Mormons and the Nicene creed

[Prince_Hal]

We accept both the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be inspired scripture and the word of God. But we think that the Book of Mormon has come down to us in a more direct way, hence less altered in the process; while the Bible has passed down to us through the hands of many copyists and translators, and unavoidably more changes has taken place in it. But both are of equal value as the word of God and inspired scripture.

zerinus

Not so. See my later post. As much as is said about the BofM and Bible being equal, it just ain’t so.

 

[Prince_Hal]

I figured I would post a reply that would refute these claims in as few words as possible (forgive the run-ons):

Which is more believable? That a group of people, who had understanding and knowledge handed down dating all the way back to Jesus and his apostles, came together and debated and through the gift of the Holy Spirit came to know the truth about Christianity. OR did God let humanity become confused about Jesus for 1800 years until he spoke to a guy in the U.S. and told him that every other church was offensive to God.​

I think that it’s pretty easy to see which one is more likely. I wrote this so it could be spoken to a Mormon. I left out current and past teachings of the Mormon Church that seem odd, or ridiculous. You can convert people by telling them they’re wrong, not by calling them an idiot. If you call something that people believe in stupid (even if you think it is), they will believe that you are calling them stupid.

I think the more we understand this principle, the better the Catholic Church will be. Thanks for reading. Reply if you have some insight for me.

God Bless,
YACatholic

I think that you make an excellent point. When speaking to investigators Mormon missionaries will often describe a great and universal apostasy after the last of the apostles were killed (excepting John). Then havinf set up a false scenario, will ask the person if they think that God loves people today as much as He did when Christ was on the earth. The answer is “Yes”. They will then launch into the restoration story with Joseph Smith.

But, your point well made is: did God love the people from the 3rd century to the 19th Century as much as He did those in the 1st and those now. OF COURSE HE DID. Then why did he remove His Church and His priesthood. Was it in a fit of rage ? Was this God throwing out His toys from His stroller ?

Was He angry because people killed His Son ? He knew Christ would die. Christ was God incarnate. Did He forget. No, of course He didn’t and all of the scriptures that talk about Him not leaving us orphans are true. He didn’t.

And the Nicene creed is just one more affirmation of God’s love. Confirming to us the marvellous mystery that He is. He is not a god made in man’s image. He is God. We cannot expect to see Him by the hearth with His feet up sipping sherry with a beard and looking like Santa. He is God and we see Him in the form of His Son showing us who He is.

Great point YAC.

God bless,

Hal.

 

[Chris-WA]

Not true. Mormons testify to the truth of the Restoration—the restored gospel of Jesus Christ through the Prophet Joseph Smith—and the Book of Mormon is part of that Restoration. That does not mean that we “put the Book of Mormon on a higher pedestal than the Bible”.

Zerinus, you dance around my comments like so many politicians answer questions posed upon them–skirting around the issues without giving a direct answer. I don’t know what ward you attend, but you know as well as I do that Mormons constantly testify to the truth of the BoM in their talks at church, but they never testify to the the truth of the bible. Countless times I have heard Mormons say in their talks, " I know the Book of Mormon is true." I have never heard a Mormon say, “I know the bible is true.” The bible always plays second fiddle to the BoM because the BoM is the centerpiece of the Mormon religion, and because Mormons believe the bible to contain many errors. So don’t try and tell us that LDS consider both of equal value. That is simply untrue.

We believe that the KJV is the best translation of the Bible that is available in English.

What is the basis of this belief?

 

[Chris-WA]

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].”

How does Elder Holland say this with a straight face–as if the Mormon version of God appears in the New Testament–a god who was once a man who progressed to godhood who has a god above him and is married to multiple wives. Where in the bible do we get any sense of this nonsense? The God of the bible is far more recognizable in the Nicene Creed than is the Mormon version of God. It’s not even close.

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.

Uh, what-- returns to the doctrine taught by Christ Himself? Where is he getting this stuff? Show me where Christ taught about God what is currently taught by the LDS Church. How can he be this ignorant of the bible and early Church history? He must be getting all his training filtered through LDS sources rather than reading them himself. And yet the Mormon masses take this nonsense without any questioning, and millions believe it without ever bothering to research it for themselves.

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.

This is where the LDS church gets God all wrong. The truth is that God in all His glory ***is incomprehensible. ***Mormons want to package God in a nice neat box that they can put a handle on. They want to make God in man’s image, instead of the other way around. Why is an incomprehensible God such an obstacle for LDS? Do we think ourselves so arrogant that we can really understand God? We know God because we have an intimate relationship with him through his Son. But we do not understand God in all his glory. This is the teaching of the bible and of the Catholic Church. If God were already a resurrected and exalted man, He could have just come down from heaven into the physical world and appeared as such–but he didn’t. God took on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. This is how God most fully revealed Himself to us.

 

[rwstout]

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.

And not only that… the LDS use the King James Version of the Bible which was translated around 1611 by what must have been, according to them, apostates.

 

[zerinus]

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.

That is false. Mormons do not discriminate between the Bible and modern LDS scripture in their teachings or preachings. They are used with equal authority and frequency.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

the unfounded allegations combined with the obvious falsehoods prove zerinus a voice to be ignored.

 

[NewSeeker]

That is false. Mormons do not discriminate between the Bible and modern LDS scripture in their teachings or preachings. They are used with equal authority and frequency.

zerinus

Oh come on Z! You’re being very disingenuous. What church members say in public about the bible is very different from what they do and say about it in practice at home and in the wardhouse. I’ve been a member all my life…and still go to church with my wife, despite the fact that I’m now attening RCIA. None of the mormons in my life growing up Utah or on my mission or where I live now have ever used the bible and book of mormon with equal frequency, and they certainly DO NOT hold them to be of equal authority. Joseph Smith himself declared the Book of Mormon to be “the most correct” book on earth and a man would grow closer to God by reading that book than any other book. The Prophet himself does not support your view that the Church holds the BOM and the Bible to be of equal authority.

NS

 

[zerinus]

That is false. Mormons do not discriminate between the Bible and modern LDS scripture in their teachings or preachings. They are used with equal authority and frequency.

zerinus

Oh come on Z! You’re being very disingenuous. What church members say in public about the bible is very different from what they do and say about it in practice at home and in the wardhouse. I’ve been a member all my life…and still go to church with my wife, despite the fact that I’m now attening RCIA. None of the mormons in my life growing up Utah or on my mission or where I live now have ever used the bible and book of mormon with equal frequency, and they certainly DO NOT hold them to be of equal authority. Joseph Smith himself declared the Book of Mormon to be “the most correct” book on earth and a man would grow closer to God by reading that book than any other book. The Prophet himself does not support your view that the Church holds the BOM and the Bible to be of equal authority.

NS

The Mormonism you describe is not the one I am acquainted with.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

“The Bible has been robbed of its plainness; many sacred books having been lost, others rejected by the Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and re-copied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to that degree that scarcely any two of them read alike.” (LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 213.)

 

[NewSeeker]

The Mormonism you describe is not the one I am acquainted with.

zerinus

Lol. Well then maybe you’re a Strangite or a Bickertonite, or perhaps a Reorg, 'cause based on that comment you sure don’t belong to the mainline church in SLC.

NS

 

[E.E.N.S]

That is false. Mormons do not discriminate between the Bible and modern LDS scripture in their teachings or preachings. They are used with equal authority and frequency.

zerinus

Why do the Mormons trust the Bible anyway? From what I gather, it was put together by an apostate church hundreds of years after the Apostles died. Seriously, I am curious about this one.

 

[cazayoux]

Why do the Mormons trust the Bible anyway? From what I gather, it was put together by an apostate church hundreds of years after the Apostles died. Seriously, I am curious about this one.

This was EXACTLY the point I brought up to the young men (elders?) that came to my home a few weeks ago. They weren’t able to specify when the great apostacy occurred, but knew that by 345 (?Nicaea?) it was gone.
I held one of their bibles and asked why they trust ‘this’ if it was assembled by a group that had no authority.
They kept shifting the conversation to Constantine.
I kept drawing the discussion back to the bible (KJV) they held and how they expect to trust any of it.
It was a cordial discussion throughout, but they left soon after being evasive regarding trusting the canon.

I keep waiting for them to come back… maybe with friends.
However, it’s been weeks now and I feel like there is a map of my neighborhood somewhere with an ‘X’ over my house.

michel

 

[zerinus]

This was EXACTLY the point I brought up to the young men (elders?) that came to my home a few weeks ago. They weren’t able to specify when the great apostacy occurred, but knew that by 345 (?Nicaea?) it was gone.
I held one of their bibles and asked why they trust ‘this’ if it was assembled by a group that had no authority.
They kept shifting the conversation to Constantine.
I kept drawing the discussion back to the bible (KJV) they held and how they expect to trust any of it.
It was a cordial discussion throughout, but they left soon after being evasive regarding trusting the canon.

I keep waiting for them to come back… maybe with friends.
However, it’s been weeks now and I feel like there is a map of my neighborhood somewhere with an ‘X’ over my house.

michel

That is not such a smart question as you think it is. I have already addressed it in this article.

zerinus

 

[Deconi]

That is not such a smart question as you think it is. I have already addressed it in this article.

zerinus

The problem with your “article,” zerinus, is that it presumes that God is not perfect! It also categorically ‘states’ that He made a mistake and that whatever church He started, has been overrun by the Devil. Thankfully, there was Joseph, to whom he can meet in the woods and give him better instructions.

Now, considering that God never spoke to anyone else but Jews in the entire Old Testament, next you’ll be telling me that the Mormons researchers have managed to find his lineage to, umm…say, the line of Benjamin or Zebulum.

If you honestly believe that God made a mistaken with the ‘first lot of Christians.’ how can you trust Him? He seems capable of making several mistakes, and continues to make mistakes.

**
Mind you, since your belief is that God was once an ordinary man, maybe He is still making mistakes! **

 

[zerinus]

The problem with your “article,” zerinus, is that it presumes that God is not perfect! It also categorically ‘states’ that He made a mistake and that whatever church He started, has been overrun by the Devil. Thankfully, there was Joseph, to whom he can meet in the woods and give him better instructions.

Now, considering that God never spoke to anyone else but Jews in the entire Old Testament, next you’ll be telling me that the Mormons researchers have managed to find his lineage to, umm…say, the line of Benjamin or Zebulum.

If you honestly believe that God made a mistaken with the ‘first lot of Christians.’ how can you trust Him? He seems capable of making several mistakes, and continues to make mistakes.

No, God did not make a mistake; but men transgress, and fall from the grace of God. Did God make a mistake when Adam fell, and brought about the fall of all mankind? Did God make a mistake when Cain killed his brother Abel? Did God make a mistake when the people living before the flood became so wicked that God had to destroy His own creation, and start afresh? Did God make a mistake when the people of Sodom and Gomorrah became so wicked that they had to be destroyed by fire and brimstone? Did God make a mistake when the Israelites failed to exercise faith in God, and take possession of their land of promise; and God had to make them wonder in the wilderness for 40 years until all the adult people of that generation had been destroyed? Did God make a mistake when the Israelites (God’s chosen people) became so sinful that God allowed their enemies to take them into captivity and exile? Did God make a mistake when Judas (one of the Lord’s own elect) betrayed Him and became lost forever? Similarly, God did not make a mistake when the church He had established fell into apostasy, and He had to start afresh in our time. That has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind throughout history.

**Mind you, since your belief is that God was once an ordinary man, maybe He is still making mistakes! **

That is a disingenuous and rather unintelligent comment.

zerinus

 

[Deconi]

No, God did not make a mistake; but men transgress, and fall from the grace of God. Did God make a mistake when Adam fell, and brought about the fall of all mankind? Did God make a mistake when Cain killed his brother Abel? Did God make a mistake when the people living before the flood became so wicked that God had to destroy His own creation, and start afresh? Did God make a mistake when the people of Sodom and Gomorrah became so wicked that they had to be destroyed by fire and brimstone? Did God make a mistake when the Israelites failed to exercise faith in God, and take possession of their land of promise; and God had to make them wonder in the wilderness for 40 years until all the adult people of that generation had been destroyed? Did God make a mistake when the Israelites (God’s chosen people) became so sinful that God allowed their enemies to take them into captivity and exile? Did God make a mistake when Judas (one of the Lord’s own elect) betrayed Him and became lost forever? Similarly, God did not make a mistake when the church He had established fell into apostasy, and He had to start afresh in our time. That has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind throughout history. ]

The BIG, GLARING problem with all your examples above is that they are ALL LINKED with an UNBROKEN LINE!! Scriptures continue without interruption!

Evidently, God did not ‘cancel’ the first intention and secrectly find a lonesome drifter in the woods to give him another version to start things off again!

Interesting that you quote Holy Scriptures instead of The Book of Mormon. I would have thought with ‘new revelations’ would have had all of the above explained.

That is a disingenuous and rather unintelligent comment.

zerinus

Thank you for describing your understanding more succinctly for me!

 

[zerinus]

The BIG, GLARING problem with all your examples above is that they are ALL LINKED with an UNBROKEN LINE!! Scriptures continue without interruption!

Evidently, God did not ‘cancel’ the first intention and secrectly find a lonesome drifter in the woods to give him another version to start things off again!

Interesting that you quote Holy Scriptures instead of The Book of Mormon. I would have thought with ‘new revelations’ would have had all of the above explained.

I fail to comprehend your comments. You don’t make a lot of sense to me.

Thank you for describing your understanding more succinctly for me!

Obviously you are incapable of rational debate.

zerinus

 

[cazayoux]

That is not such a smart question as you think it is. I have already addressed it in this article.

zerinus

Z,

I don’t agree that you have addressed the question in that article.
The issue either sidestepped or shows a complete lack of knowledge of history.

God “gave us” the Bible through His Chosen prophets and Apostles.

I agree. Jesus established His authoritative, apostolic church on earth. This is the church that wrote the new testament. This is the church that defined the canon.

The canon of the Old Testament was well known and established among the Jews long before the Catholic Church came along.

This shows a lack of knowledge of history.
At the time of Christ there were at least four groups of Jews that disagreed on what was and was not inspired scripture. The Jewish canon of today was decided in ~97AD. This group was the pharisaic Jews that were all that survived the persecution of the Jews that started with the destruction of the temple in AD70. As Christians, we do not believe the Jewish leadership that decided that canon in ~97AD to be authoritative. Jesus gave God’s authority to His church. It no longer rested with the Jews by ~97AD.

For the Catholic Church to lay exclusive claim to the Bible, would be like the Jews claiming the exclusive right to the Old Testament!

They do. We do not agree with them.

In the early days of the Christian church, it was pretty well established what was true NT scripture and what was not. … and there is general consensus among them as to what is true scripture and what is not.

‘pretty well established’ and ‘general consensus’ are not correct.
While this might apply to certain books (Matthew), this was not at all the case for the canon as a whole. There was MUCH disagreement about several books. More on this below.

The text of the NT that they quote is pretty close to the canon of the NT that we have today.

‘Pretty close’? I’m guessing, with the lack of knowledge of history shown so far, that you cannot produce this ‘pretty close’ list that you mention. If by chance you do produce this, we can further our discussion about the canon that we have today.

and the Christians eventually converged on what historically had been recognized as true NT scripture; is neither here nor there.

‘eventually converged’? You make it sound like the ‘inspired’ stamp was on each book that eventually became part of the NT and the canon was a foregone conclusion. If you are to speak of the past, you must learn history.
HOW did this convergence happen? I’ll tell you. A council of bishops of the church that Jesus Christ founded on earth and guided by the Holy Spirit discussed what should and should not be considered inspired. Some books that were hotly contested actually made it into the canon. Some books that many thought were inspired did not make it into the canon. Once the council’s decision was made, the discussion stopped. All accepted the council’s decision. Sound authoritative doesn’t it. Other councils in other parts of the world reiterated the same decision. ALL AGREED because of the council, not because they ‘eventually converged on what historically had been recognized’.

That is not such a smart question as you think it is. I have already addressed it in this article.

You have not ‘addressed’ this topic in the least. Please find/read some history on where we got the bible. I’m open to having further discussions once you can address actual history.

The canon of the NT that you hold in your KJV was defined authoritatively at the end of the fourth century. Why do you trust it if you claim all authority was gone by 345?

michel

 

[ryanoneil]

No, God did not make a mistake; but men transgress, and fall from the grace of God.

Similarly, God did not make a mistake when the church He had established fell into apostasy, and He had to start afresh in our time. That has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind throughout history.

Your correct that God did not make a mistake, and yes men fall from the grace of God. What you are wrong about is that God had to start afresh.

Matt. 13:24-30 - scandals have always existed in the Church, just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church. God’s mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time.

Matt. 13:47-50 - God’s plan is that the Church (the kingdom of heaven) is a net which catches fish of every kind, good and bad. God revealed this to us so that we will not get discouraged by the sinfulness of the Church’s members.

Matt. 16:18 - no matter how sinful its members conduct themselves, Jesus promised that the gates of death will never prevail against the Church.

Matt. 23:2-3 - the Jewish people would have always understood the difference between a person’s sinfulness and his teaching authority. We see that the sinfulness of the Pharisees does not minimize their teaching authority. They occupy the “cathedra” of Moses.

Matt. 26:70-72; Mark 14:68-70; Luke 22:57; John 18:25-27 - Peter denied Christ three times, yet he was chosen to be the leader of the Church, and taught and wrote infallibly.

Mark 14:45 - Judas was unfaithful by betraying Jesus. But his apostolic office was preserved and this did not weaken the Church.

Mark 14:50 - all of Jesus’ apostles were unfaithful by abandoning Him in the garden of Gethsemane, yet they are the foundation of the Church.

John 20:24-25 - Thomas the apostle was unfaithful by refusing to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, yet he taught infallibly in India.

Rom. 3:3-4 - unfaithful members do not nullify the faithfulness of God and the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Peace,

Ryan