Mormons and the Nicene creed

[Prince_Hal]

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.

 

[Bishopite]

"…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.

 

[Bishopite]

There is only one God (Isaiah 44:6)
We are to worship God alone (Exodus 20:4-5)

Yet Jesus allowed and is worshiped in the Bible.

Rev. 4:9-11; 5:8,12-14; 7:11-12 - both Jesus and the Father are worshiped. The Greek word for worship is “proskuneo” which always means the worship of God.

Matt. 2:2,11 - the magi who came to see the newborn Jesus came to worship Him.
Matt. 8:2 - a leper came to Jesus and worshiped Him without rebuke.
Matt. 14:33 - the apostles who were in the boat worshiped Jesus without rebuke.
Matt. 28:9 - Jesus’ disciples took His feet and worshiped Him without rebuke.
Matt. 28:17 - Jesus’ disciples saw Him and then worshiped Him.
Mark 5:6 - the man with the unclean spirit ran to Jesus and worshiped Him.
Luke 1:11 - Mary accepts Elizabeth’s declaration “the Mother of my Lord” = the Mother of my God (Elizabeth used the word “Adonai” which means “Lord God”).
Luke 24:52 - as Jesus ascended into heaven, the apostles worshiped Him.
John 9:38 - the blind man who was cured by Jesus worshiped Him. John 20:28 - Jesus accepts Thomas’ statement “My Lord and my God!” Literally, “the Lord of me and the God of me!” (in Greek, “Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou”).
This link is for the post above also.
scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html#jesus-V

 

[ryanoneil]

If Smith was right about apostasy, then Jesus was a pathetic failure when it came to establishing his Church. After all, what are we to think of his promises? If there really was a complete apostasy, how do we explain our Lord’s claim that his Church never would be overcome, “Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:19)? What about his promise that he would be with his Church until the end of time (Matt 28:20)? What about his promise to send the Holy Spirit as a guide who would abide with the Church (John 14:16,26)? What about the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth (John 16:13)?

Here is a link to the full article by Patrick Madrid ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MORMON2.HTM

 

[zerinus]

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.

The Mormon Church is not “opposed” to any church. Very often, however, they are “opposed” to us!

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.

LDS believe that all Christianity is “fallen away from the truth”. This, however, does not mean that we “oppose” them, or that we have an enmity towards them, or that we think that they are wholly evil and incapable of doing any good–even in a spiritual sense.

I am converting from Mormonism.

Congratulations! Are you a Catholic or a Mormon? Your profile says Catholic, your words say Mormon. Which one is it? It appears from what you have said that you are a practicing Mormon and bishop, but at the same time opposed to Mormonism and want to be something else. In that case you are nether a Mormon nor a Catholic. You are a hypocrite! And you can’t make up your mind what you want to be.

Can anyone help me in refuting this claim from the Mormon “prophet” ?

No one can help you refute this claim, because it is true.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

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 am also a Catholic convert from Mormonism. I attended Stake Conference with my Mormon wife and daughter yesterday and one of the members of the stake presidency tried to say the Nicene Creed was a compromise with Greek philosophy. To begin with there was no compromise. There were three positions. The Arian position stated that Jesus was not God. The orthodox defended the claim that Jesus is equal to God. As a third position a compromise was offered that said Jesus was similar to God. Both the Arian position and the compromise position were soundly defeated at the Council. The orthodox position was overwhelmingly approved – Jesus is of the same substance as the Father and not a created being. President Hinckley was simply being misleading by calling it a compromise when it was anything but that.

I should add that Arius’ position was in opposition to the settled doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Council used the Greek language to affirm the settled doctrine that Jesus was equal to God.

 

[BartBurk]

By the way some Mormons will criticize the use of the word homoouisos (one substance) in the creed because it is not found in scripture. Their complaint is meaningless since the canon was not settled until 25-30 years after the Nicene Creed was written. The Church was not limited to the use of only scriptural terms to define its doctrine. The term homoouisos does well describe the doctrine of Christ found in our Bible and was used to give the Arians no wiggle room to claim the Council allowed their position. In the end only two of the Bishops voted for the Arian position and over 300 voted against it.

 

[cazayoux]

Do Mormon’s consider the new testament to be the Word of God?

If so, why do they trust that the canon was authoritatively decided years after they claim that no authority remained.

I mean to ask, if all authority was gone by 345 (Nicaea) why do they trust something decided in 397?

michel

 

[BartBurk]

Do Mormon’s consider the new testament to be the Word of God?

If so, why do they trust that the canon was authoritatively decided years after they claim that no authority remained.

I mean to ask, if all authority was gone by 345 (Nicaea) why do they trust something decided in 397?

michel

They’ve accepted the Bible as the best available evidence from that era. They believe the Church Fathers ignored and deleted other scriptural texts from that time period. They can’t seem to point at a specific document they would have kept, but assume the important material that would validate the claims of Mormon doctrine have been destroyed or were too sacred to be put into writing.

 

[Jodi]

Try not to let Zerimus get you down he attacks anyone who used to be lds and left. He actually had me in tears over my keyboard at one point but his logic is a bit shakey so once you read enough of his posts he gets easier to ignore. You ask a great question and one I had myself. I did not understand the nicene creed or the trinity for some time. I still have trouble wrapping my head around it but I try to allow some room for me being finite minded considering eternal truths. I’ll try and get husbie to post on this one as he actually can explain it better than I can. I did more research on the priesthood line. I found two documented lines of hand to head ordinations that stretch back to christ. Kind of gets rid of the whole loss of the priesthood thing. My favorite rebuttal is that the priesthood must have been lost because the catholic church did such bad things. My response is that an ordination done by a bishop who was in adultry still counts and the lds man is still considered ordained so in that case it really is just a matter of a unbroken line.

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

I have read them all a number of times. I cannot understand them. I think others cannot understand them. . . …/

 

[Marc1152]

I have read them all a number of times. I cannot understand them.
.

I wonder what his problem is with comprehension? Seems pretty clear and straight foward to me:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man;

And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into the heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets;

In One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I Confess one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the life of the age to come, Amen.

 

[ryanoneil]

I** think the main reason Mormons don’t understand the Creed is becuase they have a false idea of God.**
“God the Father” to a Mormon is not God the Father, first Person of the Holy Trinity, whom Christians confess. He is one of many gods.
The Mormon worships God the Father because he is the god of this planet, but other planets have other gods equal to or even greater than God the Father.
The Mormon “God the Father” had a Father and was once a man on a planet who worshipped his own Father God. He was subsequently exalted to godhood. He has a physical, human body. It is the hope of the male Mormon to progress to the point where he too will be a god like God the Father and be ruling over his own planet.
The Mormons have a saying: “What man is, God once was; what God is, man will become.” This is polytheism.
No wonder Mormons can’t understand the Creed

To properly understand the Creed one must believe what the Bible says about God.
The God of the Bible is the Creator and God of all the universe, of all worlds, not just our planet. He made the heavens and the earth; there is no other God; there never has been any other God, nor will there ever be another. (Gen. 1.1; Isaiah 43.10; 44.6,8,24)
God the Father was never a man.
You will never be God.
True Christianity, like Judaism, is monotheistic. As our creed states “We believe in one God.”

Peace,

Ryan

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

“compromise”

Clearly the author of that fiction does not know whom was at the council. These men had the very marks of Christ in their bodies from torture.

The General Council having thus received authority from the king, the fathers directed that there should be gradations in the assembly and that each Bishop should sit in his place according to his rank. Chairs were there made for all and the king entered and sat with them. He kissed the spots which were the marks of Christ in their bodies. Of the 318 fathers, only 11 were free from such marks,

tertullian.org/fathers/marutha_nicaea_02_text.htm

Proof that arian tortures did not cease right away.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.txt

google.com/search?hl=en&q=Nicene+council++%22marks+of+Christ%22

 

[ryanoneil]

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.

The Facts about the "Apostasy"

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon2.html

Which Mormon group is the “Restored Church”?

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/mormonsects.html

 

[NewSeeker]

Gordon B. Hinckley made certain claims in his talk that can be tested against the evidence of history. All of the following evidences come from writings produced by men who lived during the time of Constantine and attended the Council of Nicea (esp. Eusebius and Athanasius). Their writings are easily accessible for those interested in reading translations of the original documents themeselves.

“Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century”

True. The scholarly consensus places his conversion, at the latest, in approximately, 321 a.d., since that is when he publicly declared his conversion. It is likely he converted earlier, given the evidence of his issuance of the Edict of Milan (313) and his placement of the Chi Rho, an ancient symbol of Christ, on the shields of his soldiers during the Battle of the Milvian Bridge one year earlier. Constantine claimed to have received a vision to place this symbol and attributed his subsequent victory to the placement of the chi rho symbol and publicly declared that the Christian God had given him his victory.

“He called together a great convocation of learned men”

Technically correct, but imprecise. He did call the council, but it was not a council of learned men but of bishops. Three attendees at the council have left us counts of the number of bishops, ranging between 270 and 218 (out of 2000 bishops invited to attend from East and West).

*“With the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity.” *

Also technically correct, but imprecise. In actuality, Constantine convened the council to address a disagreement that had arisen in the Church of Alexandria about the nature of God. In particular, a presbyter, Arius, had been teaching the doctrine that God and Jesus were not the same, but were of similar substance. The other point of view was that contained in the Nicene Creed, that God and Jesus are of the same substance. Arius and 22 supporters took the side of the Arian heresy and Athanasius stood for the majority view.

*“All they reached was a compromise of various points of view.” *

This is incorrect. The council debated for nearly a month and decided in favor of Athanasius. Contrary to Mormon tradition that states Constantine forced an outcome, Constantine DID NOT vote. All but two (more than 99%) of the bishops opposed Arius. Also contrary to Mormon tradition, the bishops did NOT invent the doctrine at the council, but affirmed what was declared by the 99% to have been taught from the beginning.

“The result was the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325.”

This is the first true, completely accurate thing Pres. Hinckley said in his discussion of the Creed’s history. But just to clarify, this was only it’s first draft. It was elaborated in later years, most notably in 381. But that’s another discussion.

“This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since.”

Also true.

In sum, Pres. Hinckley got it (mostly) wrong. Anyone can confirm these facts for themselves. The problem is that rank and file Mormons won’t. They don’t need to since the prophet speaks the words of God from the pulpit. Since they know the church is true, they already know what he taught at conference is true. So, don’t expect many mormons to be persuaded by such irrefutable evidence.

NewSeeker

 

[NewSeeker]

There were 270-318 bishops in attendance (not 270-218 as I mistakenly typed in my hastily written post).

NS

 

[tundramom]

While I was still a Mormon, I attended Mass with my Catholic husband. I remember sitting there so smugly as they recited the creed. I picked it apart… especially “He is seated at the right hand of the Father”. Well, DUH, my Mormon brain thought. Of course he sits at the right hand. He’s not the Father.

I finally submitted my limited human brain to the power of Almighty God and became Catholic. Now in my 7th year of being in the Church which Jesus Himself set up.

Still I find myself having to pick apart in my own puny brain those mormon thoughts from Christianity. It gets easier and easier and I don’t feel the need to point out all the inconsistencies of Mormonism as much as I used to. I’ve ended up just praying for their eyes to open.

in Christ
Steph

 

[zerinus]

*“All they reached was a compromise of various points of view.” *

This is incorrect. The council debated for nearly a month and decided in favor of Athanasius. Contrary to Mormon tradition that states Constantine forced an outcome, Constantine DID NOT vote. All but two (more than 99%) of the bishops opposed Arius. Also contrary to Mormon tradition, the bishops did NOT invent the doctrine at the council, but affirmed what was declared by the 99% to have been taught from the beginning.

That is entirely correct. Please note the following:

1. Constantine did influence the outcome. He did not have to “vote”. What he did was worse than voting. Firstly, he convened the council (where was the Pope then?). Secondly, he presided over the council (was not that the job of the Pope?). Thirdly, he participated in the debates. Fourthly, he exerted his imperial authority to influence the outcome. The homoousios, bit was added to the creed at the suggestion of Constantine. (Constantine was the first Pope!)
2. The bishops did “invent the doctrine at the council”. Jesus being homoousios with the Father was not historical Christian doctrine. It is unheard of in the Bible, or in the writings of the earliest Christian saints. It is an invention of the council.

zerinus

 

[Montalban]

That is entirely correct. Please note the following:

1. Constantine did influence the outcome. He did not have to “vote”. What he did was worse than voting. Firstly, he convened the council (where was the Pope then?).

In Rome!

Secondly, he presided over the council (was not that the job of the Pope?).

Not from an Orthodox point of view

Thirdly, he participated in the debates.

And?

Fourthly, he exerted his imperial authority to influence the outcome. The homoousios, bit was added to the creed at the suggestion of Constantine.

What proof have you got? The Mormon argument is self-refuting. You here claim he was the Pope, but the OP called it a ‘compromise’. Which is it? Was he so powerful that he had to pick the best offer he could from the Council, or did he rule it?

1. The bishops did “invent the doctrine at the council”. Jesus being homoousios with the Father was not historical Christian doctrine. It is unheard of in the Bible, or in the writings of the earliest Christian saints. It is an invention of the council.

zerinus