Nicene Creed

[Doctor Steuss]

we are not in the last days

Are too.

[Lightbearer]

You told me I stopped prematurely. Well if you continue to the question & answer section you would read the following:

Originally, the Holy Spirit was not considered a personage, but the "mind" of God, and only the Son was said to be a "personage of tabernacle." Spiritually, the Son was in the "express image" of the Father, and physically He was in the "form and likeness" of man.

If they believed that the Father was a personage of tabernacle, why the two comparisons?

Maybe that is why D&C 130 had to be given to clarify the understanding. Perhaps that is also why the Lectures on Faith were removed. The Lectures were not supposed to be revelation in the first place.

[Thinking]

Maybe that is why D&C 130 had to be given to clarify the understanding. Perhaps that is also why the Lectures on Faith were removed. The Lectures were not supposed to be revelation in the first place.

D&C 130 isn't "revelation" either.

Items of instruction given by Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Ramus, Illinois, April 2, 1843. HC 5: 323â??325.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/130

[johnny]

Only Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him alone. Jesus specified two distinct offices for Peter. He gave him custody of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and the power of "binding and loosing." The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head. The foundation of the RCC is a living foundation, the RCC continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ's return. Divine assistance is given to the bishop of Rome and the bishops when they propose a teaching that leads to better understanding of divine revelation. The pope is holder of the privileges granted by Christ to Peter, the Rock upon which He built His Church.

False prophets and false teachers bring heresies. The New Testament tells us to test prophets because they can deceive even the elect. The council at Nicaea revealed that Arianism was a heresy. The Church took advantage of the opportunities afforded by Constantine. Arian described the Son as a second, or inferior God. Christians have always maintained that Christ was truly the Son, and truly God just like the Bible reveals. Like Arianism Mormonism describes the Son as a second, or inferior God. Joseph Smith taught that there are "three Gods".

The keys and authority of the holy priesthood were NOT lost with the deaths of the Apostles. Neither the Bible nor history support a "Great Apostasy". The Mormon "great apostasy" doctrine is a myth: If Mormons want their claim of a complete apostasy to be taken seriously, they must display clearly biblical and historical evidence supporting it. Mormons read into the text of the Bible a complete apostasy, the Bible reveals "some" will fall away, and not one mentions a complete apostasy of the Church. The squabbling sects is not evidence of a complete apostasy. They are only evidence that "some" will away like the Bible foretells. The bishops ordained by the Apostles did not reject the authority of the Apostles, these ordained bishops were proven men who did not "fall away" or turn away from the authority of God like others did. The Holy Spirit appoints bishops to shepherd the flock.

Peter was not a bishop, bishops are the successors of Apostles. Peterâ??s successor shared in his special authority or primacy. In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Churchâ??s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome "holds the presidency" among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, "because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree" with Rome. Most significant are passages in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership.

The "keys of the kingdom" are NOT conferred like the Priesthood itself. Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:19). The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17; 10:11). Jesus entrusted the authority to "bind and loose" to the Church through the ministry of the apostles (Mt 18:18) and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

The Apostle Peter could not have ordained Joseph Smith because ordination takes physical hands to conifer authority. Peter is a resurrected being but he does not have a resurrected body of flesh and bones reunited to his spiritual body. Peter did not come forth in the first resurrection (Matt 27:52-53). Those in the first resurrection are those who died before Christ came. The dead in Christ like the Apostle Peter will be reunited with their physical body when Jesus descend from heaven at the second coming (1Thes 4:16).

After the Apostles died, the Church councils consisted of Bishops because they are the legitimate successors of the Apostles. In Acts 15 the council at Jerusalem was composed of Apostles because at this time the Apostles were still alive. Like the council at Jerusalem the Spirit of truth guides today's council into all truth. At the council at Nicaea there was "much disputing" just like there was "much disputing" at the council at Jerusalem which consisted of the Apostles with Peter as the head. The RCC has the authority and divine assistance to understand divine revelation. The Christian Creeds DO NOT reveal "The divine sonship was confounded into a belief that Christ was his own Father" as you have indicated. The Christian Creeds reveal that the Son and the Father are distinct persons.

Holy Scriptures does not reveal a restoration of the Gospel and does not reveal that it was necessary to raise up a Prophet in these last days to restore the plain and precious truths that were lost over the centuries of apostasy. Scripture speaks of "the times of restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21) which comes at the second coming of Christ.

Joseph Smith is fallible. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys infallibility. This infallibility is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. Through its supreme Magisterium it proposes doctrines for belief as being divinely revealed. Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them such as the dogma of the Trinity. Catholics believe all that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and that which the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed.

[Lightbearer]

D&C 130 isn't "revelation" either.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/130

Yes D&C Section 130 is a revelation and is binding upon the Church, you could argue that the ten commandments or the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew are only items of instruction, but you would be wrong. Revelation is anything the Lord reveals to His children. Please don't try to "parse words" or play samantic games. As for the Lectures on Faith I have a quote from the History of the Church reguarding it's status:

(History of the Church, Vol.2, Pg.176, Footnotes)

"These "Lectures on Theology" here referred to were afterwards prepared by the Prophet, (see page 180) and published in the Doctrine and Covenants under the title "Lectures on Faith." They are seven in number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doctrine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants, but as stated by Elder John Smith, who, when the book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the several quorums of the Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17, 1835,) speaking in behalf of the Kirtland High council, "bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures judicially were written and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine." The distinction which Elder John Smith here makes should be observed as a marking the difference between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants."

[Lightbearer]

Only Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him alone. Jesus specified two distinct offices for Peter. He gave him custody of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and the power of "binding and loosing." The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of the apostles united to its head. The foundation of the RCC is a living foundation, the RCC continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ's return. Divine assistance is given to the bishop of Rome and the bishops when they propose a teaching that leads to better understanding of divine revelation. The pope is holder of the privileges granted by Christ to Peter, the Rock upon which He built His Church.

The rock upon which Christ built His Church is the Rock of Revelation...no mortal man is the "Rock" because no mortal man is infallible not Peter, not Joseph Smith, or any other mortal. Only Jesus Christ was infallible and only through revelation can His will be made known. The office of binding and loosing was given to Peter and all of the Apostles. Peter was the chief Apostle and also the presiding officer of the Church. He along with James and John were the First Presidency of the ancient Church. There is no scriptural proof that Peter changed the organization of the Church with a Pope or Bishop of Rome at the head. You may quote "tradition" but to me that is no evidence.

False prophets and false teachers bring heresies. The New Testament tells us to test prophets because they can deceive even the elect. The council at Nicaea revealed that Arianism was a heresy. The Church took advantage of the opportunities afforded by Constantine. Arian described the Son as a second, or inferior God. Christians have always maintained that Christ was truly the Son, and truly God just like the Bible reveals. Like Arianism Mormonism describes the Son as a second, or inferior God. Joseph Smith taught that there are "three Gods".

Yes we are to test the prophets and teachers. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims the God and Jesus of the New Testament. In the New Testament Jesus himself declares:

(John 14:28)" Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

Jesus Christ is the only begotton of the Father and He is our Savior and our Lord. Although they are two different beings like my earthly father is a different personage from me, so also God Our Eternal Father the father of our spirits is a different being than His beloved Son. That does not make Christ an inferior God, in fact the scriptures state:

(Philippians 2:5-11)

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Here is what Joseph Smith said about Jesus Christ:

(D&C 76:20-24) "And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;

And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever.

And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all which we give of him: That he lives!

For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father--That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God."

I do not think that is an "inferior God" by any means. The Father and the Son are one God in the sense spoken of in the following:

(John 17:21-24)"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world."

He wants us to become one as He and His Father are one...in unity, in love, in glory.

The keys and authority of the holy priesthood were NOT lost with the deaths of the Apostles. Neither the Bible nor history support a "Great Apostasy". The Mormon "great apostasy" doctrine is a myth: If Mormons want their claim of a complete apostasy to be taken seriously, they must display clearly biblical and historical evidence supporting it. Mormons read into the text of the Bible a complete apostasy, the Bible reveals "some" will fall away, and not one mentions a complete apostasy of the Church. The squabbling sects is not evidence of a complete apostasy. They are only evidence that "some" will away like the Bible foretells. The bishops ordained by the Apostles did not reject the authority of the Apostles, these ordained bishops were proven men who did not "fall away" or turn away from the authority of God like others did. The Holy Spirit appoints bishops to shepherd the flock.

The great apostacy is a historical fact the scriptures atest to a "falling away" and the evidence of history (Protestant Reformation) show that the Church had become corrupted by the philosophy of men. It was also foretold that in the last days God would restore His everlasting gospel through angelic ministers:

(Revelation 14:6,7)"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of His judgment is come; and worship Him that made heaven and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of water."

If the earth had the everlasting gospel was still on the earth why the need for an angel to bring it back?

Peter was not a bishop, bishops are the successors of Apostles. Peterâ??s successor shared in his special authority or primacy. In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Churchâ??s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome "holds the presidency" among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, "because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree" with Rome. Most significant are passages in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership.

The "keys of the kingdom" are NOT conferred like the Priesthood itself. Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16:19). The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17; 10:11). Jesus entrusted the authority to "bind and loose" to the Church through the ministry of the apostles (Mt 18:18) and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.

True Peter was not a Bishop, he was an Apostle and there is no evidence from revelation that the Bishop of Rome was his successor. All you have is tradition and again there is no scriptural foundation that the structure of the Church was supposed to change. The "keys of the kingdom" are priesthood keys. Those were given to Peter and the rest of the apostles. Nowhere in scripture does it say that the apostles would turn over those keys to a bishop or anyone other than apostles.

The Apostle Peter could not have ordained Joseph Smith because ordination takes physical hands to conifer authority. Peter is a resurrected being but he does not have a resurrected body of flesh and bones reunited to his spiritual body. Peter did not come forth in the first resurrection (Matt 27:52-53). Those in the first resurrection are those who died before Christ came. The dead in Christ like the Apostle Peter will be reunited with their physical body when Jesus descend from heaven at the second coming (1Thes 4:16).

I say Peter has been resurrected and did confer the keys as stated.

After the Apostles died, the Church councils consisted of Bishops because they are the legitimate successors of the Apostles. In Acts 15 the council at Jerusalem was composed of Apostles because at this time the Apostles were still alive. Like the council at Jerusalem the Spirit of truth guides today's council into all truth. At the council at Nicaea there was "much disputing" just like there was "much disputing" at the council at Jerusalem which consisted of the Apostles with Peter as the head. The RCC has the authority and divine assistance to understand divine revelation. The Christian Creeds DO NOT reveal "The divine sonship was confounded into a belief that Christ was his own Father" as you have indicated. The Christian Creeds reveal that the Son and the Father are distinct persons.

As for councils having authority to proclaim doctrine I would say only the Council of the Twelve and the First Presidency have that authority. I have never heard of the Christian Creeds stating the Father and the son are distinct persons...if so what is our arguement about?

Holy Scriptures does not reveal a restoration of the Gospel and does not reveal that it was necessary to raise up a Prophet in these last days to restore the plain and precious truths that were lost over the centuries of apostasy. Scripture speaks of "the times of restitution of all things" (Acts 3:21) which comes at the second coming of Christ.

That is a matter of interpretation which we disagree on.

Joseph Smith is fallible. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys infallibility. This infallibility is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. Through its supreme Magisterium it proposes doctrines for belief as being divinely revealed. Divine assistance is given to the successors of the apostles when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them such as the dogma of the Trinity. Catholics believe all that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and that which the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed.

Again I agree Joseph Smith is a fallible man just like the Pope, the college of bishops and any other man who has ever lived or will yet live. Only Jesus Christ is infallible and the revelation He gives to His children. I can see from our exchange that we are never going to agree, all I can say is that I do respect your position (your seeing the need for priesthood authority in the Church) although I may disagree over the details of who has it.

[Thinking]

Revelation is anything the Lord reveals to His children.

According to JS, the Lord revealed to him to organize the "school of prophets" (D&C 88:127) and told him that that they were "...called to do this by prayer and thanksgiving, as the Spirit shall give utterance in all your doings in the house of the Lord, in the school of the prophets..." (D&C 88:137)

The Lectures on Faith were delivered in the school of prophets where "...the Spirit shall give utterance in all your doings..."

That sounds like "revelation" to me.

As for the Lectures on Faith I have a quote from the History of the Church reguarding it's status:

(History of the Church, Vol.2, Pg.176, Footnotes)

"These "Lectures on Theology" here referred to were afterwards prepared by the Prophet, (see page 180) and published in the Doctrine and Covenants under the title "Lectures on Faith." They are seven in number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doctrine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants, but as stated by Elder John Smith, who, when the book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the several quorums of the Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17, 1835,) speaking in behalf of the Kirtland High council, "bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures judicially were written and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine." The distinction which Elder John Smith here makes should be observed as a marking the difference between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants."

I'm sure you know that this quote came from the "footnotes." Who wrote the "footnotes" and when?

This is the article from which the information in the History of the Church is taken.

After a hymn was sung, President Cowdery arose and introduced the "Book of doctrine and covenants of the church of the Latter Day Saints," in behalf of the committee: he was followed by President Rigdon, who explained the manner by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book: the other two committee, named above, were absent. According to said arrangement W. W. Phelps bore record that the book presented to the assembly, was true. President John Whitmer, also arose, and testified that it was true. Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the high council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine; whereupon the high council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. Elder Levi Jackman, taking the lead of the high council of the church in Missouri, bore testimony that the revelations in said book were true, and the said high council of Missouri accepted and acknowledge them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

President W. W. Phelps then read the written testimony of the Twelve, as follows. "The testimony of the witnesses to the book of the Lord's commandments, which he gave to his church through Joseph Smith, jr. who was appointed by the voice of the church for this purpose: we therefore feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the earth, and upon the islands of the sea, that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed forth upon us, that these commandments were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true.-We give this testimony unto the world, the Lord being our helper: and it is through the grace of God, the Father, and his Son Jesus Christ, that we are permitted to have this privilege of bearing this testimony unto the world, in the which we rejoice exceedingly, praying the Lord always, that the children of men may be profited thereby. Elder Leonard Rich bore record of the truth of the book and the council of the Seventy accepted and acknowledged it as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. (Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 11, p.161-162)

The reason that the distinction was made between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations is the name of the "Book of Commandments" was being changed to the "Doctrine & Covenants." The doctrine was the Lectures on Faith, and the covenants were the revelations.

[johnny]

Lightbearer,

Just because their is no scriptural proof that Peter's successor could not be a bishop does not mean that he could not be a bishop. As a Catholic I am not Bible only and I don't believe Mormons are Bible only either. Apostles ordained bishops and bishops could ordain others.

The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith taught "three Gods". When I test the words of Joseph Smith against the words of the prophet Isaiah they are NOT consistent, Isaiah taught "one God". When I test the words of Joseph Smith against the words of Jesus they are NOT consistent, Jesus taught "one God". Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament reveal "three Gods" like the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith revealed. I would agree that the Son wants us to become one as He and his Father are one ... in unity, in love, in glory (John 17).

You say that you do not think the Son is an "inferior God". Do you believe that the Son is a different God than the Father like the Mormon Church teaches? If so which one is "God"? John 1:1 reveals the Son is God and John 20 reveals the Son has a God. In Mark 12 Jesus says there is one God. In 1Cor 8 Paul teaches there is one God and one Lord.

The Protest Reformation does not atest to a great apostasy. It does show that some fell away from the Church at Rome. Does the historical fact that the RLDS seperated from the the Mormon Church at Salt Lake City atest to a great apostasy? Please provide the evidence that the Church that the apostles founded in Rome became corrupted.

Please explain how Rev 14:6 is talking about restoring the everlasting gospel. I would disagree with this interpretation. The event in Rev 14:6 occured BEFORE the time of the Book of Mormon, Col 1:23 says that gospel "was preached to every creature which is under heaven". The everlasting good news in Rev 14:6 is that God's eternal reign is about to begin. The three angels are proclaiming judgment.

Please explain when and how Peter got his physical hands to ordain Joseph Smith. In my earlier post I have shown that scripture reveals that the dead in Christ like Peter do not receive a physcial body till the second coming of Christ. At the present time Peter does not have physcial hands, he is a resurrected spirit only being. Peter could NOT have ordained Joseph Smith because at the present time Peter does not have physical hands to ordain.

Please explain why you believe the keys were given to the rest of the apostles. In my earlier post I have shown that scripture reveals only Peter received the "keys of the kingdom".

Both the Athanasian Creed and the Nicene Creed reveal that the Father and the Son are two distinct persons but they are not two seperate Gods like the Mormon Church teaches. Scripture reveals that Jehovah and Elohim are not different Gods like the Mormon Church teaches. Scripture reveals that the Son was "I AM', the Son of God and God himself.

[solomarineris]

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve determine doctrine jointly, and they present it to the membership. It is the membership that chooses if doctrine is binding upon themselves, not a bunch of politically (threats from Constantine) and ideologically motivated Christian bishops coming together to decide what Christians in general are supposed to believe.

Let's say both proclamations were bogus. Nothing was delivered with substance and truth.

[Lightbearer]

According to JS, the Lord revealed to him to organize the "school of prophets" (D&C 88:127) and told him that that they were "...called to do this by prayer and thanksgiving, as the Spirit shall give utterance in all your doings in the house of the Lord, in the school of the prophets..." (D&C 88:137)

The Lectures on Faith were delivered in the school of prophets where "...the Spirit shall give utterance in all your doings..."

That sounds like "revelation" to me.

I'm sure you know that this quote came from the "footnotes." Who wrote the "footnotes" and when?

I repeat the footnote indicates that the Lectures on Faith are not equal in autority to the sections of the D&C: "...and published in the Doctrine and Covenants under the title "Lectures on Faith." They are seven in number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doctrine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants, but as stated by Elder John Smith, who, when the book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the several quorums of the Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17, 1835,) speaking in behalf of the Kirtland High council, "bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures judicially were written and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine."The distinction which Elder John Smith here makes should be observed as a marking the difference between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants."This footnote quote comes from the History of the Church. As for who wrote the footnote I believe that this is the information you requested:

History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet by Himself

An Introduction and Notes by B. H. Roberts

Published for the Church

By Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah

As for your statement:

The reason that the distinction was made between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations is the name of the "Book of Commandments" was being changed to the "Doctrine & Covenants." The doctrine was the Lectures on Faith, and the covenants were the revelations.

That is not accurate, the Lectures on Faith is not the "doctrine part" of the D&C. The revelations in the current edition of D&C are all doctrine. The Covenants are those covenants we make with God that are detailed there as well: Baptism, the Sacrament, Eternal Marriage, etc. Actually I am not sure what point you are trying to make. If what you are suggesting is that the doctrine of the Godhead has changed you are in error. If you are suggesting that maybe some members understanding of the nature of the Godhead has changed since 1835...I would say that that could be so. God reveals to men line upon line and precept upon precept. He reveals as much as we are able to bear or understand at the time. Nephi was told to make two sets of plates but did not fully understand why. Adam was told to offer sacrifices but was not told until later the reason why. If the correlation you are making is that the Nicene Creed was a simular way in which God chose to reveal His nature...I must point out that it was 300 years before the Nicene Creed was formulated and it was not even claimed to have been done by revelation. The revelation given in D&C 130 was given in 1843, only 8 years after the Lectures on Faith.

[Thinking]

So B.H. Roberts (not John Smith) said "They are not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doctrine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants."

I'm curious. Since you quoted the footnote instead of the actual paragraph, what does the actual paragraph say? Does it say that the D&C was accepted by a unanimous vote?

Actually I am not sure what point you are trying to make. If what you are suggesting is that the doctrine of the Godhead has changed you are in error. If you are suggesting that maybe some members understanding of the nature of the Godhead has changed since 1835...I would say that that could be so. God reveals to men line upon line and precept upon precept. He reveals as much as we are able to bear or understand at the time. Nephi was told to make two sets of plates but did not fully understand why. Adam was told to offer sacrifices but was not told until later the reason why. If the correlation you are making is that the Nicene Creed was a simular way in which God chose to reveal His nature...I must point out that it was 300 years before the Nicene Creed was formulated and it was not even claimed to have been done by revelation. The revelation given in D&C 130 was given in 1843, only 8 years after the Lectures on Faith.

Ah, the "line upon line" defense for changing doctrine.

My point is this. Mormons have long criticized the Nicene Creed for being developed (not revealed), and it seems (to me at least) that Mormon doctrine has been developed (not revealed). That's why changes have occured over the years.

[Lightbearer]

Lightbearer,

Just because their is no scriptural proof that Peter's successor could not be a bishop does not mean that he could not be a bishop. As a Catholic I am not Bible only and I don't believe Mormons are Bible only either. Apostles ordained bishops and bishops could ordain others.

You are correct we LDS are not a "Bible only" faith we believe in continuous revelation. But we also do not believe in Catholic tradition (otherwise we would be Catholic) and I do not think you have any historical proof that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of the Apostle Peter. "Apostolic succession" is not necessary in a Church that believes in living Apostles and Prophets.

The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith taught "three Gods". When I test the words of Joseph Smith against the words of the prophet Isaiah they are NOT consistent, Isaiah taught "one God". When I test the words of Joseph Smith against the words of Jesus they are NOT consistent, Jesus taught "one God". Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament reveal "three Gods" like the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith revealed. I would agree that the Son wants us to become one as He and his Father are one ... in unity, in love, in glory (John 17).

You say that you do not think the Son is an "inferior God". Do you believe that the Son is a different God than the Father like the Mormon Church teaches? If so which one is "God"? John 1:1 reveals the Son is God and John 20 reveals the Son has a God. In Mark 12 Jesus says there is one God. In 1Cor 8 Paul teaches there is one God and one Lord.

Joseph Smith taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct personages but they comprise ONE GODHEAD. In plain terms if you could see them you would see the Father and the Son as two individual beings with bodies of flesh and bone and the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit. However the Son or the Holy Ghost do not work independent of the Father. They are ONE in purpose, unity and power. If you were to ask which one is God the answer must be that they all are...however Jesus taught that the Father is His God:

(John 20:17) "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God ."

So the fact is that the Son of God has said that He has a God (the Father) and yet He is also God, meaning God the Son. Christ is also known as Jehovah, the LORD of the Old Testament and He carries out His Father's or Elohim's plans. Jesus said that He did nothing of Himself, only what He saw His Father do. He said His doctrine was not His but His Father who sent Him.

Stephen who was stoned to death saw just what Joseph Smith saw:

(Acts 7:55-56)"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

From that it is indicated that God (the Father) is a separate individual from God (the Son) I think this is exactly what Joseph meant when he said that they were "three Gods" he was empasizing they are different individuals. Yet he taught they were one Godhead. That is what Isaiah, Moses, Jesus, Paul and all those who have testified of the nature of God meant. We believe this quote from the Apostle Paul:

(1 Corinthians 8:5-6) "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."

I hope that makes the position clear.

The Protest Reformation does not atest to a great apostasy. It does show that some fell away from the Church at Rome. Does the historical fact that the RLDS seperated from the the Mormon Church at Salt Lake City atest to a great apostasy? Please provide the evidence that the Church that the apostles founded in Rome became corrupted.

That is a good point, however we do not base our doctrine of universal apostacy on the historical fact that the reformers thought the Church was in apostacy. It mainly comes from the first vision to the Prophet Joseph Smith, that they (the Churches) were "all wrong and all of their creeds were an abomination in His sight..."

Please explain how Rev 14:6 is talking about restoring the everlasting gospel. I would disagree with this interpretation. The event in Rev 14:6 occured BEFORE the time of the Book of Mormon, Col 1:23 says that gospel "was preached to every creature which is under heaven". The everlasting good news in Rev 14:6 is that God's eternal reign is about to begin. The three angels are proclaiming judgment.

That is the problem with "settling the matter by an appeal to the Bible" you get thousands of interpretations. Although I do not see how you say that the event occured before the time of the Book of Mormon...are you saying you think Paul is saying that the Gospel is preached to all that dwell on earth? So why did Paul continue to preach? Or maybe Paul was using the expression to make a point that the Gospel was to be preached to all? In fact if you read Revelation 14:6 it says:

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every enation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,"

That is what it says, it says that the everlasting gospel is to be preached. It is true that it is a warning that the hour of the Lord's reign is near, but it is talking about a dispensation of the Gospel.

Please explain when and how Peter got his physical hands to ordain Joseph Smith. In my earlier post I have shown that scripture reveals that the dead in Christ like Peter do not receive a physcial body till the second coming of Christ. At the present time Peter does not have physcial hands, he is a resurrected spirit only being. Peter could NOT have ordained Joseph Smith because at the present time Peter does not have physical hands to ordain.

Please explain why you believe the keys were given to the rest of the apostles. In my earlier post I have shown that scripture reveals only Peter received the "keys of the kingdom".

He got physical hands because he was resurrected with a physical body just as Jesus was. As for the Keys of the Kingdom he was speaking to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:18 not just to Peter. Peter was the senior Apostle and President of the Church. These keys were lost with the death of the Apostles and were restored to the Prophet Joseph as stated in:

(D&C 65:2) "The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth."

As for your final point:

Both the Athanasian Creed and the Nicene Creed reveal that the Father and the Son are two distinct persons but they are not two seperate Gods like the Mormon Church teaches. Scripture reveals that Jehovah and Elohim are not different Gods like the Mormon Church teaches. Scripture reveals that the Son was "I AM', the Son of God and God himself.

As for the creeds I cannot tell what they teach because they are not plain, they sound confusing and contradictory. I was under the impression that they taught that the Father and Son were not distinct persons (meaning two beings) but were only different manifistations of the same personage. This teaching is not Biblical as already expressed. If you are saying that you believe Jesus and His Father are two beings that are as distinct from each other as me and my earthly father are and yet they are both members of the Godhead then I would agree with you.

[Lightbearer]

So B.H. Roberts (not John Smith) said "They are not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doctrine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants."

I'm curious. Since you quoted the footnote instead of the actual paragraph, what does the actual paragraph say? Does it say that the D&C was accepted by a unanimous vote?

Ah, the "line upon line" defense for changing doctrine.

My point is this. Mormons have long criticized the Nicene Creed for being developed (not revealed), and it seems (to me at least) that Mormon doctrine has been developed (not revealed). That's why changes have occured over the years.

Why does it matter who said it? B.H. Roberts or John Smith? The Nicene Creed was not revealed and if you still insist that the statement in Lectures of Faith is substantially different from what is revealed in D&C 130 then all I can say is that the revelation in D&C 130 is offical Church doctrine today. It was not me or the "Mormons" that came up with the "line upon line" defence, it was God.

[Thinking]

Why does it matter who said it? B.H. Roberts or John Smith?

John Smith (who was there in 1835) never said "They are not to be regarded as of equal authority..." All he did was mention the two sections, which is natural since the LoF were an addition to what was in the previous edition.

In the current edition, the introduction talks about the different parts, "...three documents have been included for the first time..." Does this mean that "they are not to be regarded as of equal authority?"

What did Joseph Smith say about the LoF?

History of the Church, Vol. 2

CHAPTER XIII

THE LECTURES ON FAITH--TWELVE APOSTLES CHOSEN AND ORDAINED.

January, 1835--During the month of January, I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, which the committee appointed last September were now compiling.

Since you didn't tell me what the actual paragraph said (not the footnote), I looked it up. It was exactly as I quoted from the Messenger & Advocate. Here it is again.

According to said arrangement W. W. Phelps bore record that the book presented to the assembly, was true. President John Whitmer, also arose, and testified that it was true. Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the high council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine; whereupon the high council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote.

It was not me or the "Mormons" that came up with the "line upon line" defence, it was God.

"Line upon line" is a description of how knowledge should be obtained. For example, a math student needs to learn algebra and trigonometry in order to be able to understand calculus. However, the algebra and trigonometry principles are never discarded. The foundation must remain firm. Using "line upon line" to justify discarding doctrine is like saying that once a house is built, the foundation may be removed because it is no longer needed. "Line upon line" does not apply to changing or removing scripture.

[Lightbearer]

John Smith (who was there in 1835) never said "They are not to be regarded as of equal authority..." All he did was mention the two sections, which is natural since the LoF were an addition to what was in the previous edition.

In the current edition, the introduction talks about the different parts, "...three documents have been included for the first time..." Does this mean that "they are not to be regarded as of equal authority?"

What did Joseph Smith say about the LoF?

History of the Church, Vol. 2

Since you didn't tell me what the actual paragraph said (not the footnote), I looked it up. It was exactly as I quoted from the Messenger & Advocate. Here it is again.

"Line upon line" is a description of how knowledge should be obtained. For example, a math student needs to learn algebra and trigonometry in order to be able to understand calculus. However, the algebra and trigonometry principles are never discarded. The foundation must remain firm. Using "line upon line" to justify discarding doctrine is like saying that once a house is built, the foundation may be removed because it is no longer needed. "Line upon line" does not apply to changing or removing scripture.

We believe in continuing revelation that is what "line upon line" means. God can change or remove whatever He wants. He gave the Law of Moses and when it was fullfilled it was not to be observed. The Lord can add to or take away from His revelations. He can clarify or correct or whatever He likes. Unlike some we do no see the scriptures as necessarily being "infallable." I would suggest following this council from the Book of Mormon:

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

The foundation of the true Church is Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. Not a book...but living revelation that is the "rock" upon which we are built. Here is a quote for you to think about:

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Two 1834-37 Pg.60) "But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are indebted to the faith of another people who lived hundreds and thousands of years before them, does it remain for them to say how much God has spoken and how much He has not spoken? We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain: but to say that God never said anything more to man than is there recorded, would be saying at once that we have at last received a revelation: for it must require one to advance thus far, because it is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God, that He would not, after giving what is there contained, speak again; and if any man has found out for a fact that the Bible contains all that God ever revealed to man he has ascertained it by an immediate revelation, other than has been previously written by the prophets and apostles."

[Lightbearer]

Here is another quote as to why the Lectures on Faith are not currently in the D&C:

(John A. Widtsoe, Historical Sketch of the Lectures on Faith, Pg.6) "The Lectures on Faith have not been printed in the current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, because they are not revelations to the Church."

[Thinking]

So Joseph Smith teaches the LoF in the school of the prophets. Then he prepares them for publication in the newly named Doctrine & Covenants. The 1835 D&C is received unanimously by the Church. Yet because of a technicality (they were never stated to be revelation) they are removed 86 years later for a reason that Church leaders in 1835 didn't know they had provide in the first place. Whew!

JS: Gordon, where are the LoF in the D&C?

GBH: We took them out in 1921.

JS: Why?

GBH: You never said they were revelations.

JS: Not revelations? I spent a lot of time working on those. I used them in the school of the prophets. We voted unanimously for them to be included with the revelations as the doctrine and covenants of the Church!

GBH: Sorry, they're not revelations.

[Calm]

JS: Not revelations? I spent a lot of time working on those. I used them in the school of the prophets. We voted unanimously for them to be included with the revelations as the doctrine and covenants of the Church!

GBH: Sorry, they're not revelations.

You apparently seem to be equating the study and reasoning of truth with revelation. The Lectures on Faith were a compilation of teachings and doctrines based on the current state of knowledge in these areas, some of that knowledge would have been received through revelation, other of it was not but was based on philosphy, tradition, logic, etc.

Revelation given since that time would, of course, supercede such sources and thus render those conclusions invalid due to faulty assumptions and definitions.

I do not recall any teachings of JS that his knowledge at any state of his life or anyone else's knowledge was to be considered the 'final state' of our understanding. Instead, it seems to me he taught that teachings will undoubtedly change due to our increased understanding from various sources including revelation.

Acceptance of change is built into the LDS system of doctrine, imo. The measure of what is acceptable change is what is debatable.

And "I spent a lot of time working" isn't one of them.

[Thinking]

Acceptance of change is built into the LDS system of doctrine, imo. The measure of what is acceptable change is what is debatable.

Procedure may change (e.g. Law of Moses), but absolute truth does not change (e.g. Nature of God). Please don't confuse them.

[Calm]

Procedure may change (e.g. Law of Moses), but absolute truth does not change (e.g. Nature of God). Please don't confuse the them.

I'm not. What makes you think that I am?

Understanding of absolute truth does change, does it not?

[Lightbearer]

So Joseph Smith teaches the LoF in the school of the prophets. Then he prepares them for publication in the newly named Doctrine & Covenants. The 1835 D&C is received unanimously by the Church. Yet because of a technicality (they were never stated to be revelation) they are removed 86 years later for a reason that Church leaders in 1835 didn't know they had provide in the first place. Whew!

JS: Gordon, where are the LoF in the D&C?

GBH: We took them out in 1921.

JS: Why?

GBH: You never said they were revelations.

JS: Not revelations? I spent a lot of time working on those. I used them in the school of the prophets. We voted unanimously for them to be included with the revelations as the doctrine and covenants of the Church!

GBH: Sorry, they're not revelations.

Please do not try to use Joseph Smith and Gordon B Hinckley as your "sockpuppets" so you can put your words into their mouths. Here are a few scriptures to think about:

[LifeOnaPlate]

So Joseph Smith teaches the LoF in the school of the prophets. Then he prepares them for publication in the newly named Doctrine & Covenants. The 1835 D&C is received unanimously by the Church. Yet because of a technicality (they were never stated to be revelation) they are removed 86 years later for a reason that Church leaders in 1835 didn't know they had provide in the first place. Whew!

JS: Gordon, where are the LoF in the D&C?

GBH: We took them out in 1921.

JS: Why?

GBH: You never said they were revelations.

JS: Not revelations? I spent a lot of time working on those. I used them in the school of the prophets. We voted unanimously for them to be included with the revelations as the doctrine and covenants of the Church!

GBH: Sorry, they're not revelations.

Thinking is a big fan of this false dialogue thing. We can play all sorts of fun games with it:

LifeOnaPlate: Hello, Thinking, what's up?

Thinking: Nothing, I'm just trying to destroy faith in the LDS Church today.

LifeOnaPlate: Why?

Thinking: Because I don't believe it.

LifeOnaPlate: Why don't you explain what you believe, rather than try to always explain why other people are wrong?

Thinking: Because that would require more thought, restraint and humility.

LifeOnaPlate: Are you saying you don't possess those qualities?

Thinking: Absolutely.

This is a fun game, to be sure. Putting words in other people's mouths is easy and effective. I can prove any point any time! ESPECIALLY if one or more of the people I am quoting are dead or imaginary. Observe:

Thomas Jefferson: I believe in freedom, but I also have slaves. I love slavery and think every black person should be a slave to the white man, and never should be free. Also, we should be able to have children with any slave we possibly can!

Thomas Edison: You know that story of how I invented the lightbulb? It is bogus. I actually stole the idea from one of Thomas Jefferson's slaves. Thanks, slavery!

Buddha: My religion is false!

Muhammed: Mine too!

etc. etc.