Your Notre Dame Mormon on The Church of the Devil

[majick275]

yes we do but I see some validity in your comments. ( I want to explain that of course)

yes we have different views on baptism and priesthood. Baptism makes one a “Christian” but not necessarily Catholic. (confirmation does that…sort of but I digress) Many non-Catholics are Christians. Baptism we do not believe requires priesthood beyond that of the “priesthood of believers”. It is faith based sacrament. That is of course a massive oversimplification but I don’t want to go down the lengthy rabbit trail of what requires a lay minister (or extraordinary minister), deacon, priest or bishop.

Priesthood we are somewhat similar in that we both believe in apostolic succession (with the great apostasy/restoration caveat) and the laying on of hands and restricitng ordination to males. other than that see above.

I think you misunderstand what I’m saying about the creed and especially about the creed and joseph smith.

First, the creed is merely our “profession of faith”. We state as a group at mass every sunday that this what we all believe. It is very basic…so basic that other churches recite it as well. I prefer to think of it as basic christianity. That there was a requirement to define in very basic terms what we believe and that we PROFESS it is not contradicted by me. Okay, people were confused, arguing, whatever…so the church answers with the creed. Now to Joseph smith, What part of the creed is an abomination? What part is so wrong by LDS standards that it qualifies as such? There is where you will find (i think) why many christians don’t perceive mormons as christians. as to the pot and the kettle… The pot is supposed to be black. What I mean is that on one level YES! The LDS see themselves as the actual church that Jesus built and presides over and so do us Catholics. BUT, specific to the creeds… Now we deal with something bigger than which church but which religion. Difference being not Mormon v. Catholic anymore but Mormon v. Christian. And we’re not talking doctrine and practice and structure anymore but just the most basic fundamentals.

That’s where yes we think you have false prophets teaching false doctrine that denies the very nature of God. We also point out that you say the same about us. (basically) the really important thing to me is that only one of us can be right. (although technically we could both be wrong) so the Pot IS black. the question is who’s the kettle?

(obviously we are since you don’t drink tea )

 

[frnate]

Was the Creed ever read in Mass with those last few statements? That’s all I want to know.

If those statements were ever included in any liturgical service it was strictly a local custom and not necessarily endorsed by the Church for use during the Divine Liturgy.

The statement it self was a followup explanation to the main point of the formulation of the Creed, which was to anathematize the Arch-Heretic Arius and Arianism.

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[rmcmullan]

If I might put in my two cents worth: Let’s take a look at an official source, the Book of Mormon:

1 Nephi 14:10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

There’s only two. I am fairly sure that these churches do not have names like Catholic or Mormon or Lutheran or whatever. They are either the people who serve the Lord and the people who do not. Every church has good and bad people and sheeps in wolves clothing and alot of people, for whatever reason, can be kept serving the Lord because they lack proper learning but do it their own way, by serving their fellow man.

 

[majick275]

so on the one hand you want us to look at an “official source” then you want to offer personal opinion as to waht that means.

Nephi is clear. Two churches, Gods and the devils. We can show where many LDS priesthood leaders said in “official” LDS publications and/or General conference that it means everyone who isn’t LDS is wrong. WE can even find where they singled out The catholic church as the church of the devil.

Let’s go back to the LDS Pearl of Great Price, that’s official isn’t it?
Joseph Smith tells us there that “all their creeds are an abomination” in the sight of God when speaking about other churches. We know what those creeds are, they haven’t changed. Please tell me what part of the Nicene Credd (or the Apostles creed) is an abomination.

 

[rmcmullan]

Sorry Mister Majick275, if you want to have a conversation with me, I must insist on a couple of rules:

1. You may only use the Bible or officially canonized LDS scriptures when quoting Mormon doctrine.
2. You must give scriptural references

Everything else is just derivative works. We’re not going to convince each other but at least impress me with your mastery of LDS scriptures. I know where in the PoGP that reference is but I have to know that you read it there yourself and thought about it.

Also, I want you to think more carefully about what you’re saying. There’s a huge difference and I think you’re leaping to conclusions without thinking things through. There’s two models: one is that people are saved according to their church membership, the other is that people are saved according to how they served God.

 

[majick275]

Sorry Mister Majick275, if you want to have a conversation with me, I must insist on a couple of rules:

1. You may only use the Bible or officially canonized LDS scriptures when quoting Mormon doctrine.

I cetainly will not accept that restriction and you know that’s not a fair restriction. NUMEROUS LDS doctrines and practices are NOT found anywhere in canonized scripture. besides you yourself just interjected your pesonl\al opinion as the context of nephi.

1. You must give scriptural references

fair enough…when I quote from it.

Everything else is just derivative works.

not so. with continuing revelation you of all people should know that it’s NOT derivative it’s additive.

We’re not going to convince each other but at least impress me with your mastery of LDS scriptures. I know where in the PoGP that reference is but I have to know that you read it there yourself and thought about it.

JS-H verse 19. you really want to go there? I taught seminary, priesthood, gospel dfoctrine, served as elders quorum pres., in bishopric, etc. I’m not ignorant of LDS scriptures, doctrines, etc. although I’ll not claim “mastery” whatever that means.

Also, I want you to think more carefully about what you’re saying. There’s a huge difference and I think you’re leaping to conclusions without thinking things through. There’s two models: one is that people are saved according to their church membership, the other is that people are saved according to how they served God.

aaah but the LDS position is a bit of both isn’t it? members who served well get highest exaltation. non-members don’t. (yes that’s oversimplified but still true)

now,
what part of the creed is an abomination?

 

[rmcmullan]

Okay, thank you for agreeing to the including quotes when referring to scripture. I like that. It’s true what you say about continuing revelation but I’d still like to keep just the the body of canonized scriptures because I see way to many threads where people pull in questionable sources. And I still think everything else is derivative, even with continuing revelation, maybe with just minor tweaks.

I am still maintaining that there are two churches only and the only question you’re asking me is how much overlap there is between the two. Can a man serve both God and Mammon? Well the obvious answer is no but people attempt it all the time.

As for what part of the creed is an abomination, you know it as well as I do. Compare the Nicene Creed with the Articles of Faith and ponder it in your mind! I didn’t say that so I can’t defend it, I don’t know what particulars He had in mind when He said that. Also, I know the Nicene Creed is the working Creed for RC’s but the statement was made in general and includes the creeds of a lot more churches, many of them conflicting with each other. If I were to hazard any kind of guess I’d have to go back to the question, “What is pure religion”? Then I’d go to James 1:27 and read

James 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

And ask myself how many creeds include this?

 

[majick275]

The Nicene creed and the Apostles creed are pretty ubiquitous and not just restricted to Catholics. the term “creed” has a specific meaning that is pretty universal to most Christians. The usage of JS-H verse 17 appears consistent with this. The “conflicts” are pretty much limited to the filioque which could hardly be called “abominable”.

The attemt to compare the AoF with the nicene creed is fine for another thread but it sure doesn’t seem to support anything being an “abomination”. Perhaps you could illustrate this further and show from the LDS articles of faith what part of the Nicene Creed is an abomination since you seem to indicate that it can be shown from that.

I think the pure religion rabbit trail unnecessary for this discussion because I thiknk we have suffciient specificity.

I think we would all be happy if you could speak to the nicene Creed and the Apostles creed. Those two cover pretty much everyone who cares about “creeds”. (at least those who would have been represented in Joseph Smith’s time/place)

I hear what you are saying on derivative v. additive. I disagree but don’t see it a s a showstopper for this discussion since we both have made out position clear. I still claim that if you are restricted to canonized scripture on the LDS side then it is problematic as they tend to change and the LDS primary claim to leadership by revelation seems to negate that. That being said, I will continue to provide sources for my quotes and you are free to caveat your responses globally that no uncanonized works are doctrinally binding in you opinion. (I will probably disagree but with specific reasons on a case by case basis at least)

Progress?

 

[rmcmullan]

Regarding the Nicene Creed, I said:

I didn’t say that so I can’t defend it, I don’t know what particulars He had in mind when He said that.

You didn’t like my pure religion suggestion but maybe that’s not really what a Creed concerns itself with anyway. Still, I would like to see a church that has such a creed. Maybe that’s a little too pure.

 

[majick275]

Regarding the Nicene Creed, I said:

I didn’t say that so I can’t defend it, I don’t know what particulars He had in mind when He said that.

but it IS canonized LDS scripture so what should do with this? I think it speaks directly to this particular thread. I want to know what in the creed,from an LDS perspective, is an abomination in the sight of God. Since you said canonized scripture was your preferred method of establishing LDS doctrine then I would hope you could speak to this.

You didn’t like my pure religion suggestion but maybe that’s not really what a Creed concerns itself with anyway. Still, I would like to see a church that has such a creed. Maybe that’s a little too pure.

okay. other churches using Nicene Creed would include Anglican (Episcopalian), Methodist, Lutheran and Orthodox. Many also use Apostles creed as well. the biggest naysayers of the creeds are probably the Baptists, followed by LDS, JWs and unitarian uiversalists. Here is a decent link at seeing how widespread the creeds are now and were in times past. It’s not Catholic OR LDS so it’s informative only, not declarative.

calvin.edu/worship/stories/creeds.php

Your idea based on James has merit but seems a bit too idealistic and “theosophical” to be practially applied. Good approach but needs greater detail for actual use.