creeds are an abomination

[coolrok7]

. . .I never brought up the "very God" statement, you seem to be trying to divert your arguement instead of answering my question about looking at the Bible without reading the "one substance" context into it to see if it is there.

Your last point first. I wasn?t trying to divert the discussion, I?m answering the points you?ve raised since I started this thread in which you responded. I brought it up in the context of the Nicene Creed because of it being peculiar to the abominable creed? reference. It was formulated in defending the Deity of Jesus in light of the Arian heresy/controversy as of the third century.

This was why they met in Nicea in light of the Biblical verses used in defending Biblical teaching from heretical teachers (representative Church leaders from around the empire in opposition to the teaching of Arius of Alexandria).

This statement is in the BofM (Mormon 3:21):

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:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me. (John 7:24-29)

[Tanyan]

Your last point first. I wasn?t trying to divert the discussion, I?m answering the points you?ve raised since I started this thread in which you responded. I brought it up in the context of the Nicene Creed because of it being peculiar to the abominable creed? reference. It was formulated in defending the Deity of Jesus in light of the Arian heresy/controversy as of the third century.

This was why they met in Nicea in light of the Biblical verses used in defending Biblical teaching from heretical teachers (representative Church leaders from around the empire in opposition to the teaching of Arius of Alexandria).

This statement is in the BofM (Mormon 3:21):

* 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:

[cjwright]

Your last point first. I wasn?t trying to divert the discussion, I?m answering the points you?ve raised since I started this thread in which you responded. I brought it up in the context of the Nicene Creed because of it being peculiar to the abominable creed? reference. It was formulated in defending the Deity of Jesus in light of the Arian heresy/controversy as of the third century.

This was why they met in Nicea in light of the Biblical verses used in defending Biblical teaching from heretical teachers (representative Church leaders from around the empire in opposition to the teaching of Arius of Alexandria).

This statement is in the BofM (Mormon 3:21):

* 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:

You wrote in your original post:

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.

My point was not about the line "very God of very God, begotten not made", my point was the same point Elder Holland raised, which was the use of the term "being of one substance with the Father". You may have asked Mormons what specifically about the creeds are supposed to be abomination to God, and you may have got the answer that it is the line "very God of very God, begotten not made", but I am Mormon, and I am telling you that it is not that line, but the line following it which says "being of one substance with the Father", which by your own admission "(I would argue for an indirect correlation in which you disagree)" is not found in the Bible, just as Elder Holland said.

[Tanyan]

I have understood the word "substance" [being] to mean that they have the same GOD Nature, of which I have no quarrels with. However at the Council of Nicea there were problems everywhere from the conduct of individuals, political agendas, how many were treated by way of torture,threats against one's families. And using greek hellenistic, philosophy/rhetoric. Even, after the Counci lof Nicea there was more.

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

[cjwright]

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.

Kerry Shirts has done a good ten part series of videos on his YouTube page about early Christians believing that God has a body of flesh and bone:

I have understood the word "substance" [being] to mean that they have the same GOD Nature, of which I have no quarrels with. However at the Council of Nicea there were problems everywhere from the conduct of individuals, political agendas, how many were treated by way of torture,threats against one's families. And using greek hellenistic, philosophy/rhetoric. Even, after the Counci lof Nicea there was more.

That understanding would be consistant with our (LDS) beliefs on the nature of God, and us as spirit children of God, however that is not what those who accept the Nicene Creed believe. It's not that that they have the same GOD nature, but that they are the same GOD nature, as ChristKnight says above "also referred to as one in essence, one in being, etc". It also is the only arguement that limits God to not having a physical body of flesh and bone, and seeing as He does, it is an "abomination" (bringing it back to the title of the thread) because it denies God's true nature.

[Tanyan]

Kerry Shirts has done a good ten part series of videos on his YouTube page about early Christians believing that God has a body of flesh and bone:

That understanding would be consistant with our (LDS) beliefs on the nature of God, and us as spirit children of God, however that is not what those who accept the Nicene Creed believe. It's not that that they have the same GOD nature, but that they are the same GOD nature, as ChristKnight says above "also referred to as one in essence, one in being, etc". It also is the only arguement that limits God to not having a physical body of flesh and bone, and seeing as He does, it is an "abomination" (bringing it back to the title of the thread) because it denies God's true nature.

Changing the word "has" to "are" can change the definition meaning to be - GOD The Father/Jesus Christ/Holy Ghost are actualy fused with "Nature".

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

[coolrok7]

(edited to get rid of the question marks in place of quotation marks intended and added a few things as well)

I’m quoting from official Mormon teaching in contrast to “Scripture” (and how the statements of the Trinitarian view correlate at particular verses either directly or indirectly). What you believe as an individual is not what matters here (except for you and how you personally fit in to the bigger picture of Mormonism):

My point was not about the line "very God of very God, begotten not made", my point was the same point Elder Holland raised, which was the use of the term "being of one substance with the Father". You may have asked Mormons what specifically about the creeds are supposed to be abomination to God, and you may have got the answer that it is the line "very God of very God, begotten not made", but I am Mormon, and I am telling you that it is not that line, but the line following it which says "being of one substance with the Father", which by your own admission "(I would argue for an indirect correlation in which you disagree)" is not found in the Bible, just as Elder Holland said.

I acknowledge that as your point. The problem is (being Mormon to begin with) that you (even Elder Holland) don’t acknowledge the “very God” line as being tied directly to the “substance” line in that the nature of God is “spirit” not “flesh and bone” as Jesus had stated here in Luke:

. . .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; . . .

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 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. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. (Luke 24:36-40)

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

Thomas (of the doubting type) exclaimed after he saw Jesus alive before him:

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (John 20:24-29)

The term “very God” is in the BofM in a positive affirmation of Jesus being the “very Christ” and the “very God” (that is part and parcel of the Nicene Creed). I have no problem with the statement as a Trinitarian but you should with the term “very God” as a believer in a “plurality of gods”. This is a major conflict for Mormons in that they either don’t understand or refuse to recognize this:

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.

In the Nicene Creed (the very “abominable creed”), “very God” was defending against the heresy of Arius:

The historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial when Alexander, who succeeded Achillas as Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon on the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's sermon as a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.? (Wikepedia, Controversy section)

This is in opposition to what Arius taught concerning Jesus:

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)

It doesn’t fit the Mormon God so it is out of place in the BofM as it affirms the Trinitarian view of Jesus being both God and man which doesn’t make us “gods” as in Mormonism.

Mormonism has an “eternal progression” of gods, not an eternal God (Heavenly Father has a Father, has a Father, etc., etc.):

from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God (Psalm 90:4b)

As shown in this chapter our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state that we call exaltation or godhood. In such a condition, he and our mother in heaven were empowered to give birth to spirit children whose potential was equal to that of their heavenly parents. We are those spirit children. . . .It is this fact that makes marriage in a temple of God such an important step in our eternal progression. Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written this: Celestial marriage is a holy and an eternal ordinance;. . .The most important things that any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever does in this world are: 1. To marry the right person, by the right authority; and 2., to keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony--thus assuring the obedient persons of an inheritance of exaltation in the celestial kingdom.? (Mormon Doctrine, p.118) (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, Salt Lake City: Church Education System, 1976, p.132)

Jesus had stated this near the end of His earthly ministry:

I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (John 17:4-5)

Here it states that Jesus, ?being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God?. Jesus took upon Himself at the incarnation a human form (after already being in spirit form as Deity), “being found in appearance as a man” in order to suffer death:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phillipians 2:5-11)

The statement of “being in the form of God” is distinct from “taking the form of a bondservant”. The first “form” is that of Jesus existing in the form of God as spirit, not yet physical until the incarnation of Luke Ch 1. The second “form” is talking about Jesus being a servant, when it says about Him taking on a body it says “in the likeness of man”:

So you get "substance" from the words and the express image of his person? This is because you have read "substance" into it, it could easily mean looks like the Father, especially if you take into consideration the similar wording in Genesis in the account of the creation when God said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness".

As for the Philippians verse, the second "form" in the sentence is talking about Jesus being a servant, when it says about Him taking on a body it says "in the likeness of man":

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.

The term “Trinity” is not in the Bible just like theocracy and other terms that are used aren’t. The idea behind the terms is, though (the three verses I quoted). It is natural for a Mormon, steeped in the theology of Joseph Smith, to deny this.

[Tanyan]

I?m quoting from official Mormon teaching in contrast to ?Scripture? (and how the statements of the Trinitarian view correlate at particular verses either directly or indirectly). What you believe as an individual is not what matters here (except for you and how you personally fit in to the bigger picture of Mormonism):

I acknowledge that as your point. The problem is (being Mormon to begin with) that you (even Elder Holland) don?t acknowledge the ?very God? line as being tied directly to the ?substance? line in that the nature of God is ?spirit? not ?flesh and bone? as Jesus had stated here in Luke:

The term ?very God? is in the BofM in a positive affirmation of Jesus being the ?very Christ and the very God? (that is part and parcel of the Nicene Creed. I have no problem with the statement as a Trinitarian but you should with the term ?very God? as a believer in a ?plurality of gods?. This is a major conflict for Mormons in that they either don?t understand or refuse to recognize this:

In the Nicene Creed (the ?abominable creed?), ?very God? was defending against the heresy of Arius:

This is in opposition to what Arius taught concerning Jesus:

It doesn?t fit the Mormon God so it is out of place in the BofM as it affirms the Trinitarian view of Jesus being both God and man which doesn?t make us gods as in Mormonism.

Mormonism has an ?eternal progression? of gods, not an eternal God (Heavenly Father has a Father, has a Father, etc., etc.):

Jesus had stated this near the end of His earthly ministry:

Here it states that Jesus, ?being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God?.??Jesus took upon Himself at the incarnation a human form (after already being in spirit form as Deity), ?being found in appearance as a man? in order to suffer death:

The statement of ?being in the form of God? is distinct from ?taking the form of a bondservant? You had stated. I agree but the first form is that of Jesus existing in the form of God as spirit, not yet physical until the incarnation of Luke Ch 1.

The term ?Trinity? is not in the Bible just like theocracy and other terms that are used aren?t. The idea behind the terms is, though (the three verses I quoted). It is natural for a Mormon, steeped in the theology of Joseph Smith, to deny this.

Which Form or Model Of The Trinity is the correct one - Western/Eastern/Economic/Essential/Social ect... ?.

I do not know if Catholics and ?[Lutherans like coolrok] share the same Form/Model of the "Trinity" but for a response by one non LDS see - http://www.bible.ca/...olic-nicene.htm

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

[Tanyan]

I believe that John Welch has done a whole paper on this very subject of creeds as an abomination which I saw in a book at a local LDS bookstore recently and reminded me that somewhere I have this very Book, now if I could only remember the book. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[cjwright]

Coolrok7, all I see is your lack of understanding of what we LDS actually believe in regards to the plurality of gods and the Godhead, and this is tainted by your belief in Trinitarianism. The fact that the term "very God" is in the Book of Mormon, should show you that we have no problem with that term when it comes to our understanding of the Godhead, but the term "being of one substance" does. Just because you have no defense for your belief in the "being of one substance" stop trying to tell us what we believe and how it is in contrast with scripture, when in fact it is only against your interpretation of scripture, nothing more.

[coolrok7]

Coolrok7, all I see is your lack of understanding of what we LDS actually believe in regards to the plurality of gods and the Godhead, and this is tainted by your belief in Trinitarianism. The fact that the term "very God" is in the Book of Mormon, should show you that we have no problem with that term when it comes to our understanding of the Godhead, but the term "being of one substance" does. Just because you have no defense for your belief in the "being of one substance" stop trying to tell us what we believe and how it is in contrast with scripture, when in fact it is only against your interpretation of scripture, nothing more.

The ?tainting? comes from Joseph Smith. There is no lack of understanding on my part of what is officially taught concerning the ?plurality of gods? and other false doctrine that is not Biblical. I'm not trying to tell you what you personally believe. "Scripture" interprets "Scripture".

I?m quoting from official Mormon teaching in contrast to that which is truly ?Scripture? (and how the statements of the Trinitarian view correlate at particular verses either directly or indirectly). What you believe as an individual (you had stated earlier) is not what matters here (except for you and how you personally fit in to the bigger picture of ?Mormonism? which is not ?Christian?):

My point was not about the line "very God of very God, begotten not made", my point was the same point Elder Holland raised, which was the use of the term "being of one substance with the Father". You may have asked Mormons what specifically about the creeds are supposed to be abomination to God, and you may have got the answer that it is the line "very God of very God, begotten not made", but I am Mormon, and I am telling you that it is not that line, but the line following it which says "being of one substance with the Father", which by your own admission "(I would argue for an indirect correlation in which you disagree)" is not found in the Bible, just as Elder Holland said.

The problem is (being Mormon to begin with) that you (even Elder Holland) don?t acknowledge the ?very God? line as being tied directly to the ?substance? line in that the nature of God is ?spirit?, not ?flesh and bone? as Jesus had stated here in Luke:

. . .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; . . .

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 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. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. (Luke 24:36-40)

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

Thomas (of the doubting type) exclaimed after he saw Jesus alive before him:

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (John 20:24-29)

The term ?very God? is in the BofM in a positive affirmation of Jesus being the ?very Christ? and the ?very God? (that is part and parcel of the Nicene Creed). I have no problem with the statement as a Trinitarian but you should with the term ?very God? as a believer in a ?plurality of gods?. This is a major conflict for Mormons in that they either don?t understand or refuse to recognize this:

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. (Mormon 3:21)

In the Nicene Creed (the very ?abominable creed?), ?very God? was defending against the heresy of Arius (and is not the Mormon concept of God):

The historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial when Alexander, who succeeded Achillas as Bishop of Alexandria, gave a sermon on the similarity of the Son to the Father. Arius interpreted Alexander's sermon as a revival of Sabellianism, condemned it, and argued that "if the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing.? (Wikepedia, Controversy section)

This is in opposition to what Arius taught concerning Jesus:

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)

It doesn?t fit the Mormon God so it is out of place in the BofM as it affirms the Trinitarian view of Jesus being both God and man which doesn?t make us ?gods? as in Mormonism.

Mormonism has an ?eternal progression? of gods, not an eternal God (Heavenly Father has a Father, has a Father, etc., etc.):

from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God (Psalm 90:4b)

As shown in this chapter our Father in heaven was once a man as we are now, capable of physical death. By obedience to eternal gospel principles, he progressed from one stage of life to another until he attained the state that we call exaltation or godhood. In such a condition, he and our mother in heaven were empowered to give birth to spirit children whose potential was equal to that of their heavenly parents. We are those spirit children. . . .It is this fact that makes marriage in a temple of God such an important step in our eternal progression. Elder Bruce R. McConkie has written this: Celestial marriage is a holy and an eternal ordinance;. . .The most important things that any member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ever does in this world are: 1. To marry the right person, by the right authority; and 2., to keep the covenant made in connection with this holy and perfect order of matrimony--thus assuring the obedient persons of an inheritance of exaltation in the celestial kingdom.? (Mormon Doctrine, p.118) (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, Salt Lake City: Church Education System, 1976, p.132)

Jesus had stated this near the end of His earthly ministry:

I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (John 17:4-5)

Here it states that Jesus, being in the form of God, ?did not consider it robbery to be equal with God?. Jesus took upon Himself at the incarnation a human form (after already being in spirit form as Deity), ?being found in appearance as a man? in order to suffer death:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phillipians 2:5-11)

The statement of ?being in the form of God? is distinct from ?taking the form of a bondservant?. The first ?form? is that of Jesus existing in the form of God as spirit, not yet physical until the incarnation of Luke Ch 1. The second ?form? is talking about Jesus being a servant, when it says about Him taking on a body it says ?in the likeness of man?:

So you get "substance" from the words and the express image of his person? This is because you have read "substance" into it, it could easily mean looks like the Father, especially if you take into consideration the similar wording in Genesis in the account of the creation when God said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness".

As for the Philippians verse, the second "form" in the sentence is talking about Jesus being a servant, when it says about Him taking on a body it says "in the likeness of man":

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.

The term ?Trinity? is not in the Bible just like theocracy and other terms that are used aren?t. The idea behind the terms is, though (the three verses I quoted). It is natural for a Mormon, steeped in the theology of Joseph Smith, to deny this.

[cjwright]

The ?tainting? comes from Joseph Smith. There is no lack of understanding on my part of what is officially taught concerning the ?plurality of gods? and other false doctrine that is not Biblical. I'm not trying to tell you what you personally believe. "Scripture" interprets "Scripture".

I?m quoting from official Mormon teaching in contrast to that which is truly ?Scripture? (and how the statements of the Trinitarian view correlate at particular verses either directly or indirectly). What you believe as an individual (you had stated earlier) is not what matters here (except for you and how you personally fit in to the bigger picture of ?Mormonism? which is not ?Christian?):

There is great lack of understanding, not only in what is taught about the plurality of gods, but also what is or is not Biblical. The belief of "being of one substance" is a false doctrine that is not Biblical, but you readily believe it. What you have stated is not Scripture interpreting Scripture, but you interpreting scripture to fit with the doctrines of the Nicene Creed.

The statements of the Trinitarian view correlate with your interpretations of Scripture, and the indirect ones (being inparticular the "substance" one) you only see them because you want them to be there, though they are not.

What you believe as an individual is not what matters here, and this includes your belief that Mormons aren't Christians, we are whether you like it or not, as it is up to Christ to determine who is or is not a follower of His, it is not up to you, your opinion doesn't matter.

The problem is (being Mormon to begin with) that you (even Elder Holland) don?t acknowledge the ?very God? line as being tied directly to the ?substance? line in that the nature of God is ?spirit?, not ?flesh and bone? as Jesus had stated here in Luke:

You have just proved what I said in an earlier post, that 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!!!

Your use Luke 24:36-40 and John 4:24 to prove that God only has a body of spirit, and not of flesh and bone. These are your interpretations, and are you whole defense of the "one substance" claim.

As far as refuting you claim of John 4:24 I'll refer to the lastest videos of Kerry Shirts which he has posted on YouTube. It is a set of 5, here's the link to the first one:

Your use of Luke 24:36-40 is the most grossest mis-interpretation I have ever seen. Jesus is not talking about God at all in this scripture, He is talking solely about His own resurrected body, and showing the Apostles that it is real and tangable, not that of a spirit, which they first mistake Christ for.

Both these refutations completely destroy your claims, and show you have no case to say that God the Father doesn't have a body of flesh and blood, and also does the same to your claim of "being of one substance" is Biblical.

The term ?very God? is in the BofM in a positive affirmation of Jesus being the ?very Christ? and the ?very God? (that is part and parcel of the Nicene Creed). I have no problem with the statement as a Trinitarian but you should with the term ?very God? as a believer in a ?plurality of gods?. This is a major conflict for Mormons in that they either don?t understand or refuse to recognize this:

It is only in major conflict for Mormons if the "one substance" claim is true, though as I have pointed out above it isn't true, therefore we LDS have no problem with the term "very God".

In the Nicene Creed (the very ?abominable creed?), ?very God? was defending against the heresy of Arius (and is not the Mormon concept of God):

By calling the Nicene Creed, the very abominable creed, just shows that you have no idea what we LDS believe. The Lord didn't say that only the Nicene Creed was abominable but:

Joseph Smith - History 1:19 - 19: I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ?they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.?

This is exactly what they do, they surround a lie with enough truth that people believe the lie. As for the Nicene Creed it is the "being of one substance" that is the lie, surrounded by the truth that makes you believe it.

The rest of your post is just more of the same or repetitions of previous points which I have already addressed.

The term ?Trinity? is not in the Bible just like theocracy and other terms that are used aren?t. The idea behind the terms is, though (the three verses I quoted). It is natural for a Mormon, steeped in the theology of Joseph Smith, to deny this.

The term Trinity is not in the Bible because it is not a Biblical concept, though the term Godhead is in the Bible. You like to claim what we LDS believe is false doctrine because it is not in the Bible, but you accept a doctrine as truth though you also claim it is not in the Bible - double-standard.

The problem you have with making an accusation like you did in your last sentence is that you have no idea of my history or current situation with the LDS Church, and why I believe it to be true. I spent 10 years out of the LDS Church, studying its doctrines, pushing and testing it as hard as I could, and I found that it is indeed the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, and totally consistant with Biblical teachings when not hindered by interpretations of men.

I gain nothing from being a member of the LDS Church if I didn't know it is true. None of my friends that I see every day are members of the Church, hardly anyone I know is a member of the Church. I go to a small Branch that has about 40-50 members attend every week, almost none of my family are active members, so there's no pressure from them to go. I am an active member of the Church, and have been for over 6 years, because I know it is true. I don't need to deny what you believe just to make myself feel good, or to impress anyone, or to "follow the crowd", I don't believe what you believe because it fails to convince me of its truthfulness.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Coolrok7

this is a really 3rd grade thing to do. What do you hope to accomplish by such cheap words? Not to metion it is a complete straw man. No LDS claim to use just thier heart. What a foolish thing to say.

Is it to show that your works really are a product of salvation, which btw don't look to good for you? If that is that case then I don't want what you are peddling.

[coolrok7]

There is great lack of understanding, not only in what is taught about the plurality of gods, but also what is or is not Biblical. The belief of "being of one substance" is a false doctrine that is not Biblical, but you readily believe it. What you have stated is not Scripture interpreting Scripture, but you interpreting scripture to fit with the doctrines of the Nicene Creed.

The statements of the Trinitarian view correlate with your interpretations of Scripture, and the indirect ones (being inparticular the "substance" one) you only see them because you want them to be there, though they are not. . . .

I gain nothing from being a member of the LDS Church if I didn't know it is true. None of my friends that I see every day are members of the Church, hardly anyone I know is a member of the Church. I go to a small Branch that has about 40-50 members attend every week, almost none of my family are active members, so there's no pressure from them to go. I am an active member of the Church, and have been for over 6 years, because I know it is true. I don't need to deny what you believe just to make myself feel good, or to impress anyone, or to "follow the crowd", I don't believe what you believe because it fails to convince me of its truthfulness.

This thread was predicated on this statement made by Bob Millet of BYU fame along with the Joseph Smith, "creeds were an abomination", remark. Also from the many years I was discussing these things with Mormons I had met personally.

. . .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, "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. . .

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

I was trying to get clarification from those here as to what specifically do "Mormons" have problems with in the Nicene Creed as it was referenced by Bob Millet (you had provided the statement from Elder Holland which was not necessarily new to me although it wasn't on my mind at the time). Other religious traditions ask?

What about Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Baha' u' llah, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, Herbert W. Armstrong, Victor Paul Weirewille, Sun Myung Moon, Helen Schucman, etc, etc...

When we as evangelicals come to you or the others, we have already been addressed by (some of) these groups as being heretical/apostate by your/their own leaders. To us this is a BIG negative.

It is the basis for having discussions with the followers of the above mentioned founders of the different religious movements (This is why it appears that we are always negative). We have to address others negative with our positive. The others will not see it that way. I can't help that.

In the context of the line by line of the Nicene Creed, I provided specific creedal statements which do correlate to certain Biblical passages (in ideas if not in words).

This is the definitive statement made by Jesus Himself concerning the fact that spirits do not have "flesh and bone" as Jesus had as the result of the incarnation:

And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. (Luke 1:30-33)

But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (Hebrews 1:13-14)

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the [*] nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:14-18)

[* note the term "nature"]

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 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. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. (Luke 24:36-40)

You had responded earlier (the belief that the nature or "substance" of God is spirit, not flesh and bone as Jesus had taken on in the incarnation. I didn't say that these verses contained the term but it does correlate to the idea expressed concerning Jesus, not the Father):

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.

I had stated:

When it comes to the nature (being or substance) of God, Jesus had said what that is:

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:21-24)

The appeal is to the larger body of truth as it is in the "Word of God". As a creedal/confessional statement of faith, the words/ideas are drawn from the Bible. So when it says "God is a Spirit" the immediate context is the Father as Jesus is already "in the flesh" at the time of the statement.

Joseph Smith was fond of using the phrase "in other words". A creedal statement of faith can also be "in other words" not necessarily found in the Bible which was the point I was making earlier.

From a Mormon proselytizing pamphlet:

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (known informally by the nickname Mormons) believe the Bible. Indeed, so literally and completely do their beliefs and practices conform to the teachings of the Bible that is not uncommon to hear informed persons say: "If all men believed the Bible, all would be Mormons." Bible doctrine is Mormon doctrine, and Mormon doctrine is Bible doctrine. They are one and the same. But as is well known, the Bible does not contain all the doctrines and truths taught by the prophets and apostles, nor have the teachings preserved in it come down to us in an absolutely perfect form. There are and have been many translations and versions of the Bible, each of which varies from the others. (WHAT THE MORMONS THINK OF CHRIST pamphlet, p.3)

I don't accept Joseph Smith and his writings as "Scripture" but Mormons do which is the point at which our disagreements start:

Third, how important is the Book of Mormon? Joseph Smith called it "the keystone of our religion." (History of the Church, 4:461.) "Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations," he said, "and where is our religion" We have none? (History of the Church, 2:52.). . .(The Ensign, President Ezra Taft Benson, Nov. 1984, p.6)

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)

It's not that Joseph Smith can't be a prophet. It's a matter of whether he is a "true" or "false" prophet? Joseph Smith also isn't the only one to make the claim for a "restoration". If he is correct than I should leave the church I attend and if he is wrong (which I believe the evidence supports) then you should leave yours. The question is, "is it really true"?

Also from an earlier series of statements you made in response to what I said (it is here where you interject the Mormonism part of your faith in contrast to the point I'm making):

[coolrok7]

The list of verses I used was not exhaustive in giving the background for the meaning for how "substance" 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):

[c. j. Wright]

God is a spirit, and flesh and bone, just as Jesus is a spirit and flesh and bone, and as we will be, a spirit and flesh and bone.

Philippians 3:20+21 - 20: For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 21: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

1 John 3:1+2 - 1: Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2: Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

You accept that Jesus is God, has always been God and always will be God, and that he was once a spirit who came to earth and gained a body, died and was resurrected into a glorious eternal body, but you can't accept that God the Father did the same?

[coolrok7]

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

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, "life is in the blood". 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:

[c. j. Wright]

I believe we LDS agree with these statements, but I fail to see what they have to do with your point of the Godhead being of one substance, or are you trying to say that because we don't agree with you on that point we disagree with everything you believe?

That is not what I'm saying. We agree on a lot of things. It is when specifically "Mormon" doctrine is included as "Christian" doctrine where the problem comes from. Spirits don't die which is why Jesus had to take on a physical form. Mormonism's claims that the things that apply to Jesus also applies to the Father in which the Bible nowhere states without Mormonism's specific scripture- that God the Father has a "body of flesh and bone".

What I said was part of the larger point I'm making in the context of the "substance" of God as "spirit".

The incarnation is only dealing with Jesus as the "Son of God" where the meaning ultimately comes from (His humanity was physical, born of a virgin but He was already existing in the "form of God" which is spirit, as the Father and Holy Spirit are). We live in a time space world, God doesn't. Jesus at a point of time in history did as a man:

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)

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. (Acts 2:22-24)

When Jesus returns, all believers will then become like Him in the resurrection, not His Godhood:

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. (1 John 3:1-5)

And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:5)

[coolrok7]

In answer to posts 25 (c.j. Wright), 38 (Mola Ram Suda Ram)

The Biblical teaching concerning the "heart" as referenced in Jeremiah is the reason one is not supposed to trust the heart as the source or determiner of ?truth? as it is deceived by the sinful nature we are born with:

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)

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. (Psalm 51:5-7)

The issue here is "truth" being the "Word of God" as recorded in the Bible (and a secondary issue I raise is whether or not the statements from the Nicene Creed are in line with what it says or is it really "abominable" or "heretical" as the Mormon Church claims that it is):

But either Jesus Christ and the disciples touched and inspired by His spirit spoke the truth or they did not. We believe that they spoke the truth, and that the truth they spoke was the Word of God. (Mormon Church Readers Digest Christmas advertisement, 1972)

Belief is a function of the heart (not the pumper) but does not determine the "truth" of what the heart accepts (it can accept truth, a lie, or a mixture of both). The content of one?s faith should come from what is recorded in the Bible:

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.[uFor with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:8-13)

In post #25, in answer to my post # 24 (I'm not making light of your most sincerely held faith here):

coolrok7, on 04 September 2009 - 04:22 AM, said:

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

[c.j. Wright]

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: Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Isn't it strange how the LDS Church is the only one that follows this - faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

"Isn't it strange?", No but this is (the gates of hades will not prevail against Jesus? Church; a little plagiarism maybe?). Mormons aren't the only ones who accept faith/repentance/baptism/gift of the Holy Ghost and in fact, believed this way before Mormonism came along:

The realization that the Lord's true church was not only vulnerable, but destructible, comes as a shock to many people. But if wicked men were able to put to death the Messiah himself, is it so strange that they should have power to destroy his church? (APOSTASY AND RESTORATION pamphlet, p.11)

And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. (D&C 10: 69)

And again, for the precedent, Matthew 16:18, 19: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (D$C 128:10)

The Bible does teach this though:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, . . .In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. (1 Timothy 4:1 2, 6)

In the previous years before "Preach My Gospel" there were six missionary discussions where the following is stated under the section of, "What Can You Do to Know the Truth?" (# 1 of 6, THE PLAN OF OUR HEAVENLY FATHER):

1. Read Moroni 1:3-5. If you will read, ponder, and pray sincerely about the Book of Mormon, the Holy Ghost will manifest to you that it is true.

2. Begin reading the Book of Mormon . . .

3.Compare Book of Mormon passages with the Bible. (The footnotes in the Book of Mormon will help you.)

4. Discuss what you have read with a member of The Church of Jesus christ of Latter-day Saints.

5. Pray earnestly to know that the Book of Mormon is true. . . . (pp. 5, 6)

The standard of examining/proving/testing is the Bible as "Scripture" which guards against the false things of the heart one can end up accepting as "truth" when it is not:

Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ: (2 Peter 1:1)

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation?as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:14-16)

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates. (2 Corinthians 13:5-6)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, . . .In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. (1 Timothy 4:1 2, 6)

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11)

[cjwright]

Coolrok7, if you are going to ignore explainations then you are never going to understand LDS doctrine when it doesn't agree with you. You are still using John 4:24 as your arguement against God the Father not having a physical body of flesh and bone. If you have watched the videos by Kerry Shirts you would see than in the original Greek the phrase God is a Spirit, should be transtated as God is Spirit, and is not talking about God's physical form. Once you concede that point the rest of your arguement falls apart as solely your interpretation of the verse.

Kerry also has a new series of video that refute your stances, the first one is here:

Also I don't need to use any other scripture other than the Bible to refute the stance of the Nicene Creed, and in fact I have only used the Bible to demonstrate the flaws in your arguement, so to state:

I don't accept Joseph Smith and his writings as "Scripture" but Mormons do which is the point at which our disagreements start:

is false as it has nothing to do with our disagreement. All you are doing is making out that because I am Mormon I am automatically wrong, which just shows how weak your stance is.

In regards to the heart, the same Jeremiah also wrote:

Jeremiah 31:33 - 33: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

When the Lord writes in our hearts He will be our God, and we shall be His people.

It's when our hearts are on the things of man that it is deceitful, when it is on the things of God it is not.

[coolrok7]

Coolrok7, if you are going to ignore explainations then you are never going to understand LDS doctrine when it doesn't agree with you. You are still using John 4:24 as your arguement against God the Father not having a physical body of flesh and bone. . . .

Kerry also has a new series of video that refute your stances, the first one is here:

I can understand the explanations but I don't accept them. The Bible doesn't make the argument for the Father having a body of flesh and bone, only for Jesus (end of the argument).

Kerry Shirts is not a recognized Mormon General Authority and for him to dismiss the Church Educational System {under the direction of the First Presidency)and the fact that they rejected the referenced book by Wilson for use as an appropriate textbook as part of the system does not make Kerry reliable as an authority on the subject, which is your prerogative to accept, I don't. I'm only obligated to accept Scripture from God, not so-called "Scripture" from a false prophet/teacher.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can understand the explanations but I don't accept them. The Bible doesn't make the argument for the Father having a body of flesh and bone, only for Jesus (end of the argument).

Kerry Shirts is not a recognized Mormon General Authority and for him to dismiss the Church Educational System {under the direction of the First Presidency)and the fact that they rejected the referenced book by Wilson for use as an appropriate textbook as part of the system does not make Kerry reliable as an authority on the subject, which is your prerogative to accept, I don't. I'm only obligated to accept Scripture from God, not so-called "Scripture" from a false prophet/teacher.

Isn't Jesus God? Accrouding to you? Does he not have a body of flesh and bones.

The bible never claims that the Father does not have a body of flesh and bones.

If this is how you really wish to deal with the topic I think we are done here. Kerry does a fine job and in no way does he go against offical doctrine or teachings of the church. The fact that you bring this up like this shows how dishonest you are being.

It's like if I said "Because you are not LDS I should not listen to you as you have no authority to state what I believe" Which actually it is true you do have no authority but that is for a different thread.

[cjwright]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, I couldn't agree with you more.

Coolrok7, the fact that Kerry uses non-LDS sources (as well as LDS sources) just shows how weak your arguement is as you lose the "I don't accept that because it comes from a Mormon" attack. I used Elder Hollard's words, a recognised General Authority, and you still didn't accept what he said in relation to your arguement. As that is the best defence you have, I'll go along with Mola Ram, we're done here.

[coolrok7]

Mola Ram Suda Ram, I couldn't agree with you more.

Coolrok7, the fact that Kerry uses non-LDS sources (as well as LDS sources) just shows how weak your arguement is as you lose the "I don't accept that because it comes from a Mormon" attack. I used Elder Hollard's words, a recognised General Authority, and you still didn't accept what he said in relation to your arguement. As that is the best defence you have, I'll go along with Mola Ram, we're done here.

We're often told in the context of discussing things "Mormon" that "it's not Mormon scripture and not official". Your comment concerning the Church Educational System was the basis for my comment. I'ts his argument not mine. Your prerogative, do as you see fit. You didn't refute the argument.

Kerry's Shirt's opinion is just that, not Scripture. I have opinion's too. Scripture tops all opinions that don't line up with what it actually says in a given context.

[Tanyan]

Proper hermenutic understanding of Scripture, cultural background of scripture are essential elements in interpetation.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Ambrose]

Proper [hermeneutic] understanding of Scripture, cultural background of scripture are essential elements in [interpretation].

Though the Catholic faith that was handed on to me is certainly not yours, I wonder if there is not a similarity in the way we perceive Sacred Scripture and the Church's role in interpreting those holy texts.

Could we say, for instance, that the Book of Mormon and its collective literature might contain elements that could be interpreted differently from the teaching of the CoJCoLDS, but it would be (no matter how exegetically consistent) denying the primary witness of orthodoxy (the CoJCoLDS), the very witness by which those texts are held sacred? In other words, we cannot interpret the literature of the Book of Mormon apart from the authority of the CoJCoLDS.

Could we also say that the collective literature of Sacred Scripture, though it might contain elements that could be interpreted differently from the Church of God, cannot be interpreted apart from the authority of that church which holds it as inspired?

Please, forgive me if I have gone off the deep end in this comparison, but I hope for clarification and understanding.

[Tanyan]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Ambrose]

?Thank you for sharing your thoughts. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

Were these thoughts, as haphazardly compiled as they were, at all consistent with the LDS view of the Church-Scripture relationship?