Difference in doctrine

[Guest]

I'm not sure what the question is.  Jesus is from the Father, yes--but, like the Father, He is eternal.  To us that means He has always been.  Keep in mind that we believe that humanity has not.  We came into existence.  He became flesh at conception.

 

As for the Nicene Creed, we do not specifically subscribe to it.  Nevertheless, most of the creeds and truth proclamations that Protestants use owe a lot of credit to Nicene.

 

The question was about what is Christ's body before he was mortal.  The answer for the Nicene Creed faithful is homoousios with the Father by virtue of his procession.

 

Humanity, of course, is a completely different substance from God (from a non-LDS viewpoint), so they don't compare.

Edited November 12, 2015 by anatess

[prisonchaplain]

I went over to Theopedia, and yes, we would agree with Jesus being homousios with the Father.  After all, God is one.   

[Vort]

As the good folks in Nice were quick to point out all those years ago, the term homooúsios (ὁμοούσιος) is nowhere found in scripture. It was, in fact, coined by the notoriously apostate Gnostics. This was Athanasius' doctrine, which he promoted forcefully at Nice.

 

Before the time of the Council of Nice, many Christians (e.g. Origen, the most famous and well-respected of the Greek Church fathers and perhaps of all the Church fathers save Augustine himself) accepted the idea of homoioúsios (ὁμοιούσιος), which taught that the Son was similar to the Father but not of the same "substance". This was declared rank heresy by the part of the homooúsios; the rest, as they say, is history.

 

Not making any sort of point, really. Just throwing that out there for consideration. From an LDS standpoint, this doesn't look much like what we consider revelation, though I know that others see it differently.

[LeSellers]

I have to respond to this - As we try to move forward in understanding - the scripture you quote from in Genesis was not initially recorded in English. It is my understanding that the English term “In the beginning” as recorded in Genesis could be more properly translated from the Hebrew as “When G-d first established his covenant”. The implied reference to establishing covenant would obviously be with man.

Young's Literal Translation gives Gen 1:1 as In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

Admittedly, this is the only version (the JST aside) with anything like it, but Young is generally well respected in the Christian world.

Joseph Smith gave a talk in which he said that the first word in the Bible, barau, was not what the original athor wrote. Some old Jew with no authority added the bet to the word/letter rosh because he (the old Jew) thought it too bad to begin talking about the head of the Gods.

It is, of course, in perfect agreement with the council of the Gods in Psalms (which Jesus used in His defense against a charge of blasphemy in Matthew): the head of the Gods called forth the Gods ... .

The Bible is full of hints, and better, of the nature of creation and of God.

Lehi

Edited November 13, 2015 by LeSellers

[Guest]

Jospeh Smith gave a talk in which he said tha the first word in the Bible, barau, was not what the original athor wrote. Some old Jew with no authority added the bet to the word/letter rosh because he (the old Jew) thought it too bad to begin talking about the head of the Gods.

 

I believe you are referring to the King Follett sermon.  Clarify: I believe you're mixing up some of the words.

 

I had the opportunity a few years back to consult with a Rabbi who found our faith fascinating.  He was familiar with the discourse and gave his take on it.

 

The word for "head" is also the same Hebrew word for "beginning", just as the head of a river is where it begins.  But to start out a sentence with "Head god created..." didn't make sense with the notion of a monotheistic faith.  So, it was interpreted to mean "beginning, God created..."  But that is just bad grammar.  So, he wrote: "In the beginning, God created...."

 

One thing I find fascinating was his argument about the usage of the word "Elohim".  It is a plural form of eloi (god).  But that isn't proper because wherever it is used in scripture, the verb accompanying it was the singular verb form.  Thus, we can see this as a title rather than a declaration that there were multiple gods.

 

My take was that there was no Hebrew word for "Godhead".  Notice this is singular.  But the best way to describe such a body would be to pluralize God" to "Gods" but use a singular verb tense.  I've done my share of translating things and this is how I'd do it if a language didn't have such a word in its vocabulary.

[prisonchaplain]

As the good folks in Nice were quick to point out all those years ago, the term homooúsios (ὁμοούσιος) is nowhere found in scripture. It was, in fact, coined by the notoriously apostate Gnostics. This was Athanasius' doctrine, which he promoted forcefully at Nice.

 

Before the time of the Council of Nice, many Christians (e.g. Origen, the most famous and well-respected of the Greek Church fathers and perhaps of all the Church fathers save Augustine himself) accepted the idea of homoioúsios (ὁμοιούσιος), which taught that the Son was similar to the Father but not of the same "substance". This was declared rank heresy by the part of the homooúsios; the rest, as they say, is history.

 

Not making any sort of point, really. Just throwing that out there for consideration. From an LDS standpoint, this doesn't look much like what we consider revelation, though I know that others see it differently.

 

My scant reading suggests that the issue had to do with affirming monotheism.  Homousios is one way to embrace both Jesus' and the Father's deity, and yet maintain that they are one.  Though the Greek word may not be in the Greek Bible, the idea of God's oneness, and the belief that Christ is deity are both there.  Again, I'm not attempting the kind of discussion that might take place between BYU and evangelical seminary profs...but I am proffering that the church fathers were truly interested in the truth of who God is.

Edited November 13, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[LeSellers]

I believe you are referring to the King Follett sermon. Clarify: I believe you're mixing up some of the words.

It would be nice if I could carry my library around the world. 'Tain't happening.

Yes, the sermon at King Follet's funeral was where he advanced this insight. My memory is usually fairly accurate, but I'll check it when I get back home.

Lehi

[Guest]

As the good folks in Nice were quick to point out all those years ago, the term homooúsios (ὁμοούσιος) is nowhere found in scripture. It was, in fact, coined by the notoriously apostate Gnostics. This was Athanasius' doctrine, which he promoted forcefully at Nice.

 

Before the time of the Council of Nice, many Christians (e.g. Origen, the most famous and well-respected of the Greek Church fathers and perhaps of all the Church fathers save Augustine himself) accepted the idea of homoioúsios (ὁμοιούσιος), which taught that the Son was similar to the Father but not of the same "substance". This was declared rank heresy by the part of the homooúsios; the rest, as they say, is history.

 

Not making any sort of point, really. Just throwing that out there for consideration. From an LDS standpoint, this doesn't look much like what we consider revelation, though I know that others see it differently.

 

Yeah, this only matters to those who believe in Sola Scriptura.  Another difference in doctrine between LDS and some (if not most) Protestant Churches.  Catholics are not sola scriptura subscribers though.  Rather, they go by Apostolic Authority.   So the meeting in Nice is more of an argument on who has authority and who is apostate... the one with the authority, of course, gets to be the one to call the other thought heresy... as neither homoousious nor the opposite is clearly advocated for in the Bible.  The Bible simply states there is One God - but the Father is God and the Son is God.  How they are One is not really clarified.

[prisonchaplain]

I'd also concede that even us Bible-only folks do look to the creeds, and the great teachings of church history.  They may not get equal attention, but historic truths trump novel pastoral insights on any day, in my book.

[zil]

It would be nice if I could carry my library around the world. 'Tain't happening.

Yes, the sermon at King Follet's funeral was where he advanced this insight. My memory is usually fairly accurate, but I'll check it when I get back home.

Lehi

Lehi, if you have time, and trust this website to have accurately rendered the various recordings of the discourse, you don't need to wait until you get back home...  King Follett Discourse Recordings in Parallel

[LeSellers]

I'd also concede that even us Bible-only folks do look to the creeds, and the great teachings of church history. They may not get equal attention, but historic truths trump novel pastoral insights on any day, in my book.

Which always makes it difficult to pin down what "Bible-only folks" actually believe.

It seems a bit hypocritical for one of the Bible-only types to chide us because we have additional scripture when, for all practical purposes, they do, too. Even more so because they don't even label them "scripture".

We could list a myriad of such sources of orthodox Christian doctrine, and the non-biblical tenets they've engendered.

The end, of course, only shows that the biblical apostasy foretold by many prophets and Apostles happened just as their inspired words tell us.

Lehi

Edited November 18, 2015 by LeSellers

[Guest]

I have to really admire PC's forbearance.  I don't know how he unfailingly continues to be magnanimous on lds.net when his deeply held religious beliefs are in constant attack here... being called hypocritical and nonsensical is just the tip of that mountain.

 

PC, I do hope you understand that when I post differences between our faiths that I'm not necessarily trying to denigrate your faith... I'm simply trying to promote mine.  It's just that the conflict is so stark in certain divergences that it is almost impossible to promote mine without casting darkness on yours.  I do love you and I try not to unnecessarily cast your faith in a light that is disrespectful.

[LeSellers]

I have to really admire PC's forbearance. I don't know how he unfailingly continues to be magnanimous on lds.net when his deeply held religious beliefs are in constant attack here... being called hypocritical and nonsensical is just the tip of that mountain.

Please note that the context of hypocrisy was addressed to those criticizing us for having additional scripture all the while using text and traditions that are not scriptural. If Prison Chaplain has said this, then his words stand as his own accusation. If not, and I do not recall his ever doing so, then he is not among those so accused.

Lehi

[Laniston]

I always liked meeting with Pentecostal people on my mission.  Dealing with other Christians it could (strangely) be a real struggle to get them to at least read the Book of Mormon and pray to God asking if the book was true.  The concept of having a conversation with God rather than a rote prayer or asking anything more specific than simply "show us your will" (but not about anything in particular) seemed alien to some.  Pentecostal Christians however were taught that spiritual guidance was a necessary part of their faith and they were to seek for it always.  Meeting style aside, one on one it was usually not a foreign concept to ask someone to pray specifically about anything.  The struggle would more be in how the answer should manifest.

 

This seems like a difference in Doctrine.  The idea of asking Heavenly Father specific questions in prayer.  Some people I met absolutely would not pray in any other way than humongous generalities for themselves.  They would be happy to pray for someone who was sick (and many churches collect names before a service in order to pray for them by name - a wonderful thing).  We would try to coach them and say "actually say these words, "Is the Book of Mormon true" and what would come out is "Please just show us your will".  Then you have to ask why and you'd get "I just don't ask questions like that." "About specific things?" "No, never."  This happened a lot.  The most honest person I met on my mission was the guy who said he wouldn't pray about the Book of Mormon because he was sure he'd get an answer that it was true and that didn't fit his lifestyle.

[prisonchaplain]

Which always makes it difficult to pin down what "Bible-only folks" actually believe.

It seems a bit hypocritical for one of the Bible-only types to chide us because we have additional scripture when, for all practcal purposes, they do, too. Even more so because they don't even label them "scripture".

We could list a myriad of such sources of orthodox Christian doctrine, and the non-biblical tenets they've engendered.

The end, of course, only shows that the biblical apostasy foretold by many prophets and Apostles happened just as their inspired words tell us.

Lehi

 

The chiding is because we do not believe that the Triple is scripture.  In a sense, LDS are more sola scriptura than Catholics are.  You have a canon of scripture, and most of what gets said outside of that is called "not doctrine."  You have a revelation that your modern prophets and scriptures are of God.  We do not.

 

And so, when us non-LDS folk come by, many here are savvy enough to engage our discussion, primarily, by using the Bible itself.  They know that we will respect those citations far above all others.  Occasionally, the other writings are brought in to show where a particular doctrine (such as pre-mortal existence) come from. 

 

For those of us open to the discussion, it's a learning exchange.  Those narrowly bent on quick defenses, or quick converting, are usually left frustrated.

[LeSellers]

The chiding is because we do not believe that the Triple is scripture. In a sense, LDS are more sola scriptura than Catholics are.

I think it is better described as concentric circles of authority. The most authorative statmetns are in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Outside this inner circle is another, and then another consisting of statements of presidents of the Holy Priesthood, and Apostles and then others. These are given as the Holy Ghost inspires them, and so, in their own right, are "scriptural". The further one gets from the central core the less we are expected to accept them as doctrine.

Yes, we do have an affinity for the Scriptures. But what most forget, even too many of us, is that "we believe that [God] will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God." The trick we face, and which confronts those outside our Church membership is accepting those revelation as from God.

The biggest problem we Saints have when seeing you all who stick solely to the Bible is that when it clearly promises new revelation will be coming, you seem to be averse to accepting it when it appears.

 

You have a canon of scripture, and most of what gets said outside of that is called "not doctrine." You have a revelation that your modern prophets and scriptures are of God. We do not.

Which does not affect whether it is scripture or not.

The Jews generally do not accept the New Testament as scripture, but it is, without regard to their beliefs.

 

And so, when us non-LDS folk come by, many here are savvy enough to engage our discussion, primarily, by using the Bible itself. They know that we will respect those citations far above all others. Occasionally, the other writings are brought in to show where a particular doctrine (such as pre-mortal existence) come from.

When Paul told Timothy that all cripture was good for intruction, etc., he was speaking solely of the Hebrew scriptures, not the New Testament. And that was a really bad translation into Greek of the Hebrew originals. But he surely would have included Matthew and so on had they been written at the time.

And, just the same, he would have included the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, too.

Yes, it may very well be that the "savvy" among us will focus on the Bible as source material to buttress our arguments, but that does not mean we should ignore the greater light thrown upon the subject of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by God's more recent revelatons. As I have said, and surely I am not alone, I am grateful for the modern revelations because they are God's mind and will for us with new (and restored) knowledge..

 

For those of us open to the discussion, it's a learning exchange. Those narrowly bent on quick defenses, or quick converting, are usually left frustrated.

Anyone who believes that a discussion on the internet will result in any conversion, quick or otherwise, is delusional. At best, it can cause others to study on his own, and perhaps ask God for the knowlege He has promised in John and James and Alma and Moroni.

The Holy Ghost converts. We hope to open the door to the spirits of people, but conversion is an other-worldy process.

 

Lehi

Edited November 14, 2015 by LeSellers

[cdowis]

The basic issue with the Bible is.... that it has a front and back cover.  The contents are inspired by God, but man put that cover on it. 

[LeSellers]

The chiding is because we do not believe that the Triple is scripture.

Actually, as I reflected on this, I am not so sure it's because the ones I'm talking about don't believe it's scripture (which, of course, they do not), but because the scriptures of the Restoration were not in the Bible before 1820.

These are truly sola biblia folks: nothing but the Bible (some going so far as to exclaim: If it was good enough for Jesus, the King James Version is good enough for me!) and they would not accept an authenticated chapter of John with Jesus's teachings for the forty days after the Resurrection (Acts 1:1~3).

Yes, many reject "the Triple" because they do not believe it to be scripture. We can deal with that. What is perplexing is the fact that there is no reason to accept the Bible as scripture, either, but by the same means we receive all five Standard Works (the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price): the witness of the Holy Ghost. James told us what Moroni says, too: Ask of God with faith in Christ, with real intent, etc.

The Bible itself is not much different from any other book in this respect: it was written by men (even though the biblical scribes were inspired by God). It is only scripture because God inspired its writers, not because of anything intrinsically different from other tomes.

So, how does one become convinced it is scripture? James and Moroni have the answer, and there is no other.

Lehi

Edited November 17, 2015 by LeSellers

[prisonchaplain]

So, how does one become convinced it is scripture? James and Moroni have the answer, and there is no other.

Lehi

 

First, I affirm being led by the Holy Spirit.  However, the Bible does have a strong track record.  We have 66 books written over a 1,400 period, in three languages, by authors ranging from poor fisherman, to prophets, to kings.  It's been burned, banned, fought and died over, and, despite the efforts of opponents from without, and divisions from within, the Bible is remarkable in its consistency.  It contrasts with other scriptures, most of which were penned by a single author (or his disciples), over a period of months to a very few decades.

 

Still, your greater point is correct.  Why embrace it?  Today, many are turning away, saying it is ancient, and its mores no longer relevant.  In my neck of the woods the majority of people just don't care about it--or any religious writings.

 

Ultimately God draws us to his word, if we seek him.  Once the search begins though, the Bible has a lot going for it.

[cdowis]

My scant reading suggests that the issue had to do with affirming monotheism.  

 

Of course, but they rejected one heresy by simply adopting another.  The prophet Joseph Smith was able to resolved the issue by accepting the doctrine that Christ taught in John 17:19-23.  We know this as the Plan of Salvation which was beyond the ken of human wisdom.

 

Again, the historic Christian church replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and scholars, and thi s is the poster boy of that change.  Without revelation, they were unable to understand the meaning of "one God", and created the "one substance entity" which is fully incompatible with the scriptures.  (e.g. Not my will, but thy will be done; not my doctrine but the doctrine of the one who sent me, etc)

 

The Emperor Constantine helped craft the Nicene Creed as a political solution to the division among Christians.  He didn't really care what it said as long as they stopped squabbling among themselves.  

 

And those bishops who voted against it, he simply banished them.

Edited November 17, 2015 by cdowis

[dberrie2001]

And so, when us non-LDS folk come by, many here are savvy enough to engage our discussion, primarily, by using the Bible itself.  They know that we will respect those citations far above all others.  Occasionally, the other writings are brought in to show where a particular doctrine (such as pre-mortal existence) come from. 

 

For those of us open to the discussion, it's a learning exchange.  Those narrowly bent on quick defenses, or quick converting, are usually left frustrated.

Hi Prisonchaplain--

 

  I find your comments interesting. The interest being--it's the Bible that is most friendly with core salvational principles, as to the LDS church theology. I don't find any faith alone church that has much in common with the Biblical NT. Very little--and that is the truth.

 

I believe the problem has it's roots in the fact very few people know but little about the Biblical NT--and it's doctrines--the LDS included, as well as all else, as to the whole.

 

I look forward to the LDS membership discovery the Bible is the best friend the LDS have. I find the term "faith alone"(the very post and pillar of Protestantism)--but once in the whole Biblical text:

 

James 2:24--New American Standard Bible(NASB)

²⁴ You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

Although I don't believe one is going to make substantial headway through Bible bashing--I really don't understand why the Bible is not used more here--or any website, especially by the LDS.

[LeSellers]

I look forward to the LDS membership discovery the Bible is the best friend the LDS have.

I have lost it, but I owned a book called Biblical Mormonism. Hopkins, the author, had several points where he used biblcal scripture only to make the point from LDS doctrine.

I wish he'd done a larger book (it's only 285 pages, according to Amazon — I remember fewer) and included just a few areas I believe the Bible explains fairly well, even without modern revelation. But, in general, the unspoken premise was that the Bible does include the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed to Joseph.

It's one of the reasons I started a new topic regarding the Bible using the original languages doing what I hope will become an in-depth study of several of my favorite passages.

Lehi

Edited November 17, 2015 by LeSellers

[Vort]

Elder McConkie had some interesting and (I think) worthwhile things to say on the topic of Mormonism and the Bible.

 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_joseph-smith-translation-doctrinal-restoration/

[LeSellers]

The Emperor Constantine helped craft the Nicene Creed as a political solution to the division among Christians.  He didn't really care what it said as long as they stopped squabbling among themselves.  

 

And those bishops who voted against it, he simply banished them.

One book that makes this clear is Drake's Constantine and the Bishops.

He wrote it as a political, not theological, treatise. It's fairly even-handed when it comes to theology, but he is harsh when it comes to the politics.

Another book I like is a biography of Augustine of Hippo (can't recall the author right now), the first major pre-Catholic, theologian who did not speak Greek.

Hippo, by the way, was on the African littoral, where Christianity was once the dominant religion, until, that is, the Moslem invasion a few centuries later.

Lehi

[prisonchaplain]

Again, the historic Christian church replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and scholars, and thi s is the poster boy of that change.  Without revelation, they were unable to understand the meaning of "one God", and created the "one substance entity" which is fully incompatible with the scriptures.  (e.g. Not my will, but thy will be done; not my doctrine but the doctrine of the one who sent me, etc)

 

I believe it was the leaders of the church who affirmed those early creeds.  They may have relied on their learned teachers to form the script, but approval was from the leadership of the recognized church.  I've discussed my own biblical reasoning for the Trinity on several strings over the years.  Father is God.  Son is God.  Holy Spirit is God.  God is one.  The three are the one God.  Our disagreement then is in the meaning of "one."  It really does come down to that.  The outcome of those past discussions is that a few LDS have admitted to me that the LDS Godhood could be understood as polytheistic.  Still more of agreed to the term "henotheistic" (belief that there are gods, but only one God is to be worshipped).  Then there are those who insist that the LDS Godhead is just as monotheistic as the Trinity.

 

The Emperor Constantine helped craft the Nicene Creed as a political solution to the division among Christians.  He didn't really care what it said as long as they stopped squabbling among themselves.  

 

And those bishops who voted against it, he simply banished them.

 

Would it be fair to say that LDS are as skeptical of the process by which the early creeds were formulated as many of your critics are of the manner in which the LDS modern revelations were developed?

 

I do know that as I go back to review the histories I should be aware of my own biases, and do my best not to read history in a way that just reinforces my beliefs.