One of the oldest Christian creeds known today is the Apostles’ Creed. The Apostles of the early church didn’t formulate the creed; rather, the Apostles’ Creed, compiled later, is comprised of a brief summary of the Apostles’ teachings. This creed, as well as other Christian creeds, is sometimes recited as a formal statement of belief. The Apostles’ Creed reads,
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.Amen.
*The word “catholic” refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the Christian church of the Lord Jesus Christ as a whole.
Mormonism is an anti-creedal system of belief. Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s first prophet, began the formulation of his church based on a claimed vision and command from God the Father and Jesus Christ. According to the canonized account of Joseph’s First Vision, when the two Divine Personages appeared to Joseph he asked them which Christian church was correct, which one he should join. Joseph said,
“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” (Joseph Smith – History 1:19).
An “abomination” is defined in the dictionary as “a thing that causes disgust, hatred or loathing.”
My question is, specifically what teachings in the Apostles’ Creed do Mormons think God finds loathsome or disgusting? Don’t Mormons claim to also believe all the points of the Apostles’ Creed?
LDS author Stephen Robinson says they do. In 1997 he co-wrote a book in which he endeavored to promote a better understanding among evangelicals regarding some key doctrinal issues of Mormonism. Dr. Robinson, then a BYU professor, claimed he was “fairly representative of contemporary LDS orthodoxy. I am not aware of any rift between myself and Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or Gordon B. Hinckley…” Given that, Dr. Robinson’s remark about the Apostles’ Creed was surprising. He said,
“I should probably make exception here for the Apostles’ Creed, which Latter-day Saints could affirm if allowed to define ‘holy catholic church’ as ‘true Christianity,’ as I believe Evangelicals also define it.” (How Wide the Divide, 219, fn. #8)
So help me understand this. According to Mormonism, is the Apostles’ Creed an abomination to God or isn’t it? And if it is, how could–and why would–Latter-day Saints affirm it?
I realize that this is not exactly on topic..but..
I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m wondering about the statement that “the holy catholic church” is just the “Christian church?” Are we sure?
The word “catholic” seems to be in the version from the sixth century and not before…before that it was “the holy church”
Or that could be your point in which case…I’m sorry..
bob
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Joseph Smith quote you used does not specifically address the Apostles’ Creed. So the premise seems contrived.
The word “catholic,” I believe, means “universal.” It also is used to designate a particular denomination, the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that the usage in this creed is of the “universal” variety, and not the denominational variety. I think that’s what Sharon meant when she called that out with the asterisk.
the only objectionable thing in that creed, that i read…was the fact that Jesus descended to Hell…did i read that wrong?
if i didn’t, then i would point out that nowhere in the bible does it say that Jesus descended to hell before He was risen.
in terms of the word “abomination” i believe you take this word out of context, Sharon. I follow your logic, however you miss the point of the application of this word. The doctrine at that time, was not the restored Gospel. it was not Christs’ gospel in its’ entirety. Just one mistake can lead to other misinterpretations, and many times the catholic church (inquisition) and other evangelicals (slavery) and many other christians sects–used scripture and “creeds” to further wicked agendas. that is the “abomination”. it is for THIS purpose that it is EXTREMELY important that the Savior restores His gospel, in order to clear up confusion and invite Christ’s sheep to worship as ONE- because many religions differ on many important doctrinal points–and many use this for their own gain (financially, or sheer power).
Is it possible for Mormons to affirm the Apostle’s Creed when their view of the nature of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is not the same as the orthodox Christianity that the apostles believed and taught? I would like to see a Mormon version of a creed that articulates their basic beliefs. This would have something about mother god and father god, their (gods) offspring including Jesus and Lucifer, maybe include something regarding Kolob, baptism for the dead, the leading of a righteous life to progress into godhood, the various levels of heaven etc. The Mormon creed could be presented as it is to those the Mormon missionaries are proslytizing to. I wonder if the Mormon church would have the courage to do this?
Amanda,
The doctrine of Christ’s descent into Hell is based on the scripture passage 1 Peter 3:19, “In this spirit He also went to proclaim His victory to the spirits kept in prison.” It is supported by Colossians 2:15, “He stripped the rulers and powers of their power and made a public spectacle of them as He celebrated his victory in Christ.”
The Apostle’s Creed, as it has been named since the Synod of Milan (AD 390), places Christ’s descent into Hell between Christ’s burial and His resurrection, before His appearance to the disciples outside the Jerusalem tomb.
Christ appeared declaring victory over sin, death and the power of the devil; He remained sinless and took the sin of the world upon Himself in His death on the cross to declare righteous all who believe in Him (2 Cor. 5:21). I am also reminded of Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your descendants and her Descendant. He will crush your head, and you will bruise His heel.” How sweet is our victory in Christ!
Cully
1 Peter 3:15
A dictionary meaning of the word ‘Creed’ is a statement of beliefs coming from the word meaning ‘I believe’ from another language (Greek or Latin I can’t remember). The LDS have this with the 13 Articles of Faith. In fact, the first Article of Faith mirrors this Apostles’ Creed where it says we believe in God, the Eternal Father, in His Son, Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost. It does not have all the ‘add-ons’ as the Apostles’ Creed but it is similar.
I guess the only objectional thing in the above creed is that it says that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. We believe that Heavenly Father is Jesus’s Father, not the Holy Spirit.
As Amanda pointed out, there may be some objection to the reference of Jesus descending into Hell. In the LDS scriptures it says that Jesus descended below all, so it does give some connotations to Him descending into Hell, but some of our teachings tend to lean more towards him not descending into Hell. So take it or leave it with that one.
Falcon, there is nothing in the Creed to claim a Trinity, it just states that they believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit – so I can agree with that.
The main point is that if the creed teaches one thing wrong, then in God’s eyes it is wrong and thus an abomination. Its like your belief system vs the LDS. We both teach Jesus, but only one is correct the other is not – thus God will only ‘save/recognise’ one and not the other. The LDS teach that there is truth to be had in all things, so we can agree, in part, to this Creed, but not conform to nor teach it.
Cully,
I’m having trouble understanding how Colossians 2:15 supports the 1 Peter 3:19 passage. I’m having the same problem with the Genesis 3:15 reference as well 🙁
Is there any way you could further elaborate on your point so people like me who don’t fully “get” what you’re talking about might be able to?
Thanks.
Ralph,
I would agree with your statement that when it comes to the person, nature and work of Jesus Christ, there can be only one accurate view (as we examine orthodox Christianity and Mormonism)and the creeds. The continual objection that we Christians make is that Mormonism tends to use the same language as we do, but the meaning of the words and concepts are entirely different. It leads us to wonder if Mormons are doing this on purpose in an attempt to appear as orthodox main stream Christians. It’s one of those “be sure to read the fine print” kind of things. For example, if Mormons believe that Jesus was a created spirit being and is the product of a mother god and father god out in the spirit world, it’d be nice to have that clearly articulated (creeded to invent a word). If Jesus’ human conception was the result of a sexual act between god the father and Mary it would be helpful to have that clearly written. So my point is, the early Church found it necessary to clearly articulate and define it’s doctrine. In my opinion, it’s really kind of dishonest to piggy back on it when the underlying meanings are different.
Hey Alex,
Colossians 2:15, taken in context, speaks to the triumph of Christ over sin, death and the power of the devil. Christ, being victorious, declares his victory over all of the created beings, Satan and the evil angels as well. Col. 2:15 refers back to Col. 1:16, “He created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.” Eph. 1:21, “He is far above all rulers, authorities, powers, lords, and all other names that can be named, not only in this present world but also in the world to come.” In the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, God subjected all the principalities (visible and invisible) to Jesus, declaring them to be powerless as to His redeeming work.
We have been made alive in Christ. Christ became one of us to help us. Col. 1:13-14, “He rescued us from the tyranny of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son He loves, who paid the ransom to forgive our sins and set us free.” Heb. 2:14, “Now since all of these children have flesh and blood, He in the same way took on flesh and blood in order to die and so take away all the powers of him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.”
As for the Gen. 3:15 passage I referenced, it’s one of my favorites. Immediately after the fall of man, our Heavenly Father reveals His plan of salvation. Satan will be “crushed” by Adam’s Descendant, Christ. Satan may bruise His heal, but Christ will crush Satan’s head. Christ is victorious; His substitutionary atonement on the cross defeated Satan by removing any chance he may have had to interfere with Christ’s redeeming work. I reference this verse only because it is celebrates Christ’s victory over Satan. Those who believe in Christ as Redeemer share in this victory; to God be the glory.
Hope that’s clearer. Thanks for asking, Cully
Let me suggest that the problem with creeds is often not their content, but the very assumption of what a creed means. It suggests that one must agree with a particular view in an ongoing debate over doctrine where the difficulty gets filled in by philosophical jargon rather than revelation. It is the notion that if one doesn’t agree on a docrinal point, then one is ousted from the people of God. Such an assumption violates the most basic premise of Christ: the love command.
Perhaps the Nicene creed isn’t problematic in its basic assertions. I could accept it if interpreted carefully except the statement about creatio ex nihilo. What I don’t accept about the Nicene creed is the right to kill approximately 100,000 Arians within a few days because they disagreed. It was really a political document between rival political factions with the Emperor Constantine taking advantage of the conflict to kill his rivals. That is what is abominable about the creeds. Without endorsing it, you might want to look here for a basic summary of the Arian civil war with the Catholic church: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/arianism.html
Falcon said: “If Jesus’ human conception was the result of a sexual act between god the father and Mary it would be helpful to have that clearly written. So my point is, the early Church found it necessary to clearly articulate and define it’s doctrine. In my opinion, it’s really kind of dishonest to piggy back on it when the underlying meanings are different.”
Falcon, you have pin-pointed the problem. Some Mormons (primarily Orson Pratt) taught that God had actual sexual relations. It isn’t Mormon doctrine. It isn’t in Mormon scriptures. Just how Christ was conceived is simply something that hasn’t been revealed. Why should we fill in something we don’t know? The creeds attempted to fill in holes in doctrine with philosophical arguments, wrenching scriptures to address issues they don’t address and are very vague on and had to accomplish their goal by political compromise. But why should we give allegiance to such mechanisms? Why should we accept creeds unless somehow we find the reasoning persuasive? The fact is that the creeds have only the authority of the soundness of their reasoning because they are not based on revelation — and those attending the councils never claimed that they were. Yet I don’t find their rationale at all persuasive. They are full of scriptural and logical holes as I read them.
It is better to just leave the holes in our knowledge open until God reveals the answer. I personally don’t believe that God (in this context the Father) had physical relations with Mary (or anyone else). However, even you must accept the proposition: “God impregnated Mary.” When stated that way, it can seem offensive. When stated as: “in some manner unknown to us, God caused it to be such that Mary became pregnant without human sexual relations” it sounds less offensive. LDS accept the latter — but on both of our views the first statement is accurate.
I wanted to add that very often I find that evangelical arguments against LDS simply consist in stating a doctrine in a way that is likely to sound strange and offensive. Is the assertion that Jesus is the brother of Satan somehow less offensive than the statement that God created Satan out of nothing with total knowledge of the all the evil Satan would bring about? I suggest that we all adopt the rule of charity and state our various positions in a way that the other would accept as a fair statement of what they believe. I suggest that you very often violate this rule based on my reading of your various posts on this site.
i just want to quickly respond to what Cully said,
“The doctrine of Christ’s descent into Hell is based on the scripture passage 1 Peter 3:19, “In this spirit He also went to proclaim His victory to the spirits kept in prison.”
supported? sure…but that is based on the assumption that the scripture was interpreted correctly. I read that same verse and consider it to mean that after Christ was crucified, he didn’t DESCEND…he VISITED spirits, ministered unto them, much like he did previous to his crucifixion. This scripture doesn’t say anything about the damned, or Hell…isn’t hell a place for those who are STAYING in hell (according to your beliefs)? so, why would Christ visit a place whose inhabitants are irrelevant to His crucifixion… where his atonement does not save? what would the purpose be? there is much more purpose if you understand, through the restored gospel, that there is a spirit prison where non-believers go before the resurrection, and where ministering occurs. THIS belief is ALSO supported by that scripture.
so i disagree with the characterization of “prison”…if it was hell, the word Hell could have easily been used…it doesn’t even say “descend”
Cully then says,
“Christ appeared declaring victory over sin, death and the power of the devil; He remained sinless and took the sin of the world upon Himself in His death on the cross to declare righteous all who believe in Him (2 Cor. 5:21).”
but hell is for those who do NOT believe, His atonement saves those who believe in Him.
then says,
I am also reminded of Genesis 3:15, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your descendants and her Descendant. He will crush your head, and you will bruise His heel.” How sweet is our victory in Christ!
amen to that brother, i agree 🙂
Amanda
2Nephi: 29 (all verses) someone tell me, if JS was a fraud, how did he call this one?
To support my reading of why creeds are in fact abominable, I give you Joseph Smith’s classic statement which I love:
…I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled. It dont prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine. (8 April 1843 Conference Report by William Clayton)
Hey there Amanda,
I should have referenced 1 Peter 3:18-20 to provide context for those who may have read only the one verse I provided in quotes. In full it reads “Christ died once for our sins, the Righteous One for the guilty, to bring us to God. He was killed in His body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom He also went to proclaim His victory to the spirits kept in prison who disobeyed long ago in the days of Noah when God waited patiently while the ark was being built, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved by water.” I hope the context provides a better scope.
That said, while scripture compells me to personally believe that Christ in His state of Exhultation declared His Victory over the devil and all who of their own free will rejected Him, I also believe the matter is one which will be fully understood only upon that day in which I claim my crown of life and throw it at the feet of my Lord and Savior.
Also, I didn’t mean to confuse anyone by referencing 2 Cor. 5:21. It simply points to the fact that those who believe in Him share in His righteousness, and therefore, in His victory. Christ is victorious. In Him, I am declared a victor. It doesn’t get any better than that.
Falcon,
Yes I can understand the frustration that you and others would have with the use of similar words but different meanings. But if you look at it from an LDS perspective, we believe that the mainstream Christian world has actually changed the meaning of the words over time and we are using the words as they were meant to be used. Not to argue with you, but that is our perspective. And yes it can be quite frustrating as some of the arguments/discussions carried out here and on other sites is because of this misunderstanding and that neither party wants to listen to the other to overcome it – like faith/works/grace. Again, my point of view. As for the two examples you gave that you want to see ‘creeded’ – the first, about Jesus being our spirit brother and everyone was born to Heavenly Parents, is written clearly in some of our teaching manuals, especially in “Gospel Principles” Chapter 2, which new members are taught from as soon as they are baptised.
As for the second – from MY perspective – I have read all of the literature on MRM, LHM, and Saints Alive about it. I believe that there is nothing explicitly stating a physical union within the text. However, the text is ambiguous and can be interpreted as such, but I don’t believe that way and the LDS church does not teach that way. Where it states that it was natural – there are many ways on this earth of reproduction, and since God has created everything anything He does is natural. All these are saying, to me, is that Jesus was the genetic son of God. How Mary fell pregnant – they do not stipulate. Jesus entered an enclosed room, so somehow He went through solid walls – why couldn’t something like that happen to Mary – the genetic material from God entered her womb through the solid uterine wall? Also, a father of an IVF child is still a natural father of that child. So because the text is ambiguous, you can believe what you wish, I will believe what I believe.
Ralph,
Thanks for the clarification. As to the idea that Mormons actually have the accurate definitions of the original doctrinal concepts, I guess I’d say (kindly) “prove it”. If it’s based on revelations to a “prophet(s)” and subsequent Mormon scripture, I’d say, “not good enough.” So there’s the impass. As an Ev. Christian, I have a standard by which I judge whether something is true and accurate. If something does not line-up with the standard I dismiss it. I dismiss Mormonism on the basis of that standard. Jesus continually warned about false prophets that would come in His name doing and saying all sorts of convincing things. People get seduced. That’s why there is a standard by which to judge truth from fiction.
Ralph said we believe that the mainstream Christian world has actually changed the meaning of the words over time and we are using the words as they were meant to be used.
I agree with Falcon in saying prove this, but want to add this, I find this hard to believe you believe this to be true.
We have the dead sea scrolls to prove the Bible, yet the BoM has over 4,000 changes and we do not have the golden plates, so you believe the Bible is some what in correct yet you trust the BoM with it’s 4,000 plus changes.
Then I notice Mormons on this blog and the LDS.org website quote from the Bible, you guys sure quote a lot of verses, so let me ask you this, how do you know the verse you quote can be trusted?
Then God told JS and Sidney Rigdon to “Correct” the Bible in the D and C, hence the J.S.T, I happen to own it, and I notice that 7 books were never “Corrected” so that tells me God must think their correct, So we can trust them. Then I notice in some books JS “Corrected” their might be less than 10 verses that have been changed, so it tells me that the Majority of the Bible is correct.
Yet I notice also that a lot of Bible verses that LDS quote were changed in the J.S.T, So why do you quote from a bible you do not trust and not quote from the version God told JS to correct?
And when you quote a verse from the Bible, if it differs from the JS version which one should you trust? Rick b
Cully,
thank you for the further clarification, but my point of view is still validated by the additional reference. in mormon doctrine, those who sinned in this life go to spirit prison, not hell…it isn’t until that great and last day, (when you claim your crown) that the divisions will be made …i.e. the different kingdoms, hell, and outer darkness. until that point, spirit prison is the only biblical validation, that scripture still did not qualify that assumption of “hell”.
but i appreciate your pointing out that the most important clarification we need is when we meet our maker. i believe that day will be joyous for the both of us because of our faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of our differences…because the important thing is laid out in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
i know i was baptized in the name of Jesus, and i know all of you believe on His name, so let there be no divisions among us.
Blake Ostler responded to this post over at New Cool Thang. Just click on my name and see the post put up by Blake on Sept 9.
Moderator’s Note: The intro to Blake’s response on his web site says,
To clarify, first time participants at Mormon Coffee must await approval by the moderators before their comment is posted. After initial approval, subsequent comments are posted automatically. Blake’s first comment on Mormon Coffee came at a time when both moderators were away, resulting in a delay of his initial comment approval.
Hei Falcon and RickB,
I said I didn’t want an argument about this. I was giving you the LDS perspective – I already know yours. I also know that you do not believe in modern day prophets, but I can still use it as an answer. As I have stated in past blogs – you expect the impossible when you ask LDS to justify our beliefs using only your interpretation of the Bible – its like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. We just need to show that our beliefs can be justified by our own interpretation. Its the same when we LDS ask you to justify your beliefs using our interpretation of the Bible. So if you are honest in your request for an answer, you need to accept that the answer will only come from our perspective, not yours. That our beliefs are mutually exclusive does not matter. Only one belief system about God is true, and it will be the one He supports and saves to the end. That is the point of this blog, to question and answer LDS teachings. But you cannot understand or accept that I can believe how I do, whereas I can understand and accept that you believe the way you do. I have my own ‘evidences’ of the truth of what I have chosen to believe in, and I do know its true. If you think that the LDS beliefs are illogical – I say that all religion is illogical. I say this because of what I have seen, read and been taught as a biological researcher.
As for the part about the Bible and Book of Mormon RickB – how does that fit in with a difference of meaning of words, which was the original point Falcon and I were discussing?
Ralph,
When we talk about evidence to support a creed or the definition of terms, it’s really quite straight forward. It’s not dependent on someone’s interpretation of the Bible. When we discuss the verasity of JS and his revelations, it’s not all that complicated to determine the truth. It is my opinion that the evidence is just not there to support the BOM as being a factually accurate book. And so if the BOM is not factually accurate neither would the doctrine of the Mormon church (that holds it to be factually accurate). Again, this is not a matter of interpretation, but a matter of factual data and evidence.
Amanda said in mormon doctrine, those who sinned in this life go to spirit prison, not hell…it isn’t until that great and last day, (when you claim your crown) that the divisions will be made …i.e. the different kingdoms, hell, and outer darkness.
So how do you handle these verses?
Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that [would come] from thence.
Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Falcon,
You said on 28th Aug in the discussion about the Trinity “Just a minor point…..but my sense is that doctrines are all, in a sense, MAN MADE. What I mean by that is that doctrines are a way of explaining, what is believed. That’s why there is systematic theology. Theologians read the scriptures and develop a code, a standard, an understanding of what God has revealed to us in His written Word. So if someone says to me that he has a special revelation from God, I can look and see how it lines-up with the doctrinal standard based on God’s revealed Word. There is nothing new regarding the views about the nature of God and who He is. What each individual must decide is if they are going to accept the views as articulated by the early Church fathers and which have become articulated doctrine or head in some other direction.” This Apostles’ Creed is just that – an interpretation of the scriptures done by men. Because you do not believe in modern day prophets or revelation you cannot accept my point of view and the evidences I can give from the Bible because our interpretations differ. That is my point. Just because some of your beliefs (eg Nicean Creed, Apostles’ Creed, etc) have a few hundred years of history behind it does not make it correct. For many years people believed the earth was flat and the centre of the universe, whereas we know now that it is not true. In fact, the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round and had calculated the circumference to a good degree of accuracy. So somewhere that knowledge was lost.
As for evidence not being there to support the Book of Mormon, the Bible also lacks in this respect, but both you and I choose to believe in it. Why can’t I go on and choose to believe in the Book of Mormon?
Ralph, could you support your statement about the Bible lacking in evidence? I’ve seen side by side comparisons for itself and the BOM on what evidences there are. Sadly, there was nothing in the BOM category. Not a person/place/thing. But what we do have that supports the Bible as evidence is people (writings about Jesus/prophets in certain areas), places (geographical locations still known today), and things (archaeological discoveries).
What does the BOM have?
Ralph,
Everything Mormons believe stands on the word of Joseph Smith. If there is no historic evidence for the BOM, then Joseph Smith created a religion. If you want to believe what he created, of course, that’s your perogative. But if someone came to me with the Joseph Smith story, I’d look into the historical record and see if what he describes ever happened. There is plenty of historical evidence to support the events described in the Bible. If the BOM is true historically, then I would think the events, civilizations and characters would be part of the historical record. For example, the Bible describes the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews, their return to the Land, and the rebuilding of the temple. It’s a historical fact. The Wailing Wall still exists as a reminant of Herod’s Temple after the Romans destroyed it. I don’t see any part of the general historical record (or the Bible) that talks about some Jews hopping in a boat and coming to America. All of the doctrine of the Mormon church stands or falls on the foundation of the BOM as written by Joseph Smith. If there is no evidence to support it, then the religion is false. And even at that, some people might believe it because they want to. I say, no law against that!
“All of the doctrine of the Mormon church stands or falls on the foundation of the BOM as written by Joseph Smith. If there is no evidence to support it, then the religion is false.”
Correction Ralph,
If the BOM proves to be a “made-up” doctrine, that means its claims to historical validity are false.
It does not mean that Mormonism is false. Just that its claims to have an ancient document are false.
For example, if the Book of Mormon is indeed made-up, that does not necessarily mean that a current LDS Apostle’s counsel to say, be nice to your wife is also false.
Granted, Mormonism tends to hang its hat on its history. But that does not mean the religion is “false” if the history be successfully undermined. Just that Mormonism is a lot less compelling.
Best to avoid falling for the same sweeping “true vs false” generalizations that many believing Mormons do. They don’t really reflect reality.
I appreciate the clarification of your policy and the reasons for delay in posting.
Seth,
You lost me! I don’t get the logic of your argument. Mormonisms claim to actual history is false however it’s doctrine is true?????
You need to help me here.
The Falcon
Seth said For example, if the Book of Mormon is indeed made-up, that does not necessarily mean that a current LDS Apostle’s counsel to say, be nice to your wife is also false.
This makes no sence, because saying be nice to your wife is not Doctrine. Plus Jesus even says in the Bible, Sinners love sinners. And it would stand to simple logic and reason, if your not nice to your Wife your going to have problems. Do you tend to hang out long with people who are mean to you? Do you enjoy their company and go out of your way to bless them?
Yes Jesus tells us to love or enemys, but still you dont make it a habit of spending long periods of time with them. Jesus and the Bible speak about False prophets and teachers and Doctrine, does the fact that even a little truth make it ok?
The devil spoke some truth, does this mean we can listen to him? Paul rebuked the demon possesed slave girl in the book of Acts, even though she had a demon in her, she still spoke the truth, yet Paul did not want even a demon speaking the truth to be involved in his ministry. So Seth, you make no sense as Falcon stated. Rick b
I’m just saying your statement “the LDS Church is false” is too broad.
If you don’t believe the LDS version of history, that definitely can be a very good reason for leaving and placing your religious efforts elsewhere.
But it doesn’t make the Church “false.” Just its history. Lots of organizations have falsehoods in their backgrounds, yet remain “true” in other ways. The US government for instance.
The Satan example isn’t germane, because we aren’t talking about evil incarnate. Just Mormonism. The devil may counsel you to be true to your wife, yet I think as a theological matter, we can safely say he is doing it with ulterior motives, thus Satan is not to be trusted, even when he is truthful. Mormonism, like other human institutions, has both good and bad things about it. Truth and error. Thus it cannot accurately be described as “true” or “false” without making unwarranted generalizations.
This is classic all-or-nothing thinking. Granted, the LDS Church itself tends to encourage such all-or-nothing thinking, but that doesn’t make it a good idea. 😉
seth, i agree with the majority of that sentiment, however, i fail to see how the church encourages “all-or-nothing” thinking. and i would appreciate a specific example 🙂 thank you
RICK B. i was responding to a comment that cully was making, who was responding to something I said..so your desire to enter the conversation is appreciated, however i’d appreciate it if you understood the context of my comment. i was saying how the scriptures he listed were also relevant to mormon doctrine, i was not attempting to persuade you to my belief- and i would be happy to read those scriptures…can you be specific as to WHY you think they challenge mormon doctrine? i would appreciate it 🙂
Falcon and RickB,
Yes there are some evidences for the Bible, but from the information I can find, there is nothing archeological or historical to back-up the Israelite history before King Ahab, who was about 100 years after King Solomon. There is no evidence of Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King Saul, King David, King Solomon nor their empire. The city of Jericho is one of the oldest known cities and there is no evidence of it being destroyed around the time the Israelites were supposed to go through. There is evidence of a mass migration out of Egypt around the Genesis of the Israelite, but it was in all directions and small groups of people at a time, not one huge group in one direction. In fact, according to one source (a programme called “It ain’t necessarily so” by a British journalist) there is only one reference to a group of people known as Israelites in Egypt. It is in a tomb, and refers to a small hill dwelling tribe which the Egyptians totally wiped out in a battle. Yes there is evidence that Jesus was a real live person, but there is NO evidence that He did the miracles He was said to have done, nor is there evidence of His resurrection. You will probably say that there are the witnesses in the Bible – but we don’t know if they are lying zealots or not because we cannot talk with them. According to science this earth was formed many millions of years ago and life has been on it for hundreds of thousands of years. This is all in contradiction to the Bible. As for place names in the Bible corresponding to cities found, anyone can get a map and look at it. I am currently reading a book called “Harmful Intent”. It is written by an American but it takes place in Brisbane. I have lived in Brisbane and the author’s description was nothing like it. So it definately was not true. Faith is the ‘evidence of things unseen’. There is no real evidence for the Bible nor Book of Mormon but I have faith in both from my own evidences from God.
Seth said The devil may counsel you to be true to your wife, yet I think as a theological matter, we can safely say he is doing it with ulterior motives, thus Satan is not to be trusted,
Tell me your kidding, Please tell me your kidding.
What possible ulterior motive could the Devil possibly have for saying, be true to your wife?
Then while were at it, the Devil spoke truth to Jesus, yet Jesus did not rebuke that truth or say, you cannot be trusted, he rebuked the lies and false misinformation the devil used, but not the truth.
Seth, I honestly hate flying, but I know 2 pilot’s who will tell you, when you fly if you start going even ONE DEGREE off, you will end up 1,000’s of miles of course if your flying far enough. But lets say your only flying 20 miles, one degree off can still take you so far off course you could crash.
Then the Bible is very clear, Some people will walk away from the faith beleiveing lies and seducing spirits. So even if Mormonism is false in half of it’s believe, in Gods Eyes is is still a lie and will lead others astray.
Amanda said can you be specific as to WHY you think they challenge mormon doctrine?
Ok, You said to Cully in mormon doctrine, those who sinned in this life go to spirit prison, not hell…it isn’t until that great and last day, (when you claim your crown) that the divisions will be made …i.e. the different kingdoms, hell, and outer darkness. until that point, spirit prison is the only biblical validation, that scripture still did not qualify that assumption of “hell”.
The verses I posted about the rich man in hell and torment, Jesus gave that story, So if Jesus said that, that was around 2,000 years ago correct? So how does that agree with what you said about the division of hell and outer darkness after the sheep and goats being seperated. I showed How he was in torment before that, you said that was incorrect, explain how I am wrong and your view is correct. Rick b
“Seth, I honestly hate flying, but I know 2 pilot’s who will tell you, when you fly if you start going even ONE DEGREE off, you will end up 1,000’s of miles of course if your flying far enough. But lets say your only flying 20 miles, one degree off can still take you so far off course you could crash.”
Name one religion or belief system for which that is not also true. Everyone in life is “off course” to some degree or another.
Seth said Name one religion or belief system for which that is not also true. Everyone in life is “off course” to some degree or another.
People are off, God is not, The Bible claims to be the word of God, not the BoM, and not the Word of Rick, or Seth, or anyone else.
John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Rick b
Seth, you stated that “Mormonism, like other human institutions, has both good and bad things about it. Truth and error.”
I’m confused. I’m hoping you can clarify; I have three questions:
1. Are you claiming that Mormonism is a human institution, made up by man, not of God, and is thus full of error?
2. If you do believe that Joseph is/was a prophet and was inspired by God to write the B of M, are you saying that God deliberately tricked Joseph into writing falsely? To what point?
3. How can one justify his beliefs on falsehoods of “truth and error” and still claim he has the one right path?
Thanks for clarifying, Cully
Rick,
i appreciate your counter reference. i have to admit, i didn’t really read those scriptures…but now, i can’t avoid it if i’m going to adequately respond.
remember that i was responding to Cully’s reference in the context of those particular scriptures. reading in Luke, it seems to me that this is a completely different context. It is not discussing where Jesus went after His crucifixion (spirit prison) which was a literal event, it is discussing in parable where Lazarus went (fiction).
if you were using these scriptures to invalidate my original point to Cully, i don’t see how you did that…if you were using these scriptures to further point out OTHER discrepancies between alleged biblical doctrine and Mormon doctrine..then all i have to say is that I’m not in a position in my biblical study to give you an adequately informed answer. I will look into this more, and will be happy to give you some kind of answer in the future. and thanks for the inadvertent assignment. 🙂
RICK
here are some cross-reference scriptures i was able to drum up from the parable of Lazarus.
it occured to me to mention that the definition of Hell in mormon doctrine is used interchangeably with spirit prison and outer darkness, it’s almost generic…however, in other Christian faiths, hell is a very specific place of endless torment. the restored gospel qualifies hell in many different ways.
1Nephi 15: 31-36
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/15/31-36#31
this whole chapter will give perspective on how the restored gospel qualifies these different terms, i think, though you might disagree with interpretation, you will find these scriptures to be consistent with Luke
thanks for your point of view
Amanda,
I appreciate Rick’s reference to the Rich Man and Lazarus. It’s one of my favorites; it’s also a very clear reference to hell being very real…past, present & future. I’m not familiar with the doctrine of “spirit prison” since it is not taught in the Bible. Is it similar to the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory?
Christ speaks of the rich man in hell as being tormented and yet still able to view those in heaven. That’s certainly torment! Those in hell are completely outside of God’s grace. As one of my theology professors said, “In hell there are no unbelievers, only those who are too late to accept the gift of grace through faith.”
Knowing his family are on the same road of unbelief, the rich man asks Abraham to visit them and convince them to repent and believe. Like many today, though they have the Word of God which declares eternal life in Christ as a free gift for all who believe in His atonement, even a visit from an age old prophet like Abraham would not convince those who are stubborn. Sadly, their belief will come too late…after they’ve been confined to the darkness of being completely outside of God’s presence, with no hope of salvation, for all of eternity.
2 Peter 2:4-5a “God didn’t spare angels who sinned but put them into the gloomy dungeons of hell to be kept for judgement. And He didn’t spare the ancient world but protected Noah.” On Judgement Day, the demons will be eternally bound to hell, no longer able to roam the world looking to devour. This is the second reference to those of Noah’s days being sent to hell. The first I referenced previously (1 Pt. 3:19-20).
Perhaps the rich man should have summoned Satan to appear to his relatives. Had Lucifer popped before them, they may have believed. But then, that would be against everything Satan stands for.
Cully
Seth,
If the BOM is not a historical document then the claim that it is, is false. The belief system that it is based on, would therefore be false. Unless we would say that all religions are true because they are based on faith. Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham, which was proven to be a false claim. There is a spirit of disception. What is false can appear to be true. But it’s not.
Falcon,
So according to your logic, if the Bible isn’t an historical document (which it is not according to historians) it too is false. Look at it this way, if the beginning of the Bible right up to King Ahab is just stories/fables/legends/myths then the God of the Bible is based on just that, stories/fables/legends/myths.
The beginning of the Bible shows the creation of the earth by an all powerful God – other non-Judeo-Christian religions have their stories about Gods creating the earth. So why must the Bible be true and the others not?
All through the books of Moses it shows the establishment of a covenant people of God to bring God’s word into the world for all to be saved. Part of this culminates in Jesus coming to atone for the sins of the world. But if its just stories then so are the prophecies about Jesus, the Son of God, through the middle of the Bible in Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. This then means that the New Testament is not true, because it balances on the prophecies and God of the Old Testament.
But I stand by what I have said earlier, there is no real evidence of the historicity of the Bible, especially the early part of it. But still I can believe in it, just as I can believe in the Book of Mormon, when there is scant (and there is some) evidence for it. God wants this life to be all about FAITH, which is why there is little evidence about Him.
Blake, I would have expected more from you. I’m surprised you would point people to such an awful page on the Arian controversy. So many caricatures and exaggerations in it… I don’t know where to start.
Kenneth Humphreys gives the impression that the idea that Jesus Christ is God was “determined” at the council. This is hogwash, as anyone will immediately notice from the response to the reading of Arius by Eusebius [1]. That Jesus was God was a deeply held position that needed articulation to be definitively distinguished from the wordsmith Arius. Arius would take any terms the trinitarians used and reorient them with his own theology (something we evangelicals would accuse you Mormons of often doing). He ironically ended up doing this with the Nicene Creed itself. Knowing the historical context one can understand the desire of Christians to use extra-biblical terms to articulate biblical doctrines that would finally make definitive distinctions with those who had perverted biblical language. Christians can (and should) normally stick to biblical language to articulate biblical doctrine.
At one point Humphreys writes:
Good grief, Kenneth doesn’t even recognize the difference between modalism and trinitarianism. One would think that having a decent handle on the Arian controversy would require this?
Now to respond to some of your words.
It is odd to complain about requiring agreement to a doctrinal point by appealing to yet another doctrinal point (your view of “the love command”). 1 John makes it clear that not practicing “love” is a sure evidence that one is not of the people of God. In other words, if you don’t practice the doctrine of love you aren’t of the people of God. John also says, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God…” (1 John 4:2). That pesky John not only gives a behavioral requirement, but a doctrinal requirement (that ousted the gnostics) for being an authentic believer “born of God”.
This is absurd for two reasons. First: There is nothing in the Nicene Creed itself that gives anyone permission to murder Arians. So even if 100,000 were murdered “within a few days” then this is still an obvious red herring. Also, where do you see evangelical Protestants calling for the mass killing of Arians? Second: Can you support the claim that “100,000 Arians” were killed “within a few days”? Sounds like some thick, rotten, moldy baloney. Within a few days of what? How about substantiating some of your drive-by big assertions with some real evidence? Apart from banishing a few bishops, Constantine was hardly the man to use the creed to kill Arians. He waffled between Arianism and trinitarianism all the way to the end, when he was baptized on his deathbed in 337 by an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia (one of the few he originally banished).
Are you willing to make the historical assertion that the creed was merely a “political document”, even given the passion of the majority of bishops to publicly declare that Jesus is God (and not a creature)? Do you think the majority of bishops at the council were just acting as political pawns, and signed off on a creed they really didn’t believe?
Can you really generalize the quality of “abominable” here like this as though this adequately summarizes Joseph Smith’s view on it? The obvious fact is that the religion of Joseph Smith offered alternative content to the traditional ecumenical creeds of historical Christianity. The theological content of these traditional creeds made Smith an outcast. Smith—and especially subsequent Mormon prophets—offer a radically different view of God.
The Joseph Smith quote you later provide doesn’t address the extreme of murdering someone because of their beliefs. Smith intimates something that I recognize: Mormons generally can believe whatever the heck they want to. As long as they don’t raise a stink about their minority beliefs, and as long as they conform and submit to the priesthood authority chain, they’re accepted. Today this applies to Mormons who don’t believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and who believe that Smith was a “pious fraud”. Heck, an old boss of mine in Orem, UT was an atheist and yet still an active member in the local ward… he even taught a class to the youth on Sunday. Frankly, I don’t admire the appalling atheological tendency of Mormonism. Beliefs about God and his promises are important, and should inform our behavior. Our orthopraxy should flow from a worship—not a disregard or indifference—over God and his nature and his promises.
That said, I would not agree that Mormonism is “creedless”. It has functional doctrinal boundaries—the rejection of which would preclude being baptized into the mainstream hierarchical sect. It’s a lot harder to get in that it is to stay in.
Blake, you have to deal with how the Nicene Creed functions for evangelical Protestants. Neither Constantine nor the bishops nor any other political or ecclesiastical figures have definitive theological authority over us. The creed states what we believe is profoundly biblical, and so we subscribe to it as a “subordinate standard”—something to be subjected to the written revelation of the God’s word, the Bible. Caricaturing evangelicals as submitting to the Nicene Creed because we believe it is somehow revelatory scripture itself or because we cower at the supposed political authority behind it only muddies the waters and avoids constructive conversation about the real issues.
You might want to qualify that: Some LDS believe like you do, Blake. I’ve met far too many Mormons who are open to the possibility that God the Father had human sexual relations with Mary to accept your generalization of Mormons as believing that the Father didn’t.
You mean like all those Brigham Young quotes? 🙂
—
[1] “The assertion that the Word or Son was no more than a creature, no matter how high a creature, provoked angry reactions from many of the bishops: ‘You lie!’ ‘Blasphemy!’ ‘Heresy!” Eusebius was shouted down, and we are told that his speech was snatched from his hand, torn to shreds, and trampled under foot. Whereas earlier they hoped to deal with the issues at stake through negotiation and compromise, without condemning any doctrine, now they were convinced that they had to reject Arianism in the clearest way possible” (Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Volume I, pp.164-165).
Seth,
I am relieved that you have conceded that the BOM is not an accurate historical document and is therfore false. The technique you are using to question the historical accuracy of the Bible is a nice end run. The logic is, if you can’t prove everything in the Bible as being historically accurate, then the BOM not having any historical accuracy, is in the same category as the Bible. I named several events, people and places in the Bible that are historic fact. You named nothing in the BOM that could be considered historic fact. Did the Jews migrate from Israel to America? The DNA evidence says no, the linguistic evidence says no, the archeology evidence says no. The doctrine of the Mormon church is diametrically opposed to the doctrine and traditions of not only Christianity but also that of the Jews (when you consider the nature of God).
“I am relieved that you have conceded that the BOM is not an accurate historical document and is therfore false.”
1. What makes you think I’ve conceded anything?
2. I’ve already explained that historical problems doesn’t necessarily equal falsity.
3. Why would any of that “relieve” you?
For the record, the people of the Book of Mormon weren’t “Jewish.”
Tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. Not Judah. The DNA study was asking the wrong questions.
That said, I’m really not interested in debating the accuracy of the Book of Mormon with you or anyone else here. I was simply responding to a logical fallacy expressed here that reflects the same all-or-nothing thinking the LDS Church is frequently criticized for exhibiting. I’ve already done that. If you don’t get it, that’s your business. We’re heading into threadjack territory now.
Seth, how are the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim not “Jewish?” Jewish is not, “descent from the tribe of Judah,” it is, “descent from Jacob (Israel), father of the 12 tribes.” And even still, Manasseh and Ephraim were Judah’s nephews…
We’re talking present-day DNA here.
The other tribes were dispersed. Judah is the DNA strand they are talking about when they are doing modern traces for “Jewish” descent. And it’s utterly irrelevant for any examination of the BOM.
Seth,
Here is a response from mormonchallenge.com (http://www.mormonchallenge.com/dispute.htm):
Why? Most Mormon scholars ascribe to the entire BOM taking place in a limited geographic area not much larger than the state of Illinois. They’ve been advocating this model for the BOM for decades now.
Such a limited population could easily be genetically swallowed up in surrounding mix of indigenous people. This isn’t a CSI episode. Tracing populations genetically is incredibly complex and difficult.
Furthermore, the current mix of “Jewish” genetic material has also been highly diluted by a mix of Arabic, Persian, Mediterranean, and who-knows-what-else DNA. Getting a match is highly problematic.
Lehi’s family also predates the Jewish diaspora.
I see the DNA study as a neat addition for your gee wiz collection, nothing more.
Now quit pushing my buttons! 😀