Gordon B. Hinckley's anti-Christian remark

[Guest]

This remark by Gordon B. Hinckley caught my ear during General Conference:

"When the emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, he became aware of the divisiveness among the clergy concerning the nature of Deity. In an attempt to overcome this he gathered the eminent divines of the day to Nicaea in the year 325. Each participant was given opportunity to state his views. The argument only grew more heated. When a definition could not be reached, a compromise was made. It came to be known as the Nicene Creed, and its basic elements are recited by most of the Christian faithful.

"Personally I cannot understand it. To me the creed is confusing.

"How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith, who, while yet a boy, spoke with God the Eternal Father and His Beloved Son, the Risen Lord."

I'm sure this went completely unnoticed by TBMs, but this is the type of negativity that Mormons are highly sensitive to when it is directed toward them, yet they engage in it toward other faiths on a fairly regular basis. Imagine if Pope Benedict stood in front of a large gathering of Catholics and briefly summarized the various versions of the First Visions then told his followers, "Personally I cannot understand it. To me Joseph Smith's multiple accounts of seeing God and Jesus are confusing. How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on one man's opinion concerning the nature of Deity."

It may seem like a minor attack, but it is an official statement coming from the church leader.

And did anyone else find Hinckley's bolded comments above ironic. The Mormon church doesn't rely on man-made statements regarding deity because their knowledge comes from Joseph Smith? WTF?

Edit: In fact I decided I like Hinckley's quote so much I added it to my signature.

[_harmony]

This remark by Gordon B. Hinckley caught my ear during General Conference:

"When the emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, he became aware of the divisiveness among the clergy concerning the nature of Deity. In an attempt to overcome this he gathered the eminent divines of the day to Nicaea in the year 325. Each participant was given opportunity to state his views. The argument only grew more heated. When a definition could not be reached, a compromise was made. It came to be known as the Nicene Creed, and its basic elements are recited by most of the Christian faithful.

"Personally I cannot understand it. To me the creed is confusing.

How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith, who, while yet a boy, spoke with God the Eternal Father and His Beloved Son, the Risen Lord."

I'm sure this went completely unnoticed by TBMs, but this is the type of negativity that Mormons are highly sensitive to when it is directed toward them, yet they engage in it toward other faiths on a fairly regular basis. Imagine if Pope Benedict stood in front of a large gathering of Catholics and briefly summarized the various versions of the First Visions then told his followers, "Personally I cannot understand it. To me Joseph Smith's multiple accounts of seeing God and Jesus are confusing. How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on one man's opinion concerning the nature of Deity."

It may seem like a minor attack, but it is an official statement coming from the church leader.

And did anyone else find Hinckley's bolded comments above ironic. The Mormon church doesn't rely on man-made statements regarding deity because their knowledge comes from Joseph Smith? WTF?

Joseph wasn't even a man; he was a boy. A child.

What amuses me no end is the irony of the current situation. We're led by old old men. We have no youth in our leadership councils. The fire and energy of the early restoration is lost forever, abdicated in order to worship at the altar of the man with the longest life.

And yes, the irony of the man-made statement is lost on those who listened to conference. We are no different from any other church, we see through a glass just as darkly as any other church, we have no pipeline straight to God, no clear channel of communication. Our prophet doesn't prophecy, and our leaders have no more insight than anyone else's. Less, actually, since our leaders refuse to listen to half the membership.

[_asbestosman]

Less, actually, since our leaders refuse to listen to half the membership.

You mean women? I think that women are more than half the membership--active anyhow.

[_moksha]

I am uncertain why he approached the subject like he did, but I doubt his intent was to be anti-catholic. I think he only wanted to affirm the LDS position.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I am uncertain why he approached the subject like he did, but I doubt his intent was to be anti-catholic. I think he only wanted to affirm the LDS position.

Oh I'm sure he didn't mean to offend. Hinckley has probably done more than any other church President to try to make amends and fit in with mainstream Christianity. But this is the type of negativity that is so prevelant in Mormonism and Mormons don't even see it. The church is setup as an alternative to mainstream Christianity, so by its nature it has to point out what makes it different and better. Nothing wrong with that, except I don't see the difference between accepting the word of the priests at Nicea and accepting the word of Joseph Smith. My main point is that the church is hypersensitive to any negativity directed toward it while the missionary effort of the church is to point out the fallacies of other churches.

[_Coggins7]

This remark by Gordon B. Hinckley caught my ear during General Conference:

"When the emperor Constantine was converted to Christianity, he became aware of the divisiveness among the clergy concerning the nature of Deity. In an attempt to overcome this he gathered the eminent divines of the day to Nicaea in the year 325. Each participant was given opportunity to state his views. The argument only grew more heated. When a definition could not be reached, a compromise was made. It came to be known as the Nicene Creed, and its basic elements are recited by most of the Christian faithful.

"Personally I cannot understand it. To me the creed is confusing.

"How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith, who, while yet a boy, spoke with God the Eternal Father and His Beloved Son, the Risen Lord."

I'm sure this went completely unnoticed by TBMs, but this is the type of negativity that Mormons are highly sensitive to when it is directed toward them, yet they engage in it toward other faiths on a fairly regular basis. Imagine if Pope Benedict stood in front of a large gathering of Catholics and briefly summarized the various versions of the First Visions then told his followers, "Personally I cannot understand it. To me Joseph Smith's multiple accounts of seeing God and Jesus are confusing. How deeply grateful I am that we of this Church do not rely on one man's opinion concerning the nature of Deity."

It may seem like a minor attack, but it is an official statement coming from the church leader.

And did anyone else find Hinckley's bolded comments above ironic. The Mormon church doesn't rely on man-made statements regarding deity because their knowledge comes from Joseph Smith? WTF?

GBH's statements in the first paragraph are a matter of common historical fact that any competent biblical scholar, whether of Christian background or secular, could tell you as a matter or settled history. The Nicene Creed was in fact a compromise that grew out of a bitter and divisive battle over Christology, primarily between tha Athanasians and the Arians, that went on throughout the 3rd and 4th centuries, and not a shred of it is biblical. Hence, what we have here is not GBH attacking "Christianity" (whatever one might mean by that term in the era in which the Creed was formulated) but a brazen accretion to what was left of it derived primarily from neo-Platonism.

If one cannot tell the difference between "attacking" another religion (what goes on here, primarily), and principled disagreement with its teachings and voicing an opinion that one is happy and relieved not to be so deceived, then one should probably not be in the arena of ideas in which these kinds of debates take place, as the muddying of waters and poisoning of wells will be the only result.


And now on to our resident pseudo-Mormon poseur extriordinaire:

Joseph wasn't even a man; he was a boy. A child.

What amuses me no end is the irony of the current situation. We're led by old old men. We have no youth in our leadership councils. The fire and energy of the early restoration is lost forever, abdicated in order to worship at the altar of the man with the longest life.

And yes, the irony of the man-made statement is lost on those who listened to conference. We are no different from any other church, we see through a glass just as darkly as any other church, we have no pipeline straight to God, no clear channel of communication. Our prophet doesn't prophecy, and our leaders have no more insight than anyone else's. Less, actually, since our leaders refuse to listen to half the membership.

1. These are statements of personal bias and preassumption, and nothing more.

2. Harmony is no more a "Mormon" in any substantive sense than I am a member of the PLO. Time to stop the pose and go to your Bishop or SP (assuming you've ever really been a Mormon in the first place) and fess up to what you really think about the fundamental doctrines, teachings, and history of the church, as well as the veracity of its leaders.

Perhaps its time for this Temple recommend holding Mormon to show her leaders all her claws?

[_richardMdBorn]

Coggins wrote

The Nicene Creed was in fact a compromise that grew out of a bitter and divisive battle over Christology, primarily between tha Athanasians and the Arians, that went on throughout the 3rd and 4th centuries, and not a shred of it is biblical.

Not a shred of it is biblical? Where did you get that remark?

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm
All three paragraphs have content which is biblical. The second paragraph, in particular, has many passages which I would think any reasonable LDS would agree are biblical. "was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate". That sounds pretty biblical to me.

[_Coggins7]

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, [i]God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made;

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.[/i]



By which I meant, to clarify, that not a shred of the Christology is biblical. Yes, the peripheral theological material is very generally biblical, but that material had little to do with the controversies to which the council at Nicea was responding.

Here's the Definition of Chalcadon:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

And the Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

While biblical statements certainly do exist in all these documents, the primary focus of all of them, the metaphysical nature of Christ and his relationship to the Father, the Godhead, and to his own human nature, are all interpreted int terms utterly alien to 1st century (and much early 2nd century) teaching and are almost completely Hellenistic in their philosophical structure.

This is creedal Christianity, not primitive Christianity as actually taught by Jesus Christ and his Apostles (and if you can find any of it in Clement or any other early Second Century writings, Please do).

[_Fortigurn]

Incredibly, I can substantially agree with Cogs' description of the history here (I shan't bother to tidy up the edges). But Cogs, I think you could have used 'poisonous stench', 'foetid imagination', 'tortuous reasoning', and 'lunatic gibbering' in some of those sentences. I'd hate to see your standard drop.

[_Coggins7]

You have the intellectual capacity of a Gummy Bear.