J
- Status
Stephen168
New member
Yes, you have tried to frame the use of non-scripture phrases in the Christian Creed as a plot. It was not. The word “thoroughly” was not used. The “difficulties" with ONE word has nothing to do with the Christian Creed having a basis in scripture.
"Father Leo Donald Davis:
As I pointed out before on this thread: The Mormon Articles of Faith were written in a letter and never meant to be Mormon scripture. In fact only the Brighamite Mormons call them scripture. And more importantly whether they are scripture or not, it is still a Creed.
Actually, you pointed out ONE word. I have given you plenty of time to show how the Mormon Articles of Faith have a basis in Christian Scripture.
Where does Christian scripture say the Book of Mormon is the word of God?
Where does Christian scripture say man will not be punished for Adam’s transgressions?
Where does Christian scripture say the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent?
Where does Christian scripture say we should be subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates?
Mormons are setting a standard, they can not achieve. Hypocrisy? I think so.
No, the Word is revelation as described in John 1 of the Christian scriptures. Christianity has always believed that the Word, God the Son, Jesus Christ was the public revelation to the world.
"Hegesippus:
You are clearly wrong. In fact the Christian Church has never believed in public revelation beyond Christ, and Hegesippus knew the reason why not.
The mistake was Joseph Smith using public revelation to invent doctrines against God and how it brings MAJOR changes in dogma with each “prophet.” Hegesippus knew this.
What you have said, speaks for itself. You said we agree but you don’t believe it. Reason would tell us that if you don’t believe it, then we DON’T agree.
You claim the Christian Creed is not in anyway based on scripture because ONE word is not scripture. AND Father Davis, who you love to quote, disagrees with you.
Did, you lie, were you confused, or intentionally deceptive? Only you know.
It is clear to me that Hegesippus and Father Davis would say your claims were not truthful.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I said, I don’t believe “that.” Meaning I don’t believe “God abandoned His people.” It is a rational and consistent English construction. It seems that 8n your desire to see me as a LIAR you determined I said jibberish. I will be unable to speak with enough precise to prevent that. But, I didn’t miss peak or lie. You saw what you usually see if there is any chance for you to call me a LIAR. It is frustrating to me.
I will continental to point to your non-4esponse of “LIAR!”
I will hope for change. That would be better.
Charity, TOm
T
TOmNossor
Guest
That is reasonable correct.
I think the Bible and the ECF witness that positive inspiration and revelation for the Public/Corporate Church would. continue. I think the conflict with Tertullian lead to the declaration Public/Corporate revelation would end. This post Tertullian way is not God’s way. God restored His way.
As I said there is beauty in stability and the.belief in inerrancy. But I do not believe God promised or enacted this.
And, I do believe "positive " inspiration/revelation is superior to negative protection from error. Unless one lacks good men to recieve it OR one so desires stability that plodding forward toward truth with God and fallible but good humans is to be avoided.
I do believe there have always been good men, but and God could have overpowered the human response to Tertullian, but that didn’t happen.
Thus Catholics believe God guides differently than He did in the Old and New Testament. The ECF didn’t see in scripture this CHANGE.
If I thought the CoJCoLDS was not God’s church I would follow the Pope and believe he is protected from error through negative protection by the Holy Spirit. But, I would not claim it is the same as Peter. It is not.
I believe coming at this question this way provides positive evidence for LDS truth claims.
I think LW7’s presentation of this obscures the DIFFERENCE and should be corrected if we are to present LDS views as compared to Catholic views correctly. I have asked for HOW it is different. This IMO points to a loss that God could (and IMO did) restore.
I also believe any evil man could claim he is like Peter completely concerning revelation. ,
. I do not think early Popes claimed this and I do not believe Joseph was evil or wrong.
Charity, TOm
J
JMM1957
Guest
A careful reading of available sources that explain the New Prophecy of the Montanist’s and Tertullian show that the supposed revelations that they were getting were sometimes abnormal in relation to the way prophecy had come to be known beforehand. Look at this for example:
Prophecy itself was not controversial within 2nd-century Christian communities.[33][34] However, the New Prophecy, as described by Eusebius of Caesarea, departed from Church tradition:[35]
“And he [Montanus] became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things,** prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning**”
Information also shows that in many cases, those doing the prophesying would act irrationally, not in control of their senses, and make public displays of themselves, certainly not normal conduct. It is said, some of the elements of the New Prophecy seem to have been on resisting persecution, fasting, and avoiding remarriage, together with hostility to any compromise with sin. Few of these points were controversial when judged against the ascetism of the next century. Tertullian tells us (in the quote by ‘Praedestinatus’ and in De Ieiunio) that the Spirit proclaimed no innovation in doctrine, but only gave directions about matters of church discipline, which were coming to be the prerogative of the bishop.
The Church failed to accept these revelations and prophecies as being from the Spirit, this is why it was quenched. 1 John 4:1, “Beloved,** do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.** For many false prophets have gone out into the world.” This is how the Church is to respond to these issues when they come up.
J
JMM1957
Guest
That is why God “didn’t” stop private revelation. Not talking about infallibility of the Pope here, that is something different. Looking at Church history, it is full of good men and women who heard God’s voice and acted upon it. Don’t say it didn’t happen, study it, it happened.
What you are trying to prove here won’t work. It is called “evidence following conclusion.”
Stephen168
New member
I never called you a liar. I said you were wrong and only you would know if you were a liar. You are wrong to claim the Christian Creed is not based in scripture, and wrong to believe Christians have ever believed in continuing public revelation. Yes, you are wrong in fact, and wrong in your common use of “special pleading” for a Mormon exception to the Mormon, or your personal, standard.
I think it odd you keep giving us your testimony about public revelation, and you not being a liar. We know that a Mormons testimony is their empirical evidence, but not necessarily based in reality.
Back to the thread
To summarize:
Christians have a Creed based in the truth of Christian scripture, but does not quote scripture.
Mormons have a Creed based in Mormon belief and does not quote scripture.
Catholics are fine with this.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Hebrews 1 has always been understood as describing how God guides us differently. It has always been understood that Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophecy. In addition to the Book of Hebrews, St. Paul goes into this at length and quite beautifully in Romans. It is also explained quite clearly that we are not as the Jews, disciples of Moses. We are disciples of Jesua Christ. Jesus is our Prophet. A new Prophet in the OT was raised up because it was needed as a man or woman dies and ceases to prophecy at their death.
Jesus, our Prophet, High Priest and King, lives. God does not need to raise up a new Prophet. Jesus sent an Advocate to bring all people to truth. Truth for us has a name, Jesus Christ.
Big changes at the advent of Jesus Christ!
This all goes to the point that Mormons do not understand the significance of Jesus, the Word of God who became flesh. The gift of prophecy is given now to bring people to Jesus Christ, God’s only Word, fully Revealed.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Regarding negative inspiration. We have an a priori positive. That is that Jesus Christ established His Church and sent an Advocate to protect His Bride. This mystical aspect of the Church means to us that Christ’s Church is a priori always being led towards the fulfillment of all things, in and through Jesus Christ. This has always been understood as a reality.
Mormonism has an opposit a priori, that is that Jesus failed in protecting His Bride and then made the decision this failure was due to lack of OT style prophesy.
Mormonism has an opposit a priori, that is that Jesus failed in protecting His Bride and then made the decision this failure was due to lack of OT style prophesy.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
I really can’t understand this view and the harping on changing the way we’re guided. The very act of God living among us was a change. Such a low view of Christ and His life is mind boggling.
J
JMM1957
Guest
This is how I view it also.
The LDS own website say this about Jesus; “Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. His birth, life, death, and resurrection fulfilled the many prophecies contained in the scriptures concerning the coming of a Savior. He was the Creator, He is our Savior, and He will be our Judge.”They say “He fulfilled the Scriptural prophecy of a Savior”, but fail to grasp the full meaning of it. Jesus came not only as Savior, but to reveal the Father to us. Jesus’ coming was the total fulfillment of God’s revealing of Himself to humanity. The Holy Spirit was sent to be with the Church in its mission to spread “the Good News of the Gospel to every creature.”
G
gazelam
Guest
Please accept my apologies in advance is this had already been posted…
This from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism regarding creeds at eom.byu.edu/index.php/Creeds
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no creed, as that term is understood in traditional theology. Truth and the things of God are comprehended by study, faith, reason, science, experience, personal revelation, and revelation received through the prophets of God. Creeds, on the other hand, tend to delimit this process.
From the beginning of the Church until the present, its view has always been that such formulas are incompatible with the gospel’s inclusive commitment to truth and continual revelation. The Doctrine and Covenants states, “He that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day” (D&C 50:24). In his first vision in 1820, the young Prophet Joseph Smith was told that the creeds of the competing churches around him “were an abomination in [God’s] sight” (HC 1:19). These sweeping words were clarified in his Wentworth Letter (1842): “all were teaching incorrect doctrines.” During the April 1843 conference of the Church, the Prophet said: “It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine” (HC 5:340), and later he elaborated: "I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things, but the creeds set up stakes, and say, “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further,’ which I cannot subscribe to” (HC 6:67).
Since Joseph Smith’s day, the Christian world has moved in this direction by acknowledging that creeds are “historically conditioned,” and that confessions of faith are to be seen as “guidelines” rather than as final pronouncements.
Authoritative statements found in LDS literature are not viewed as elements in a creed. For example, although its thirteen Articles of Faith are scriptural, they are open-ended. One of them says, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (A of F 9). During fast and testimony meetings, usually on the first Sunday of each month, the conviction is often expressed by members that they know that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and that Joseph Smith and the living prophets are true prophets of God. These words in some respects parallel the Islamic confession of faith, or Shahadah, which is also not considered a creed.
This from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism regarding creeds at eom.byu.edu/index.php/Creeds
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no creed, as that term is understood in traditional theology. Truth and the things of God are comprehended by study, faith, reason, science, experience, personal revelation, and revelation received through the prophets of God. Creeds, on the other hand, tend to delimit this process.
From the beginning of the Church until the present, its view has always been that such formulas are incompatible with the gospel’s inclusive commitment to truth and continual revelation. The Doctrine and Covenants states, “He that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day” (D&C 50:24). In his first vision in 1820, the young Prophet Joseph Smith was told that the creeds of the competing churches around him “were an abomination in [God’s] sight” (HC 1:19). These sweeping words were clarified in his Wentworth Letter (1842): “all were teaching incorrect doctrines.” During the April 1843 conference of the Church, the Prophet said: “It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine” (HC 5:340), and later he elaborated: "I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things, but the creeds set up stakes, and say, “Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further,’ which I cannot subscribe to” (HC 6:67).
Since Joseph Smith’s day, the Christian world has moved in this direction by acknowledging that creeds are “historically conditioned,” and that confessions of faith are to be seen as “guidelines” rather than as final pronouncements.
Authoritative statements found in LDS literature are not viewed as elements in a creed. For example, although its thirteen Articles of Faith are scriptural, they are open-ended. One of them says, “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (A of F 9). During fast and testimony meetings, usually on the first Sunday of each month, the conviction is often expressed by members that they know that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and that Joseph Smith and the living prophets are true prophets of God. These words in some respects parallel the Islamic confession of faith, or Shahadah, which is also not considered a creed.
J
JMM1957
Guest
So, the Catholic creeds are an “abomination in God’s sight,” according to Joseph Smith, and yet Mormons still say Catholics are Christian?
Stephen168
New member
This is another case of a Mormon changing the definition of a word AND trying to make something more complicated than it is. It is also another example of a Mormon saying we don’t believe that……but we do.
Creed is from the Latin word credo which means, I believe.
It is a statement of belief, usually religious.
The Mormon Creed was taken from a letter Joseph Smith wrote in 1842 known as the Wentworth Letter; a letter to John Wentworth, editor and proprietor of the Chicago Democrat. It is a statement of Mormon beliefs, a Creed. The letter also repeats Joseph Smith’s claim about the Book of Mormon which has proven to be false, which would make one wonder about the Articles of Faith.
He says Mormons don’t have a creed………but they do.
He says the Articles of faith are not fixed….but they are.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
It is also interesting that many Mormons like to claim that creeds result in rigidity, where we aren’t allowed further knowledge and insight (gazelam’s quote essentially states that). If anyone is at all familiar with Catholicism, they would know that we firmly believe in deeper understanding of the Deposit of Faith as time passes (which is part of what I’ve been talking about in most of my posts in this thread), and that our understanding of creeds and Truth is nothing like the caricature seen in gazelam’s quote.
J
jane_doe
Guest
Would you prefer us to deny your devotion to Christ due to theological disagreements? Such an action doesn’t make sense.
Stephen168
New member
And there has been no significant additions to Mormon scriptures in a life time. That seems ridge/fixed to me.
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
Also curious is that the last addition, Official Declaration 2 (in reference to their ban of black men from their priesthood, and the derivative ban of black men and women from their temple ordinances), is actually a press release and letter claiming that a revelation was received, not an actual text of a revelation.
J
JMM1957
Guest
If the creeds are an abomination (definition: hatred, atrocity, disgrace, horror, obscenity, outrage, evil, crime, monstrosity, anathema), what “should” that say about the religions who subscribe to them? Why such a harsh condemnation of creeds, and then say, “that’s ok though, you’re still a Christian as far as we’re concerned.” Why call the creeds abominations then, that is what doesn’t make sense? Evidently, (correct me if I’m wrong) you (LDS) believe there are many different pathways to God, and as long as you just claim devotion to Christ and try to be good people, that you’re doing God’s will. The Bible doesn’t support a simplistic view like this. “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21)
J
jane_doe
Guest
Obviously I’m not a mind reader, but I would venture to guess that you JMM1957, believe that the Catholic Church is Christ’s singular church on this Earth and there is no other. You look at Protestants beliefs (this just an example) and believe that many of their beliefs are anathema: such as denying Christ in the Eucharist, denying of the necessity of the sacraments, denying of the Pope’s authority and the role of the Catholic church has Christ’s bride. These teachings and many others are an admonition in your mind. But you still acknowledge Protestants relation with Christ, that they are Christians, despite their incorrect teaching and lack of communion with Rome.
Likewise LDS acknowledge your relationship with Christ, despite the fact that you have some incorrect beliefs and the fact that we are not in communion. We are acknowledging the Good Christ brings to your beliefs, your actions, etc.
No. Your statement here is VERY false.
- Status