Posted on 05/19/2007 3:06:54 PM PDT by NYer
This thread, and future ones, are open to all Christians for discussion! This the history of YOUR Church.
Its really nice to have statements of authority by eminent bishops.
Too bad the bishops are testifying about things where there is no physical evidence, and where there can be no physical evidence.
Over the last few weeks, Mormonism Apologists at FR have been contending that the council was not of God since Apostolic Authority ended or was suspended on Earth with the death of the last apostle of Christ, dircetly, and that the Authority had to be re-established with Joseph Smith and successive ‘prophets’ of the Mormonism doctirnes. In that regard, thank you for posting this thread addressing the First Council of Nicaea under Constantine.
Orthodox Ping. I figured the Council of Nicaea was an Orthodox Ecumenical Council that we shared. God Bless You.
Great Post, gotta love Church history. Wrote my History Thesis on the role of the Roman Catholic Priest in Elizabethan England. I considered posting a chapter or two of it here, but decided against it, too boring, lol.
Ironically, one of the stated pillars of "Sharia Compliant Finance."
would love to see a history of the Roman Catholic Church in the development of America.
Latin Mass Magazine had something along that line, I remember reading it when it was sent to me in Iraq.
Wow! I would love to read it. But then I love to read biographies too ... is your Thesis available on line?
No, I might post a chapter or two eventually (I wrote it back in June 05), I just need to re-read it and correct typos and the like. It’s from the long ago days of undergrad.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I ran across my designated papers written for my BA in Humanities, circa ‘68. One was on the Gnostic religions ... I still find it hard to believe I wrote that thing!
Because they believe the Church established by Christ 2,000 years ago fell completely away from his teachings within a century or so of his death, Mormons argue that only a thorough "restoration" (and not a simple "reformation") of the true Church and its holy doctrines would lead man to salvation. Joseph Smith organized this "restored church" in 1830. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints preaches a belief central to most religions: one must know the true nature of God. "It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God" (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 345ff).
No Christian disputes the absolute necessity of knowing the nature of God (to the extent our reason, aided by grace, can apprehend this great mystery). Indeed, the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations have been united in a constant belief in the supreme God as almighty, eternal, and unchanging. Mormons have not been favored by similar clarity from their self-described "prophets" who receive "direct revelation" from the gods.
You may wish to ask these Mormons to consider the following authoritative statements by their earlier and present prophets.
1. In an early book of "Scripture" brought forth by Joseph Smith, the creation account consistently refers to the singular when speaking of God and creation: "I, God, caused . . . I, God, created . . . I, God, saw. . . . " The singular is used 50 times in the second and third chapters of the Book of Moses (1831).
2. In another of Smith’s earlier works, the Book of Mormon (1830), there are no references to a plurality of gods. At best, there is a confusion, at times, between the Father and the Son, leading at times to the extreme of modalism (one divine person who reveals himself sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son) or the other extreme of "binitarianism," belief in two persons in God. The Book of Mormon also makes a strong point for God’s spiritual and eternal unity (see Alma 11:44 and 22:10-11, which proclaims that God is the "Great Spirit").
3. Another early work of Smith is the Lectures on Faith (1834-35). There is continual evidence that the first Mormon leader taught a form of bitheism: the Father and the Son are separate gods. The Holy Spirit is merely the "mind" of the two.
4. At about the same time, we begin to see a doctrinal shift. Smith had acquired some mummies and Egyptian papyri. He proclaimed the writings to be those of the patriarch, Abraham, in his own hand, and set out to translate the text. His Book of Abraham records in chapters four and five that "the gods called . . . the gods ordered . . . the gods prepared" some 45 times. Smith thus introduces the notion of a plurality of gods.
5. The clearest exposition of this departure from traditional Christian doctrine is seen in Smith’s tale of a "vision" he had as a boy of 14. Both the Father and the Son appeared to him, he wrote; they were two separate "personages." This story of two gods was not authorized and distributed by the church until 1838, after his Book of Abraham had paved the way for polytheism.
6. Readers will notice that the Father is said to have appeared, along with his resurrected Son. In his final doctrinal message, Smith showed how this was possible.
In the King Follett Discourse (a funeral talk he gave in 1844), Joseph Smith left his church with the clearest statement to date on the nature of God:
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens[.] That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man. The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, ‘As the Father hath power to himself, even so hath the Son power’—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it."
As the Mormon church has taught since that time, God the Father was once a man who was created by his God, was born and lived on another earth, learned and lived the "Mormon gospel," died, and was eventually resurrected and made God over this universe. As such, he retains forever his flesh-and-bones body.
7. Aside from some temporary detours (Orson Pratt said the Holy Ghost was a spiritual fluid that filled the universe; Brigham Young taught that Adam is the god of this world), the Mormon church has constantly taught that God the Father is a perfected man with a physical body and parts. Right-living Mormon men may also progress, as did the Father, and eventually become gods themselves. In fact, fifth president, Lorenzo Snow, summed up the Mormon teaching thus: "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be." Snow frequently claimed this summary of the Mormon doctrine on God and man was revealed to him by inspiration. (See Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian?, 60, note 1.)
8. "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." What is stranger than a God who starts off as a single Spirit, eternal and all-powerful; who then becomes, perhaps, two gods in one, and then three; who never changes, yet was once born a man, lived, sinned, repented, and died; who was made God the Father of this world by his own God; and who will make his own children gods someday of their own worlds?
That all believing Christians are shocked and disturbed by this blasphemy may—just may—be nudging the Mormon leadership to soften their rhetoric (if not actually change their heresy). A case in point is an interview with current church prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, published in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 13, 1997. When asked: "[D]on’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?" Hinckley demurred. "I wouldn’t say that. There’s a little couplet coined, ‘As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.’ Now, that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about" (3/Z1).
A surprising admission, as Hinckley seems to disparage the constant teaching of all his prophetic predecessors.
Choose, if you like, any one of these three attacks: on Christians; on the sanctity of life; on God. Ask your Mormon listener to explain the contradictions of his church. Don’t be satisfied with a personal, subjective, emotional "testimony." Demand clarification of confused and contradictory teachings.
When they aren’t forthcoming, be prepared to offer the truth.
I'm sorry but I can't follow your logic here. Could you please be more specific? Thank you.
When it comes to Ecumenical Councils it’s not important who presides but rather that the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Christ, who ultimately decides that such a council is to be considered ecumenical and also to approve its documents!
I’ll have to figure out how to post footnotes. There are a lot, about 20 per chapter or more.
“When it comes to Ecumenical Councils it’s not important who presides but rather that the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the Vicar of Christ, who ultimately decides that such a council is to be considered ecumenical and also to approve its documents!”
And just which Ecumenical Council decided that one? The fact of the matter is that it is very important who presides and that the Pope or his legate be present, though that isn’t absolutely necessary. The fact that the Pope and the other Patriarchs of The Church have been in schism for the past 1000 years is what has prevented there from being any Ecumenical Councils since the Great Schism. The Pope has absolutely no role in deciding whether or not a council is Ecumenical and it is entirely up to him if he approves or disapproves its declarations. That determination only has meaning when made in the negative and then only in his own Patriarchate, as history makes abundantly clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.