Mormons and the Nicene creed

[cazayoux]

I have answered that in this blog post.

Z

Overall, your explanation of scripture is unsatisfactory. You do scriptural gymnastics to twist scripture to say what you want it to say or even to explain away what it plainly says. In one instance you derive a word (‘restore’) where the word was never used. You even ignore the fact that Jesus changed someone’s name. How often in history has God changed someone’s name? It is significant that Jesus changes Simon’s name, but you give this no concern whatsoever.

I get where you are going later in your article, though.
Personal revelation means everything to you.
No body has authority.
Personal revelation is your guide … your bible.
You decide what is and is not.
Everybody is their own authority.
I guess by this logic, not even the LDS is authoritative.

What if a fellow LDS has a personal revelation that contradicts one that you have?
What if you have a revelation, then later have another revelation that contradicts the first? Was the first not true, or only true until the second occurred? How do you know it is okay to trust the second revelation if it might be supplanted or overturned in the future by a third revelation?

Jesus founded a teaching church.
It is not a collection of self-teaching individuals.

michel

 

[ryanoneil]

Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)

These are the questionable ones. There are no scriptural bases for these assertions. The references sited to not establish the fact.

zerinus

Rev. 3:14 - “These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the source of God’s creation.”

Notice the text does not say Christ was created. The Greek word translated as “source” or “origin” is arche. It connotes “the eternal source of all that is.”

In Revelation 21:6 God the Father is called the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end . . . I shall be His God and He shall be My Son.” But Jesus is called the “Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end” in Revelation 22:13.

**How can Jesus and God the Father both be the “Alpha and the Omega?” **

**Does this mean that God the Father had a “beginning,” because arche is used to describe Him? **

Here arche means “the source of all being.” Jesus is the source of the creation of God because he is the creator of all things. John 1:1-3 says Jesus (the Word) created “all things . . . and without Him was made nothing that was made.”

If Christ was created, He would have had to have created Himself, which is impossible. He was begotten because He is part of the Trinity.

I also think Colossians 1:15-17 speaks to this part of the creed.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[cazayoux]

Quote:

Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)

Ryan gave some great info, but I wanted to throw in another tidbit.

Gen 1:26

Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. …”

Why does God use the ***plural ***forms: ‘us’ and ‘our’?

michel

 

[BartBurk]

It is not “Smith’s creation”. It is Christ’s creation. Smith was an instrument in the Lord’s hand to bring it about. It is the “stone cut out without hands” that grew and destroyed all other kingdoms and stood forever (Daniel 2:45). “Cut out without hands” means that the agent of its creation was God, not man. God makes use of men to bring about His eternal purposes.

zerinus

It seems to me the Catholic Church is already fulfilling that prophecy. It is already found throughout the earth and is God’s earthly kingdom. If you want to argue which church best fits that prophecy, the Catholic Church or the LDS Church, the Catholic Church wins that one hands down. It has been continually moving throughout the earth and advancing against the gates of hell since the time it was found by Christ during his earthly ministry.

 

[zerinus]

I find your three posts confusing and do not relate properly to what I had said; that is why I am not going to give them a detailed reply. I will, however, briefly comment on one point you had raised:

The bible however warns us *against *personal revelation.
The fruits of personal revelation as the authority can be seen by the multitudes of protestant denominations and pseudo-Christian sects that have come on the seen in the last few hundred years.

I did not invent the “personal revelation” bit, the Lord did:

“Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17).

These are not my words; they are the Lord’s words. The knowledge of the divinity of Jesus Christ and true religion can only come by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. There is no other way.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Ryan gave some great info, but I wanted to throw in another tidbit.

Ryan gave no info. His post did not address my concerns nor objections.

Gen 1:26

Why does God use the ***plural ***forms: ‘us’ and ‘our’?

michel

We believe that “us” here refers to the Father and the Son.

zerinus

 

[cazayoux]

that is why I am not going to give them a detailed reply.

I find that you have not yet given any detail.
Any time we start discussing something, you give a link.
I read the link and respond to what was at that link.
You reply as you have above.

The method seems to be more of a hit and run and throw a link out as you drive by.

I don’t plan to read anything more from your links since you do not respond when I read them.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

“us” here refers to the Father and the Son.

zerinus

I don’t understand.
I thought that LDS taught that the Father was before the Son.
This is Chapter 1 and the creation of the universe.
From the initial point of the Word to the creation of man there is no discuss of the creation of Jesus, but there is a ‘we’.
So the Father and the Son are one.

In a previous post you equated ‘The Father’ and ‘The Holy Spirit’.
What keeps you from the trinity?

michel

 

[ncgolf]

I find your three posts confusing and do not relate properly to what I had said; that is why I am not going to give them a detailed reply. I will, however, briefly comment on one point you had raised:

I did not invent the “personal revelation” bit, the Lord did:

“Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17).

These are not my words; they are the Lord’s words. The knowledge of the divinity of Jesus Christ and true religion can only come by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. There is no other way.

zerinus

What did Peter do with this knowledge … he sure did not begin his own religion. God always reveals himself to us … the finite cannot grasp the infinite … Jesus is telling Peter you didn’t figure this out by yourself. Any believing person had this happen to them but why stop at Verse 17 … the meat comes when authority is given to Peter … Christ says to Peter … I am going to create a Church … nothing shall prevail against it … and what do on earth shal be done in heaven.

The important thing was Jesus in the flesh was talking to Peter … this was no vision … it was the Truth telling his disciples what was going to happen. This narrative was done in front of all the disciples … Peter was not alone, coming back to the disciples telling them what he saw. No, all the disciples heard this from Jesus, himself. Public revelation.

So that is the crux … Jesus, in the flesh, telling his disciples about the origins of the Church He was creating versus … a man alone getting instructions in a vision. The Truth speaking or a man speaking the truth? Public versus private.

“the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it …” either Jesus spoke the truth or he was mistake. The LDS’s of the apostasy must overcome Christ’s own words.

 

[BartBurk]

I don’t understand.
I thought that LDS taught that the Father was before the Son.
This is Chapter 1 and the creation of the universe.
From the initial point of the Word to the creation of man there is no discuss of the creation of Jesus, but there is a ‘we’.
So the Father and the Son are one.

In a previous post you equated ‘The Father’ and ‘The Holy Spirit’.
What keeps you from the trinity?

michel

There is no such thing as before and after in Mormonism. According to Mormonism, everyone has always existed as eternal intelligence. We’ve always existed in some form – our earliest form was as intelligence. It is an open question in Mormonism whether or not our intelligence always had an individual personality, but I would guess most Mormons believe it did. We all continue to progress forever. None of us were actually created from nothing – all of us in a sense just “are.” There is no ontological difference between God and man – God is simply a being who has progressed further than some of us and maybe not as far as some who attained Godhood earlier. I have never been able to find out whether or not Mormons believe an ultimate God or first cause exists. I do know that Mormons believe intelligence cannot be destroyed. Mormons contend that spirit is material and I assume they also believe that intelligence is material.

Essentially Mormons believe that God and man all share the same nature. In this respect they could technically accept the teaching in the Nicene Creed that God and Jesus are of the same substance. They would also include us as being one in substance with the Father and the Son since substance means nature.

 

[zerinus]

I don’t understand.
I thought that LDS taught that the Father was before the Son.

We believe that the Father created or begat the spirits of all men in the pre-existence long before the creation of this earth. The Son was the agent in the hand of the Father in creating all other things.

This is Chapter 1 and the creation of the universe.

It is chapter one of the creation of this earth.

From the initial point of the Word to the creation of man there is no discuss of the creation of Jesus, but there is a ‘we’.

Not true. “we” (or rather “us”) is first introduced in verse 26.

So the Father and the Son are one.

The Father and the Son are one in purpose, mind, and will; but they are two separate beings.

In a previous post you equated ‘The Father’ and ‘The Holy Spirit’.

I did not.

What keeps you from the trinity?

Nothing. We believe in a “Trinity” of three separate beings; which is not the Trinity of orthodox Christendom.

zerinus

 

[Monkey1976]

It is chapter one of the creation of this earth.

zerinus

The first chapter of Genesis plainly states that God created Heaven and all the stars as well. I checked this against the online Bible from lds.org.

One thing I did notice there is that Genesis 1:1 contradicts Abraham 4:1. Genesis refers to God in the singular as the creator, but Abraham 4:1 refers explicitly to multiple gods. If the LDS community accepts the book of Abraham as inspired scripture on the level of the Bible or the BoM, how can the reference to multiple gods be reconciled with the first line of the creed: “We believe in ONE God”? Taking it further, how can it be brought in line with the Sh’ma (an ancient Jewish prayer from Deuteronomy 6:4): “Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad” (“Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God! The Lord is One!”)? This, too, specifies only one God.

Please note that the above-mentioned quotes are not in opposition to the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, as the three persons (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) are still a single God.

 

[ncgolf]

We believe that the Father created or begat the spirits of all men in the pre-existence long before the creation of this earth. The Son was the agent in the hand of the Father in creating all other things.

Is this from the Bible or the Book of Mormon or something else?

The Father and the Son are one in purpose, mind, and will; but they are two separate beings.

Is this from the Bible or the Book of Mormon or something else?

 

[BartBurk]

The Father and the Son are one in purpose, mind, and will; but they are two separate beings.

zerinus

Define the word “being”. Are we separate beings or of the same being? What do you think the Nicene Creed means when it says the Father and the Son are “of one being?”

 

[zerinus]

Is this from the Bible or the Book of Mormon or something else?

It is taught in modern LDS scripture and it also conforms with what is taught in the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts it.

Is this from the Bible or the Book of Mormon or something else?

The same here. It is taught both in the Bible and in Modern LDS scripture.

zerinus

 

[ncgolf]

Mormons believe that Christ did start the Church but it soon fell away from its original teaching and that the original teachings of Christ were restored directly to Joseph Smith. Smith recieved God’s promise that this was never to be take from his children again. This last piece is taken from this website mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/the-restoration-of-truth/the-great-apostasy.

So God’s promise to Smith sounds strangely similiar to Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18. Jesus promised Peter that the gates of Hell would never prevail. What I find interesting in God’s promise to Smith is the word ‘again’. Jesus’ promise was broken … it would have to have been for the word ‘again’ meaning there was an original promise, it was here and then taken. This seems contrary to Jesus’s original promise. Do Mormon’s believe that Jesus’s protection of His church in Matthew was not upheld? Divine protection so easily thwarted in the Early Church.

Even if it did not have the word again we must measure two person’s words on the subject … Jesus Christ speaking to Peter and the other disciples or to Joseph Smith’s personal account of God speaking to him. Both contain a promise of protection … and if this is assumption iscorrect then both cannot the true Church.

 

[East_and_West]

Actually not. No Pope has ever attended an ecumenical council much less ruled over one…

Well, none of the first seven, that is. But remember, there were 14 others.

 

[mercygate]

In the October 2007 General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), President Gordon B. Hinckley said this in the closing talk of one of the sessions:

"…When Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since.

I have read them all a number of times. I cannot understand them. I think others cannot understand them. I am sure that the Lord also knew that many would not understand them. And so in 1820, in that incomparable vision, the Father and the Son appeared to the boy Joseph. They spoke to him with words that were audible, and he spoke to Them. They could see. They could speak. They could hear. They were personal. They were of substance. They were not imaginary beings. They were beings tabernacled in flesh. And out of that experience has come our unique and true understanding of the nature of Deity."

The Mormon church is opposed to the Catholic church. Whilst it does its best to be friendly, its doctrines require the Catholic church to be heretical and fallen away from the truth that Christ placed upon the earth and which has been restored (according to Mormonism) in the latter days - 1830 to be precise.

I am converting from Mormonism. Can anyone help me in refuting this claim from the Mormon “prophet” ?

God bless you,

Hal.

Pick one: A messy, rowdy, council of men driven to discern the nature of the Person of Jesus Christ or a neat, tidy personal revelation after abandoning the people of God to soul-damning error for 1500 years.

I’ll pick messy. I’ll pick history.

NOBODY undertands the Trinity.

 

[BartBurk]

Pick one: A messy, rowdy, council of men driven to discern the nature of the Person of Jesus Christ or a neat, tidy personal revelation after abandoning the people of God to soul-damning error for 1500 years.

I’ll pick messy. I’ll pick history.

NOBODY undertands the Trinity.

The Mormons have the soul-damning part covered through their work for the dead. So the error only mattered temporarily.

 

[zerinus]

Define the word “being”. Are we separate beings or of the same being?

I mean two separate personages, in the same way that you and I are two separate personages. Joseph Smith saw them as two separate personages.

What do you think the Nicene Creed means when it says the Father and the Son are “of one being?”

I am not going to interpret the Nicene Creed. You tell me what you think it means, and I will tell you whether I agree with it or not.

zerinus