Mormons and the Nicene creed

[zerinus]

They do. We do not agree with them.

And likewise we do not agree with you.

zerinus

 

[ncgolf]

From the website reliogioustolerance.org … I only post this as I know some LDS history but in general am not well versed in all its orgins.

Smith’s first vision:
He received his answer in the form of his first vision in 1820, at the age of 14 in Palymra. God and Jesus Christ appeared before Joseph as two separate persons, apparently in flesh and blood bodies. This conflicts with the traditional Christian beliefs that God is a spirit, and that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit consist of three persons in a single entity.

Smith wrote that he was told by Jesus to:

“join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof’.” 2

Smith was also told to a major personal assignment in the future.

Belief in this vision is a central belief of the LDS Church. LDS president, Gordon B. Hinckley, has said:

“We declare without equivocation that God the father and his son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy, Joseph Smith. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision.” 3

During an interview with PBS, Hinckley stated:

"…it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that’s exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That’s our claim. That’s where we stand, and that’s where we fall, if we fall. But we don’t. We just stand secure in that faith. 4

Based on this there can never be a bridging between Catholicism and LDS. The Creed is an overview of Catholic theology and from the beginning of the Creed the two are opposed … specifically the doctrine of the Trinity.

Only time will tell … give LDS another 2500 years and we shall see more clearly what we are discussing now. Catholicism never denies its Jewish roots, its ties to God’s first revelation of Himself to Abraham beginning the salvation history of the Jews and laying the groundwork for the Messiah. The sheer weight of this history is what is the Mormon church must counter.

God’s use of time is interesting in that it was around 2000 years of prophets laying this groundwork for the coming Messiah. The Messiah is born, completes His mission work and is killed … completing the Old Testament prophocies … yet Jesus Christ, God Himself on earth, was not able to protect the Church He founded, it falls apart a few generations after its beginning. I have never understood that about Mormonism … that God Himself could not protect the sanctity of His church that what God could not do … man can.

 

[cazayoux]

And likewise we do not agree with you.

zerinus

Is that the only response?!
I’ll bite on this response you’ve left, in hopes that by continuing to converse, we might - of the heart - convert.

The reason we do not agree with them is that we believe Jesus Christ came to fulfill the old testament.
That he came with all power on heaven and earth.
That he built a church.
That he gave that church authority.
He promised that that church would NEVER fail.

The reason you do not agree with Catholics is that you believe there was a great apostacy in which no authority remained on earth. However, you still consider inspired the Word of God as the Catholic Church says it is. The apostacy you have been taught, never happened. We have historical records of every apostacy and heresy. We have historical records of the practices of the early church. None of the practices of these earliest Christians resemble Mormonism. There is no record of a complete apostacy. No record of the outrage that would have ensued. It’s wake up time. To SEEK the truth is to seek Jesus. Please read and investigate further. Search your heart. PRAY! The New Testament you hold is a gift. Please read it earnestly and be open to what you learn. If you have questions, please ask. I know these discussions can get heated sometimes and people seem less than charitable, but know that we are here for you if there is anything you have questions about.

michel

 

[zerinus]

The reason you do not agree with Catholics is that you believe there was a great apostacy in which no authority remained on earth.

The reason I disagree with Catholics is that I have a spiritual witness that the Restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith in the latter days is true. I have read the Book of Mormon, and the Spirit of the Lord bears witness to me that it is a revelation from God, and it is true.

zerinus

 

[Deconi]

The reason I disagree with Catholics is that I have a spiritual witness that the Restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith in the latter days is true. I have read the Book of Mormon, and the Spirit of the Lord bears witness to me that it is a revelation from God, and it is true.

zerinus

Then, like Smith, you believe God is capable of mistakes!

Remain Mormon then, for we truly are not speaking of the same God.

 

[BartBurk]

The reason I disagree with Catholics is that I have a spiritual witness that the Restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith in the latter days is true. I have read the Book of Mormon, and the Spirit of the Lord bears witness to me that it is a revelation from God, and it is true.

zerinus

The only way you can maintain this “witness” is to ignore all of the evidence which shows the witness is not from God. Maybe you concocted it yourself, maybe it comes from another source, but it doesn’t come from God because God doesn’t testify of falsehood. I can remember hearing talks by an LDS General Authority by the name of Paul Dunn. He talked about his major league baseball career and had several war stories from World War II. Later the Arizona Republic revealed that all of his stories were false, but so many of us claimed to have felt the Spirit listening to his talks at BYU and in General Conference. When your witness contradicts the truth, it isn’t of any value whatsoever. The Book of Mormon has been shown to be false. There is no evidence of Hebrew influence in the New World and the people have been shown to have come from Siberia.

On the other hand, the Creed is what was taught by the Christian Church from the time of Christ until today. There is a continuous teaching we can trust without having to rely on our feelings to confirm it. It is time the Mormon Church comes clean – there simply is no evidence of Mormon beliefs existing in the first century either in the New World or in Palestine.

 

[zerinus]

The only way you can maintain this “witness” is to ignore all of the evidence which shows the witness is not from God. Maybe you concocted it yourself, maybe it comes from another source, but it doesn’t come from God because God doesn’t testify of falsehood. I can remember hearing talks by an LDS General Authority by the name of Paul Dunn. He talked about his major league baseball career and had several war stories from World War II. Later the Arizona Republic revealed that all of his stories were false, but so many of us claimed to have felt the Spirit listening to his talks at BYU and in General Conference. When your witness contradicts the truth, it isn’t of any value whatsoever. The Book of Mormon has been shown to be false. There is no evidence of Hebrew influence in the New World and the people have been shown to have come from Siberia.

You can say what you like. I never have any doubts in my mind that the Book of Mormon is true.

On the other hand, the Creed is what was taught by the Christian Church from the time of Christ until today. There is a continuous teaching we can trust without having to rely on our feelings to confirm it.

That is not true. The Creed was never taught in the early church or in the time of Christ.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

You can say what you like. I never have any doubts in my mind that the Book of Mormon is true.

That is not true. The Creed was never taught in the early church or in the time of Christ.

zerinus

The Creed teaches that Jesus is God. That is the teaching of the Bible as well. You’d have to ignore what the New Testament says to come to any other conclusion. Read this article here on Catholic Answers:

catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Christ.asp

 

[ncgolf]

You can say what you like. I never have any doubts in my mind that the Book of Mormon is true.zerinus

You have never had any questions … basic things like if Jesus is God, how could he fail at ensuring his Church would endure … at least as long as the Jews had been around (2000 years). According to Smith the Church failed what … 100 years after Christ’s death? How could God have failed so miserably? Another one is why would prophets be needed if Christ has already come and completed his work? The prophets ended with John the Baptist. Does the Mormon chuch complete some unfinished busines of Christ? If God himself could not prevent an apostosy what prevents the Mormons from falling into the same fate? or is there the possibility that another prophet would come and correct your church? I would think some sort of divine protection is needed … does that guarantee exist within the Mormon church? What greater protection do the Mormons have that was not given to the early Church by Christ himself?

Hinckley himself says the Mormon church rests in the validity of Smith’s vision and so that vision must be answer some basic questions.

 

[cazayoux]

zerinus;2963136[COLOR="DarkRed":

That is not true. The Creed was never taught in the early church or in the time of Christ.

zerinus

We both believe in scripture, so let’s look at the creed in those terms.

The Nicene Creed has been used for millenia by the church to define the boundaries of orthodoxy within Christianity. The contents of the Nicene Creed conveniently summarizes the main doctrines found in the Bible that are held by Evangelical Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity. The Nicene Creed itself has been used since the beginning of church history to battle heresy. It summarizes issues like the Trinitarian nature of God, the Divinity of Christ and other basic doctrines of mainstream Christianity that are agreed upon by all major Christian denominations and churches.

The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references as it is based on the Bible)

We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
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)
through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)
suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)
Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. (Ephesians 4: 5)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)

 

[Good_Daughter]

The reason I disagree with Catholics is that I have a spiritual witness that the Restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith in the latter days is true. I have read the Book of Mormon, and the Spirit of the Lord bears witness to me that it is a revelation from God, and it is true.

zerinus

The reason I disagree with Mormons is that I have a spiritual witness that the preservation of the gospel by the Holy Spirit through the successors of the apostles is true. I have read the Book of Mormon, and the Spirit of the Lord bears witness to me that I, personally, lack the authority to declare it true, therefore I must not regard it as such.

Why do we receive conflicting witnesses? How do we know which is valid?

 

[zerinus]

The Nicene Creed has been used for millenia by the church to define the boundaries of orthodoxy within Christianity. The contents of the Nicene Creed conveniently summarizes the main doctrines found in the Bible that are held by Evangelical Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity. The Nicene Creed itself has been used since the beginning of church history to battle heresy. It summarizes issues like the Trinitarian nature of God, the Divinity of Christ and other basic doctrines of mainstream Christianity that are agreed upon by all major Christian denominations and churches.

The creeds contain some true elements, but also some false ones. The false ones are sufficiently serious as to render the whole of no values.

The creeds may have been in use for many centuries, and may be regarded by mainstream Christendom as the “test of orthodoxy;” but that does not make them true. The ecumenical creeds originate from the fourth century onwards, and were not taught in the early church. There were no creeds taught by the Lord, and none is found in scripture.

The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references as it is based on the Bible)

We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

I have no problem accepting all the above.

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)

The same here. I accept all the above.

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.

through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)
suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

I have no problem with the above either. The way in which they are worded may not be optimal in all cases; but in general they are acceptable as far as I am concerned.

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)
Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

I agree with these also.

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

Not sure how to interpret that. There is such a thing known as the “Catholic Church,” which is an ancient and respected institution; but it is not the “one true Church” through which God can administers the saving ordinances of the gospel in our day. The Catholic Church may have been such an institution once upon a time; but it has now been superseded by the LDS Church.

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. (Ephesians 4: 5)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

I accept all of the above.

zerinus

 

[cazayoux]

The Catholic Church may have been such an institution once upon a time; but it has now been superseded by the LDS Church.

I see that this is one of the main points where we diverge.

How then, do I interpret Jesus saying that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” or that He would be with the church “until the end of time”?

I don’t understand how a complete apostacy could have happened and left His church apostate until J.S. in 1825. This idea doesn’t seem to follow Jesus’ words.

You agree that He established a church.
Is it part of LDS thinking that this initial church was the same LDS church of today?
Would that mean that you think the LDS didn’t supersede, but in fact recovered that initial church?

michel

 

[zerinus]

I see that this is one of the main points where we diverge.

How then, do I interpret Jesus saying that “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” or that He would be with the church “until the end of time”?

I don’t understand how a complete apostacy could have happened and left His church apostate until J.S. in 1825. This idea doesn’t seem to follow Jesus’ words.

I have answered that in this blog post.

You agree that He established a church.
Is it part of LDS thinking that this initial church was the same LDS church of today?
Would that mean that you think the LDS didn’t supersede, but in fact recovered that initial church?

You ask good questions. I like that! The answer is in a sense both. It did “recover” the original church in one sense; but it did more than that. The LDS Church is more than just a restoration of the original church. It is a new dispensation of the gospel—the dispensation of the fullness of times. It is the dispensation in which God will “gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth” (Ephesians 1:10). It is a dispensation in which not only old truths and principles will be revealed and restored; but also one in which will be revealed things that “have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world” (D&C 124:41). It is in short a new dispensation of the gospel, not merely a restoration of the original one.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

None of this answers what part(s) of the creed are an “abomination” to God as asserted in LDS scripture. It is also noteworthy that the creedal use of the term Catholic in describing the church means universal rather than a specific denomination. (at the tine it was written there were no other denominations).

To assert that this “dispensation” (an LDS concept) gives mankind more than the when Jesus walked the earth implies a greater contribution form Joseph Smith than from Jesus. I disagree with that. The Bible seems to indicate that Jesus time on earth was a fulfillment of all, the perfection of our divine covenant and the ultimate incident of divine intervention on behalf of mankind. He came once for all. That combined with his promises not leave us orphaned and that the gates of hell would not prevail over the church that he built seems to negate any restorationist claims.

Zerinus like the LDs church in general gives us only a constant recycling of unfounded allegations loosely tied to some proof texts ripped out of context from the error filled KJV of the Bible to claim an unbiblical, heretical and blasphemous view of God as an exalted man who can “teach us the mysteries” we need to become Gods ourselves. (mostly signs and tokens that allow us to pass by the angelic sentinel and enter into the celestial kingdom)

Don’t drink the Koolaid.

 

[ncgolf]

It is interesting that the Catholic Church ended public revelation after Christ … there is only private revelation which is non binding for belief among the faithful. The events at Lourdes, Fatima and the interior revelations to St. Faustina as examples were authenticated by the Church as true events but are not required to be believed. This distinction is so different from the events that led to the creation of the LDS church.

The LDS is built on private revelation to one man, which even if this happened to a Catholic, could not change one iota the deposit of faith already existing, let alone create a new one.

Christ rose from the dead, spoke to his disciples and effectively began the Catholic Church … this was not based on visions but reality.

I still just cant understand how after so few years after Jesus’s ascension it all went out the window so quickly … after all lo9k who created it. Smith’s visions and creation of the LDS church diminishes what Christ did … I can’t believe that Smith’s creation supercedes Christ’s.

 

[zerinus]

… I can’t believe that Smith’s creation supercedes Christ’s.

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

 

[cazayoux]

I have answered that in this blog post.zerinus

Wow. Not answered.

Quotes below are from the article.

If the Church had been built on Peter, then when Peter died the church must have died with him,

Acts chapter 1 shows us that the apostles held offices or “bishoprics”. Even though Judas Iscariot was dead, his office remained, and his position was filled.
Jesus did built his church on Simon the fisherman whom Jesus renamed Rock (Peter, Cephas).
Properly read… Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Jesus changing his name to Rock makes no sense if this sentence is read any other way than the Catholic interpretation.
It is Peter who He tells to feed and tend His sheep, who is given this responsibility.

He was referring to was the rock of testimony, meaning the testimony of the Holy Ghost, which is a personal revelation that Jesus is the Christ. The Lord was saying to Peter that He would build His church on the solid rock of personal revelation—the testimony of the Holy Ghost;

By this I see that you equate Jesus’ Father in Heaven with the Holy Ghost. Good… we’re 2/3rds of the way to the trinity.

But wait … you make this assumption:
solid rock = personal revelation = testimony of the Holy Ghost.

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.
Jesus sent his apostles to TEACH the gospel, not to tell everyone to have a personal revelation and decide for themselves what faith is.

When the Lord told Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church,” He was using the word in the wider sense of “the body of His true believers,” or His saints.

I completely agree that the church is a community of those that are one with Christ.
However, you seem to think that His church is devoid of form and authority. The church is His body and He is the head. His church is to be of one mind, like Jesus and the Father are one. It sounds like you think His ‘church’ was just an invisible collection of all who believed and that there was no actual authority in His church. What where the apostles? What is a bishopric? Why did their positions still exist after they died?

If we have a disagreement with a brother, scripture says we are to appeal to him, then bring others to appeal to him, and if that brother still doesn’t listen we are to bring him to the CHURCH.
This tells me three things.
1 - The church has authority
2 - is something that needs to be visible so someone can be brought to it
3 - Needs to not go into complete apostacy so that I can follow this scripture passage
How do I bring my brother to a church that I cannot find? Or considering today … *which * church would I bring him to. I think abortion is wrong, and my brother wants to urge his wife to get an abortion. Which ‘church’ do I bring him to. With SO many churches out there disagreeing on every single topic. How do I know which church is the one Jesus said to bring my brother to?
Jesus said to bring him to the Church, so I bring him to the Catholic Church.
However, my brother says the LDS is the true church and that abortion can be okay.
Scripture tells me how to approach the disagreement with my brother, but this only works if there is **one **true church. This one true church cannot be some formless collection of all those that call themselves Christians but disagree on doctrine.

michel

 

[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

 

[cazayoux]

I have answered that in this blog post.

As your proof of the apostacy, you point to Revelations. and state:

If the fullness of the gospel was already on earth (i.e. if there had been no Apostasy) why would there be a need for an angel to come down from heaven to restore it in the latter days? Therefore it must have been lost from the earth at some point through an apostasy for a restoration to be made necessary.

A couple of things.
By your incorrect logic, the angel came with the gospel because NOBODY on earth had it, so the LDS can’t be the correct church either.

Here’s a biggie. You say ‘restore’ the gospel. The scripture you quote in no way says ‘restore’, it says that the angel will preach the gospel. Don’t make scripture say something it doesn’t.

The scripture says that the angel is preaching the ‘good news’ … This doesn’t mean Jesus’ church is not on earth. I’d say the angel is preaching to those that have not yet accepted or not yet understood His gospel, like the Mormons for example.

michel