babies, and attain a higher exaltation as more and more gods fall under their authority.
Since the ‘prophet’ Smith says that intelligence can’t be created or made, one wonders if someday it might run out, and the spirit babies that these gods have will be born brain dead, (since the spirit babies are composed of some component of ‘intelligence’) or perhaps they will be born spiritually challenged, thus ending the ‘eternal round’ of billions upon billions of gods. There can only be so many apostates that get recycled into intelligences, and it’s only logical that someday, the supply will run out. (since intelligence can’t be created or made, there has to be a limited supply, right?)
III. Conclusion?
This my friends, is the Mormon ‘cycle of the gods’ as revealed by so-called ‘modern prophets’. And Joseph Smith said the Trinity is hard to explain! How about there is ONE GOD, and we are his creation? Isn’t that a breath of fresh air compared to the Mormon explanation of their god/gods? _johnny
Grindel, Eternity can not have a beginning, matter is eternal and life after this will be for eternity.
Is there a end to the Universe, did God live alone before this creation and if so where? Was the Universe Created or is it Eternal, does God ever talk about anything other then this creation, earth and its heaven. Are we the only creation of Gods in this whole universe. Do you ever think beyond earth and your own existence? If God is invisible, what is the image we take on that is His? Where are all the answers to these question in the Bible?
Helen,
grindael writes what I would say is the definitive, classic view of what Mormon leaders have taught regarding the pre-existence. In fact, if MC had a Hall of Fame for posts, this series by grindael would be enshrined there immediately.
Don’t you get it? Are the eyes of your understanding so clouded that you can’t comprehend what is being presented? I can see why you are so easily taken in by Mormonism.
Forgive me but your questions to grindael are totally inane. They demonstrate what Mormonism does to the thinking processes of those who embrace its teachings.
For example, “If God is invisible, what is the image we take on that is His?”
Helen, who says that “image” means physical appearance? There is at least one example in the Bible where God is described with the attributes of an eagle. He appears as a flaming torch and a smoking pot, a burning bush. Jesus described Himself as the Bread of Life and as Living Water. God is described as a shield.
Do you physically resemble any of these things? Do any of us?
Do you seriously want to do a Bible study on these things? If you did a serious Bible study with someone who knows, understands and can apply the principles of Biblical interpretation, you wouldn’t be a Mormon long. You’d see the utter foolishness of the nonsense that has been put forth by Joseph Smith and the other early leaders of Mormonism.
For Mormons, once they accept as truth the ridiculous speculations of Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders, their ability to think clearly and understand the Scriptures is surrendered.
Helen,
I like how you ask me a question, I answer it and then ask you a question about what you asked me and you dont answer it. Typical.
Helen said
Helen,
I’m not telling you what you believe, I am telling you what your leaders and prophets have said and taught, and were bold enough to say that what they said and taught is DOCTRINE, SCRIPTURE, and GODS HOLY WORD and TRUTH.
Then they say you must believe what they say. So here is the problem I see, If you claim to have your own opinion, but it differs from your prophets, then thats fine you can do that, But…
You cannot both be correct. Adam is God and it is scripture or Adam is not God and not scripture, Then cannot both be true. That is the problem with what your saying, You dont agree with your leaders on many things, Thats fine, But then who do I believe? You or your leaders.
Your leaders claim to hear from God and claim ONLY THEY can SPEAK FOR GOD. So if they speak for God, then you cannot, because you both cannot speak for God but then say things that contrdict each other.
Rick B. “Then they say you must believe what they say. ” LOL. 🙂
Where oh where does it say I have to believe what they say? Please give any and all references other than the usual. Not one Prophet has ever said those words, “that I must believe what they say” nice try Rick B. but your misrepresenting as usual.
This is really a revealing thread about how a Mormon thinks. Ah, but God can change such erroneous thinking. I know because He changed my Mormon thinking. For this to happen, one has to confess that he or she really knows nothing. One has to confess that he or she truly cannot wrap their brains around God in His Infinite Totality. The finite trying to understand the infinite will always lead to a reduction of the Infinite so the finite can pretend to understand the Infinite. Helen’s questions are a prime example of this.
One of the prime fallacies in Mormonism has to do with the war in heaven as described in the Book of Acts. Mormons claim we were all present in this war, and that every single soul born to this earth chose to follow Michael, the Archangel. Now, for this to be a true interpretation, one would have to argue that we were once angels. Unfortunately for Mormons, the biblical text does not bear this out. In order to get around this, Mormons have to claim that the Bible is fallible due to evil and wicked men getting their hands on it and taking away precious truths. To believe this premise, one has to believe that God is not able to preserve His Word. One also has to believe that evil and wicked men would take out things like becoming gods and having eternal sex in order to create worlds and spirit children. These same evil and wicked men would somehow choose to leave in things like the 10 commandments. It’s more realistic that such men would ADD things like becoming gods, etc. The Mormon premise makes no sense.
Blessings…
Jacob05,
Thanks for your response. It seems that unless something has been taught to you in a Sunday School class, etc. that it doesn’t qualify as LDS doctrine. That is a very shaky stance to take regarding what the LDS Church has historically taught.
You said, “Whether we come to accept the gospel now or later, the Lord accepts all with open arms.” I assume you are referring to accepting the gospel post-mortality in spirit prison, correct? was wondering if you realized that the BOM actually teaches something opposite to this? How do you reconcile modern LDS teachings with the teachings of one of her own standard works? These are important questions, J05. I pray you really pause and ponder what it is you actually are ascribing to as a Mormon.
Peace…