creeds are an abomination

[coolrok7]

The following dialogue occurred At Mariners Church in Southern California (just down the road from the Newport Beach Mormon Temple, completed in 2005), in an interfaith dialogue that Greg Johnson (Protestant Christian) and Bob Millet (Mormon) had.

This is also where I had met Tanyan, in person. It was several meetings before I came to know it was him. Some short references in his and my words concerning this:

Tanyan, it was at the meeting at Mariners recently where I finally got to meet you personally, not just a name on a screen. This was after the initial meeting with Greg Johnson/Bob Millet and their traveling Evangelical/Mormon dialogue (which I didn't get to attend but saw the DVD, although I had attended an earlier one at the Stake building in Anaheim Hills several years ago).

From ZLMB:

[Tanyan]

coolrok7 and Tanyan meet.

________________________________________

Last night at Mariners Church in Irvine Ca. there was an Evangelical/LDS Discussion group that met at Mariners Church. There were 6 in attendance [2 moderators, Charlotte Pardee of EXMFJ and her Husband, coolrok7, and 1 LDS/Mormon - ME !-OUCH]. Is was a positive experience for everone involved. Looking forward to the next one next week [As far as I know I will be able to attend] Just a shout out to coolrok7 thanks again for carrying that bag for me !. For some stange reason everyone there thought that I was a somewhat different LDS than they had ever met in the past. Anyway may Grace Rain on all this day. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNiGHT.

[coolrok7]

It was in the follow-up meetings where Mormons were invited to participate if they wanted to, in which you showed up (a small group setting). It was determined by those listening to you (myself included), based on what you were saying, that you don't accurately reflect the Mormon view of God, although you do consider yourself to be Mormon in belief (unless I've misunderstood you).

It is part of the dialogues they've been presenting around the country over the last several years. I'm including it as a reference in light of the Nicene Creed which follows below after the dialogue between Greg and Bob. (The pertinent part of this dialogue in the sense of having creeds is toward the end)

[bob Millet]:

(from the video that was played during the meeting) Getting to know another person to what their faith is, what they feel deep down is not easy. Dean Christer Stendhal of the Harvard Divinity School once observed that if you really want to know what a person feels, what they believe. He said, I have three suggestions:

1. Go to an active, practicing, somewhat knowledgeable member of that faith, ask them

2. If you must compare, compare their best with your best

3. He said always leave room for holy envy

[Greg Johnson]:

You can go to our website, Standing Together .org and as a complimentary thing we will send you this one single article that came from, the New Mormon Challenge, in dealing with this question, is Mormonism Christian?, because, it's certainly a hot button issue. It often times is a conversation stopper that prevents any other conversation from going forward.

So I really do think it is not my place to tell you, Bob Millet, that you're not a Christian and that you're going to hell. And I think too many Christians. . .

[bob]:

Does anybody have that right?

[Greg]

No, I really say I think too many historic, Biblical, traditional, Evangelical, Christians would maybe jump to the conclusion and feel like it's their right to make that judgment and I think James warns us about making these kinds of judgments.

But at the same time, the second part of my answer is to say to you Bob, we have to be willing in this conversation to ask the hard questions and to get to honest answers. That if in fact, an Evangelical feels that Mormon doctrine as its studied, as its understood, as its revealed, seems to be outside of the bonds of anything we identify as Christian. And that's a pretty broad thing frankly.

I mean you've got Catholic Christianity, I know you know that's one of the big three expressions of Christianity. You've got Orthodox Christianity and you got Protestant Christianity. And from the days of Joseph Smith's First Vision forward, there was never an attempt to identify with any of these three. It wasn't a part of that larger tradition. It set itself apart from day one, and said, we're not Protestant, we're not Catholic, we're not Orthodox. We are the true and living Church of Jesus Christ. We're the Restoration of true Christianity.

And so when we are asked to evaluate the question of Mormonism's Christianess back in the time of 1820 & 1830, and in the present day, we have to open up our Bibles, understanding our theology, and compare what the Mormon Church is teaching and what it has to offer and say, does it match up with this?

And there are certain things, and we can grant these things in an introductory way. There are certain things that seem to be so different about your view of God, about the Mormon view of salvation and exaltation, the Mormon view of Scripture, the Mormon view of sin, that seem so different to us, that we don't see it as a part of the larger Christian definition. . . .

[bob]

What bothers me Greg though. . .it's the man on the street, it's the woman in the pew who hears the phrase, "Mormons aren't Christian".

[Greg]

So I think we need strong Evangelicals and strong Latter-day Saints to do the tough work of engaging one another and not being quick to be offended and quick to offend. . . .

[bob]

Now, lets possibly get to your question. There's no question but that a part of the LDS faith is the idea that following the deaths of the Savior and the apostles that divine priesthood authority was lost from the earth. That some ordinances or sacraments were changed. And that some doctrinal matters of great significance may have been lost, were lost. That doctrine of an apostasy or of a falling away is very fundamental part of what we are and we arising in the nineteenth century were a part of a much larger movement as you know called the Restorationist movement.

Many of you have friends or many of you may be members of the Disciples of Christ or the Church of Christ. That's one of those Restorationist movements and what were they? They were primitivists as they called themselves seeking to get back to the primitive church. Seeking to get back to primitive Christianity as it had existed originally.

And so yes, we would believe that. But I think it's important that you understand this much Greg, having studied enough history and enough Christian history myself, I would never say and I don't think I would say or even believe that its so over simplistic as to suppose that the lights of truth went out in 100 A.D. and they didn't come on again until 1820.

And that everything that happened during that 1800 years were false, corrupt, and rotten stuff. Of course not, that is silly. . . .And so I think what we're saying is, that Christianity didn't die, we do think some things happened, and I think this is important to take a moment to say. If you're a Protestant, you too believe there was a time when the mother church went off course for a season. . . .

In a sense both of our faith traditions believe there was a kind of apostasy of the primitive Church. . . .the difference really becomes one of depth and duration. . . .But you couldn't very well be a Protestant if you do not believe that it was necessary, as Martin Luther did, to try to correct the church from within and eventually finding himself outside it.

[Greg]

(Speaking of apostasy) Now, but when you give that kind of an answer and kind of say it's a manner of degrees and depth to which we evaluate the corruption of the mother church or the need for a Reformation, there are things that we read in the account of Joseph Smith's First Vision (1838) recorded in the POGP (a book of scripture) that call our creeds an abomination. That say the professors of our faith are, they acknowledge with their lips but their hearts are not committed to God.

The rhetoric of the First Vision, the rhetoric of early Mormonism, we could do some quotations of Brigham Young and John Taylor that would suggest some pretty divisive kinds of statements. So, how do we react to those things in todays culture? Are you backing off on those things? Have you corrected or clarified those things?

[bob]

It's not a matter of backing off. We certainly believe there was a falling away, but I think we're seeing with clearer eyes now what took place. Not only that, it seems to me that when, in the beginning when you were a small entity thereâ??s an automatic tendency to react to the nature of things in other churches. You begin almost to define yourself as over against the rest of Christianity. It's you guys and it's us.

[Greg]

There's hardly a need for restoration if there is just a few minor differences.

[bob]

That's exactly right. I'm not, I don't want to underplay that, but I don't want to overplay that either.

[Greg]

Ok

[bob]

Ok. I want to say, yes I believe there was a falling away. I think we can read the New Testament, and by the time you're into the latter parts of the New Testament, particularly into Peter, Peter's epistles. Once you're into John epistles, once you're into Jude, once you're into Revelation. Clearly, the church is wrestling with itself and wrestling with Greek ideas, and wrestling with Roman persecution. And there are things that are happening within the church.

Why would Jude be saying, contend earnestly for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. And so we believe there was a falling away, that there was an apostasy. Thus let's take one of those harsh language things you're talking about. Such as, "all their creeds are an abomination in my sight". That's hard language, I know that. Let me just say there's nothing wrong with a creed per say.

A creed is from the Latin, "Creedo", which just means, "I believe". I suppose in a sense, our Articles of Faith are a creedal statement of 13 statements of belief by the Latter-day Saints. There's nothing wrong with a creed per say, it's when a creed does one of two things.

One, perpetuates an idea or principle or a doctrine that is either unscriptural or non-true. And we think there were some things within, for example, the Nicene creed that we would take issue with, no question. But it also, and this seemed to me to be almost more of an obsession with Joseph Smith about creeds. I've read everything he said about creeds and most everything he's concerned about is what people were doing with creeds in the nineteenth century. They were beating their neighbors over their heads with them.

The founding fathers, many of them reacted strongly against creedal declarations and definitions because of what it was doing to divide people. You don't accept my creed, you're not in Christianity. You don't accept my creed, you're not a part of us. And so what I think Joseph Smith, as well as doctrinal content, Joseph Smith was just as concerned with creedalism. Alexander Campbell, founder as it were of the Disciples or the Church of Christ, deeply concerned.

He was the one that said, "no creed but the Bible." So I think what we are saying, yes, that is harsh language. Has the church changed it's position? No, we believe there was a falling away. But I think there's less tendency in the church to want to set up barriers between us and other people, and we're more prone recognize now, the goodness, the truth that exists in other faiths and try to find things which we can work together to solve problems in society.

I've asked Mormons concerning what specifically about the creeds that are supposed to be an abomination to God according to Joseph Smith:

for they were all wrong; . . .all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt;

It usually has something to do with the line "very God of very God, begotten not made" statement in the Nicene Creed. This is in reference to Jesus as the only one who took on a human nature and yet is still God by nature (not the Father/Holy Spirit). We are accused of teaching modalism:

Latter-day Saints also share a common misunderstanding of the "Trinitarian" teaching concerning the nature of God and His relationship to creation. They along with Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups think that Trinitarians believe (we don't) that Jesus and the Father are the same person (some might/do believe this way.

The following statements reflect that misunderstanding:

Elder: . . .BUT WHAT DO WE LEARN ABOUT GOD FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF JOSEPH SMITH?

Brown: That he has a real body.

Elder: Yes, he does. THE CHURCHES ALSO TAUGHT THAT GOD THE FATHER AND JESUS CHRIST, HIS SON, WERE BOTH THE SAME PERSON. . . . (A UNIFORM SYSTEM FOR TEACHING INVESTIGATORS, Aug. 1961, p.12)

The Oneness of the Father and the Son: There has been much misunderstanding regarding the oft-repeated statement that Jesus and his Father are one. A careful reading of the seventeenth chapter of John should clarify this matter fully. As Jesus was about to be offered up, he prayed unto his Father and thanked him for his apostles, saying, "that they may be one, as we are." (John 17:11). . .Now it is very apparent that Jesus was not speaking of oneness of personage, but oneness of purpose, . . .(John 17:24). . .Again it is evident that the oneness referred to has no reference to oneness of personage, for if Jesus and his Father were one in person, how absurd to think that Jesus would pray unto himself, . . . (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.22)

If Jesus were the Almighty God, he would not have prayed to himself, would he? Since Jesus prayed to God, . . .the two could not be the same person (You can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, p.39)

This understanding of what is perceived to be the "Trinitarian" teaching on the nature of God is more in line with the view known as "modalism". This heretical view of God teaches that Jesus is the Father, is the Holy Spirit, all being one in person.

It does not apply to the rest of humanity in that we "become gods" in the way God is, as expressed here:

"As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be."- Lorenzo Snow

It is important to note the following. The "very God" term is actually used in the BofM:

And also that ye may believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, which ye shall have among you; and also that the Jews, the covenant people of the Lord, shall have other witness besides him whom they saw and heard, that Jesus, whom they slew, was the very Christ and the [*] very God.

[* the term "very God" was used to defend the deity of Christ in the Nicene creed (against the Arian heresy). The term "very" is not in the Greek manuscripts of the Bible but appears in the King James translation alongside the term Christ]

In Mormonism it is taught that (from part of Bruce R. McConkie's BYU devotional in 1984):

This first and chief heresy of a now fallen and decadent Christianity- and truly it is the father of all heresies-. . .pertains now to the nature and kind of being that God is. . . .a spirit essence called the Trinity. . . .The adoption of this false doctrine about God effectively destroyed true worship among men and ushered in the age of universal apostasy. . . .

The Nicene Creed (by our local tradition is recited on the Sunday the Sacrament is partaken of, the Apostle's creed is used on non-Sacramental Sundays) as contained in the Missouri Synod Lutheran Hymnal.

This as an expression of what is believed to be Biblically correct statements to make concerning the nature of the Godhead as a confessional statement of faith:

The Apostles' Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic[*] Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

* catholic means "universal" and is not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Athanasian Creed

Written against the Arians.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

A line by line verse comparison (Nicene creed):

I believe in one God, . . . Deut 6:4, Mark 12:29

the Father Almighty, . . .1 Peter 1:3, Revelation 4:8

Maker of heaven and earth, . . .Genesis 1:1, 2 Kings 19:15

and of all things visible and invisible. . .Colossians 1:15-19

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, . . .Revelation 22:21

begotten of the Father before all worlds, . . .John 1:14, 18, 3:18-19

God of God, Light of Light, [*]very God of very God, begotten, not made, . . .Psalm 90:1-2, 1 Peter 1:3, John 1:4-14, Colossians 1:15-18

being of one substance with the Father; . . .Hebrews 1:1-4, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:5-8

by whom all things were made; . . .Genesis 1:1, Colossians 1:16-17

who for us men, and for our salvation, . . .Isaiah 12:2, Luke 1:77, John 4:22

came down from heaven, . . .John 3:13, John 6:33

and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, . . .Luke 1:29-37, 2:22-24, John 19:5

and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; . . .Matthew 27:2, 35, Acts 4:27, 1 Timothy 6:13

and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; . . .Matthew 16:21, Mark 9:31, Luke 9:22, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4,

and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; . . .John 3:13, 20:17, Acts 1:9-11, 7:55-56

and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; . . .John 14:3, 2 Timothy 4:1, 1 Peter 4:5, 1 John 2:28, Revelation 3:11, 6:10,

whose kingdom shall have no end. . . .Psalm 145:13, Daniel 7:27, 2 Peter 1:11

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, . . .Matthew 28:19, Luke 1:41, 12:10, John 14:26, Acts 1:5, 1:8, 2:4, 4:31, 5:32, 7:55

who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; . . .John 15:26, 16:7-9, 1 Peter 4:14, 5:10-11, Revelation 4:11, 7:12

who spake by the Prophets. . . .Mark 12:36, Acts 1:16, 7:51-53, 28:25

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church [means the universal Church not necessarily the Roman Catholic Church]. . .Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 2:19-22, Acts 11:26, 13:1-3, 1 Corinthians 12:28-31

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; . . .Acts 2:36-38, Romans 6:1-7, Ephesians 4:5

and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. . . .Acts 24:15, 1 Corinthians 15:42-49, Revelation 22

I would define the doctrine of God in this way (based on the above):

The Bible teaches that God is in His nature an eternally existent (Divine) spiritual being, even before the beginning of creation. God has revealed Himself to the prophets and apostles (recorded in Scripture) to be the one True God (monotheism, Deuteronomy 6:4), as opposed to the false gods of the pagan nations who were Israel's enemies (polytheism- belief in a plurality of gods; those who are not God by nature). In the New Testament God is further revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (the Godhead)- not the same person (Matthew 28:19).

I believe Isaiah 43:10 along with the above mentioned verse limits the Divine nature only to God (state of being God) and is ascribed to no one else. When the Hebrew term Elohim and the Greek term Theos (God, god, gods) is translated into English, the meaning of the term is derived from the context that its placed in. The term Elohim, gods (plural), is used for man (or other created beings) usually in a limited, sometimes derogatory way (see Psalm 82:6). Whenever the true God is being identified the term Elohim (which has a plural ending and is not His name) is translated in the singular, "God".

[Cold Steel]

It's generally a mistake to try to concentrate too much on what the Lord meant. After close to two thousand years of apostasy, there were many abominable creeds that had slipped in. Personal salvation was one. Are heathens condemned or saved? Do unbaptized infants or those infants who had been aborted saved? Are those who are not born the "elite" condemned to everlasting torment? There's also the concept of hired preachers who are paid to do what God's people ought to be doing...visiting the sick and afflicted, teaching one another, and bearing testimony of what they believe. "Hey, guess who's speaking next Sunday? Yep, it's the pastor again."

"Didn't he speak last week?"

"Yep, and the week before that!"

We shouldn't hire people to do what we, ourselves, should be doing. Pastors, or sometimes the church's board of directors, formulate all doctrine and policy.

I've been reading Hugh Nibley's Approaching Zion recently and I believe he's grasped the heart of what God wants from a people. What it is about creeds that the Lord found objectionable, I think, were the innovations men have made to the gospel and in the way we understand and worship God, and how we judge our fellow man. Ever since the Restoration, the churches have actually become better in a number of these areas and I'd like to think that we've had some impact on that.

[structurecop]

I think there have been some LDS General Authorities in the past who have looked for opportunities to show how strongly they can make a point about the uniqueness of the LDS Church in comparison to more mainstream Christian denominations. They tend to use language that is more abrasive or extreme than is necessary to make that point. They also may have not fully comprehended the material they were speaking on. I think Elder McConkie's "Heresies" talk falls into that category.

[cjwright]

Coolrok7,

being of one substance with the Father;

It is this point of the Nicene Creed that we LDS have a problem with.

Elder Jeffery R. Holland said in his October 2007 Conference talk:

We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.

Here are the three scripture references you used that claim this belief:

Hebrews 1:1-4 - 1: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2: Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4: Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Colossians 2:9 - 9: For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Philippians 2:5-8 - 5: Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

None of them say that the Godhead are of one substance, that concept has been read into the text in order to agree with the Nicene Creed, but as you can see, it is not there.

[rpn]

I think what God meant when He used the word "creed" (and it might not have been His word, but the one JS interpreted, particularly since JS wasn't taking notes) is that people were misunderstanding and preaching the very essence of who God is and that had led, and continued to lead many astray about the plan. I think He was speaking about the way churches and faiths described Him.

I also think that many misquote this scripture and think that it says that God said churches were an abomination. When that just isn't so.

[Calm]

I think He was speaking about the way churches and faiths described Him.

And then insist on everyone who doesn't subscribe to that particular interpretation is going to hell.

[Tanyan]

Coolrok thanks for sharing again. And thank you again for helping me carry my bags for me after one of those LDS/Ev meetings we had in one of the rooms at Mariners church. Yes I did notice some bewildered looks from some of you as I was explaining my understanding and reflection of the "Mormon"view of GOD with you all and the l disbelief in what I was stating was apparant by facial exp​ressions and your - "Thats not what your Prophets/Apostles say" in regard to there explanation of GOD. Of course there way when explaining to the common person is different that speaking to one with letters of the alphabet after there name to show there higher scholarly learning which is what I was expressing the latter in my conversation with you all there. I have taught children, investigators, new member, older member, missionary classes and in all my years of teaching with the spirit and to whom I am addressing I have never been told by any LDS ecclesiastical leader that I was not teaching correct true LDS Doctrine.

In the scholarly realm I believe in an Anchient Monarch/ Eastern/Economic/Social/Godhead/Trinity which I feel falls within the walls/lines of True LDS Doctrine/Teaching/Thought/Practice/Walk to those that are of the LDS Professor/Scholarly community. I do not see a heresy hall pass to the my Bishops office for this anytime in the future.So sorry you all in that room that day felt that way, I was just expressing it in a different way than you are used to. Anyway, have a blessed day. May Grace shine on you this day.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[coolrok7]

[BCSpace]

It usually has something to do with the line â??very God of very God, begotten not madeâ? statement in the Nicene Creed. This is in reference to Jesus as the only one who took on a human nature and yet is still God by nature (not the Father/Holy Spirit). We are accused of teaching modalism:

This is because LDS are not familiar with trinitarian language. Modalism and the trinity sound very much the same to the untrained ear. I am familiar with the differences and usually am able to show my fellow LDS the difference.

With regards to the rest of your OP, the differnces are huge. Do not make the same mistake we make with modalism by thinking that because there is similar language in the BoM, we interpret it the same way.

The differences between your interpretation of the Godhead and ours are vast and absolutely unbridgable. For example, a small list of LDS doctrines incompatible with the creeds:

1) God is real, tangible, and anthropomorphic; not an abstraction.

2) God is one of us. A homo sapiens.

3) There is a plurality of Gods

4) There is subordinationism within the Godhead.

5) There is no creation ex nihilo.

There is no way to come to a middle ground agreement on the Godhead without someone converting to someone else's religion.

[cjwright]

[For C.J Wright, I've been busy (exhausted) with the front yard the last couple days and haven't been able to finish my response (in regards to "substance" as of yet. Can you not see the idea behind the terms used in those verses I quoted?]

And that's my point, you read the term "substance" into those terms in those verses because that's what you want them to say, and in fact those verses seem to confirm LDS belief about the Godhead when you don't read the substance context into them. If we LDS used such a flimsy arguement - (Can you not see the idea behind the terms) - to show a concept we believe in that you didn't you'd be all over it. No where in scripture does it say that the Godhead are of one substance, and that's the point we LDS object to.

The "creeds are an abomination" because they bind the Gospel and God into limiting ideas that are read into the text of scripture, that are really not present. Sola scriptura, sola fide, and creation ex nihilo are all beliefs that are read into the Bible in order to justify a belief in them, but in order to do so other Biblical scriptures are dismissed, for example:

Mark 16:15-16 - 15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

This scripture seems pretty clear, that those who believe and are baptized are saved, however to justify the belief that baptism is not essential because of sola fide, the fact that the scripture doesn't mention baptism in "but he that believeth not shall be damned" is used as an arguement for faith alone and also against the LDS belief that we all must be baptized, regardless of what the first half of verse 16 says.

IMO people would rather hold on to the creeds and try to convince themselves they are true than believe that the LDS Church is true - Anyone can be right but the Mormons!!!

[Tanyan]

[For C.J Wright, I've been busy (exhausted) with the front yard the last couple days and haven't been able to finish my response (in regards to "substance" as of yet. Can you not see the idea behind the terms used in those verses I quoted?]

I don't mind at all helping where I can and I appreciate the tone you took this time with me. Also the looks you received were because you weren't talking like a Mormon does out of all the years (the others agreed) I've been talking and listening to them argue their points of doctrine. This is not to say that you don't have a right to express your faith in the way you see fit. The way I heard you talking in the first several meetings, before I knew who you were, I could see that you were defending Mormonism but you were using Evangelical language which Mormons would disagree with.

Mormon doctrine doesn't come from professors at large/BYU professors or Church members but from General Authorities of the Church, beginning with Joseph Smith:

Funny I have been using EV idiom languages for years now with LDS that are Lay members, Church Trained Institute Directors, and local Church Ecclesiastical Leaders and still as of today no Heresy Hall pass to a Bishop/Stake presidents office to correct me. I am expressing in a different way so as one such as you would understand me. Mormons have not disagreed with me when I have explained my Ev idiom phrasologies to them. May Grace shine on you this day.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And that's my point, you read the term "substance" into those terms in those verses

Mark 16:15-16 - 15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

This scripture seems pretty clear, that those who believe and are baptized are saved, however to justify the belief that baptism is not essential because of sola fide, the fact that the scripture doesn't mention baptism in "but he that believeth not shall be damned" is used as an arguement for faith alone and also against the LDS belief that we all must be baptized, regardless of what the first half of verse 16 says.

THis is interesting.

I was often told that "If I confessed with my mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in my heart that God rasied him from the dead that I would be saved". Reason stands that if I don't do taht I won't be saved. Even though the scriptures don't say that.

I concour with your conclusion of the verse of scripture that you quoted.

[coolrok7]

The "creeds are an abomination" because they bind the Gospel and God into limiting ideas that are read into the text of scripture, that are really not present. . . .

IMO people would rather hold on to the creeds and try to convince themselves they are true than believe that the LDS Church is true - Anyone can be right but the Mormons!!!

I don't want to hold on to anything that is disagreement with the "Word of God". I raised the issue of â??creedsâ? as it is directly related to illustrate, in creedal form, a 4th century defense against the Arian heresy as it arose with the idea that â??once the son of God did not existâ?. This was directly in conflict with what is stated here.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. . . .And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-2, 14)

I think I adequately demonstrated that the other lines of the creed have a direct correlation to the verses I quoted with the exception (I would argue for an indirect correlation in which you disagree) of the substance , correct?

Letâ??s put the test to what Iâ??ve said in the thread opener in which you have responded in questioning the use of the term â??substanceâ? in the Nicene Creed. Your objection was clarified more in this second post of yours:

And that's my point, you read the term "substance" into those terms in those verses because that's what you want them to say, and in fact those verses seem to confirm LDS belief about the Godhead when you don't read the substance context into them. If we LDS used such a flimsy arguement - (Can you not see the idea behind the terms) - to show a concept we believe in that you didn't you'd be all over it. No where in scripture does it say that the Godhead are of one substance, and that's the point we LDS object to.

I was quoting from the â??abominable creedâ? in which to explain how I understand the issue in order to explain how I understand what Scripture means by what it says but one topic at a time please.

[ChristKnight]

And that's my point, you read the term "substance" into those terms in those verses because that's what you want them to say, and in fact those verses seem to confirm LDS belief about the Godhead when you don't read the substance context into them. If we LDS used such a flimsy arguement - (Can you not see the idea behind the terms) - to show a concept we believe in that you didn't you'd be all over it. No where in scripture does it say that the Godhead are of one substance, and that's the point we LDS object to.

This is an interesting argument, and it is actually one that many Trinitarians use against many of the LDS doctrines on God, such as God the Father having a body of flesh and bones, which we do not see in the Bible (as we see the evidence verses given by LDS as pointing to a metaphorical understanding), and that LDS are reading into it and asking us to see the idea behind the terms. And really, the Bible does not have to explicitly say "the Godhead are of one substance" for it to be true, anymore than the Bible has to say "the Father has a body of flesh and bones" for it to be true. So, in reality, we all "read into" the Bible things that the "other" party does not see.

And of course, neither LDS nor Catholics believe in sola scriptura, so at least for both of us, the Bible is not the final authority, nor does everything have to be found in the Bible.

[Anticas]

This is an interesting argument, and it is actually one that many Trinitarians use against many of the LDS doctrines on God, such as God the Father having a body of flesh and bones, which we do not see in the Bible (as we see the evidence verses given by LDS as pointing to a metaphorical understanding), and that LDS are reading into it and asking us to see the idea behind the terms. And really, the Bible does not have to explicitly say "the Godhead are of one substance" for it to be true, anymore than the Bible has to say "the Father has a body of flesh and bones" for it to be true. So, in reality, we all "read into" the Bible things that the "other" party does not see.

And of course, neither LDS nor Catholics believe in sola scriptura, so at least for both of us, the Bible is not the final authority, nor does everything have to be found in the Bible.

Let me add one final thing to the whole "reading into the bible" thing in regard to the father having a body of flesh and bones. Since we LDS believe JS actually SAW the father and can therefore bear witness to him having a body of flesh and bones it adds another angle as to why we believe that. We simply see the verses you refer to as supporting an idea that has already been made certain by that experience.

[ChristKnight]

Let me add one final thing to the whole "reading into the bible" thing in regard to the father having a body of flesh and bones. Since we LDS believe JS actually SAW the father and can therefore bear witness to him having a body of flesh and bones it adds another angle as to why we believe that. We simply see the verses you refer to as supporting an idea that has already been made certain by that experience.

Thank you, yes, that would make sense from the LDS perspective. However, if we're holding each other to the same standards, Joseph Smith's First Vision would not be relevant to the argument of looking at our beliefs Biblically, at least in the argument that was being made originally about whether we should have to "read into" verses in the Bible. A similar statement for Trinitarians would be to see the Nicene Creed as evidence (since we (at least Catholics, Orthodox, and a handful of Protestant churches) see Ecumenical Councils as protected from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit) of the Trinity, and go back to the Bible and "easily" see the support. It's easier to have the conclusion then go to the Scriptures than it is to not start with a conclusion and go to the Scriptures.

[Anticas]

Thank you, yes, that would make sense from the LDS perspective. However, if we're holding each other to the same standards, Joseph Smith's First Vision would not be relevant to the argument of looking at our beliefs Biblically, at least in the argument that was being made originally about whether we should have to "read into" verses in the Bible. A similar statement for Trinitarians would be to see the Nicene Creed as evidence (since we (at least Catholics, Orthodox, and a handful of Protestant churches) see Ecumenical Councils as protected from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit) of the Trinity, and go back to the Bible and "easily" see the support. It's easier to have the conclusion then go to the Scriptures than it is to not start with a conclusion and go to the Scriptures.

I think I'm just getting tired but I have no idea what you just said.

It's been fun but I think this is a clue for me to get some shuteye. Have a great night.

[ChristKnight]

I think I'm just getting tired but I have no idea what you just said.

It's been fun but I think this is a clue for me to get some shuteye. Have a great night.

Yeah me too, I need to stop staring at the computer screen.

Basically I said that it's easier to see things in the Bible when we already have the conclusion, with the LDS example of believing in Joseph Smith's First Vision, and a Trinitarian example of the Nicene Creed (as we believe that the Council that came up with it, as all Ecumenical Councils, was protected from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit).

Good night!

[David Waltz]

Hi Cool,

A bit â??late-to-the-partyâ?, but noticed that you wrote:

>> Mormon doctrine doesn't come from professors at large/BYU professors or Church members but from General Authorities of the Church, beginning with Joseph Smith:>>

Mormon doctrine comes from the canonized Mormon scripturesâ??if it ainâ??t canonzied it is private opinionâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

[cjwright]

I don't want to hold on to anything that is disagreement with the "Word of God".

I think I adequately demonstrated that the other lines of the creed have a direct correlation to the verses I quoted with the exception (I would argue for an indirect correlation in which you disagree) of the substance , correct?

The rest of the lines are pretty much consistant with what we LDS believe, but, as Elder Holland said in his talk, it is the substance point which we have a problem with. It binds the nature of God into a certain form that doesn't seem consistant with other scriptures, and it also doesn't make sense when we read this other line from the creed (and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father ) , it begs the question, how can they be of one substance yet one sit on the right hand of the other?

The question you have to ask yourself, if you really believe that you don't want to hold on to anything that is disagreement with the "Word of God" is, is the "one substance" context there if I don't read it into the scripture, and if it isn't, is the "one substance" context really the "Word of God"?

This is an interesting argument, and it is actually one that many Trinitarians use against many of the LDS doctrines on God, such as God the Father having a body of flesh and bones, which we do not see in the Bible (as we see the evidence verses given by LDS as pointing to a metaphorical understanding), and that LDS are reading into it and asking us to see the idea behind the terms. And really, the Bible does not have to explicitly say "the Godhead are of one substance" for it to be true, anymore than the Bible has to say "the Father has a body of flesh and bones" for it to be true. So, in reality, we all "read into" the Bible things that the "other" party does not see.

That is true, and yet it is only the creedal notion of "one substance" that contradicts the belief that God has a body of flesh and bone, a belief we LDS share with the Christians prior to the 4th century and the introduction of the Nicene Creed.

[ChristKnight]

That is true, and yet it is only the creedal notion of "one substance" that contradicts the belief that God has a body of flesh and bone, a belief we LDS share with the Christians prior to the 4th century and the introduction of the Nicene Creed.

Yes, that is your belief. For us, the Christians prior to the Nicene Creed and the 4th century believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one is substance (also referred to as one in essence, one in being, etc). I think we also need to emphasize that the Son has a body, since He incarnated (being fully God and fully man, thus consubstantial not only with the Father, but with humanity). If the Father also has a body, that can imply that He also incarnated at some point way back when.

[ChristKnight]

Quick question, that may or nor may not have a quick answer Is it LDS belief that the God of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ?

[wenglund]

This is an interesting argument, and it is actually one that many Trinitarians use against many of the LDS doctrines on God, such as God the Father having a body of flesh and bones, which we do not see in the Bible (as we see the evidence verses given by LDS as pointing to a metaphorical understanding), and that LDS are reading into it and asking us to see the idea behind the terms.

While it is not explicitly stated, it is logically implied through a series of biblical passages. First, in Mt 5:48 the Savior tells us to "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Second, in Luke 13:32 the Savior says: "Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." We learn from Mt 27:53 and other passages that the way Christ became perfected on the third day, even as his Father is perfect, was by being resurrected. Finally, in Lk 24:39 we are informed of the nature of Christ's perfected and reserrected body (perfect even as is the Father's): "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

Logically, then, Christ became perfected even as the Father is perfect by being resurrected with a body of flesh and bone. Hence, the Father has a body of flesh and bones.

To confirm this, when Christ appeared on the American continent following his resurrection, he declared: "Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect." (3 Ne. 12:48)

There is a wealth of scriptures indicating that the Father has a body (I can post them for you if you would like). This series of biblical passages above give indication of the nature of the Father's body.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[coolrok7]

The rest of the lines are pretty much consistant with what we LDS believe, but, as Elder Holland said in his talk, it is the substance point which we have a problem with. . . .

The question you have to ask yourself, if you really believe that you don't want to hold on to anything that is disagreement with the "Word of God" is, is the "one substance" context there if I don't read it into the scripture, and if it isn't, is the "one substance" context really the "Word of God"?

The answer to the questions are in the Bible, not my heart as a Mormon would look to:

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. (D&C 9:eight)

â??for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. . .â?

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jeremiah 17:9:10)

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)

Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (8:18-20)

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)

As a Mormon, you have already rejected the Trinitarian view of God and in place accepted a â??plurality of godsâ? as taught by Joseph Smith. This then follows that you will probably not accept the explanation, your prerogative.

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. (Isaiah 43:10)

THE DIVINE MISSION OF JOSEPH SMITH

CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH

Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188, 1954 edition)

The list of verses I used was not exhaustive in giving the background for the meaning for how â??substanceâ? is synonymous with the description of nature of God as spirit, not flesh and bone (the substance of God, Jesus as spirit before the incarnation):

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24)

Jesus came into the world to save the world from sin and judgment to those who believe:

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. (Galatians 4:1-5)

The purpose of the incarnation of Jesus was to take up flesh and blood in order to die and shed His blood for the Bible teaches that our physical, â??life is in the bloodâ?. Upon the death of our body our spirit returns to God (as a sheep or goat), Who gave it existence, awaiting the resurrection at Judgment Day:

For as the body without the spirit is dead, . . . . (James 2:26a)

The first Scripture I used was from Hebrews 1:1. In the Greek there has the background meaning of when a signet ring is used to make an impression in the wax (or whatever material is used) as in the sealing of letters with a distinctive mark.

In the Colossians verse it very clearly states that the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily. There is no verse that states or implies that the Father and the Holy Spirit have bodies of flesh and bone as in specifically Mormon so-called â??Scriptureâ?.

This idea of "substance" is the background for understanding Hebrews 1:3, â??and the express image of his personâ?. This would be the idea that Jesus as Deity takes upon Himself a human nature in bodily form as in Colossians. In this case the vehicle for the mark is the physical form (His body) in which Jesusâ?? spirit (in the form of God) resided beginning at the incarnation (Virgin conception).

The Phillipian verse states that Jesus existed in the form of God (spirit) and â??thought it not robbery to be equal with Godâ? and â??made in the likeness of menâ?. He â??humbled himselfâ? when he took on a physical form (body) to become a servant as a human being, even to the point of death (on a cross).

Jesus was now capable of dying as a man in our place as the perfect sacrifice required in the atonement, something He could not do as a spiritual being in which He already had existed in eternity as God.

He was led by the Holy Spirit to be tested by Satan in the wilderness as recorded in Luke 4 in which He perfectly obeyed God and never sinned as Adam and Eve had.

By the way, you haven't dealt with the "very God" statement.

[cjwright]

The answer to the questions are in the Bible, not my heart as a Mormon would look to:

A Mormon would look to the Bible AND the impressions of the Holy Ghost in the heart, not relying on just one or the other, the first scripture you used shows this and contradicts your statement that a Mormon would only look to the heart:

D&C 9:8 - 9: But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

First study the Bible (or any scripture), and if it is true the Holy Ghost will witness to us that it is so. Non-LDS Christians love to downplay the impressions of the Holy Ghost on our hearts when it comes to the truthfulness of the Gospel, and the Book of Mormon, completely forgetting that it is by that witness of the Holy Ghost that the early Christians knew that the words of the Apostles were true:

Acts 2:36-38 - 36: Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37: