Do the majority of members of the Latter-day Saints Church want to be known as Christians?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Is there a reason you cannot receive messages?  I wanted to send you a PM, but...

Wasn't aware, will check thanks.

 

[Jane_Doe]

On 10/14/2018 at 2:48 AM, Navidad said:

I must admit to a bit of confusion. At some cost, I have been very avid in stating that LDS Christians are just that - Christians.

Just answering the OP here, before reading posts--

The Biblical definition of a "Christian" is a disciple of Christ.  And of course members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christians.  That's the Biblical definition and I am happy to be known that, and do like being acknowledged as that.

Now, having said that, I do acknowledge that other people use other definitions of "Christian" by including "you must believe XYZ".  So they are using a special definition of a word, and I will respond with " I define 'Christian' as <insert above>.   If you define 'Christian' as XYZ, then it applies to me way ABC. ".   That way words are being clearly defined and we can cross the language gap.  

Never anywhere in here did I say anything about people "same differencing" each other's beliefs.  I'm quite against that.  I think it's quite possible to be a member of a family but not be an identical clone of your brother.  

Edited October 15, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Spammer]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

...not some three-way thing that is somehow melted together? 

.. are we going to expect to become a triune being in their supposed mold?  Our nature is singular, it is not plural. 

The triune God’s nature is singular. There is only one God, not three. The one God is in three persons, without dividing the one divine nature. 

Also, only something material melts, blends or dissolves. The triune God is immaterial. 

It might help to consider what we mean when we say only God is uncreated and exists eternally.

Erase everything that isn’t God. Erase matter, time and space, absolutely everything that exists that isn’t God, and God still is. God would still be God in undiminished goodness and greatness, even if nothing else but God existed. That’s your starting point.

Try to think about God existing alone. If you imagine ‘something’, perhaps a man, cloud, blob or ball of gas, ‘floating’ around ‘somewhere,’ your mind is still thinking of something material existing within time and space. You have to get rid of all that. To grasp what we mean by God’s oneness or God’s three persons or becoming like God (theosis) you first have to be able to think about God with nothing else but God existing.

If you conclude “I can’t, I literally can’t think without using concepts and metaphors grounded on matter, time and space,” congratulations, you’re finally on the right path and ready to spend time with us contemplating the Holy Trinity, the second person of which, the Word made flesh, became one of us and dwelt among us.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Spammer

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 3:48 AM, Navidad said:

I must admit to a bit of confusion. At some cost, I have been very avid in stating that LDS Christians are just that - Christians. Then I read various posts on this forum like this one that seem to indicate that members of the Church prefer to think of themselves as different from, probably superior to, the rest of Christendom. "The LDS belief is closer to the truth about God than Christianity, but the LDS have their own errors to rationally work through as they reach for the light." It seems there has been interest on the part of folks like Stephen Robinson to work on bringing us under the same Christian umbrella, but at the same time a sense on the part of some that members of the Church are not Christian and don't want to be known as such. Has there ever been an official statement by the Brethren about this? Don't the Brethren see themselves as Christians? The Christian tent is diverse on non-essential beliefs and firm on certain core beliefs that I believe that LDS Christians believe. Yet, I sense a real divergence among the LDS Christians on this forum regarding their interest in becoming "mainstream." That seems to be a negative concept for many. I personally believe we all gain from what we can learn from each other, but certainly some Christians don't believe that as well as some Saints. It is almost like just at the time some in the mainstream Christian world is beginning to accept Saints as such, the Saints are saying "No thank you." We are perfectly content being the "other," the "peculiar people." Being Mennonite I understand that to some degree. We have always thought of ourselves as being non-Protestant, more restorationist that reformational, a "peculiar people," a "third way" (from Catholics or Protestants), the quiet in the land, etc. etc. But, we do this from a firm foothold in the great and greater Christian community. I understand it when Saints contrast themselves and their beliefs with Protestantism, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, etc. but I get really confused when you contrast yourselves to Christians. In six hours I will head off to three hours of services, the vast majority of which will be completely Christian in nature, essence, and teaching. Is this hesitation that I "feel" from many of you based on 190 years of distrust, feeling persecuted and not wanting to cozy up to the gentile, enemy world that mainstream Christianity represents? Will Saints ever let that go, is it a badge of honor, or not relevant to the topic? I value your input. I hope I have asked this in a way that is non-offensive. I mean no offense. I have paid a price for my testimony about the Saints; I am simply wondering if it is in vain? Thanks.

Mormons want to be considered "Christians" but only as they define it. I was recently part of a frustrating conversation on this board in which devout church members argued that ONLY Mormons are a part of the body of Christ and that all of the Christians are outside of that body. So there is a conundrum that we want others to recognize that we are believers in Christ, but we don't want to be lumped in with all of the other Christians who aren't even part of the body of Christ. IMO the argument the devout defenders were making is a SUPER cynical way to view Christianity as they would be offended if other Christians don't include Mormons as Christians, while simultaneously stating that Mormons are the only true Christians. It was a depressing conversation.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Spammer said:

The triune God’s nature is singular. There is only one God, not three. The one God is in three persons, without dividing the one divine nature. 

Also, only something material melts, blends or dissolves. The triune God is immaterial. 

It might help to consider what we mean when we say only God is uncreated and exists eternally.

Erase everything that isn’t God. Erase matter, time and space, absolutely everything that exists that isn’t God, and God still is. God would still be God in undiminished goodness and greatness, even if nothing else but God existed. That’s your starting point.

Try to think about God existing alone. If you imagine ‘something’, perhaps a man, cloud, blob or ball of gas, ‘floating’ around ‘somewhere,’ your mind is still thinking of something material existing within time and space. You have to get rid of all that. To grasp what we mean by God’s oneness or God’s three persons or becoming like God (theosis) you first have to be able to think about God with nothing else but God existing.

If you conclude “I can’t, I literally can’t think without using concepts and metaphors grounded on matter, time and space,” congratulations, you’re finally on the right path and ready to spend time with us contemplating the Holy Trinity, the second person of which, the Word made flesh, became one of us and dwelt among us.

I concluded I can understand God to the extent that He allows me to, and teaches us in scripture. I follow the scriptures as far as they allow me to go, and whatever other light God grants me which allows me to understand Him. Saying the triune God is immaterial is an unjustified conclusion. If you start from that conclusion, you will probably exclude the ability to ever understand Him.

When I was a youth the scriptures taught me things that the doctrine of the trinity failed to adequately explain, so I left it as an unworkable paradigm. Yeshua says too many things which conflicted with the model of the trinity commonly taught. He says only the Father knew when He would return - that He didn't know. He says to sit on his right hand or his left is not His to give, but shall be given to them for which it is prepared. He prayed to the Father for guidance, and taught us what He Himself was taught. These things do not correspond to a God of one substance. That would make God schizophrenic - not knowing what He Himself is thinking. So, when I was taught the LDS concept of the Godhead, I readily found it to be in conformance with scripture. 

The answer I have found after many years is that Yeshua is one with the Father like a family is one, and hence the very titles they use of Father and Son. As both YHWH Elohim they are the head of the house of Elohim - a house to which we have been invited. The OT has several places which YHWH says that YHWH and His Spirit have sent Him. Yet, only the Father is El Elyon, the Most High Power, and Yeshua is the son of the Most High. Ring any bells? That is from Luke. Hence, our Savior taught us to pray to the Father in His name for He is the source from which all power comes. Can our Savior be an El too in the house of Elohim? Scripturally, why yes. There is a plurality of El used a few times in the Hebrew text - it is Elim - and the KJV uses "The Mighty" for it instead of gods. Why? I believe because of a fear of plurality. How can three different beings be the one Elohim described in the texts? They are one family in one house, with all following the Father. Indeed, that is the inheritance of the Son - to inherit the  mountains and the government of the Father, and to be called the Father, Isaiah 9:6 - something the doctrine of the trinity does not allow, since it teaches the Son is NOT the Father. In short I believe the doctrine of the Trinity teaches the Son is immutable and cannot change, when scripture teaches over and over again He does - He is begotten by receiving an oath, He inherits His name/title; He is made perfect, and becomes our Savior; He inherits the government and mountains/peoples of the Father. To accept the doctrine of the Trinity is to deny Him His inheritance - something I refuse to do - instead, I choose to honor His inheritance, and follow His teachings. In these ways He has and may teach me more than I know.

There is no new God formed - no new El/Power. The Son merely becomes the Father - one in knowledge and power - which power has existed from eternity to eternity. This is what the scriptures mean. When men learn this truth, war will become no more - they will bend their swords into plowshares - and finally all will bend the knee. 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Spammer said:

The triune God’s nature is singular. There is only one God, not three. The one God is in three persons, without dividing the one divine nature. 

Also, only something material melts, blends or dissolves. The triune God is immaterial. 

It might help to consider what we mean when we say only God is uncreated and exists eternally.

Erase everything that isn’t God. Erase matter, time and space, absolutely everything that exists that isn’t God, and God still is. God would still be God in undiminished goodness and greatness, even if nothing else but God existed. That’s your starting point.

Try to think about God existing alone. If you imagine ‘something’, perhaps a man, cloud, blob or ball of gas, ‘floating’ around ‘somewhere,’ your mind is still thinking of something material existing within time and space. You have to get rid of all that. To grasp what we mean by God’s oneness or God’s three persons or becoming like God (theosis) you first have to be able to think about God with nothing else but God existing.

If you conclude “I can’t, I literally can’t think without using concepts and metaphors grounded on matter, time and space,” congratulations, you’re finally on the right path and ready to spend time with us contemplating the Holy Trinity, the second person of which, the Word made flesh, became one of us and dwelt among us.

I do understand the concept of the Trinity as you've described it -- or, rather, I understand it as well as anyone can understand a philosophical construct.  That's not the problem.  The problem is this: Is it true? 

Men can philosophize all the livelong day and come up with all manner of high-sounding and pseudo-scientific theories, but at the end of the day, do the theories match the facts?  The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle once examined three then current theories about the cause of earthquakes. He quickly dispatched two of them as false, and concluded that the third one was true.  And that one?  Earthquakes, he concluded, were caused by the wind.  His proof of this is a masterful demonstration of logic.  And it is complete rubbish.

You're asking me to believe a theory that was hashed together by a few hundred bishops in a council called by and presided over by a pagan Roman emperor 250 years after the death of the last Apostle.  Presumably, those Apostles knew who God and Jesus was, and yet not one of them described God in anything like the way that the Nicene Fathers described him.  I'll grant you that those bishops had some worldly authority, but what about divine authority? Or, for that matter, divine knowledge?  And why was there no prior mention of any element of their theory in any part of the Bible?  And please don't cite 1 John 5:7 to me as scriptural proof.  It has been sufficiently well demonstrated that this was inserted into the text of 1 John sometime after the 4th Century, apparently to give credence to the Nicene Creed.  It was not written by John.  But even if it had been, referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as "one god" does not by any long shot prove that they are some kind of "three-in-one" as described by the creed.  I know they were attempting to overcome the idea that there are three gods, but acknowledging that there are actually three, but not really, does not overcome it.  Constructing an extra-biblical god to get around the philosophical difficulty raised by God having a Son seems to be an unwarranted leap.  I should think it were sufficient for Jesus to tell us to pray to the Father (and not to himself, or to the Holy Ghost), to indicate who God is.  And referring to Him as The Father seems to indicate that there is some familial relationship between us and God, which also seems to be what the Apostle Paul was trying to tell us when he referred to us as "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ".  Which is echoed in John's words, where he wrote: "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son".  It's not just Jesus who is God's son, it's you and me.  And if you are God's son, the Nicene Consensus God of the Trinity is bunch of hot air.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Mormons want to be considered "Christians" but only as they define it.

You're being too general with this.  Or, maybe Mormons want this, but not Latter-day Saints.  In the sense of something Elder John M. Madsen once said (while he was a mission president in England back in the 70s): "We have too many Mormons in this church, and not enough Latter-day Saints."

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I was recently part of a frustrating conversation on this board in which devout church members argued that ONLY Mormons are a part of the body of Christ and that all of the Christians are outside of that body. So there is a conundrum that we want others to recognize that we are believers in Christ, but we don't want to be lumped in with all of the other Christians who aren't even part of the body of Christ. IMO the argument the devout defenders were making is a SUPER cynical way to view Christianity as they would be offended if other Christians don't include Mormons as Christians, while simultaneously stating that Mormons are the only true Christians. It was a depressing conversation.

You're right about it being depressing.  It's proof that defining people out of one's chosen group is the lazy man's way to riches.  Or something like that.

Who's a Christian?  Someone who believes in Christ as the Son of God?  Someone who believes that Jesus's teachings were worthwhile and should be followed?  I guess some Latter-day Saints get annoyed at being defined out of the club and so say "two can play at that game" and go for it. Kind of reminds me of two opposing Popes excommunicating each other.  

If the "body of Christ"?  is defined as "all people who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" then all Latter-day Saints and all Protestants and Catholics are part of it.  If it is defined as all those who hold the Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed, then all of them are, and we're not.  And if it is defined as those who are baptized and confirmed by true divine authority, and that divine authority resides with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and with no other church, the members of all other churches are not actually part of the body of Christ.  It's a movable feast.

I myself prefer the generosity of counting all as Christians who acknowledge Jesus as something or someone worthy of emulation. 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Stargazer

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I concluded I can understand God to the extent that He allows me to, and teaches us in scripture. I follow the scriptures as far as they allow me to go, and whatever other light God grants me which allows me to understand Him. Saying the triune God is immaterial is an unjustified conclusion. If you start from that conclusion, you will probably exclude the ability to ever understand Him.

When I was a youth the scriptures taught me things that the doctrine of the trinity failed to adequately explain, so I left it as an unworkable paradigm. Yeshua says too many things which conflicted with the model of the trinity commonly taught. He says only the Father knew when He would return - that He didn't know. He says to sit on his right hand or his left is not His to give, but shall be given to them for which it is prepared. He prayed to the Father for guidance, and taught us what He Himself was taught. These things do not correspond to a God of one substance. That would make God schizophrenic - not knowing what He Himself is thinking. So, when I was taught the LDS concept of the Godhead, I readily found it to be in conformance with scripture. 

The answer I have found after many years is that Yeshua is one with the Father like a family is one, and hence the very titles they use of Father and Son. As both YHWH Elohim they are the head of the house of Elohim - a house to which we have been invited. The OT has several places which YHWH says that YHWH and His Spirit have sent Him. Yet, only the Father is El Elyon, the Most High Power, and Yeshua is the son of the Most High. Ring any bells? That is from Luke. Hence, our Savior taught us to pray to the Father in His name for He is the source from which all power comes. Can our Savior be an El too in the house of Elohim? Scripturally, why yes. There is a plurality of El used a few times in the Hebrew text - it is Elim - and the KJV uses "The Mighty" for it instead of gods. Why? I believe because of a fear of plurality. How can three different beings be the one Elohim described in the texts? They are one family in one house, with all following the Father. Indeed, that is the inheritance of the Son - to inherit the  mountains and the government of the Father, and to be called the Father, Isaiah 9:6 - something the doctrine of the trinity does not allow, since it teaches the Son is NOT the Father. In short I believe the doctrine of the Trinity teaches the Son is immutable and cannot change, when scripture teaches over and over again He does - He is begotten by receiving an oath, He inherits His name/title; He is made perfect, and becomes our Savior; He inherits the government and mountains/peoples of the Father. To accept the doctrine of the Trinity is to deny Him His inheritance - something I refuse to do - instead, I choose to honor His inheritance, and follow His teachings. In these ways He has and may teach me more than I know.

There is no new God formed - no new El/Power. The Son merely becomes the Father - one in knowledge and power - which power has existed from eternity to eternity. This is what the scriptures mean. When men learn this truth, war will become no more - they will bend their swords into plowshares - and finally all will bend the knee. 

Thank you for taking the time to respond at length. I’ll only say that everything boils down to interpretation. We approach the text from different paradigms, so trying to persuade the other that our interpretation of a given text is the correct one is a waste of time.

We use the exact same passages of scripture as you, but interpret them differently. You find the LDS Church amenable to your interpretations; I find the Catholic tradition amenable to mine. I have the added benefit of interpreting writings our church leaders selected and gave to the world; the very same writings pertaining to Jesus that you read and interpret differently, my church gave to you. The NT is our collection: we put it together. You’re just borrowing it. We obviously have no problem with the passages you’d cite to support your view, e.g., those that you say make Jesus a schizophrenic if we begin from a trinitarian standpoint. 

A quick correction: you ask “How can three different beings be the one Elohim described in the texts?” 

The Holy Trinity is not three different beings, but one being.  There is only one God, one divine being.  One being in three persons.  That's what we believe, a belief fully supported by the same texts you cite.  We think so because we interpret them differently.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Spammer

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Mormons want to be considered "Christians" but only as they define it. I was recently part of a frustrating conversation on this board in which devout church members argued that ONLY Mormons are a part of the body of Christ and that all of the Christians are outside of that body. So there is a conundrum that we want others to recognize that we are believers in Christ, but we don't want to be lumped in with all of the other Christians who aren't even part of the body of Christ. IMO the argument the devout defenders were making is a SUPER cynical way to view Christianity as they would be offended if other Christians don't include Mormons as Christians, while simultaneously stating that Mormons are the only true Christians. It was a depressing conversation.

I think this is a great post. What you have described is exactly what I have described as the "blind spot" of the Latter-day Saints in  the Johari window framework. The folks have 20-20 vision in recognizing the negativism and yes, persecution their progenitors experienced, but are blind to, or simply justify the offense provided by them towards other Christians. Such an irony - Latter-day Saints, for the most part seem to want to be considered a part of the body of Christ and are offended when someone says they aren't, but as recently as yesterday deemed non-LDS Christians as apostates. On the other hand I had around fifteen guests in my home yesterday afternoon. They were Latter-day Saint eye doctors, nurses, and their spouses. We spent two hours on our patio discussing the similarities and differences between Mennonites and Latter-day Saints. They were delightful and I am so appreciative they came here to help our local people with eye troubles.

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You're being too general with this.  Or, maybe Mormons want this, but not Latter-day Saints.  In the sense of something Elder John M. Madsen once said (while he was a mission president in England back in the 70s): "We have too many Mormons in this church, and not enough Latter-day Saints."

You're right about it being depressing.  It's proof that defining people out of one's chosen group is the lazy man's way to riches.  Or something like that.

Who's a Christian?  Someone who believes in Christ as the Son of God?  Someone who believes that Jesus's teachings were worthwhile and should be followed?  I guess some Latter-day Saints get annoyed at being defined out of the club and so say "two can play at that game" and go for it. Kind of reminds me of two opposing Popes excommunicating each other.  

If the "body of Christ"?  is defined as "all people who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" then all Latter-day Saints and all Protestants and Catholics are part of it.  If it is defined as all those who hold the Trinity as expressed in the Nicene Creed, then all of them are, and we're not.  And if it is defined as those who are baptized and confirmed by true divine authority, and that divine authority resides with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and with no other church, the members of all other churches are not actually part of the body of Christ.  It's a movable feast.

I myself prefer the generosity of counting all as Christians who acknowledge Jesus as something or someone worthy of emulation. 

 

[Spammer]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You're asking me to believe a theory that was hashed together by a few hundred bishops in a council called by and presided over by a pagan Roman emperor 250 years after the death of the last Apostle.  

Belief that God is a spiritual essence; that God is one and is also Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and that God created matter out of nothing, predates the Council of Nicea by at least two centuries.

For example, Irenaeus of Lyon discussed this at length in c. 180 in his “Against Heresies.” You can read that very Catholic book and find out for yourself. Irenaeus was ordained a priest around 150 and was a disciple of Polycarp, Catholic Bishop of Smyrna before that. Polycarp, in turn was a disciple of John the Beloved. 

So...if we date belief in the core trinitarian doctrines to Irenaeus’ ordination, it dates to within 75 years after the death of the last apostle. If Irenaeus didn’t invent it but got it from his teacher, Polycarp, it goes back a lot further. Polycarp was executed in his 80s in about 125, about 30-40 years after John’s death. And Polycarp was ordained to the bishopric by the last apostle himself.

The notion that the trinitarian ideas were first hashed together at the Council is a myth.

A final point. It’s interesting you say the trinitarian view is extra-biblical. That’s a matter of interpretation. We think it's very biblical. We interpret the Bible differently. It just so happens that the same Bible you use and interpret, we put together and gave to you. The only reason you’re citing particular biblical texts is because Catholic bishops included them in the Bible for you to use.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Spammer

[Navidad]

15 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Thank you for taking the time to respond at length. I’ll only say that everything boils down to interpretation. We approach the text from different paradigms, so trying to persuade the other that our interpretation of a given text is the correct one is a waste of time.

We use the exact same passages of scripture as you, but interpret them differently. You find the LDS Church amenable to your interpretations; I find the Catholic tradition amenable to mine. I have the added benefit of interpreting writings our church leaders selected and gave to the world; the very same writings pertaining to Jesus that you read and interpret differently my church gave to you. The NT is our collection: we put it together. You’re just borrowing it. We obviously have no problem with the passages you’d cite to support your view, e.g., those that you say make Jesus a schizophrenic if we begin from a trinitarian standpoint. 

A quick correction: you ask “How can three different beings be the one Elohim described in the texts?” The Holy Trinity is not three different beings, but one being. There is only one God, one divine being. One being in three persons. That’s what we believe, a belief fully supported by the same texts you cite. We just interpret them differently. 

 

 

 

 

Interpretation, the methodology of hermeneutics is the key (to use a LDS Christian term) to understanding Scripture, whether it be the Bible or one of the three Latter-day Saint scriptures. One rarely hears a Latter-day Saint opine about struggling to "rightly divide the Word of Truth." They simply tell you what it means with absolute confidence. I have been interested in how many times it is said on this forum: "Someone must be right and someone wrong!" Or "someone has to be correct." I can remember being assigned passages of Scripture and having to interpret it according to five different interpretations, providing linguistic, historical, theological, and contextual rationale for each. The grade I received was not for deciding which was was correct, but by the thoroughness of my analysis. I am always struck by the tendency here to merely affirm a meaning based on what appears to be the rationale that "God told us" this is what it mean and that settles it. Belief in authority and ongoing revelation that result in absolute truth are two prerequisites to being a Latter-day Saint. I also want to dig back into all my resources to try and determine where the obsession with the Nicene Creed (just 92 words, I think) came from in Latter-day Saint Christian thinking. That is something that has come out of my time on this forum.

[RevTestament]

51 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I do understand the concept of the Trinity as you've described it -- or, rather, I understand it as well as anyone can understand a philosophical construct.  That's not the problem.  The problem is this: Is it true? 

Men can philosophize all the livelong day and come up with all manner of high-sounding and pseudo-scientific theories, but at the end of the day, do the theories match the facts?  The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle once examined three then current theories about the cause of earthquakes. He quickly dispatched two of them as false, and concluded that the third one was true.  And that one?  Earthquakes, he concluded, were caused by the wind.  His proof of this is a masterful demonstration of logic.  And it is complete rubbish.

You're asking me to believe a theory that was hashed together by a few hundred bishops in a council called by and presided over by a pagan Roman emperor 250 years after the death of the last Apostle.  Presumably, those Apostles knew who God and Jesus was, and yet not one of them described God in anything like the way that the Nicene Fathers described him.  I'll grant you that those bishops had some worldly authority, but what about divine authority? Or, for that matter, divine knowledge?  And why was there no prior mention of any element of their theory in any part of the Bible?  And please don't cite 1 John 5:7 to me as scriptural proof.  It has been sufficiently well demonstrated that this was inserted into the text of 1 John sometime after the 4th Century, apparently to give credence to the Nicene Creed.  It was not written by John.  But even if it had been, referring to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as "one god" does not by any long shot prove that they are some kind of "three-in-one" as described by the creed.  I know they were attempting to overcome the idea that there are three gods, but acknowledging that there are actually three, but not really, does not overcome it.  Constructing an extra-biblical god to get around the philosophical difficulty raised by God having a Son seems to be an unwarranted leap.  I should think it were sufficient for Jesus to tell us to pray to the Father (and not to himself, or to the Holy Ghost), to indicate who God is.  And referring to Him as The Father seems to indicate that there is some familial relationship between us and God, which also seems to be what the Apostle Paul was trying to tell us when he referred to us as "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ".  Which is echoed in John's words, where he wrote: "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son".  It's not just Jesus who is God's son, it's you and me.  And if you are God's son, the Nicene Consensus God of the Trinity is bunch of hot air.

To some extent I agree. However, debating 1 John 5:7 is not helpful. Even if it was an addition from a margin note, it is true. LDS scriptures read exactly the same. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. Further, the teaching is the same in D&C:

Doctrine and Covenants 20:28,71

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ^aone God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

How come they read like this? I think because the KJV translates the Hebrew Elohim as God in a singular sense of a family. If 1 John 5:7 is wrong, so are the Book of Mormon and D&C. The confusion comes I think because the English tradition translates numerous Hebrew words, both singular and plural, as a singular English form into God. I believe this misses the nuance of the Hebrew plural form of Elohim. I translate this as the family/house of immovable force/power. It can have both a plural use and singular use in the Hebrew scripture - rather than just being a "royal we." Anyway, picking on the KJE Bible doesn't really help resolve the issue. I think understanding really only comes by trying to understand the original Hebrew given by God. That's my take - for what it's worth.

 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Spammer said:

Belief that God is a spiritual essence; that God is one and is also Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and that God created matter out of nothing, predates the Council of Nicea by at least two centuries.

For example, Irenaeus of Lyon discussed this at length in c. 180 in his “Against Heresies.” You can read that very Catholic book and find out for yourself. Irenaeus was ordained a priest around 150 and was a disciple of Polycarp, Catholic Bishop of Smyrna before that. Polycarp, in turn was a disciple of John the Beloved. 

So...if we date belief in the core trinitarian doctrines to Irenaeus’ ordination, it dates to within 75 years after the death of the last apostle. If Irenaeus didn’t invent it but got it from his teacher, Polycarp, it goes back a lot further. Polycarp was executed in his 80s in about 125, about 30-40 years after John’s death. And Polycarp was ordained to the bishopric by the last apostle himself.

The notion that the trinitarian ideas were first hashed together at the Council is a myth.

A final point. It’s interesting you say the trinitarian view is extra-biblical. That’s a matter of interpretation. We think it's very biblical. We interpret the Bible differently. It just so happens that the same Bible you use and interpret, we put together and gave to you. The only reason you’re citing particular biblical texts is because Catholic bishops included them in the Bible for you to use.

Excellent post. Good luck in trying to convince the folks that the trinity was not spawned by councils and certainly not the Nicene Council. That it is not to be found in the Bible is such an ingrained concept in the Latter-day Saint mindset. I am beginning this afternoon to find the earliest historical references to the Nicene Council and Creed in Latter-day Saint writings. I am back past James Talmage and still digging.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Navidad

[RevTestament]

57 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Thank you for taking the time to respond at length. I’ll only say that everything boils down to interpretation. We approach the text from different paradigms, so trying to persuade the other that our interpretation of a given text is the correct one is a waste of time.

A quick correction: you ask “How can three different beings be the one Elohim described in the texts?” 

The Holy Trinity is not three different beings, but one being.  There is only one God, one divine being.  One being in three persons.  That's what we believe, a belief fully supported by the same texts you cite.  We think so because we interpret them differently.

Thank you for at least acknowledging my interpretation. It has come over a course of many years of seeking after God. When I talk about it a song from The Sound of Music comes to mind frequently - Climb Every Mountain - I think because it talks about finding a dream that will need all the love you can give. From the time that I found the Trinitarian paradigm unsatisfactory, it became a desire to understand God. When I found The Church of Jesus Christ, I began to find the answers to my questions.  However,  I continued to seek understanding. I wanted to understand the atonement, and actually ended up going inactive because I didn't fully understand it, so it felt wrong to say I had a testimony of it - something required to become a priest. When I finally began to understand the atonement as a teaching, the course of my life began to take some drastic turns...

I am not going to debate a difference between "Beings" and "persons." To me it is a meaningless distinction. We were created in their image, and we are beings and persons. When examining the writings of Greek theologians about the finer distinctions of the nature of God and the Son, I found the pages and pages of fine distinctions to be unfulfilling - one nature vs. two natures, etc. - scripture and the words of Yeshua filled me with light and life. They really are simple, and lead towards the only complete and rational paradigm for understanding God. I believe Yeshua Himself, has opened these things to me - it has been on the scriptural basis I first learned in The Church of Jesus Christ, but which comes from Isaiah - precept upon precept, here a little and there a little until we come to the full stature of the man, Jesus Christ.

Quote

We use the exact same passages of scripture as you, but interpret them differently. You find the LDS Church amenable to your interpretations; I find the Catholic tradition amenable to mine. I have the added benefit of interpreting writings our church leaders selected and gave to the world; the very same writings pertaining to Jesus that you read and interpret differently, my church gave to you. The NT is our collection: we put it together. You’re just borrowing it. We obviously have no problem with the passages you’d cite to support your view, e.g., those that you say make Jesus a schizophrenic if we begin from a trinitarian standpoint. 

I do acknowledge that it was the Roman Orthodox Church which is responsible for preserving the scriptures in the form of the Bible. To me it is amazing that it took 300 years for this to happen, but chalk that up to the highly persecuted nature of being a Christian, and the Roman desire to destroy everything Christian - including Christian scriptures. Otherwise we might still have a Hebrew version like I believe Matthew was. I believe Mark was an Aramaic version, and Luke was a Greek version. I also believe the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for changes which occurred to the scriptures. What do you as an Eastern Orthodox believe about that?

[JarMan]

38 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Excellent post. Good luck in trying to convince the folks that the trinity was not spawned by councils and certainly not the Nicene Council. That is not to be found in the Bible is such an ingrained concept in the Latter-day Saint mindset. I am beginning this afternoon to find the earliest historical references to the Nicene Council and Creed in Latter-day Saint writings. I am back past James Talmage and still digging.

I’ve really enjoyed your posts. And I’m glad you haven’t let yourself be driven off by some of the snarkiness and negativity. In general, I would say it is hard for people to look at themselves honestly and objectively. We Mormons are no different (yes, I used THAT word to describe us). Your perspective on us has so much to teach us about ourselves if we will only honestly listen and try to understand instead of being knee-jerk defensive. 

To address your question about the Nicene Creed, I will point out that JSH verse 19 does say that the creeds are an abomination to God, although it does not specify Nicea. From my own experience growing up in the church I didn’t have any clue there was even such a thing as creeds until about 10 or 15 years ago when I started researching why it was that some people thought we weren’t Christian. Our disagreement with the Nicene Creed seemed to be the most often reason others said we weren’t Christian.

To add a little bit of irony to this discussion I’ll point out that although I agree with the common Mormon assertion that the Nicene creed is non-biblical, I will also point out that the LDS concept of the godhead is non-Book of Mormon. From my perspective the Book of Mormon is no less ambiguous than the Bible on this subject. But the Book of Mormon has been over-ruled by the JSH version of the first vision…a history that contradicts Joseph’s earlier account of the experience. If Mormons had simply stuck with the Book of Mormon version I don’t think we would be having this discussion. 

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Okay, take a step back. Look at how important these nuances are to you. Then re-read what you wrote here:

Now you can understand why orthodox Christians find it so important to affirm that God has certain characteristics.

I can understand why they think it's so important.  Heck, even I think it's important to affirm that God has certain characteristics.  No problem with that at all.  But to fight wars over it?  Burn people at the stake over it?  My problem with the Nicene and other extra-biblical creeds is not that they weren't a charming and earnest attempt to regain an understanding of who God is, but that they cannot be shown to be a correct understanding!  The creeds are nothing more than a description of a God created by consensus of fallible men.  

Read what @Spammer writes in defense of the Nicene Trinity.  It's Greek philosophy.  It's full of appeals to authority.

Quote

Belief that God is a spiritual essence; that God is one and is also Father, Son and Holy Spirit; and that God created matter out of nothing, predates the Council of Nicea by at least two centuries.

For example, Irenaeus of Lyon discussed this at length in c. 180 in his “Against Heresies.” You can read that very Catholic book and find out for yourself. Irenaeus was ordained a priest around 150 and was a disciple of Polycarp, Catholic Bishop of Smyrna before that. Polycarp, in turn was a disciple of John the Beloved. 

The notion that the trinitarian ideas were first hashed together at the Council is a myth.

 

I didn't say that they were first hashed together at the Council, because clearly those ideas had to pre-exist the council, and certainly weren't a revelation from God to the council.  Does this pre-existence mean that those ideas were correct?  We're being asked to rely fully upon ideas which were not found in scripture, and as affirmation of them we are asked to consider that John the Beloved taught Polycarp, who taught Irenaeus, and so on.  The assumption is that Polycarp understood John, and transmitted it correctly to Irenaeus, and that none of them deviated from what they were taught.  Dare we assume this?  There is only one preserved writing of Polycarp, a letter to the Phillippians, cautioning them against apostasy. It does not address any questions pertaining to the nature of God.  So can we assume that what Irenaeus wrote in "Against Heresies" was taught by Polycarp, and hence by John?  I don't think we can. 

I really like how Irenaeus is referred to as a disciple of Polycarp, by the way.  It is recorded that in his youth he once heard Polycarp preaching.  This is discipleship?  If Irenaeus was ordained a priest in 150, this happened 5 years before Polycarp died, and describing him as Polycarp's disciple seems to be done solely in order to give Irenaeus extra credence.  Does he need it? 

But what did Irenaeus teach that could possibly support Nicaea?  I couldn't find anything, but in "Against Heresies" we find the following being taught in Chapter 1 of Book 3, speaking of the Apostles generally, and Peter, Paul, and Matthew in particular, as well as referencing Mark's published gospel and John's as well:

Quote

These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

You will note how, though he has the perfect opportunity to do so, does not expound upon the idea that the Father and the Son are one.  He writes of them separately. There's one God, and one Son of God.  And what of the Holy Ghost?  In the preceding paragraphs we find the following:

Quote

WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.(2) For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.

I think it instructive to consider that Irenaeus considers it "unlawful" to teach that the Apostles preached the Gospel before they received "perfect knowledge".  This was apparently to refute those who came afterwards claiming that the Apostles didn't know everything, and those coming afterwards were merely bringing improvements over what the Apostles taught.  I guess that the Nicene Council was one of those improvers that Irenaeus railed against, since obviously the Apostles hadn't taught what the Council came up with -- because if they had, the council wouldn't have needed to come up with it! 

I suggest perusing this article: "Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp" by Richard Lloyd Anderson.  

Here's the last  paragraph:

Quote

Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp present a united picture of three great bishops dedicated to morality, seasoned in love, and vigorously alert against factions. But they all notably lack the quality that enabled the apostles to establish the church and teach the world by the vitality of their writings. This dynamic quality is revelation, manifesting itself in the dramatic new programs that swept Christianity through the ancient world. These are quoters of apostles, not apostles and prophets themselves. Therefore, reading the Apostolic Fathers without assuming that they knew of the predictions of apostasy would be like reading Acts and the epistles without assuming that the apostles knew of Christ’s ministry. All communication has a context in which it is expressed, and the closing books of the New Testament disclose conditions and concepts that dominated the apostolic bishops. John’s letters are roughly contemporary with those of Ignatius and Polycarp, and the apostle refers to the coming of the anti-Christ (not the coming of Christ) by saying that it is “the last time” (literally, “the last hour”) because there are so many anti-Christs who “went out from us.” (1 Jn. 2:18–19.) John’s Revelation is also roughly contemporary with the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, and it speaks of the coming power of Satan and his agents “to make war with the saints, and to overcome them.” (Rev. 13:7.) Obviously John had been imprisoned or was otherwise unavailable when these bishops struggled against factions in the cities of Greece and Asia, but they could not be unaware of his plain teachings. In fact, he was only the last of many prophets who foresaw total apostasy, and the writings of the earliest Christian bishops reveal events that brought about fulfillment of that prophecy.

By the time of Polycarp, the Great Apostasy was well underway, and by the time of the Nicene Council it was essentially complete.  To imagine that that Council was able to successfully recover from that fall, by some consensus not involving direct revelation from God beggars the imagination.  Mine, anyway.  But I don't want to give the impression that I don't sympathize with them who took part, or that I condemn them for the result.  They were wrong, but it was an honest error.

If it had not been an error, then Joseph Smith would not have been necessary.  But they were, and he was.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

To some extent I agree. However, debating 1 John 5:7 is not helpful. Even if it was an addition from a margin note, it is true. LDS scriptures read exactly the same. The Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. Further, the teaching is the same in D&C:

Doctrine and Covenants 20:28,71

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ^aone God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

Of course it's true.  Never said it wasn't.  But it doesn't support the Nicene Creed or the principle that it embodies.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

How come they read like this? I think because the KJV translates the Hebrew Elohim as God in a singular sense of a family. If 1 John 5:7 is wrong, so are the Book of Mormon and D&C. The confusion comes I think because the English tradition translates numerous Hebrew words, both singular and plural, as a singular English form into God. I believe this misses the nuance of the Hebrew plural form of Elohim. I translate this as the family/house of immovable force/power. It can have both a plural use and singular use in the Hebrew scripture - rather than just being a "royal we." Anyway, picking on the KJE Bible doesn't really help resolve the issue. I think understanding really only comes by trying to understand the original Hebrew given by God. That's my take - for what it's worth.

I think you read into what I wrote more than what I intended to say.  I wasn't picking on the KJV (KJE?).  I was only trying to defuse in advance any supposed support of the Bible for the Nicene Creed.

[MiserereNobis]

54 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I was only trying to defuse in advance any supposed support of the Bible for the Nicene Creed.

I don't rely on the Bible for the truths of the Trinity. I rely on the magisterium (which pre-dates the Bible), my spiritual experiences, and the Holy Spirit.

The bottom line is that you believe our priesthood is invalid and our leaders and councils not led by God via inspiration and the Holy Spirit, and thus the teachings of those councils are in error. And we think the same about your priesthood and leaders and the teachings they give. This bottom line is not really going to change for either of us so there's not much more to discuss here about the Trinity, I suppose.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

To add a little bit of irony to this discussion I’ll point out that although I agree with the common Mormon assertion that the Nicene creed is non-biblical, I will also point out that the LDS concept of the godhead is non-Book of Mormon. From my perspective the Book of Mormon is no less ambiguous than the Bible on this subject. But the Book of Mormon has been over-ruled by the JSH version of the first vision…a history that contradicts Joseph’s earlier account of the experience. If Mormons had simply stuck with the Book of Mormon version I don’t think we would be having this discussion.

The "non-Biblical" argument is usually made to sola-scriptura folks.   We don't hold scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, or anything else) as the only authoritative source of doctrine.  Our understanding of the Godhead is not only derived from the first vision, but also from further revelation including D&C 130 - "God has a body of flesh and bones", etc.  I wouldn't say that the BOM and the earlier accounts of the first vision "contradict" our current understanding of the Godhead.  Much has been written about the first vision accounts (see the gospel topics essay).  Same with the BoM accounts of God and his oneness - not literal.  There is no contradiction that I can see.

But I agree, I like having Navidad around and think we can learn a lot from him.

Edited October 15, 2018 by pogi

[Spammer]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

Hello, thank you for your reply.  I'm sorry for the weird approach to quoting in my response. 

 

Quote

Read what @Spammer writes in defense of the Nicene Trinity.  It's Greek philosophy.  It's full of appeals to authority.

I referred to the ex nihilo basis of the doctrine of the Nicene Trinity, which is neither Platonic nor Aristotelian philosophy.  Both systems taught ex materia creation, same as the LDS Church and the Gnostics.

Also, we all appeal to authority, whether pope, church councils, the prophet, the General Authorities teaching in unison, or the promptings of the Holy Ghost. 

Quote

We're being asked to rely fully upon ideas which were not found in scripture…

Rather, ideas which were not found in your own personal interpretation of scripture or the official LDS interpretation of scripture…scripture originally chosen for you to count as scripture by believers in the Nicene Trinity.

Quote

…and as affirmation of them we are asked to consider that John the Beloved taught Polycarp, who taught Irenaeus, and so on.  The assumption is that Polycarp understood John, and transmitted it correctly to Irenaeus, and that none of them deviated from what they were taught…So can we assume that what Irenaeus wrote in "Against Heresies" was taught by Polycarp, and hence by John? 

Irenaeus himself, while providing evidence of the apostolic pedigree of his teaching, states that when he was young he listened to Polycarp preach and approved of his teaching; that Polycarp was appointed bishop of the Church of Smyrna by apostles in Asia (Tertullian and Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, say it was John); and that Polycarp always taught things he said he had received from the apostles themelves. In short, Irenaeus cites Polycarp as evidence that what he himself taught was handed down to the church, doctrines that Irenaeus himself was teaching.  It’s a long series of quotations, so please see Against Heresies, Book 3, ch. 3-4. 

Irenaeus and Polycarp were thus on the same page theologically. Irenaeus reiterated the same in a letter to a friend, Florinus, who was a priest and had been taken in by the heretical teaching of the Valentinians - who were gnostics, you know, the heretical group who taught that matter is eternal, as in Greek philosophy and LDS teaching.  In that letter, Irenaeus says:

“I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse — his going out, too, and his coming in — his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's Grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind.”

Quote

So can we assume that what Irenaeus wrote in "Against Heresies" was taught by Polycarp, and hence by John?  I don't think we can. 

As the foregoing shows, if Polycarp didn’t formally ‘disciple’ Irenaeus, Irenaeus did learn from Polycarp, who received his teaching from John and other apostles, treasured Polycarp’s teaching in his heart, agreed with it, and declared it be apostolic – all while defending the apostolicity of his own teaching.  That’s compelling evidence.

Quote

But what did Irenaeus teach that could possibly support Nicaea? 

How about God is an uncreated, spiritual essence who created matter out of nothing (ex nihilo)? Very Nicene.

 “The rule of truth which we hold, is, that there is one God Almighty, who made all things by His Word, and fashioned and formed, out of that which had no existence, all things which exist.” (Against Heresies 1.22.1)

 

“And that they may be deemed capable of informing us whence is the substance of matter, while they believe not that God, according to His pleasure, in the exercise of His own will and power, formed all things (so that those things which now are should have an existence) out of what did not previously exist...”

 

“...but they [Ireneaus here speaks of the Gnostics] do not believe that God (being powerful, and rich in all resources) created matter itself, inasmuch as they know not how much a spiritual and divine essence can accomplish...

 

“For, to attribute the substance of created things to the power and will of Him who is God of all, is worthy both of credit and acceptance. It is also agreeable, and there may be well said regarding such a belief, that ‘the things which are impossible with men are possible with God.’ While men, indeed, cannot make anything out of nothing, but only out of matter already existing, yet God is in this point preeminently superior to men, that He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence.” (Against Heresies 2.10.2-4)

 

But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning. But whatever things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and stand in need of Him who made them... (Against Heresies 3.8.3)

 

“Truly, then, he Scripture declared, which says, ‘First of all believe that there is one God, who has established all things, and completed them, and having caused that from what had no being, all things should come into existence: He who contains all things, and is Himself contained by no one.’” (Against Heresies 4.20.2)

 

If you think you can wrest any of that to get the LDS doctrine that the Father is a resurrected, glorified man with a body of flesh and bones, who wasn't always God but became God, and who (in keeping with Greek philosophy) organized eternal matter, I’m all ears.

Finally, you quoted something from Richard Lloyd Anderson. I read it, but only think it works if you first assume that the Great Apostasy was predicted and occurred.  I think the available ancient evidences support neither claim. 

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by Spammer

[Spammer]

45 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don't rely on the Bible for the truths of the Trinity. I rely on the magisterium (which pre-dates the Bible), my spiritual experiences, and the Holy Spirit.

The bottom line is that you believe our priesthood is invalid and our leaders and councils not led by God via inspiration and the Holy Spirit, and thus the teachings of those councils are in error. And we think the same about your priesthood and leaders and the teachings they give. This bottom line is not really going to change for either of us so there's not much more to discuss here about the Trinity, I suppose.

Except the LDS Church (and all Protestants) accept the Spirit-led validity of the Catholic councils that established the Bible canon.  That one they like.  How can they not, without undermining the Bible's legitimacy?

I agree with your last sentence.  In the end, these conversations are kind of pointless. 

[Spammer]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Thank you for at least acknowledging my interpretation. It has come over a course of many years of seeking after God. When I talk about it a song from The Sound of Music comes to mind frequently - Climb Every Mountain - I think because it talks about finding a dream that will need all the love you can give. From the time that I found the Trinitarian paradigm unsatisfactory, it became a desire to understand God. When I found The Church of Jesus Christ, I began to find the answers to my questions.  However,  I continued to seek understanding. I wanted to understand the atonement, and actually ended up going inactive because I didn't fully understand it, so it felt wrong to say I had a testimony of it - something required to become a priest. When I finally began to understand the atonement as a teaching, the course of my life began to take some drastic turns...

I am not going to debate a difference between "Beings" and "persons." To me it is a meaningless distinction. We were created in their image, and we are beings and persons. When examining the writings of Greek theologians about the finer distinctions of the nature of God and the Son, I found the pages and pages of fine distinctions to be unfulfilling - one nature vs. two natures, etc. - scripture and the words of Yeshua filled me with light and life. They really are simple, and lead towards the only complete and rational paradigm for understanding God. I believe Yeshua Himself, has opened these things to me - it has been on the scriptural basis I first learned in The Church of Jesus Christ, but which comes from Isaiah - precept upon precept, here a little and there a little until we come to the full stature of the man, Jesus Christ.

I do acknowledge that it was the Roman Orthodox Church which is responsible for preserving the scriptures in the form of the Bible. To me it is amazing that it took 300 years for this to happen, but chalk that up to the highly persecuted nature of being a Christian, and the Roman desire to destroy everything Christian - including Christian scriptures. Otherwise we might still have a Hebrew version like I believe Matthew was. I believe Mark was an Aramaic version, and Luke was a Greek version. I also believe the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for changes which occurred to the scriptures. What do you as an Eastern Orthodox believe about that?

Thank you for sharing your testimony.  All of us can only go where our hearts lead us.  Love of God and love of neighbor is the gospel in action.  That's what counts, IMO.

I view the EO and RC as the same church, with the two halves sadly not in communion over the issue of papal supremacy and the filioque clause in the Creed.  Holy Orders in both are valid and the same saving, grace-filled sacraments are available in both.  I think that might answer your question about what I believe about Rome. 

I'm not sure what you mean by the RC changing scripture.  I have several RC and Orthodox bibles and, apart from a couple of extra books in the Septuagint version of the Orthodox Old Testament, as opposed to Jerome's Vulgate canon, they're identical.  Perhaps you're referring to the Western addition of the filioque clause to the creed?  That's the only textual change I can think of that the Orthodox are upset about.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Spammer

[Spammer]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Excellent post. Good luck in trying to convince the folks that the trinity was not spawned by councils and certainly not the Nicene Council. That it is not to be found in the Bible is such an ingrained concept in the Latter-day Saint mindset. I am beginning this afternoon to find the earliest historical references to the Nicene Council and Creed in Latter-day Saint writings. I am back past James Talmage and still digging.

Interesting.  I first came across the claim in Talmage's 'Great Apostasy', which I first read as an LDS missionary.  That's the earliest reference to the claim in LDS writings I'm aware of. I look forward to hearing about your findings.

[Spammer]

delete

Edited October 16, 2018 by Spammer

[Navidad]

I want to thank each of you for your very insightful comments. Equally as important, the tone has been wonderful. I think that no one is going to convert anyone and that is inline with the rules of the forum. However, I think with the quality of the posts we might learn something from each other. We might gain insight into both our own views and those of others. That is what it is all about.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Navidad