The 4th and 5th century Creeds

[Guest]

Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach against the Creeds of the 4th and 5th century ?


Since the Pearl of Great Price, under History says:

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.”

I posted some verse from the Book of Mormon that agrees but please give me one that disagree with the Athanasius, Nicaea or Apostles Creeds .

2 Nephi 31:
21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.


Alma 11:
44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Mormon 7:
7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

The Testimony of Three Witnesses
And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris



An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun.
2 Nephi 26:12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;

2 Nephi 9:20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.

Mosiah 5:5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

Mosiah 5:7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

Mosiah 5:15 Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen.

Mosiah 7:27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth—

Helaman 14:12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.

3 Nephi 11:39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.
41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.

Moroni 7:22 For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

Moroni 8:18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from ball eternity to all eternity.

The Bible Also teaches singular God, plural persons even in the first book of the Bible

Gen 1:
26 Then God said, “Let [b]Us[/b] make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Gen 11:
5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. 7 Come, let[b] Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

[_subgenius]

So, you are saying that the Book of Mormon is the only scriptural and historical support for the Creeds...since the New Testament does not support it, nor does almost 400 years of post-Jesus church history support it. (also the Old Testament does not develop any trinitarian doctrine...at all.)

But let us look at this another way

One popular criticism of the Book of Mormon is that it must surely be defiant of Revelation 22:18 which states:
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"

now let us forget that the Book of Revelation was written before a couple of other books, and take this in the context that it is often offered against the Book of Mormon.
How exactly are any of the Creeds exempt from the same transgression?

Even more importantly is that Mittens is unaware of the actual Creeds she subscribes to:
The Athanasisus Creed states the Father is one person, the Son is one person, and the HG is one person, and they are all co-eternal and co-equal...it also states that the Father is God and the Son is God but that the Father is not the Son...etc..

Essentially the trap for Mittens is that the agreement among the Creeds is that God is incomprehensible...this is supported by scriptures and church...yet is contradicted by Mittens wherein she would presume to "comprehend" God.

[_Mittens]

So, you are saying that the Book of Mormon is the only scriptural and historical support for the Creeds...since the New Testament does not support it, nor does almost 400 years of post-Jesus church history support it. (also the Old Testament does not develop any trinitarian doctrine...at all.)

But let us look at this another way

One popular criticism of the Book of Mormon is that it must surely be defiant of Revelation 22:18 which states:
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"

now let us forget that the Book of Revelation was written before a couple of other books, and take this in the context that it is often offered against the Book of Mormon.
How exactly are any of the Creeds exempt from the same transgression?

Even more importantly is that Mittens is unaware of the actual Creeds she subscribes to:
The Athanasisus Creed states the Father is one person, the Son is one person, and the HG is one person, and they are all co-eternal and co-equal...it also states that the Father is God and the Son is God but that the Father is not the Son...etc..

Essentially the trap for Mittens is that the agreement among the Creeds is that God is incomprehensible...this is supported by scriptures and church...yet is contradicted by Mittens wherein she would presume to "comprehend" God.

The Book of Mormon agrees with your emphasis on the Athanasius Creed

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun.


2 Nephi 26:12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;


Mosiah 5:15 Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen.


2 Nephi 31:
21And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.


Alma 11:
44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

3 Nephi 11:
27And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are bone; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.
36And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

Mormon 7:
7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

The Testimony of Three Witnesses
And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

[_subgenius]

so, you agree that the Book of Mormon is the only scriptural support for any of the Creeds.

[_madeleine]

Considering there are creedal statements in the New Testament, any of the creeds is a bold claim. Here are a few examples. http://prayerfoundation.org/dailyoffice ... _bible.htm

But LDS seem hung up on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. There are numerous books, websites, even the catechism of the Catholic Church, that step through this creed, line by line, showing scriptural support. Here's one. http://www.prayerfoundation.org/nicene_ ... _basis.htm

[_subgenius]

Considering there are creedal statements in the New Testament, any of the creeds is a bold claim. Here are a few examples. http://prayerfoundation.org/dailyoffice ... _bible.htm

But LDS seem hung up on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. There are numerous books, websites, even the catechism of the Catholic Church, that step through this creed, line by line, showing scriptural support. Here's one. http://www.prayerfoundation.org/nicene_ ... _basis.htm

similar statements doth not doctrine make.
The truth of the matter is that the Old Testament and New Testament provide absolutely no support for the Doctrine put forth in the Creeds. This is further buttressed by the fact that 3 centuries passed without any of the Doctrine being put forth by the Creeds ever being discussed.
Constantine easily had political purposes behind his council, nothing more and nothing less.

[_jo1952]

I cannot help but wonder what good a statement of beliefs, be they in creed form, or in the form of doctrine, has to do with whether a person is correct or incorrect; which seems to equate to many whether they consider another (or themself) as saved or not. Now, I believe that doctrine, commandments, scripture and such are tools we can use; though they can also become stumbling blocks. However, they are not what saves. Christ is our Savior - opening the Heavens for us because we could not find Grace on our own. Reaching for Grace by following Christ's example, and allowing the Holy Spirit to awaken our spirit by leading us to Truth progresses us on our individual journey. Stating what we believe is only words.

Shalom,

jo

[_Mittens]

Considering there are creedal statements in the New Testament, any of the creeds is a bold claim. Here are a few examples. http://prayerfoundation.org/dailyoffice ... _bible.htm

But LDS seem hung up on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. There are numerous books, websites, even the catechism of the Catholic Church, that step through this creed, line by line, showing scriptural support. Here's one. http://www.prayerfoundation.org/nicene_ ... _basis.htm

similar statements doth not doctrine make.
The truth of the matter is that the Old Testament and New Testament provide absolutely no support for the Doctrine put forth in the Creeds. This is further buttressed by the fact that 3 centuries passed without any of the Doctrine being put forth by the Creeds ever being discussed.
Constantine easily had political purposes behind his council, nothing more and nothing less.

Very good links to prove the Creeds are supported by the Old and New testament. The Book of Mormon does teach:

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.

Joseph Smith Jr did teach Modalism:

Luke 10:
23 All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it. JST

Mosiah 15
3The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Mosiah 16:
15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Alma 11:38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

Ether 3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

teaching Jesus and God the Father are same person is considered http://carm.org/heresies

[_madeleine]

Considering there are creedal statements in the New Testament, any of the creeds is a bold claim. Here are a few examples. http://prayerfoundation.org/dailyoffice ... _bible.htm

But LDS seem hung up on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed. There are numerous books, websites, even the catechism of the Catholic Church, that step through this creed, line by line, showing scriptural support. Here's one. http://www.prayerfoundation.org/nicene_ ... _basis.htm

similar statements doth not doctrine make.
The truth of the matter is that the Old Testament and New Testament provide absolutely no support for the Doctrine put forth in the Creeds. This is further buttressed by the fact that 3 centuries passed without any of the Doctrine being put forth by the Creeds ever being discussed.
Constantine easily had political purposes behind his council, nothing more and nothing less.

I see the creed as describing very well doctrines that are found in the Bible.

The purpose of a council is to discuss and address contemporary issues. Of course all of the doctrines are taught, otherwise, the heresies discussed at the Nicene councils would have not have existed and wold not have been discussed. Arius himself had already been excommunicated in the west for his heresies. Certainly there was discussion there. Arius fled to the east, where he had political supporters. The east more than unanimously also declared Arius a heretic, yet, his political support remained. He wasn't removed from Constantine's kingdom. St. Athanasius, the outspoken opponent of Arius, was expelled more than once. All politics point to support for Arius. When Constantine was baptized on his deathbed, it was by an Arian bishop.

At any rate, Arianism was widespread and so the creed was formulated as an easy to memorize and concise doctrinal statement. It describes what was believed and taught. There isn't a strange new doctrine formulated because Constantine thought strange new doctrines would be to his political advantage. As far as I can tell, he didn't care one bit about doctrines, he just wanted a unified Christian religion. Whether or not he cared if it was Arius or all the other Bishops who prevailed, is not indicated anywhere in history.

So, this theory that Constantine sought political advantage using a doctrinal creed.... I'd like to see the historical evidence.

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...
At any rate, Arianism was widespread and so the creed was formulated as an easy to memorize and concise doctrinal statement. It describes what was believed and taught. There isn't a strange new doctrine formulated because Constantine thought strange new doctrines would be to his political advantage. As far as I can tell, he didn't care one bit about doctrines, he just wanted a unified Christian religion. Whether or not he cared if it was Arius or all the other Bishops who prevailed, is not indicated anywhere in history.

So, this theory that Constantine sought political advantage using a doctrinal creed.... I'd like to see the historical evidence.

You may have a way different understanding of church history than the rest of the world.

Arius (c. 250-c. 336) was a popular Alexandrian priest whose theology about who Jesus was was condemned as heretical by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 and also at the First Council of Constantinople in 381.

The controversy grew until Constantine, emperor of Rome, found it necessary to intervene. Constantine was in the process of uniting the Roman Empire under his control through a civil war with Licinius, his co-emperor. With the popularity of Christianity growing due to the favor he had shown, Constantine feared that his newly-united empire would be split if the Church was split.

That is why the Nicene Creed includes phrases like "begotten, not made," and "one in substance with the Father." They were specifically disagreeing with Arius' doctrine.

Ultimately, at Constantine's referral, a bishop's council that met in Arles, Gaul (314) rejected the Donatists' argument that a morally unworthy clergyman could not perform valid ecclessial actions. A schism then occurred with the Donatists claiming that they were the only true church.

So, i consider it more plausible that in an effort to unify the empire Constantine recognized that the church would have to be unified and that was his impetus...not vice versa.