InCognitus Posted June 28, 2023 Posted June 28, 2023 9 minutes ago, webbles said: You are correct that many (possibly the majority) will never accept us as Christians. And I don't really care if they do or don't. I consider myself a Christian because I believe in Christ. If they find me to be non-Christian or heretical Christian, I don't have a problem with that. I agree, but the only problem I have when others spread the idea that we (as a church) are not "Christian" is that it can also convey the idea (to some) that we don't believe in Jesus Christ and salvation through him. I think this is also why the church emphasizes our belief in Jesus Christ. Other than that, I don't care how anyone else judges us. 4
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2023 Posted June 28, 2023 49 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: That's me with Ahab. Whenever he shows up I just can't help myself. We're about due for a visit from him, aren't we? You're probably right on that one! But DANG that Holland talk is a keeper! I'd love to see an attempted refutation of the points good old Doc Holland made on that one! 1
InCognitus Posted June 28, 2023 Posted June 28, 2023 Just now, mfbukowski said: But DANG that Holland talk is a keeper! I'd love to see an attempted refutation of the points good old Doc Holland made on that one! It really is, it's one of my favorites. I was thinking the same thing about wondering what has been said against it. I wanted to do some research to see. 1
Sara H Posted June 28, 2023 Posted June 28, 2023 1 hour ago, InCognitus said: Seriously, "Sara"? You are going to make it this easy? You are blowing your cover. That's the same link I provided in response to Truth Teller (AtlanticMike) when he posted the same out of context quote taken from the Mormon Think website back on May 6 (the post can be found here). Remember the response? This is what I posted: ========== Take your Elder's Journal quote for example, the full context can be found here: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-august-1838/10#full-transcript That Elder's Journal article is about Doctor Philastus Hurlbut and Eber D. Howe's anti-Mormon book, Mormonism Unvailed [sic]. The "priests" mentioned in the article have to do with those associated with Hurlburt and Howe. Hurlbut was a Methodist preacher but was baptized as a Latter-day Saint, but was later excommunicated for adultery. He became bitter against Joseph Smith (and even threatened to kill him), and he began travelling throughout the country giving lectures against Mormonism. As Benjamin Winchester put it: "I would here observe, that while he [Hurlbut] was in connexion with the church of Latter Day Saints, the preachers and priests of the different denominations heaped their calumny upon the Society for fellowshipping him; and made a stumbling block of him, and said there was no mark of a Christian about him. But no sooner had he made his appearance, as the champion of sectarianism, and the assailant of Mormonism, than churches, chapels and meeting houses were crowded to hear him." There is a very important context to every one of those quotes. ========= Can't you see that from the context? So now you're incorrectly pronouncing my gender, and on top of that, you've gone one step further and accused me of being a poster who cursed at other posters and called them offensive things! After following the URL you provided, I discovered that the truth teller was engaging in the same activity. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are the reason why other Christians will never acknowledge us as "true Christians." Because your love for the brothers has clouded your judgement to such an extent, you have lost sight of what the gospel actually entails. It would appear that you are willing to label as "truth teller" anyone who does not agree with you in order to cast doubt on their credibility. Are you trying to pass yourself off as an apologist? It is starting to look like that might be the case. The screen photos that I provided, I do not have any further information on them after more than 40 years. I used to have a friend who was a Baptist and she would witness to me. When she did so, she would utilise brochures that her church had made out expressly for "Mormons." I still have all of the pamphlets and magazines that she sent to me. There are dozens upon dozens of quotes from early Prophets and Apostles of the LDS Church that are critical of Christianity. Do you seriously believe that there are only a few people on the face of the globe who are aware that the early leaders of the church believed Christians were and now are following the wrong path? You should be ashamed of yourself and you should realise that you are the problem because you act like a young child who gets upset when they are confronted with a different opinion. You don't like it when others disagree with you, and you act like that.
bluebell Posted June 28, 2023 Posted June 28, 2023 2 hours ago, Sara H said: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-august-1838/12 I have no idea what you’re trying to say with this quote. I read it two or three times and I don’t see how it’s at all relevant to my post. Perhaps you could explain? 1
Calm Posted June 28, 2023 Posted June 28, 2023 47 minutes ago, InCognitus said: I agree, but the only problem I have when others spread the idea that we (as a church) are not "Christian" is that it can also convey the idea (to some) that we don't believe in Jesus Christ and salvation through him. I think this is also why the church emphasizes our belief in Jesus Christ. Other than that, I don't care how anyone else judges us. Yes. I think it important that people understand our most basic belief, belief in Christ and the Father so that doors will remain open. 1
Sara H Posted June 28, 2023 Posted June 28, 2023 1 hour ago, webbles said: You are correct that many (possibly the majority) will never accept us as Christians. And I don't really care if they do or don't. I consider myself a Christian because I believe in Christ. If they find me to be non-Christian or heretical Christian, I don't have a problem with that. Many Christian denominations go through a process where they decide if they are in "communion" with each other. During that process, they may change a few things doctrinally or procedurally. At the end, if they decide they are in communion, then they will recognize each others authority, baptism, etc. I don't believe we will ever be in "communion" with other Christian denominations. We would have to change a lot for that to happen. And that is just not going to happen. Do you know that while the term "Saint" appears in the Bible about 100 times, the word "Christian" only appears three times? However, for some reason, LATTER DAY SAINTS desire to be regarded as Christians more than they desire to be regarded as SAINTS! The youth will, in my opinion, continue to turn elsewhere if we try to appear more Christian and less LATTER Day Saint. When the LATTER Day Saints are proclaiming that it is acceptable to identify as a Christian, why would anyone want to be a LATTER Day Saint with all the restrictions? Simply follow Christ and enjoy yourself more! That's basically what the majority of LDS are saying on this thread: "Drink beer, wear bikinis and go to rated R movies while here on earth and profess your Christianity when entering Spirit Prison and everything will be just fine."
InCognitus Posted June 28, 2023 Posted June 28, 2023 26 minutes ago, Sara H said: So now you're incorrectly pronouncing my gender, and on top of that Nope. I never said anything about your gender. You can be whatever gender you like as far as I'm concerned. 27 minutes ago, Sara H said: you've gone one step further and accused me of being a poster who cursed at other posters and called them offensive things! I'm glad you noticed that. 28 minutes ago, Sara H said: After following the URL you provided, I discovered that the truth teller was engaging in the same activity. What "same activity" do you mean? 28 minutes ago, Sara H said: I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are the reason why other Christians will never acknowledge us as "true Christians." Because your love for the brothers has clouded your judgement to such an extent, you have lost sight of what the gospel actually entails. It would appear that you are willing to label as "truth teller" anyone who does not agree with you in order to cast doubt on their credibility. Are you trying to pass yourself off as an apologist? It is starting to look like that might be the case. "Lost sight of what the gospel actually entails"? What does that mean? What did Joseph Smith say about "The fundamental principles of our religion" (I posted that here)? Showing that you have taken quotes out of context and misconstrued their meaning or application is what it is. Perhaps you don't realize you are doing that if you are just grabbing quotes from Mormon Think. You should check the sources more carefully. 35 minutes ago, Sara H said: The screen photos that I provided, I do not have any further information on them after more than 40 years. I used to have a friend who was a Baptist and she would witness to me. When she did so, she would utilise brochures that her church had made out expressly for "Mormons." I still have all of the pamphlets and magazines that she sent to me. There are dozens upon dozens of quotes from early Prophets and Apostles of the LDS Church that are critical of Christianity. Do you seriously believe that there are only a few people on the face of the globe who are aware that the early leaders of the church believed Christians were and now are following the wrong path? I have many of the same books and pamphlets. I collect them. The problem is that they take the same quotes out of context, like you did with the Elders' Journal quote which was about Philastus Hurlburt and E. D. Howe, and not about Christians in general. But at least you are now admitting to your actual sources. This is a step in the right direction. 39 minutes ago, Sara H said: You should be ashamed of yourself and you should realise that you are the problem because you act like a young child who gets upset when they are confronted with a different opinion. You don't like it when others disagree with you, and you act like that. And now, like AtlanticMike did, you are trying to ascribe emotions and motives to me that I do not have. You can disagree with me all you want. I'm fine with that. But your attempt to portray me as some kind of emotional child rather than dealing with my responses to your claims is just a logical fallacy, ad-hominem attacks which are meant to distract. I don't fall for that. 1
webbles Posted June 28, 2023 Posted June 28, 2023 19 minutes ago, Sara H said: Do you know that while the term "Saint" appears in the Bible about 100 times, the word "Christian" only appears three times? However, for some reason, LATTER DAY SAINTS desire to be regarded as Christians more than they desire to be regarded as SAINTS! The youth will, in my opinion, continue to turn elsewhere if we try to appear more Christian and less LATTER Day Saint. When the LATTER Day Saints are proclaiming that it is acceptable to identify as a Christian, why would anyone want to be a LATTER Day Saint with all the restrictions? Simply follow Christ and enjoy yourself more! That's basically what the majority of LDS are saying on this thread: "Drink beer, wear bikinis and go to rated R movies while here on earth and profess your Christianity when entering Spirit Prison and everything will be just fine." You are really confusing me. I haven't seen anyone say the bolded or even hint at it. 4
Stargazer Posted June 28, 2023 Posted June 28, 2023 5 hours ago, Teancum said: Not really. Orthodox Christianity does seem to have essentials that are important and essential and the creedal concepts about the Godhead seems to be one of those and had been applied fairly consistently. It is not pharisaical to want to be consistent with the historic application of the doctrine. Latter-day Saints have similar essential doctrine do they not? If one believes that the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant idea of God as reflected in the various creeds is the correct ones, then go for it. But I say again, just because "that's the way we've always done it" does not mean it's the right way. When you have nothing better, than Occam's Razor makes a good point of decision. Stare decisis, and so on. But one can use such arguments to continue enslaving people (worldwide), to kill newborn girls (China), and any number of other traditional customs and habits that we now regard as wrong. LDS have similar doctrine? Yes, in any case there's the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And I suppose from one point of view arguing vehemently for one version over the other might seem to be an argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or in other words, a distinction without a difference. But it does matter to many people. The great Schism of 1054 between the Eastern and Western churches involved a single word: "filioque." They took it very seriously as to whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone, or from both the Father and the Son. Care to take one side over the other? They did! And if one wants to argue that historical and traditional creeds should always take precedence over newer ones, then one must be prepared to return to the true worship of (take your pick) the Norse, Roman, Greek, or pre-Mohammed Arabic pantheons. Which do you personally prefer? It's a free country! 5 hours ago, Teancum said: This is an old canard and really not correct. Latter-day Saints love to say this but really don't know the history generally. Constantine was a convert if I recall. So at the time he was no longer a pagan. Oh, but it is really quite correct. In these days of not knowing whether a baby is a boy, a girl, or non-binary until the child makes the choice, perhaps some people insist upon not reading history. But it is an absolute fact that Constantine the Great summoned the Council of Nicea. Even catholicdigest.com states this quite flatly: "To quell the [doctrinal] turmoil, Emperor Constantine called all the bishops of the world to meet in Nicaea, across the straits from his new capital, Constantinople." Constantine converted on his deathbed, or more accurately, waited until he was on his deathbed to be baptized. At the time of the Council of Nicea he was an official pagan. You can argue, if you wish, that he was a "dry Christian," but officially he was a pagan, and like all Roman emperors held the office and title of "Pontifex Maximus," which means he was chief priest of the Imperial [pagan] religion. Constantine did not renounce that title, though a later emperor did do so. But I am not trying to disparage Constantine, you must understand. He was one of the best and greatest emperors of the Roman empire. It was through his influence that the empire's official policy against Christianity was dropped, and in the adopting Christianity as the state religion he turned the empire Christian, which was not a bad thing. But the edicts also proclaimed general religious freedom (for most religions). And he was still patronizing pagan gods as well. For example, in 315 he had a triumphal arch constructed to commemorate a victory, had it dedicated to the goddess Victoria, and sacrifices were made to pagan gods at its dedication, including Apollo, Diana, and Hercules. This was after he had finally declared himself to be a Christian. One can argue, and I am prepared to believe it, that Constantine was a gradual, but real convert. It remains the case that the Council of Nicea was summoned by him in order to resolve the doctrinal confusion in the Christian world. How could he have a state religion when the various officials of it were at loggerheads about it, and were actually physically fighting each other over their differences? Which some were. Do we call a person a Mormon from the moment of their proclaiming themselves a believer, or from the moment of the baptism? Constantine waited about 25 years to finalize his proclamation of belief. My problem with Constantine and the Council of Nicea is the 300 years from the resurrection of Jesus. If they did not at that time have a unified doctrine of who God was, and required a committee meeting to decide upon it, it seems clear, to me at least, that they had lost something very important. Christ spent 40 days after his resurrection instructing the Apostles. If he did not cover who God is, and the nature of God, then what did he cover? That knowledge must have been given to them, though there are no records of what was taught. Presumably the Apostles continued to teach it. But 300 years later the leaders of Christendom were unclear about it? 5 hours ago, Teancum said: The schism on the Godhead primarily generated by Arius and his teachings about the godhead that seemed to conflict with the doctrine of many other bishops. The council had every authority to work through the issue. Constantine called the council so the respective bishops could settle the dispute. What you are doing is seeking to poison the well be disparaging the council simply because constantine called the the council. The council had authority? From whom did they get the authority? From Constantine. Who was Constantine? Pagan or not, did Constantine have authority over the Church? If yes, how did he get it? This is incontrovertible: he assumed it. As temporal leader over the country, he assumed it, just as Henry VIII did in England. Stated differently, what religious authority did Constantine have? NONE. He was a usurper over the Church of Jesus Christ. But by then the Church had already descended into apostasy, so it made no difference in the end. 5 hours ago, Teancum said: Whether you are or are not is really irrelevant to the outcome. Mormonism's doctrine about the Godhead does not inspire many as well. So? The most important thing is this: if the doctrine is true. Regardless of whether many are inspired by it or not.
Teancum Posted June 28, 2023 Posted June 28, 2023 4 hours ago, Navidad said: I don't think I can answer that unless you specify which creed you are asking about. On the other hand, I can simply say I don't pay any attention to what any creed says about anything. But the Navidadivian creed would suggest that God exists. He exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God desires fellowship with humans and has made that possible. Well let's ignore the creeds. Tell me what you believe about the Godhead, the trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one God. How are they one? Are they separate beings? If the Son is embodied what about the Father? I am just wondering about your understanding and beliefs about the Godhead in Christianity.
webbles Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 2 hours ago, teddyaware said: You hit the nail on the head! The way I see the apparent need some members of the church have to be accepted as Christians by the non-LDS churches is not dissimilar from being willing to compromise one’s eternal principles in order to curry favor with those who scoff at the saints from the windows of the great and spacious building. Please note that I said this phenomenon of wanting to receive acceptance from the Non-LDS churches is ‘not dissimilar’ to what Lehi beheld in his vision, not that it’s precisely the same thing. After all, not all of our critics are people of hate and ill will. I think you are misinterpreting what people are saying. The Saints in the New Testament called themselves Christians - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/acts/11?lang=eng&id=26#p26 Quote 26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they aassembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called bChristians first in cAntioch. The Saints in the Book of Mormon called themselves Christians - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/46?lang=eng&id=p15#p15 Quote 15 And those who did belong to the church were afaithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ btook upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or cChristians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come. Why can't we call ourselves Christians just as they did? Just because I want to call myself a Christian doesn't mean I want to compromise anything. I would think it is the opposite. We are not compromising anything to want to be called Christian. 3
Calm Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, CV75 said: Because not knowing they are Christian (whether by label, self-description or discipleship) or have His name upon them or a covenant relationship with Him can only get them so far (compared to knowing). Someone who believes in Christ and doesn't know they are Christian or that they can have His name upon them or have a covenant relationship with Him is missing something. Someone who follows the light of Christ within them and doesn't know what that is or any of the rest of this is missing something. This is why I like Mosiah Chapters 5 and 18. ETA: And Alma 46: 13 - 16. I get the missing something. We are all missing lots of things in fact at this point in our progression. I am guessing there is little difference between Saints and nonLDS when looked at from the distance of where we are all heading (I don’t think God would be such an inefficient teacher to have his students so imbalanced that by the time we all were past mortality there were some about to step into exaltation and some back in Nursery in Primary or the equivalent of it for adult spirits), especially since it seems God judges people by what they do with what they have and where they are, not by some rigid standard that ignores whether or not they know the Law or the Gospel or Christ. Quote Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Quote “I have come to the conclusion,” declared President Brigham Young, “that we shall be judged according to the deeds done in the body and according to the thoughts and intents of the heart” (DNW, 17 Aug. 1869, 2; see also D&C 137:9). He taught clearly that every man and woman will experience this judgment: “Each and every intelligent being will be judged … according to his works, faith, desires, and honesty or dishonesty before God; every trait of his character will receive its just merit or demerit, and he will be judged according to the law of heaven” https://site.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-39?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-39?lang=eng Quote So far as mortality is concerned, millions of the inhabitants of the earth live according to the best light they have—according to the best knowledge they possess. I have told you frequently that they will receive according to their works; and all, who live according to the best principles in their possession, or that they can understand, will receive peace, glory, comfort, joy and a crown that will be far beyond what they are anticipating. They will not be lost (DBY, 384). Nothing in there about doctrinal knowledge. And a crown implies exaltation to me. Edited June 29, 2023 by Calm
Popular Post Saint Bonaventure Posted June 29, 2023 Popular Post Posted June 29, 2023 I respectfully disagree with the perspectives offered that have presented Constantine as hefting a pagan hand and the account of Eusebius of Caesarea as establishing what happened at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Please note that Eusebius of Nicomedia was very intertwined with Constantine, and the two Eusebiuses are sometimes confused. They are not the same person. I don't have illusions about persuading folks, but it is widely acknowledged that Constantine's involvement, and even from the Convocation, is disputed: Quote SEC. 24. The Convocation by the Emperor The letters of invitation sent by the Emperor Constantine the Great to the bishops, to ask them to repair to Nicæa, do not unfortunately now exist, and we must content ourselves with what Eusebius says on the subject.2 “By very respectful letters (τιμητικοῖς γράμμασι) the Emperor begged the bishops of every country (ἁπανταχόθεν) to go as quickly as possible to Nicæa.” Rufinus says that the Emperor also asked Arius. It is not known whether invitations were sent to foreign bishops (not belonging to the Roman Empire). Eusebius says that the Emperor assembled an œcumenical council (σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν); but it is not at all easy to determine the value of the word οἰκουμένη. However it may be, Eusebius and Gelasius affirm that some foreign bishops took part in this great Council. The former says: “A bishop even from Persia was present at the Council, and Scythia itself was represented among the bishops.”5 Gelasius does not mention a Scythian bishop—that is to say, a Goth; but he begins his work with these words: “Not only bishops from every province of the Roman Empire were present at the Council, but even some from Persia.” The signatures of the members of the Council which still remain (it is true they are not of incontestable authenticity) agree with Eusebius and Gelasius; for we there find one John Bishop of Persia, and Theophilus the Gothic metropolitan. Socrates also mentions the latter, who, he says, was the predecessor of Ulphilas.3 It is impossible to determine whether the Emperor Constantine acted only in his own name, or in concert with the Pope, in assembling the bishops. Eusebius and the most ancient documents speak only of the Emperor’s part in the Council, without, however, a positive denial of the participation of the Pope. The sixth Œcumenical Synod, which took place in 680, says, on the contrary: “Arius arose as an adversary to the doctrine of the Trinity, and Constantine and Silvester immediately assembled (συνέλεγον) the great Synod at Nicæa.” The Pontifical of Damasus affirms the same fact. From that time, the opinion that the Emperor and the Pope had agreed together to assemble the Council became more and more general; and with whatever vivacity certain Protestant authors may have arrayed themselves against this supposition,6 it certainly seems probable that in such an important measure the Emperor would have thought it necessary not to act without the consent and co-operation of him who was recognised as the first bishop of Christendom. Let us add that Rufinus had already expressly said that the Emperor assembled the Synod ex sacerdotum sententia. If he consulted several bishops upon the measure which he had in view, he certainly would have taken the advice of the first among them; and the part of the latter in the convocation of the Council must certainly have been more considerable than that of the other bishops, or the sixth Council would doubtless have expressed itself in another way. The testimony of this Council is here of real importance. If it had been held in the West, or even at Rome, what it says might appear suspicious to some critics; but it took place at Constantinople, at a period when the bishops of this city were beginning to be rivals to those of Rome. The Greeks formed greatly the majority of the members of the Council, and consequently their testimony in favour of Rome, more especially in favour of the co-operation of Silvester, is very important. In order to make the journey to Nicæa possible to some, and at least easier to others, the Emperor placed the public conveyances and the beasts of burden belonging to the Government at the disposal of the bishops; and while the Council lasted, he provided abundantly for the entertainment of its members. The choice of the town of Nicæa was also very favourable for a large concourse of bishops. Situated upon one of the rivers flowing into the Propontis on the borders of Lake Ascanius, Nicæa was very easy to reach by water for the bishops of almost all the provinces, especially for those of Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace: it was a much frequented commercial city, in relation with every country, not far distant from the imperial residence in Nicomedia, and after the latter the most considerable city in Bithynia. After the lapse of so many centuries, and under the oppressive Turkish rule, it is so fallen from its ancient splendour, that under the name of Isnik it numbers now scarcely 1500 inhabitants. This is fewer than the number of guests it contained at the time when our Synod was held. Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. William R. Clark, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1871), 268–270. Moreover, Eusebius was also directly involved in the Council and has been criticized for some less-than-ethical behavior at the Council. Also, St. Athanasias and St. Ambrose both indicated that Eusebius' account distorted events as they related to Constantine. Here are some critical notes from Charles Hefele regarding Eusebius of Caesarea at the Council of Nicaea: Quote SEC. 33. The Creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea Eusebius of Cæsarea made a last attempt to weaken the strong expression ὁμοούσιος, and the force of the stringently defined doctrine of the Logos. He laid before the Council the sketch of a Creed compiled by himself, which was read in the presence of the Emperor, and proposed for adoption by the assembly. After a short introduction, the Creed was conceived in these words: “We believe in one only God, Father Almighty, Creator of things visible and invisible; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, for He is the Logos of God, God of God, Light of Light, life of life, His only Son, the first-born of all creatures, begotten of the Father before all time, by whom also everything was created, who became flesh for our redemption, who lived and suffered amongst men, rose again the third day, returned to the Father, and will come again one day in His glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Ghost. We believe that each of these three is and subsists: the Father truly as Father, the Son truly as Son, the Holy Ghost truly as Holy Ghost; as our Lord also said, when He sent His disciples to preach: Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Eusebius added, that this was his true belief; that he always had believed thus; that he always would believe it, and anathematize every heresy. He relates, that after the reading of this formula nobody arose to contradict him; that, on the contrary, the Emperor praised it very highly, declared that he thus believed, exhorted everybody to accept the Creed and to sign it, only adding to it the word ὁμοούσιος. The Emperor, he adds, himself explained this word ὁμοούσιος more exactly: he said it did not signify that there was in God a corporeal substance, nor that the divine substance was divided (between the Father and the Son), and rent between several persons; for material relations cannot be attributed to a purely spiritual being.4 After these words of the Emperor, says Eusebius, the bishops might have added the word ὁμοούσιος, and given to the Creed that form in which it might be universally adopted, to the exclusion of every other. It is possible, indeed, that the Council may have taken the formula of Eusebius as the basis of its own; at least the comparison of the two Creeds speaks in favour of that hypothesis; but even if this were so, it is not the less true that they differ considerably and essentially: the word ὁμοούσιος is the principal point, and moreover it is not correct to say that the Nicene Fathers added no more than this word to the Eusebian formula. The Arians would perhaps have been able to admit this Creed, whilst that of Nicæa left them no subterfuge. It is besides evident that in his account of the matter Eusebius has not spoken the whole truth, and his account itself explains why he has not done so. In fact, when they presented the Nicene Creed to him to sign, he begged a moment for reflection, and then signed it; and then feared, as having hitherto been a protector of Arianism, that he would be blamed for having given his signature. It was in order to explain this conduct that he addressed a circular letter to his Church, in which he related what we have just borrowed from him,—namely, the Creed he had proposed, its acceptation by the Emperor, etc. After having transcribed the Nicene Creed in extenso, with the anathemas which are attached to it, he continues, in order to excuse himself: “When the bishops proposed this formula to me, I did not wish to consent to it before having minutely examined in what sense they had taken the expressions ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας and ὁμοούσιος. After several questions and answers, they declared that the words ἐκ τοῦ πατρός did not imply that the Son was a part of the Father; and that appeared to me to correspond with the true doctrine, which proclaims that the Son is of the Father, but not a part of His substance. For the sake of peace, and in order not to depart from the right doctrine, I would not resist the word ὁμοούσιος. It is for the same reason that I admitted the formula, ‘He is begotten, and not created,’ after they had explained to me that the word created designates in general all other things created by the Son, and with which the Son has nothing in common. He is not a ποίημα, He is not similar to things created by Himself; but He is of a better substance than all creatures: His substance is, according to the teaching of the Scriptures, begotten of the Father; but the nature of this generation is inexplicable and incomprehensible to the creature.” “As to the word ὁμοούσιος,” Eusebius continues, “it is supposed that the Son is ὁμοούσιος with the Father, not after the manner of bodies and mortal beings (ζῶα), nor in such a way that the substance and power of the Father are divided and rent, or transformed in any way; for all that is impossible with a nature not begotten of the Father (ἀγένητος φύσις). The word ὁμοούσιος expresses that the Son has no resemblance with the creatures, but is like in all things to the Father who has begotten Him, and that He is of no other hypostasis or substance (οὐσία) than that of the Father. I have agreed to this explanation, as I know that some ancient bishops and celebrated writers have also made use of the word ὁμοούσιος. After these explanations as to the meaning of the Nicene formula, which were supplied in the presence of the Emperor, we have all given our assent, and we have found nothing unacceptable in the anathema attached to the Creed, seeing that it prohibits expressions which are not found in Holy Scripture. In particular, it has seemed to me quite right to anathematize the expression, ‘He was not before He was begotten;’ for, according to the universal doctrine, the Son of God was before His corporeal birth, as the Emperor himself affirmed: by His divine birth He is before all eternity; and before being begotten de facto (ἐνεργείᾳ) by the Holy Ghost of Mary, He was κατὰ δύναμιν in the Father.” These last words certainly do no honour to the character of Eusebius. He must have known that the Arians did not hold what he attributed to them,—namely, that the Son was not before His appearance in the flesh (by Mary); for the Arian expression οὐκ ἦν πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι (He was not before He was begotten) refers evidently to the generation of the Son by the Father—a generation anterior to time—and not to His generation in time by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, as Eusebius sophistically suggests. He must have known, besides, in what sense the Council rejected the οὐκ ἦν πρὸ τοῦ γεννηθῆναι: he had recourse, however, to a dishonest artifice, giving another meaning to words perfectly clear in the Arian system, and attributing a gross folly to the old friends he had forsaken. S. Athanasius has already remarked upon this; and it is astonishing, after that (not to speak of other writers), that even Möhler has overlooked the fact.2 But on the other side Möhler has with justice pointed out with what partiality Eusebius everywhere puts forward the Emperor’s intervention, as if the Nicene Creed had been his work, and not the bishops’. According to his account, one should imagine that the Emperor hindered free discussion by his presence, whilst S. Ambrose and S. Athanasius both assure us of the contrary. The latter particularly asserts: “All the Nicene bishops condemned this heresy; … and they were not constrained to this by anybody, but they quite voluntarily vindicated the truth as they ought.”5 The zeal displayed by the Emperor Constantine for the ὁμοούσιος, and of which he gave proofs by the deposition of the Arians, contrasts strongly with the manner in which he regards the controversy at the beginning, and which he expressed before the Synod in his letter to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, and to Arius. Constantine had been at that time, according to all appearance, under the influence of the bishop of his residence, Eusebius of Nicomedia, so much the more as he was only a layman, and in fact only a catechumen himself. But during the Council Hosius7 doubtless helped him to understand the question more thoroughly, and the subterfuges of the Arians certainly also contributed to give the Emperor a strong aversion to a cause which was defended by such evil means. Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. William R. Clark, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1871), 288–292. Should you be interested in Hefele's historical work, it is now out of copyright and I can provide PDFs. Here are the sections of direct importance to the Council of Nicaea: Quote BOOK II THE FIRST ŒCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF NICÆA, A.D. 325 CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY SEC. 18. Doctrine of the Logos prior to Arianism SEC. 19. Arius SEC. 20. Synod of Alexandria in 320, and its Consequences SEC. 21. Arius obliged to leave Alexandria. His Letters and his Thalia SEC. 22. Synod in Bithynia. Intervention of the Emperor Constantine CHAPTER II THE DISCUSSIONS AT NICÆA SEC. 23. Synodal Acts SEC. 24. The Convocation by the Emperor SEC. 25. Number of the Members of the Council SEC. 26. Date of the Synod SEC. 27. The Disputations SEC. 28. Arrival of the Emperor—Solemn Opening of the Council—Presidency SEC. 29. Mutual Complaints of the Bishops SEC. 30. Manner of Deliberation SEC. 31. Paphnutius and Spiridion SEC. 32. Debates with the Eusebians—The ὁμοούσιος SEC. 33. Creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea SEC. 34. The Nicene Creed SEC. 35. The Signatures SEC. 36. Measures taken by the Emperor against the Arians SEC. 37. Decision of the Easter Question SEC. 38. The later Quartodecimans SEC. 39. The Audians SEC. 40. Decision on the subject of the Meletian Schism SEC. 41. Number of the Nicene Canons SEC. 42. Contents of the Nicene Canons SEC. 43. Paphnutius and the projected Law of Celibacy SEC. 44. Conclusion—Unpublished Documents APPENDIX The so-called Apostolic Canons Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, trans. William R. Clark, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1871), x. 5
InCognitus Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 3 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said: I respectfully disagree with the perspectives offered that have presented Constantine as hefting a pagan hand and the account of Eusebius of Caesarea as establishing what happened at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Please note that Eusebius of Nicomedia was very intertwined with Constantine Thanks for this perspective. I thought it should be obvious that Eusebius was intertwined (and enamored with) Constantine. Are you saying that his account attributes involvement to Constantine that other sources say did not actually happen the way he described it? 7 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said: Moreover, Eusebius was also directly involved in the Council and has been criticized for some less-than-ethical behavior at the Council. Also, St. Athanasias and St. Ambrose both indicated that Eusebius' account distorted events as they related to Constantine. Which events did these sources say were distorted? Is this in Hefele's A History of the Councils of the Church, From the Original Documents? I have these PDFs, I'll look. 1
CV75 Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Calm said: I get the missing something. We are all missing lots of things in fact at this point in our progression. I am guessing there is little difference between Saints and nonLDS when looked at from the distance of where we are all heading (I don’t think God would be such an inefficient teacher to have his students so imbalanced that by the time we all were past mortality there were some about to step into exaltation and some back in Nursery in Primary or the equivalent of it for adult spirits), especially since it seems God judges people by what they do with what they have and where they are, not by some rigid standard that ignores whether or not they know the Law or the Gospel or Christ. Yes: I happened to receive the following in an "Inspiration from The Church..." e-mail today (see below). As the parable relates to whether we are Christians or not, or compromising ourselves to be Christians or not, the direction and slope of our lives are what count and not the intercepts, and even less, terminology and labels. Everyone is missing something in the upward slope to returning to God, but in everyday discourse, identifying something as having a Christian analog and application is a form of standing as a witness of Him. ETA: RE: the quotes on God's judgement: I consider deeds, thoughts and intents of the heart, works, faith, desires, integrity and every trait of character, light, and held principles and understanding to be forms of knowledge. Edited June 29, 2023 by CV75 1
mfbukowski Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Saint Bonaventure said: I respectfully disagree with the perspectives offered that have presented Constantine as hefting a pagan hand and the account of Eusebius of Caesarea as establishing what happened at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Please note that Eusebius of Nicomedia was very intertwined with Constantine, and the two Eusebiuses are sometimes confused. They are not the same person. I don't have illusions about persuading folks, but it is widely acknowledged that Constantine's involvement, and even from the Convocation, is disputed: Moreover, Eusebius was also directly involved in the Council and has been criticized for some less-than-ethical behavior at the Council. Also, St. Athanasias and St. Ambrose both indicated that Eusebius' account distorted events as they related to Constantine. Here are some critical notes from Charles Hefele regarding Eusebius of Caesarea at the Council of Nicaea: Should you be interested in Hefele's historical work, it is now out of copyright and I can provide PDFs. Here are the sections of direct importance to the Council of Nicaea: Thanks! Off topic, but a possibility for another thread, what do you think about Teilhard de Chardin? Many of his ideas can be seen as LDS-ish Edited June 29, 2023 by mfbukowski
InCognitus Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 9 hours ago, Sara H said: I'm at a loss to comprehend the rationale behind our decision to no longer make an effort to defend our philosophy. The irony here is that you posted a conference talk from Elder Holland where he was doing exactly what you claim we no longer do. 4
Stargazer Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 14 hours ago, Teancum said: It is not pharisaical to want to be consistent with the historic application of the doctrine. I actually agree with you that we should not throw babies out with their bathwater. As long as what we have is the best that we can find, I say that it is useful to continue to hold to it. But if after fully understanding that the historical doctrine is not as useful or as true as we thought, should we not yield to the more true doctrine? As I said before, the Christianity of the Creeds improved over Judaism; and then over paganism. If the creeds are finally found to be inadequate, should they not be abandoned in favor of the more adequate, or rather, the more true? Ever hear of Chesterton's Fence?
Sara H Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 4 hours ago, InCognitus said: The irony here is that you posted a conference talk from Elder Holland where he was doing exactly what you claim we no longer do. Elder Holland's talk from 16 years ago demonstrates exactly what I'm trying to say, that the church's prophets stood up for our convictions back when we were proud to call ourselves MORMONS. The Holland speech was given prior to the I'M A MORMON campaign, when Hinckley was still the prophet. Meaning, back when Mormons were Mormons, it was a very long time ago. A church prophet today wouldn't risk giving a speech like this. Keep in mind that our goal is to appear as Christian as possible! I understand why you're so determined to look more Christian, but until our doctrine fundamentally changes and the brethren stop thinking they're the only men on earth with authority from God, you won't be totally accepted by the Christian community. I'm not sure whether you are aware of this, but people of other Christian religions don't particularly appreciate it when a religion asserts exclusive authority from God while yet seeking to be regarded as "equal" in terms of being a Christian. I'm going to ask my husband to see if he can find a hat manufacturer that will print MAKE MORMONS MORMON AGAIN in white lettering on a red hat.
Sara H Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 10 hours ago, webbles said: You are really confusing me. I haven't seen anyone say the bolded or even hint at it. I get the impression from reading through several discussions that the majority of LDS believe that their faith is the same as that of a typical Christian. And I claim that it isn't. But if the youth begin to believe it, they will just go somewhere else, inside of traditional Christianity, where they are allowed to consume alcohol, wear bikinis, smoke, and do other things. If the brethern want to retain the youth, promoting Christianity will work against them. I thought the IM A MORMON campaign was fantastic!
Sara H Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 11 hours ago, bluebell said: I have no idea what you’re trying to say with this quote. I read it two or three times and I don’t see how it’s at all relevant to my post. Perhaps you could explain? I'm going to assume a few things here, such that you're presumably married and sealed in the temple to your family. If so, how would you feel if one of your kids joined a traditional Christian church that periodically criticises the LDS church instead of staying in the church? Would it make you sad? How come, if so? They still practise Christianity, right?
CV75 Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 2 hours ago, Sara H said: I get the impression from reading through several discussions that the majority of LDS believe that their faith is the same as that of a typical Christian. And I claim that it isn't. But if the youth begin to believe it, they will just go somewhere else, inside of traditional Christianity, where they are allowed to consume alcohol, wear bikinis, smoke, and do other things. If the brethern want to retain the youth, promoting Christianity will work against them. I thought the IM A MORMON campaign was fantastic! We all know there are denominations of Christianity and that we are one of them with unique doctrines. We may not be"typical"(and which ones put themselves put there as "typical"?), but we are becoming more mainstream Christian and ecumenical, relatively speaking, as society pulls further away from Christian norms (traditional or otherwise).
Couganova Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 On 6/28/2023 at 1:54 AM, Stargazer said: On 6/27/2023 at 9:42 AM, Couganova said: Christianity has been defined by the Nicene Creed for 2000 years. You can't just show up and change the definition. About 10 more posts before I can send mail. Gosh, you sound like a Pharisee. No offense intended, but wasn't that their stance? We've been following the Law of Moses for 2000 years. You can't just show up and fulfill it! No offense taken. Pharisees (the ancestors of Orthodox Judaism) were goood people.
mfbukowski Posted June 29, 2023 Posted June 29, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Sara H said: I'm going to ask my husband to see if he can find a hat manufacturer that will print MAKE MORMONS MORMON AGAIN in white lettering on a red hat. It's quite simple. Times changed. "Meet The Mormons" didn't work. The public didn't want to meet a cult. There was even a Broadway musical ridiculing "Mormons", who "just believe" and are robot like idiots who just do what they are told. I personally would rather be seen, from a public relations POV, ( which now is ALL RELATIONS when everything is public on social media), as plain old ordinary "Christian" rather than some weird cult member. Here we are trying to convert folks to a weird cult? Wouldn't it be better to teach who we really ARE as the "Original Christians Restored" ? I finally was ready for the missionaries when I heard about our ACTUAL beliefs, as opposed to seeing the church as some weird Utah cult that worshipped some American Indian named "Mormon". You want to meet THESE people? https://youtu.be/GVJgmp2Tc2s Edited June 29, 2023 by mfbukowski 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now