Creedal Christianity

[Pantsman]

To be a Mormon I assume I have to believe:

1. Joseph Smith was a prophet

2. The Godhead is really three seperate God's, Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

3. The Father has a body of flesh and bone

etc...

What is the difference really between what a Mormon must accept to be a Mormon and what a Christian must accept to be a Christian? Who decided that you need to believe what you believe?

As for the Creeds we believe them because we believe Christ promised to lead his Church in ALL TRUTH and never leave us orphans. Simply put we believe that the early Church councils had the Holy Ghost guiding them and that's where our "creeds" came from, directly from the mouth of God.

[PacMan]

To be a Mormon I assume I have to believe:

1. Joseph Smith was a prophet

2. The Godhead is really three seperate God's, Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

3. The Father has a body of flesh and bone

etc...

What is the difference really between what a Mormon must accept to be a Mormon and what a Christian must accept to be a Christian? Who decided that you need to believe what you believe?

As for the Creeds we believe them because we believe Christ promised to lead his Church in ALL TRUTH and never leave us orphans. Simply put we believe that the early Church councils had the Holy Ghost guiding them and that's where our "creeds" came from, directly from the mouth of God.

Pants,

Easy. Everyone agress that there is a Mormon hierachy. Moreover, the BoM was at the ceter of a restoration of authority...one cannot be "Mormon" and not accept the restoration of this authority because JS was the vessel by which both were done. And if one accept it, there's not a lot of movement to shift on the subject.

Now, because of this common line (JS), there is a standard dogma, etc. Within Orthodox Christianity, there is not. Protestants reject Catholics authority but accept the "Christian" counsels. But certainly there is no unified "Christian" authority (or church). Thus, for one to deem themselves as Christians and exclude others is tremendously bigoted and simply incoherent due to the dearth of germane information to back their stance. Again, the real issue is because JS was pretty clear in outlining the theology of Mormonism. There is much lacking in Christianity, in terms of original definitions.

I am certainly Christian...but I wouldn't be offended if people said I wasn't an "Orthodox Christian." Considering they're the ones that incorrectly defined God and Christ, I think they are the ones to change their titles as well. All the same, I'm not going to tell them that they themselves are not, Christians.

PacMan

P.S.

As for the Creeds we believe them because we believe Christ promised to lead his Church in ALL TRUTH and never leave us orphans. Simply put we believe that the early Church councils had the Holy Ghost guiding them and that's where our "creeds" came from, directly from the mouth of God.

You can believe what you want, but it's circular reasoning.

[Uncle Dale]

Life on a plate was asserting that anything added to or taken away from the Bible was not to be done. I was pointing out that it was only refering to the book of Revelation.

Is this a Creedal Difference. You decide.

It is certainly a major difference between the LDS and the mainstream churches.

Were Paul's alluded to (but never preserved) "third" epistle to the Corinthians ever

discovered, it could not be added to the mainstream's canon and would therefore not

be the "Word of God."

Likewise, even though Martin Luther considered the Letter of James to be a "right strawy epistle"

and unworthy of a place within the primary canon, even that Great Light of the Reformation

was unable to remove the text from the Bible of his day.

When Latter Day Saints go about adding new texts, revelations and commandments to the

established Scriptures, they can be assured that some folks will call them non-Christian.

Uncle "and especially so, when they claim Ephraim's birthright to Jackson Co., Missouri" Dale

[Pantsman]

Pants,

P.S.

You can believe what you want, but it's circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning, all faith will become circular reasoning,

Mormon: "Mormonism is Christ's Church"

Christian: "No it isn't"

Mormon "Yes it is, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet"

Chrsitian "No he wasn't"

Mormon "He is"

Christian "How do you know"

Mormon "Because the Mormon church revealed it and it's Christ's Church"

You believe your Church has the authority to pooof invent doctrines and reverse doctrine on the breath of your prophet. You hold to any creed set forth by your prophets because you believe your church has authority to do so. For example Brigham Young claimed that black's would never get the priesthood, yet in 1978 they did, yet below he seemed pretty certain it wasn't going to happen:

"What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth."

Easy. Everyone agress that there is a Mormon hierachy. Moreover, the BoM was at the ceter of a restoration of authority...one cannot be "Mormon" and not accept the restoration of this authority because JS was the vessel by which both were done. And if one accept it, there's not a lot of movement to shift on the subject.

Now, because of this common line (JS), there is a standard dogma, etc. Within Orthodox Christianity, there is not. Protestants reject Catholics authority but accept the "Christian" counsels. But certainly there is no unified "Christian" authority (or church). Thus, for one to deem themselves as Christians and exclude others is tremendously bigoted and simply incoherent due to the dearth of germane information to back their stance. Again, the real issue is because JS was pretty clear in outlining the theology of Mormonism. There is much lacking in Christianity, in terms of original definitions.

I am certainly Christian...but I wouldn't be offended if people said I wasn't an "Orthodox Christian." Considering they're the ones that incorrectly defined God and Christ, I think they are the ones to change their titles as well. All the same, I'm not going to tell them that they themselves are not, Christians.

PacMan

I think we can leave off the patronizing "easy"...

"Again, the real issue is because JS was pretty clear in outlining the theology of Mormonism"

What? No he wasn't he was about clear as mud, an outside observer could say he was... making it up as he went along.

You say there is no "unified Christian Church" I say there is, the Catholic Church whose Bishop's presided over the counsels. Just because there wasn't "original definitions" two years after Christ died doesn't prove what is stated in the Christian creeds as wrong. Just think black's didn't get the priesthood until 150 years after Mormonism came on the scene, does that disprove Mormonism? Christ said the Holy Spirit will guide you in all Truth, why it becomes imposible for this to happen over the course of the first couple hundred years is beyond me, if the Holy Ghost is leading the Church I don't see what the big deal is. It certainly isn't as unbelievable as Christians being abandoned for 1800 years until Joseph Smith came along, had a vision and translated now missing magical golden plates...

[PacMan]

Pants,

HuH?

Moreover, the â??Easyâ? wasnâ??t meant as patronizing. Sorry if thatâ??s how you took it.

"Again, the real issue is because JS was pretty clear in outlining the theology of Mormonism"

What? No he wasn't he was about clear as mud, an outside observer could say he was... making it up as he went along.

If you want to start the ad hominem and hyperbole, we can do it. I have a feeling that youâ??ll loose and get bannedâ?¦but we can.

Understand, this has everything to do with ACCESS to statements and records. We have a severely limited amount of information from the Apostlesâ?¦thatâ??s why you really on the counsels to â??defineâ? those doctrines that werenâ??t explicitly defined before. If Paul wrote an epistle names, â??Baptism: An Idiotâ??s Guide,â? I doubt thereâ??d be need for such definition. Thatâ??s what we DO have of Joseph Smith, simply because of time proximity.

You say there is no "unified Christian Church" I say there is, the Catholic Church whose Bishop's presided over the counsels.

Except the Protestants (and Greek Orthodox) reject your authority. That makes itâ?¦not tremendously unified.

Just because there wasn't "original definitions" two years after Christ died doesn't prove what is stated in the Christian creeds as wrong.

Do you have any idea what the question is, and what Iâ??m answering? In case you forgot, hereâ??s your original question:

What is the difference really between what a Mormon must accept to be a Mormon and what a Christian must accept to be a Christian? Who decided that you need to believe what you believe?

Iâ??m answering the questionâ?¦so untwist your panties and come back to this discussion. If youâ??d like to discuss Catholic authority, Iâ??m happy to do so. I just didnâ??t think that was the issue here.

PacMan

P.S. I daresay if you pull one more inflammatory and juvenile outburst like you just did, youâ??ll get booted faster than you can scream â??heretic.â?

[Pantsman]

Pants,

HuH?

P.S. I daresay if you pull one more inflammatory and juvenile outburst like you just did, youâ??ll get booted faster than you can scream â??heretic.â?

Well I guess it's good you are not a MOD, what did I say that was a "juvenile outburst" again?

Look guy without ad-hominems you would have zero amunition against the Catholic Church. You wrote a statement I answered it, leave off the "panties in a bunch" nonsense, the patronizing "easy", or the threats to engage in some ad-hominem off... O.K. pal?

[PacMan]

Well I guess it's good you are not a MOD, what did I say that was a "juvenile outburst" again?

Look guy without ad-hominems you would have zero amunition against the Catholic Church. You wrote a statement I answered it, leave off the "panties in a bunch" nonsense, the patronizing "easy", or the threats to engage in some ad-hominem off... O.K. pal?

Zero? Are you serious? Oh please ask me about Innocent the IV...again. And how can you "answer" a statement? And what's an "ad-hominem off?" Unless you mean, "...leave off...some ad-hominem off." But that doesn't make sense either.

Oh well. Anyway, hope you see that I was answering YOUR question, and not actually saying anything challenging nor condescending. But, you may see what you wish to see.

Peace,

PacMan

[LifeOnaPlate]

You believe your Church has the authority to pooof invent doctrines and reverse doctrine on the breath of your prophet. You hold to any creed set forth by your prophets because you believe your church has authority to do so. For example Brigham Young claimed that black's would never get the priesthood, yet in 1978 they did, yet below he seemed pretty certain it wasn't going to happen:

Likewise the Jesus you believe in seemed to have some sort of racial preference to Jews, and was discriminatory to the Gentiles. He forbade his disciples from teaching the Gentiles during his mortal ministry, and tried to avoid doing so himself. How racist is that!!!

Either that, or God's ways are not mans ways, and etc.

[Pantsman]

Zero? Are you serious? Oh please ask me about Innocent the IV...again. And how can you "answer" a statement? And what's an "ad-hominem off?" Unless you mean, "...leave off...some ad-hominem off." But that doesn't make sense either.

Oh well. Anyway, hope you see that I was answering YOUR question, and not actually saying anything challenging nor condescending. But, you may see what you wish to see.

Peace,

PacMan

I'm not going to play your game and get banned like you want, I am downright sick of you dressing people down when you just happen to disagree with their faith, you have to be the nastiest person I've ever encountered on a message board. I simply reported you and I'll let the MOD's sort it out, until then you can go on my ignore list.

Now mock my grammar, and nit pick stupid errors in my post in an attempt to inflate your ego further.

[PacMan]

I'm not going to play your game and get banned like you want, I am downright sick of you dressing people down when you just happen to disagree with their faith, you have to be the nastiest person I've ever encountered on a message board. I simply reported you and I'll let the MOD's sort it out, until then you can go on my ignore list.

Now mock my grammar, and nit pick stupid errors in my post in an attempt to inflate your ego further.

Pants,

On the contrary...this post is actually very coherent. But understand, I don't dump on people because I disagree with them. I call it as I see it. If they don't answer the question or don't make sense, I'll call them out on it. The problem is you want to be upset. If you look at my response to your OP, it actually is most respectable. It wasn't holier than thou at all, and was pointed at answering what I thought was an honest question posed by you. It has nothing to do with who's right, but the fact that Joseph Smith's proximity to us is drastically different than that of the Apostles--and that affects the conundrum that you presented in a drastic way. I'm sorry you didn't see it like that...but I'm confident that my response was thoughful.

PacMan

[Momus]

Both of you learn to get along and have some sort of dialogue or put eachother on ignore. You can do this in your My Controls section of the board. Stating opinions against the Catholic Church is not an ad hominem attack. If that were the case then you would be just as guilty of it.

Here is an example.

Circular reasoning, all faith will become circular reasoning,

Mormon: "Mormonism is Christ's Church"

Christian: "No it isn't"

Mormon "Yes it is, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet"

Chrsitian "No he wasn't"

Mormon "He is"

Christian "How do you know"

Mormon "Because the Mormon church revealed it and it's Christ's Church"

If you believe that is not just as much of an ad hominem attack on the LDS church and its members then that might be the root of the problem.

On that note Pac knock off the condesending/patronizing attitude in your posts to Pantsman and Pantsman stop responding to it. Keep to the topic and get off the personal responses to eachother.

Momus

[Confidential Informant]

To be a Mormon I assume I have to believe:

1. Joseph Smith was a prophet

2. The Godhead is really three seperate God's, Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

3. The Father has a body of flesh and bone

etc...

What is the difference really between what a Mormon must accept to be a Mormon and what a Christian must accept to be a Christian? Who decided that you need to believe what you believe?

\\

Okay, fair enough. But what, then, was the yardstick used to determine true Christians prior to the creedal counsels? How did the folks in the 100's and 200's and early 300's know if one person was Christian and the other wasn't?

C.I.

[LifeOnaPlate]

To extend my point further, pantsman, you are criticising continuing revelation received by LDS Church leaders, yet you also say the Spirit can continue to inspire leaders on things such as the Nicene Creed. This is a double standard, in my view, especially considering the point I raised about the gospel only being preached to the Jews at first; which could be seen as racism, if you want to go there.

Pres. Hugh B. Brown explained our position in regards to Church doctrine:

â??This Church is not committed to any formal, inflexible creed, but its members are taught to believe in and live by the revelations of the past and the present and thus prepare themselves for revelations yet to come. Our concepts and even our faith must be held subject to new light.â?--"Mormonism", Hugh B. Brown; Monday, Feb. 26, 1962; to the students at the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, Pa.

[Pantsman]

Both of you learn to get along and have some sort of dialogue or put eachother on ignore. You can do this in your My Controls section of the board. Stating opinions against the Catholic Church is not an ad hominem attack. If that were the case then you would be just as guilty of it.

Here is an example.

If you believe that is not just as much of an ad hominem attack on the LDS church and its members then that might be the root of the problem.

On that note Pac knock off the condesending/patronizing attitude in your posts to Pantsman and Pantsman stop responding to it. Keep to the topic and get off the personal responses to eachother.

Momus

With all due respect that isn't an ad-hominem at all, it was in a response to pacman's allegation that I was using circular logic, it was simply to show that any faith based system will always wind up using circular logic, Catholicism included.

[e=mc2]

Pantsman:

the early Church councils had the Holy Ghost guiding them and that's where our "creeds" came from, directly from the mouth of God.

Shirtsman:

That is an assertion that is not in accord with the history of the councils as we have them. Socrates, the church historian, Sozoman, and even Eusebius has shown what really occurred there, and by any other name of what happened it can in no wise be called "revelation from God."

[PacMan]

Pants,

That was the moderators point...you DIDN'T post ad hominem in that instance. They were saying if my opinion contra the RCC were considered ad hominem (such as circular reasoning), then such comments that you have made would need be also considered, ad hominem (which it's not).

PacMan

P.S. But let's get back to your question...I thought it was a decent one.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It is astounding that the creeds are now being held out by some as revelation; when at the time it was far from considered revelation. Also, why all the criticism towards Joseph smith who was told the heavens are closed? If the counsels could receive more revelation, why not Joseph Smith?

[PacMan]

e=mc2

Pantsman:

Shirtsman:

That is an assertion that is not in accord with the history of the councils as we have them. Socrates, the church historian, Sozoman, and even Eusebius has shown what really occurred there, and by any other name of what happened it can in no wise be called "revelation from God."

You're not actually going to make me go read those things are you? Put down some some shining nuggets...oh how I hate my own research.

PacMan

P.S. Did you see the other thing in the "heir" thread? I'd like your commentary.

[e=mc2]

Heh, I guess I will have to accomodate yer laziness and do yer research for ya, and post for ya, should I also hold the hanky for you so you can blow yer nose too pal?

[PacMan]

Heh, I guess I will have to accomodate yer laziness and do yer research for ya, and post for ya, should I also hold the hanky for you so you can blow yer nose too pal?

No. But I've got a roll of toilet paper here. I'll hold it if you'd mind...

PacMan

[Pantsman]

It's not revelation in the terms that LDS are used to it.

Catholics believe that Peter was made the head of the Church and the Apostles were their to lead Christ's Church. We also believe Christ's Church is the pillar of Truth, men are the chaff amongst the wheat but we believe in the charism of infallbility to lead the Church by Peter's successor. We believe the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church in ALL TRUTH during the counsels, and today it does still. And whatever means they came to their decisions they were lead that way by the Holy Ghost. Whether it took 300 years to get their doesn't matter. When Christ said "I will send the Holy Ghost to lead you in all truth" he didn't set a 3 year timeline.

The Catholic Church made certain dogmas' because we believe it has 100% authority to do so, what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, what you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven, etc... It's about authority, I think the Catholic Church clearly has it and is the only Church that can make a valid claim for authority, you guys don't, but I don't see how they are different aside from the fact that your early history is more recent, which both helps and hurts your claim to authority. We're not going to find a letter in Peter's hand making Linus his successor as the Bishop of Rome since it was 2,000 years ago and a persecuted underground Church, but that's what people want, you're not going to get it. What we do have is a pretty well traced lineage going back to Peter in Rome. Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail, Christ stating the Church is the pillar of Truth, Christ's promise that the Holy Ghost would lead the Church in all truth, Christ's promise that we would not be left orphans, Christ promise that the Church can bind and loose, and the rest is faith.

[juliann]

You believe your Church has the authority to pooof invent doctrines and reverse doctrine on the breath of your prophet. You hold to any creed set forth by your prophets because you believe your church has authority to do so. For example Brigham Young claimed that black's would never get the priesthood, yet in 1978 they did, yet below he seemed pretty certain it wasn't going to happen:

You are the one who is insulting and extremely naive if you don't think all church's "invent and reverse". What the heck do you think postbiblical creeds were? Was God in attendance at those councils or were squabbling men? The race-baiting is a nice diversion, though.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's not revelation in the terms that LDS are used to it.

Catholics believe that Peter was made the head of the Church and the Apostles were their to lead Christ's Church. We also believe Christ's Church is the pillar of Truth, men are the chaff amongst the wheat but we believe in the charism of infallbility to lead the Church by Peter's successor. We believe the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church in ALL TRUTH during the counsels, and today it does still. And whatever means they came to their decisions they were lead that way by the Holy Ghost. Whether it took 300 years to get their doesn't matter. When Christ said "I will send the Holy Ghost to lead you in all truth" he didn't set a 3 year timeline.

The Catholic Church made certain dogmas' because we believe it has 100% authority to do so, what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, what you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven, etc... It's about authority, I think the Catholic Church clearly has it and is the only Church that can make a valid claim for authority, you guys don't, but I don't see how they are different aside from the fact that your early history is more recent, which both helps and hurts your claim to authority. We're not going to find a letter in Peter's hand making Linus his successor as the Bishop of Rome since it was 2,000 years ago and a persecuted underground Church, but that's what people want, you're not going to get it. What we do have is a pretty well traced lineage going back to Peter in Rome. Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail, Christ stating the Church is the pillar of Truth, Christ's promise that the Holy Ghost would lead the Church in all truth, Christ's promise that we would not be left orphans, Christ promise that the Church can bind and loose, and the rest is faith.

I feel like you dodged just about every other point I made; especially dealing with your "racism" argument.

[Pantsman]

I feel like you dodged just about every other point I made; especially dealing with your "racism" argument.

There's like 200 LDS and one of me, I can't personally address every question it would be impossible. I can make a general post in hopes it covers most of what people were asking, if it doesn't then it doesn't, I don't think I even read your post.

[e=mc2]

Pantsman:

It's not revelation in the terms that LDS are used to it.

As in coming from God to prophets, yer darn tootin it ain't nowhere near this *biblical* nature and LDS nature of revelation. It was pure politics and argument. Revelation had fundamentally nothing to do with the formation of the creeds. The letter of COnstantine to both Athanasius and Arius is striking in this regard. HIS power to convene the Bishops in the first place shows something is woefully wrong. Since when does Non-Christian leadership have the power to force Christians to assemble and then force them to accept the doctrine HE thinks is best tin order to keep the peace? The record is crystal clear in this regard, there was no revelation to the formation of the creeds, no matter how you wish to redefine the word "revelation" in order to suit your needs.