But you don’t believe what Joseph Smith taught, and other so-called Mormon prophets taught after him, so you contradict your own testimony.
No, because I was not a where that any “theology which are considered almost exclusively Mormon” was taught at the Council. The Council determined the date of Easter but that is not exclusive to Mormonism, so I’m not sure what you are getting at.
So you agree that Arianism is not “theology which are considered almost exclusively Mormon.” Still nothing exclusively Mormon taught at the Council.
Ummm, Dad?
Stephen;
These were not “taught” at the counsil. These teachngs were declared heritical at the counsil.
Really? Then can you please show me the Bible teaching a God with no parts or passion? Because I can definitely show you the bible teaching a God with parts and much passion. As a bonus, could you show me the biblical reference to God being made of immaterial? God is “invisible”, yes (that’s conditioned since there have been those who most definitely saw God); but “immaterial”?
Ummm, Dad?
You have no true bishops. (No Apostolic Succession)
Your “church” is false.
Joseph Smith was a crook and a sexual predator.
It’s nice that you love your wife(s) Oh, wait, you guys don’t do that anymore, you’ll have to wait till you die.
Get what you can this Sunday, if you want true religion though, you’ll have to become Catholic.
This is NOT true. The current accepted process for determining doctrine within the church is a recent innovation. I was a believing church member between 1973 and 1993. I continued to attend church weekly until 2006. Until things began changing in the church in the late '80s, D&C 1:39 governed the determination of doctrine. KFD was DEFINITELY taught as doctrine by church leaders under the D&C 1:39 principle (both top-level leaders through the correlated lesson manuals published by the church and local leaders who used those manuals in my Aaronic Priesthood and Elder’s Quorum lesson manuals. What you say is revisionism par excellence and completely ridiculous. It’s the latest Mormon whitewash; understandable, of course, given the wacky things certain Mormon prophets have said over the years.
See above. The official story about how Mormon doctrine becomes Mormon doctrine has changed. It will likely change yet again to suit future needs of the church. This is inevitable as the church continues to present itself as mainstream, by jettisoning elements of Joseph Smith’s official teaching. KFD and polygamy are already gone. The most controversial aspects of Joseph’s endowment ritual copied from the Masonic Lodge have been eliminated. What’s next? The belief that coffee, tea, and wine are bad for you has been refuted by science. Perhaps the official line about the WoW will be modified next and the requirement to abide by it will be quietly dropped.
It didn’t take Darren long to get right to his testimony when presented with indisputable evidence of LDS prophets contradicting each other and the fact of changing doctrines. In the end, that’s all a faithful Mormon really has to support their beliefs. They sure don’t have philosophical or theological rigor, or the facts of history, to back up their claims.
What you are claiming is that Christianity was Mormonism for the first three centuries.
And you are claiming that Origen was the example of this Mormonism until his beliefs were squashed at the Council of Nicea.
Origen is telling us what the Apostles taught about God; God who created everything out of nothing; God without a body; God/the Word/Christ who was made flesh (John 1:1). This is not the god of Mormonism. The god created by Arius was discussed at the Council of Nicea but the god created by Joseph Smith was not. The god created by Joseph Smith could not by “squashed” at the Council because it was 1500 years before Smith invented him.
Thanks for helping me understand the Mormon meaning of “Hellenistic Philosophy.” Mormons don’t mean philosophy at all; Mormons mean anything outside the Bible. With that reasoning the Table of Contents of the Bible would be based on “Hellenistic Philosophy,” but the Mormon Church accepts the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Table of Contents. So Mormonism must really mean any doctrine they don’t agree with. “Hellenistic Philosophy” is a Mormon boogie man.
Darren,
Bullet points in Bruce McConkie speeches don’t comprise doctrine for me. The heading “5. Christ worked out his own salvation by worshipping the father” isn’t even supported by his subsequent argument. I’m certainly doctrinally bound by the citations McConkie makes from D&C 93, but neither his citations nor anything I read in the entire section even remotely allude to Christ as being in need of salvation. That concept is totally foreign to me and I think you’d be hard pressed to find any Latter-day Saint who would consider such a thing as being normative doctrine. Christ is my savior and redeemer. His salvation? I don’t even think about it and in my own life as a Latter-day Saint have never heard it discussed beyond your bullet-point citation (obviously I didn’t go to BYU
).Anytime you start to ask individuals about their beliefs you run into false dogma, that conflicts official theology.
But McConkie was official what else would you call an apostle of your church. I can’t remember anything from a Catholic priest, bishop, cardinal or pope who was speaking in an official capacity that could be called doctrinally aberrant. How in the world can you rely on men who espouse aberrant doctrine? Apparently even those charged with the leadership of your church can’t preach correct doctrine, where does that leave the followers.
Well thanks for your assessment. And pardon me for saying so, but this seems to be rather routine; statements being made by church leaders which are then rejected. The reason, I think, that this is an issue for Catholics, is that I would have a really hard time if the bishops of my Church wrote things that conflicted with Catholic doctrine and the Church did nothing officially to condemn it. At best it leaves people confused.Bullet points in Bruce McConkie speeches don’t comprise doctrine for me. The heading “5. Christ worked out his own salvation by worshipping the father” isn’t even supported by his subsequent argument. I’m certainly doctrinally bound by the citations McConkie makes from D&C 93, but neither his citations nor anything I read in the entire section even remotely allude to Christ as being in need of salvation. That concept is totally foreign to me and I think you’d be hard pressed to find any Latter-day Saint who would consider such a thing as being normative doctrine. Christ is my savior and redeemer. His salvation? I don’t even think about it and in my own life as a Latter-day Saint have never heard it discussed beyond your bullet-point citation (obviously I didn’t go to BYU
And for what it’s worth, I don’t buy his first bullet point, either. I worship Jesus Christ (Rev 14:7). Given McConkie’s history of doctrinally aberrant statements, I tend to be pretty careful about using him as my sole source for explicating Mormon beliefs.
Yeah, I’ve heard the same thing, Tony. Only the results of the survey were due to the way the question was worded and do not reflect the beliefs of “most” Catholics. The question had to do with understanding Transubstantiation, not whether one believed it or not. I had the teens in my youth group do an anonymous survey in our parish, asking the parishioners if they believed in the true presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. 98% said they believed and 2% said they were not sure. That was much more in line with my experience among Catholics everywhere.
No doubt. I have a good friend who is a Greek Orthodox priest who likes to joke that his biggest challenges is combating “Yia Yia”-logy.
