Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What SPECIFIC creeds were an abomination in God's sight?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What SPECIFIC creeds were an abomination in God's sight?

    Taken from here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Mormon-Trinity
    Post #8 by Cowpoke

    Source: Extracts from History of Joseph Smith - from the LDS website

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

    Question: What specific creeds were an abomination in God's sight?
    Last edited by foudroyant; 04-30-2014, 10:44 PM.

  • #2
    Anything Smith wanted to change.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
      Taken from here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Mormon-Trinity
      Post #8 by Cowpoke

      Source: Extracts from History of Joseph Smith - from the LDS website

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

      Question: What specific creeds were an abomination in God's sight?
      Creed according to dictionary.com

      1. any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.
      2. any system or codification of belief or of opinion.
      3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.

      My understanding of it is something like the Nicean creed and the conclusions it reaches.

      Comment


      • #4
        The Nicene Creed


        We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

        We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

        For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

        For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

        He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

        We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

        Amen.
        ----------------------
        What part or parts of this creed is/are an abomination in God's sight?

        Comment


        • #5
          Does this sound like a creed?

          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post

          Question: What specific creeds were an abomination in God's sight?
          To answer your question apparently our Later Day Saint friends affirm the Nicene Creed as shown below from the copy they made of it in the D&C. So the Nicene Creed can be taken off the list of abominations. I do think it is a great question. Which creeds were wrong? Maybe he was talking about "Creed" the band and the song "Arms Wide Open". I am not sure.

          D&C 20: 17-28
          Doctrine and Covenants
          17By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal , from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;
          18And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;
          19And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God , and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.
          20But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish , and became fallen man.
          21Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son , as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him.
          22He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.
          23He was crucified , died , and rose again the third day;
          24And ascended into heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father , to reign with almighty power according to the will of the Father;
          25That as many as would believe and be baptized in his holy name, and endure in faith to the end, should be saved—
          26Not only those who believed after he came in the meridian of time, in the flesh , but all those from the beginning, even as many as were before he came, who believed in the words of the holy prophets, who spake as they were inspired by the gift of the Holy Ghost, who truly testified of him in...
          27As well as those who should come after, who should believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son;
          28Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks.
            I ask because when I asked a Mormon a few years ago he didn't give me a straight answer. To my recollection he said something like, "Anything that is man-made doctrine" but when pressed what he meant by that nothing more was supplied.

            I think this is very important to know because this alleged vision by Smith served as the foundation (one of them at least) for establishing his claims.

            So I ask again to any Mormon as I entitled in the OP:

            What SPECIFIC creeds were an abomination in God's sight?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
              The Nicene Creed


              We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

              We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

              For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

              For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

              He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

              We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

              Amen.
              ----------------------
              What part or parts of this creed is/are an abomination in God's sight?

              I believe the abominable part is the part where it says that the Father and the Son are the same substance, which implies that they are the same being.

              The creed says Jesus is "of one substance with the Father". That is incorrect. Jesus is the image and likeness of the Father's person. Jesus is a perfect representative of God the Father.

              However, they are not the same person, and they are not the same being. This is around the time when the church redefined what it meant to be a "person". They manipulate word meanings in order to say that there can be 3 persons, but all of them together are literally a single being.

              The Athanasian Creed attempted to expand on this nonsense and repeatedly uses the new term "Trinity" (i.e. the new meaning for the term "Trinity"). It is a mess of contradictions. For example:
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              "We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. ....The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being.... In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being."
              - ---- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - -

              Note how it says, "nor dividing the substance". This portrays the imagined metaphysical concept that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are literally a single essence/substance.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              "But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. ..
              all three persons are coeternal and coequal to themselves."

              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -

              What was the response of Jesus whenever Jesus was accused of supposedly claiming to be equal with God the Father?

              Jesus’ response was to deny ultimate equality with God the Father. He would teach that the Son can do nothing on his own; he is able to do only what his Father empowers him to do.

              When confronted with these passages of scripture, Trinitarians must resort to tactics like saying that they are actually "coequal", but they ACT like they are not coequal and that God the Father is "functionally superior", but the Son is still "coequal".

              The Chalcedonian Creed uses the term "consubstantial". It also attempts to describe Jesus as having "two natures", which is described as: "inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son,..."

              The Athanasian Creed calls God, " invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, ..."

              In the "Mormon Trinity" thread, Bill is currently attempting to obfuscate the problems associated with the way that these terms should be understood. These are Creeds that expand the Christian's beliefs beyond what is actually taught in the Bible, and they are interpretations/teachings of men. The creeds should be understood as man-made documents. None of them are inspired, and they were not claimed to be inspired by God. The creeds were not intended to be authoritative, but that is what they supposedly ended up to be, in terms of separating Christians in "orthodox" and "non-orthodox" camps.


              -7up

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                The creed says Jesus is "of one substance with the Father". That is incorrect.
                But this is what is taught in Hebrews 1:3

                And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3, NASB).

                a. Concerning "exact representation" (charakter)
                1. Louw and Nida: a representation as an exact reproduction of a particular form or structure - 'exact representation.' 'who is the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his being' He 1.3 (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, charakteer, 58:62, page 592).
                2. Vine: In the N.T. it is used metaphorically in Heb. 1:3, of the Son of God as "the very image (marg., 'the impress') of His substance," R.V. The phrase expresses the fact that the Son "is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint" (Liddon). The Son of God is not merely his image (His charakteer), He is the image or impress of His substance, or essence (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Image, page 577).

                b. Concerning "nature" (hypostasis)
                1. Danker: a(n) exact representation of (God's) real being Hb 1:3 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, hypostasis, page 1040).
                2. Louw and Nida: the essential or basic nature of an entity - 'substance, nature, essence, real being.' 'who is...the exact representation of his real being' or '...nature' He 1.3 (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, hypostasis, 58:1, page 586).
                3. Thayer: the substantial quality, nature, of any pers. or thing: Heb. 1:3 (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, hypostasis, page 645).
                4. Vine: it speaks of the Divine essence of God existent and expressed in the revelation of His Son (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Substance, page 1101).
                5. Robertson: The word ψποστασις — hupostasis for the being or essence of God
                http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=57&ch=1
                6. Vincent: Here, substantial nature, essence.
                http://www.studylight.org/com/vnt/view.cgi?bk=57&ch=1

                Christ is the same substance (Homoousian) as the Father.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                  But this is what is taught in Hebrews 1:3

                  And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3, NASB).
                  ...

                  Christ is the same substance (Homoousian) as the Father.
                  Your statement at the end contradicts Hebrews 1, which says that Jesus Christ is an exact copy, duplicate, stamped out reproduction of the Father's person/substance. They are not the same being or substance, but instead Christ is exactly like the Father in terms of being/substance. See the difference? The Father and Son have the same qualities, characteristics, even the same nature, but not necessarily a single substance/being.

                  Part of the suffering that Jesus endured included separation from God. This is only possible because they are not literally the same being. Hence Christ says, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me."

                  -7up
                  Last edited by seven7up; 06-19-2014, 07:38 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    How the words are properly defined refute your assertion.

                    That's like saying there is a contradiction in that Christ is both the High Priest (Hebrews 3:1) and a slaughtered Lamb (Revelation 5:12).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                      How the words are properly defined refute your assertion.

                      That's like saying there is a contradiction in that Christ is both the High Priest (Hebrews 3:1) and a slaughtered Lamb (Revelation 5:12).
                      I am defining the terms properly. Hebrews 1 calls Jesus a "charakter" of the Father's "hypostasis".

                      "a. Concerning "exact representation" (charakter)"

                      So, as previously explained, this is a term defined by the imagery of a stamped out copy, a duplicate, or a reproduction of the original.

                      "b. Concerning "nature" (hypostasis)"

                      Sometimes translated as "person" or "substance". Just because Jesus Christ is a reproduction of the Father's nature, does not mean that they are literally the same being or literally the same substance.

                      To make this more clear, Hebrews 1 does NOT say "Jesus Christ, who is the same substance as the Father". NO! Instead it says that Jesus is a copy, duplicate, reproduction, of the Father.

                      That is why LDS theology fits that passage of scripture so well, because Mormons literally believe it to be true.

                      -7up

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You are defining them according to what you think the definitions are. I cited lexicons as to what these words really mean.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by foudroyant View Post
                          You are defining them according to what you think the definitions are. I cited lexicons as to what these words really mean.
                          I am using precisely the definitions that are given by the lexicons (minus the Trinitarian commentary, which is something entirely different.)

                          Try this one for Charakter

                          the instrument used for engraving or carving

                          the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it

                          a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression

                          the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile


                          And this one: hypostasis

                          that which has actual existence

                          a substance, real being

                          the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing



                          Jesus is a precise reproduction of the qualities, nature and being of God the Father. Thus they are not the same being.

                          -7up

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            What lexicon(s)?

                            From the NIDNTT: Christ is the charakteer tees hypostasews autou, "the very stamp of his [God's] nature" (Heb. 1:3 RSV), i.e. the One on whom God has stamped or imprinted his being. This means that the NT use is entirely different from our modern concept of character which develops itself by a will that seeks to conform to principles...Commenting on the word charakteer, F.F. Bruce writes: "Just as the image and superscription on a coin exactly correspond to the device on the die, so the Son of God 'bears the very stamp of his nature' (RSV). The Greek word charakteer, occurring only here in the New Testament, expresses this truth even more emphatically than eikwn, which is used elsewhere to denote Christ as the 'image of God (Gk. hypostasis) of God is really in Christ, who is its impress, its exact representation and embodiment. What God essentially is, is made manifest in Christ. To see Christ is to see what the Father is like (Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, NLC, 1964, 6) (2:288-289, Image, J. Gess).

                            From Post #8:
                            Vine: In the N.T. it is used metaphorically in Heb. 1:3, of the Son of God as "the very image (marg., 'the impress') of His substance," R.V. The phrase expresses the fact that the Son "is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint" (Liddon). The Son of God is not merely his image (His charakteer), He is the image or impress of His substance, or essence (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Image, page 577).
                            Last edited by foudroyant; 06-19-2014, 11:16 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              I am using precisely the definitions that are given by the lexicons (minus the Trinitarian commentary, which is something entirely different.)

                              Try this one for Charakter

                              the instrument used for engraving or carving

                              the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it

                              a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression

                              the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile


                              And this one: hypostasis

                              that which has actual existence

                              a substance, real being

                              the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing



                              Jesus is a precise reproduction of the qualities, nature and being of God the Father. Thus they are not the same being.

                              -7up
                              No, they are not the same PERSON, but they have the same SUBSTANCE (being) - The Trinity never claims that Jesus is the Father, or the Holy Spirit. But all three persons are GOD. ONE God. Not three.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X