Mormons and the Nicene creed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prince_Hal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
zerinus said:
The Old Testament in particular makes references to many books that have been omitted from it, and is no longer found in the scriptural canon. There is plenty of evidence for that.
Click to expand...
No, the OT makes reference to other books where more information can be found about some of the wars, politics and deeds of famous people. It never says that those reference works are scripture.

Paul
 
In the October 2007 General Conference, Elder Holland, an apostle, expanded further upon what President Hinckley had said:

"Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].”

So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful.

In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, imminent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, . . . and I know not whom to adore or to address.” How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?"
 
No, not incomprehensible or inconceivable. Just unimaginable. There’s a difference.

NewSeeker
 
chasjohn said:
In the October 2007 General Conference, Elder Holland, an apostle, expanded further upon what President Hinckley had said:

"Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].”

So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful.

In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, imminent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, . . . and I know not whom to adore or to address.” How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?"
Click to expand...
These guys are a bunch of clowns. They’re so divorced from the facts, we might as well be debating scientology…
 
sorry… duplicated my message inadvertently. Please see below for my message. Thanks!
 
Dauphin said:
These guys are a bunch of clowns. They’re so divorced from the facts, we might as well be debating scientology…
Click to expand...
Um, may I kindly remind folks that there is no glory in calling anybody a name… 😦

nor is it helpful to bring someone over the Tiber, either, to do so. :rolleyes:

Just thought I’d mention this in agape love… Thanks for listening.
 
VeronicaAnne said:
Um, may I kindly remind folks that there is no glory in calling anybody a name… 😦

nor is it helpful to bring someone over the Tiber, either, to do so. :rolleyes:

Just thought I’d mention this in agape love… Thanks for listening.
Click to expand...
When they take off their magic underpants, I’ll agree to stop calling them clowns. 😛
 
Prince_Hal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is this prophecy what you are refering to?

On September 22 and 23, 1832, Joseph Smith prophesied of an LDS temple to be built in the city of Independence, Missouri. This is the wording of the prophecy:

�(1)A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and six elders, as they united their hearts and lifted their voices on high. (2)Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. (3)Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. (4)Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. (5)For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord…�(D&C: Section 84:1-5)

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/mormon6.html

If it is, then you will be very interested in what this article has to say.

Peace,

Ryan 🙂
 
I don’t consider the Nicene Creed to be incomrehensible. It’s pretty straightforward in describing our beliefs.
chasjohn said:
In the October 2007 General Conference, Elder Holland, an apostle, expanded further upon what President Hinckley had said:

"Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].”

So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful.

In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and ot
hers to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, imminent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, . . . and I know not whom to adore or to address.” How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?"
Click to expand...
 
Where’s Zernius’ proofs about the “Pope” Constantine the Great?
 
With_Love said:
If ancient Israel perpetually cycled through Apostasy and Dispensation, what was the conditions of their sacred text (The Old Testament) when Jesus came to earth during the Fullness of time?(Gal.4:4) Was the Old Testament in need of restoration? Where in the Old Testament does it gave an example of the scriptures or Law becoming corrupt and being restored as apposed to losing the Law of Moses and Finding it again(See 2 Chronicles 34:14) or proclaiming the same word after the Exile (See Nehemiah 8:1-8). There is no indication that the Law was corrupted, just that it was not used correctly by the people.

When did Jesus Correct the Old Testament Scriptures? Why did the New and Old Testament Scriptures become distorted after a few hundred years of Apostasy (Especially When Jesus promised the Protection of the Holy Spirit, John 14:26) when Ancient Israel was able to preserve the Sacred Text through war, apostasy, exile.

Jesus seems to cite scripture frequently, especially to build support for His teaching authority. See Matthew 19:3-12/Genesis 2:23-24; Matthew 12:1-9/Deuteronomy 23:24,25; Matt 22:31,32/Exodus 3:6;
Matthew 22:41-46/Psalm 110:1

In Luke’s Gospel Chapter 16:27-31, we hear about the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. He is addressing the Pharisees who were the Custodians/Bearers of the Law and Prophets to the People of Israel. In these scriptures Jesus claims that the Current condition of the Law and the Prophets was as great of a conversion witness as actually seeing the resurrection of the dead.

The Law was proclaimed to the whole Assembly of Israel every seven years.(See Deuteronomy 31:9-12)

Jesus Know the scriptures extensively (John 7:15), and he never criticizes or contradicts the sacred texts themselves. Rather he fulfills and corrects the interpretations of the people.

Jesus apparently felt that the contemporary conditions of the Sacred Texts was worth maintaining until heaven and earth pass away. Matt 5:17-48, Luke 16:16. No talk of corrections here.

Jesus felt that the current teaching authority of the Pharisee, and there interpretation of scripture was adequate. See Matthew 23:1-4 (Jesus differentiates the corrupted oral traditions of men, (Mark 7:1-23) and those teachings grounded in the scriptures which is approved of by Christ.

St. Paul seems very sure about the origin and teaching authority of ALL scripture. He quotes scripture extensively in his epistles and addresses a Jewish Audience (Who themselves were very familiar with Scripture) and never has to correct the scripture texts. (2 Timothy 3:16)

Just Throwing that out there.
Click to expand...
I answered that in Post #37 above. I don’t know why you are “throwing out” these.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
The changes occurred both in the old Jewish scriptures as well as in the New Testament scripture. The changes consisted mainly of important passages being omitted form it, rather than words changed to read differently. The Old Testament in particular makes references to many books that have been omitted from it, and is no longer found in the scriptural canon. There is plenty of evidence for that.
zerinus
Click to expand...
What Was that evidence again? I think I missed it. LOL
But seriously though, there isn’t much evidence to support you claim, but I provided a several paragraphs of support for the continual inerrancy of scripture. See #52
 
With_Love said:
What Was that evidence again? I think I missed it. LOL
But seriously though, there isn’t much evidence to support you claim, but I provided a several paragraphs of support for the continual inerrancy of scripture. See #52
Click to expand...
There are loads. Have a look at this post.

zerinus
 
If, for example, the LDS church uses historical documents like the Constitution or Declaration of Independence to provide a historical premise for some theological point of view, would those referenced documents become scripture? In the same sense, Those Old Testament books that refer to other source are using Jewish historical records but these other books are not Canonical Sacred Scripture.
 
With_Love said:
If, for example, the LDS church uses historical documents like the Constitution or Declaration of Independence to provide a historical premise for some theological point of view, would those referenced documents become scripture? In the same sense, Those Old Testament books that refer to other source are using Jewish historical records but these other books are not Canonical Sacred Scripture.
Click to expand...
Then you didn’t read my article properly. Go and read it again.

zerinus
 
As a Catholic Christian, the fullness of truth is found in the Church (1 Tim 3:15) that Jesus Christ Established. Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. (John 14:6) And Jesus alone reveals the Father to the world.(John 1:18, 14:9)

The Church Says that there are 73 books in the bible and that all others are not apart of sacred scripture. That other books may have there place in Sacred Tradition, but not in the canon. We must trust in the Church which Jesus established.
 
With_Love said:
As a Catholic Christian, the fullness of truth is found in the Church (1 Tim 3:15) that Jesus Christ Established. Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. (John 14:6) And Jesus alone reveals the Father to the world.(John 1:18, 14:9)

The Church Says that there are 73 books in the bible and that all others are not apart of sacred scripture. That other books may have there place in Sacred Tradition, but not in the canon. We must trust in the Church which Jesus established.
Click to expand...
I don’t know why you bother.

zerinus
 
cazayoux said:
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
Click to expand...
Well, the LDS Articles of Faith state that the LDS church believes that the Book of Mormon is the “word of God”, but that the Bible is only “the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly”.

It is my experience that the Bible is very much subservient to the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenents. Certainly at a ground roots level - Sunday sacrament meeting - the talks concentrate on the LDS specific scriptures to the neglect of the Bible. The Book of Mormon is after all what makes them different and is as they say “the keystone of our religion”. In fact Joseph smith said that a man would draw nearer to God by abiding by the precepts of the Book of Mormon, than by any other book - Bible included.

I hope this helps. It is so sad. The BofM is pitiful in comparison to the Bible. Mark Twain called it chloroform in print.

God bless,

Hal.
 
ryanoneil said:
Is this prophecy what you are refering to?

On September 22 and 23, 1832, Joseph Smith prophesied of an LDS temple to be built in the city of Independence, Missouri. This is the wording of the prophecy…:

Thanks Ryan.

This is of course a very interesting Mormon scripture and evidence that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet - but that is a subject for another thread.

I was simply referring to April 6th 1830 when the LDS church was formally constituted in American law.

God Bless,

Hal.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top