This post is a response to a talk given by Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The talk is pleasantly short; however, I agree that the quality and depth of this topic suffers due to this abbreviated length. Regardless, in this talk he explains the doctrine and makes a few assertions I believe need to be answered. I have already addressed the doctrine of God the Father creating our eternal souls in Count 2. Here I want to focus specifically on the pre-mortal component and a few directly connected issues.
Return to Mormon Main
The Doctrine's History and Origen
I would like to begin on a positive note. I am glad and agree with Mr./Apostle/Dr./????? Packer's emphasis on the unique and special nature of humanity. That we are specially created and valued by our heavenly Father is a truth that needs to be preached to this world. However, I believe the idea of a pre-existence is not supported by the Bible and is in fact counter to its teachings. He claims that the pre-existence was the primary doctrine of the first-century church and that the rest of Christianity later abandoned it. He states:
"This doctrine of premortal life was known to ancient Christians. For nearly five hundred years the doctrine was taught, but it was then rejected as a heresy by a clergy that had slipped into the Dark Ages of apostasy."
This statement is inaccurate on several counts. First and foremost: while the doctrine was put forward, it was never the sole or even primary doctrine addressing this question. I would even go so far as to say that the way this claim is made is unethical. A little history will be needed.
According to my research, pre-existence was first espoused by the church father Origen who lived in the late 100s and early 200s. This doctrine was condemned as heresy in the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553. While it was "known," it also existed along side traducianism and creationism. So the idea that this doctrine was understood as the main truth and then discarded by evil clerics is unfair to history. However, let's examine the content of Origen's argument.
Romans 9:11-14 is used as "evidence" for his position:
For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
"Origen argued that God could not love Jacob and hate Esau until Jacob had done something worthy of love and Esau had done something worthy of hatred, therefore, this passage only means that Jacob and Esau had not yet done good or evil in this life and their conduct before this life was the reason why Esau would serve Jacob."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence
This line of logic is sloppy at best. we have to remember this is not about the boys. They have nothing wrong or good. That is the entire point. "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." The reason for this was to carry out a plan that was already in place. The resting point is on God himself. This was not about which boy earned it. It was about God doing what He set out to do. So using a pre-existence in which those works are the deciding factor when the entire point is "not of works, but of him that calleth." effectively smacks God in the face and completely overwrites what He is trying to say. The decision was about God, not the boys. Period.
So, Mr. Packer is insinuating that the Christians were wrong to declare this garbage thought process as heretical. Frankly, anytime a doctrine requires making a scripture mean the exact opposite of what is says it should be discarded as trash. We were right to ignore this though process. This was horrible exegesis.
However, The core of what Origen was trying to get is valid. His point was that it does not make sense for God to hate one person and love another for no reason. It runs counter to the revealed nature of God. For:
Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
and
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
God sees all people as sinful. This then begs the question: What was the purpose of God? God says He is not a respecter of persons so how come He seems to be acting in a completely arbitrary manner? What is the reason?
I will do my best to explain it. At first glance this section seems to indicate that God picked His preference of the two sons simply out of an arbitrarily will. This is not the case. Everything must be taken in complete context. In this section, the two are serving as symbols. God is speaking through Paul about what the two represent and God’s preference. This is not about how God arbitrarily decided to love one person and hate another. This is about two ways of thinking and acting represented by the two.
Before this section Paul is discussing his hope that the rest of the nation of Israel would be saved. Before that he was discussing how the law is not a valid way of getting into heaven. The only true way to please God was by accepting mercy and salvation and looking to God for holiness.
Gen 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife,because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
Gen 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
We have to remember that using the name of a person in the bible can mean both the individual person as well as the family line he founds or represents. We constantly refer to Israel. However, Israel is two things. The first is the individual person, Jacob; the other is the nation he founded.
In this case, there is further symbolism going on. Jacob represents a different kind of mentality from Esau. Esau was a man of the fields and the earth. Esau was focused on the world and gaining dominion over it rather than on spiritual things.
Gen 25:27 And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents.
Plain: H8535 (תּם) tâm: From H8552; complete; usually (morally) pious;specifically gentle,dear: - coupled together, perfect, plain, undefiled, upright
Jacob was focused on spiritual things. He was pious. Also, when it states that he was a dweller of tents that could very well be indicative of spending time with God. In that time the scriptures and other spiritual effects were kept in a dedicated tent.This would have been somewhat similar to the original tent-based tabernacle established with Moses. So this could be saying that Jacob spent most of his time reading and learning the scriptures and communing with God. This could be speculation on my part but it would match with the character of what is going on.
Gen 25:29 Once when Jacob was cooking stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was exhausted.
Gen 25:30 And Esau said to Jacob, "Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am exhausted!" (Therefore his name was called Edom.)
Gen 25:31 Jacob said, "Sell me your birth right now."
Gen 25:32 Esau said, "I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?"
Gen 25:33 Jacob said, "Swear to me now." So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob.
Gen 25:34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew,and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.
This story shows the character of the two men. Esau came in from the field hungry and wanted some of the food Jacob was cooking. Remember, this is part of the encampment of Issac. This guy was stupid rich by this point and had dozens if not hundreds of people attached to his camp. Esau could have gotten food very easily. There is no way that pot of soup was the only food to be had in the whole camp. The issue is Esau wanted THAT pot of soup NOW. He stated that he was exhausted which is indicative that he was just not in the mood to cook himself or did not care to wait for a servant to fix something.
Additionally, the scripture even points out that by this action Esau dispised the birthright.
Despise: H959 (בּזה) bâzâh: A primitive root; to disesteem:- despise, disdain, contemn (-ptible), + think to scorn, vile person.
Why is this so important? What was the birthright? The birthright was the promised seed of Abraham. More than this, it was about spiritual birthright. The spiritual birthright was possession and access to the scriptures and spiritual focus. Esau did not care for or esteem spiritual things. Jacob did. Jacob traded worldly possessions (the soup) for spiritual possessions (the birthright to the scriptures and position of communicating with God). Esau traded spiritual possessions (the birthright) for worldly and temporal gain (soup). This is about more than the fates of these two men. The later scriptures are using these two men as archatypes for the spiritually minded and carnally minded.
Additionally, Esau represents of the old covenant and Jacob represents the new. Esau was a man of the world. He lived in the world away from the camp. The scriptures at the time was kept in the tent at camp. Esau lived by the strength of his own arm and actions outside of the tent and thus lived separate from the word of God.
Remember: In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God... Jesus is the word. Esau is a man living in separation from Jesus. This represents the old covenant. Under the old covenant, the people lived separate from God trying to gain entrance to heaven by their own strength. Watch how this goes down:
Exodus 19
7And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.and
Exo 20:18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking. And when the people saw, they trembled, and stood afar off.
Exo 20:19 And they said to Moses, You speak with us, and we will hear. But let not God speak with us, lest we die.
Exo 20:20 And Moses said to the people, Do not fear, for God has come to test you, and so that His fear may be before your faces, so that you may not sin.
Exo 20:21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was.
Jacob, the younger brother and younger covenant, is the man who lives on the inside of the veil with the scripture and the word of God (i.e. Jesus). So what God is saying is that before either of these covenants were written and before either did anything good or bad, God choose the new covenant to love and the older covenant to hate so that the election of God might stand. That election was of appointing Jesus to the role of redeemer and savor. The election was so that salvation would not "be of works" because that would fail, but it would be of "Him who calleth." Salvation was elected to be through the calling of Jesus. That is what this passage means.
I suspect some out there might feel inclined to say I am making stuff up to arrive at a nice conclusion that does not included pre-existence. I will point to two things to support this interpretation. One is the context of the passage. again, remember that the context is Paul speaking of the nation of Israel and how they can not be saved by works through the old covenant. This passage is inside a discussion of salvation. So it would make sense that the passage continues the discussion using a parable of sorts. Also:
Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
The bible from beginning to end is about Jesus. All of it relates to Jesus is some form or fashion. So I would argue that an interpretation of scripture that is built upon the wider context of a scripture and is about the deity of Jesus is a far more appropriate application of scripture interpretation than making stuff up and inflicting it upon a passage to make say the exact opposite of what it truly means.
Packer's Talk
"Once they rejected this doctrine, the doctrine of premortal life, and the doctrine of redemption for the dead, they could never unravel the mystery of life. They became like a man trying to assemble a strand of pearls on a string that was too short. There is no way they can put them all together."
I completely disagree. Christianity losses nothing by rightly ignoring this doctrine. I have no trouble making sense of things without it. I would challenge anyone to show me how the mystery of life is harder to understand without this doctrine. I point people to my article on why pain exists. That line of thought did just fine without the doctrine of pre-existence.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/joshua-morris/pain-a-biblical-explanation/672379352791904
Additionally I would point to this scripture:
Joh 8:23 And He said to them, You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
Joh 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.
Joh 8:25 Then they said to Him, Who are you? And Jesus said to them, Even the same which I also say to you.
Joh 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you, but He who sent Me is true, and I speak to the world those things what I heard of Him.
Joh 8:27 They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father.
Joh 8:28 Then Jesus said to them, When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you shall know that I AM, and that I do nothing of Myself, but as My Father has taught Me, I speak these things.
Joh 8:29 And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things which please Him.
"Why is it so strange a thought that we lived as spirits before entering mortality? Christian doctrine proclaims the Resurrection, meaning that we will live after mortal death. If we live beyond death, why should it be strange that we lived before birth?"
It is strange because it is wrong and contrary to the Bible. There is nothing mind blowing or shocking about the idea. If God had wanted to create our spirits in heaven then united them with bodies that is fine. There is nothing inherently evil about the idea. It is just wrong.
"The Christian world in general accepts the idea that our condition in the Resurrection will be determined by our actions in this life. Why can they not believe that some circumstances in this life were determined by our actions before coming into mortality?"
Because it is not true and the bible says it is not so.
"The scriptures teach this doctrine, the doctrine of premortal life. For His own reasons, the Lord provides answers to some questions, with pieces placed here and there throughout the scriptures. We are to find them; we are to earn them. In that way sacred things are hidden from the insincere.
Of the many verses revealing this doctrine, I will quote two short phrases from the testimony of John in the ninety-third section of the Doctrine and Covenants. The first, speaking of Christ, says plainly, “He was in the beginning, before the world was.” D&C 93:7.)
And the other, referring to us, says with equal clarity, “Ye were also in the beginning with the Father.” (D&C 93:23.)"
I would very clearly state that the scriptures do not clearly teach this doctrine. The bible teaches the opposite in fact. Before I start in on that I would also like to note how the Scriptures Mr. Packer uses are extra biblical. Granted the LDS claims they are equal scripture. I would disagree but that is an article for another day. For now we simply point the reader to my article on the creation of man's spirit.
Count 2 - Creation of Spirits
"Essential facts about our premortal life have been revealed. Although they are sketchy, they unravel the mystery of life. When we comprehend the doctrine of premortal life, we know that we are the children of God, that we lived with him in spirit form before entering mortality."
The reason these facts are sketchy is because they are fundamentally wrong and, when "found" in the Bible, is inflicted on the scriptures or is only fully addressed in books which are not true scriptures.
"We know that this life is a test, that life did not begin with birth, nor will it end with death.
Then life begins to make sense, with meaning and purpose even in all of the chaotic mischief that mankind creates for itself."
Other than life beginning before earth, I agree with this statement.
"There is no way to make sense out of life without a knowledge of the doctrine of premortal life.
The idea that mortal birth is the beginning is preposterous. There is no way to explain life if you believe that."
I disagree. I can explain life just fine. I again challenge anyone to explain how I can't explain life without this false doctrine.
"The notion that life ends with mortal death is ridiculous. There is no way to face life if you believe that.
When we understand the doctrine of premortal life, then things fit together and make sense. We then know that little boys and little girls are not monkeys, nor are their parents, nor were theirs, to the very beginning generation."
Why the value of humanity depends on the pre-existence does not make sense. We are born and begin on earth and then will live for eternity either in heaven or hell after this existence. It is as simple as that.
"We are the children of God, created in his image.
Our child-parent relationship to God is clear.
The purpose for the creation of this earth is clear.
The testing that comes in mortality is clear.
The need for a redeemer is clear."
True.
"I have but touched upon the doctrine of premortal life. We cannot, in these brief conference talks, do more than that. Oh, if we but had a day, or even an hour, to speak of it."
I am starting to wonder. It might have been better for me to examine a more through explanation of the doctrine with a more through scriptural defense. This is what I had so this is what I worked with. I welcome comments, questions, etc.
Return to Mormon Main
No comments:
Post a Comment