Gordon B. Hinckley's anti-Christian remark

[_Mr. Coffee]

The statement is that the Catholic church (and those that are mere branchs of it) came to their conclusion about God through commitee. We have our knowledge concerning God by a personal appearance being made. That is what he is saying.

Which is why the Mormon "Articles of Faith" first appeared as a belief statement written by Oliver Crowdey in 1834, was plagerized wholesale and expanded by Joe Smith in a letter to the editor in 1842, was altered in 1851, and again in 1902? By all means, explain the difference between the Nicene Creed and the Articles of Faith for us, Gaze.

GBH is using the Nicene Creed as a way of saying that any other form of christianity is wrong, even though, just like the Articles of Faith, it is based on a supposedly devinely revealed work/s (remember that book the rest of Christianity reads called the Bible?).

GBH is a Pot calling the rest of Christianity's Kettle black.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

The statement is that the Catholic church (and those that are mere branchs of it) came to their conclusion about God through commitee. We have our knowledge concerning God by a personal appearance being made. That is what he is saying.

LOL. TBMs still cannot see the double standard here. Who witnessed this personal appearance? When was it written down? The official "version" of Joseph Smith's visit with god and Jesus was written in 1838, 18 years after the fact. There were multiple different versions written down, spoken about, etc. before 1838, but the 1838 version is the official one. Why is it the official one? Can't you see you are still taking one man's word for it? So the christians rely on the conclusion that came about through a committee of several men, and Mormons rely on the conclusion that came from one man after he wrote several rough drafts first. I still don't see the difference.

[_Gazelam]

The creeds are statements made up by a comittee as a statement of faith as to what they assume is the nature and will of God.

The articles of faith are given by a Prophet of God as a statement of belief by divine witness and education.

Please remember, all you who say: "Can't you see you are still taking one man's word for it?", that Joseph Smith shared his angels with others, he didn't scurry off on his own to have his visions and speak with angels, he brought others along with him who also saw the angels and received equal instruction at Josephs side.

I have all 4 accounts of the first vision, what exactly is your problem with the various accounts? Because some of them mention angels and others don't? Because some of them contain more detail than others?

[_Fortigurn]

The statement is that the Catholic church (and those that are mere branchs of it) came to their conclusion about God through commitee. We have our knowledge concerning God by a personal appearance being made. That is what he is saying.

Gaz, I disagree with almost all of what you write, but my word I have to say you're streets ahead of people like Cogs in terms of good old fashioned manners and a genuine will to discuss things rationally.

[_Mr. Coffee]

The creeds are statements made up by a comittee as a statement of faith as to what they assume is the nature and will of God.

Besides it being completely based in biblical scripture?

The articles of faith are given by a Prophet of God as a statement of belief by divine witness and education.

Wrong. The articles first appeared as a brief summery of LDS beliefs written by one of Smith's toadies. Almost a decade later Smith plagerized it in its entirity, added a couple bit of extra verbage and sent it to the Chicago Democrat's editor. Then it was changed again in 1851 and 1902.

Worse than being written by commitee, it seems that the Articles were written, rewritten, and edited twice by at least four people.

Both the Creed and the Articles are both statements of faith based on relevent scripture and involved multiple parties.. Which means both have equal status as being written

So then why are you insisting that the Articles have more relevence then the Nicene Creed?

Please remember, all you who say: "Can't you see you are still taking one man's word for it?", that Joseph Smith shared his angels with others, he didn't scurry off on his own to have his visions and speak with angels, he brought others along with him who also saw the angels and received equal instruction at Josephs side.

You mean JUST LIKE Jesus DID? Better still, besides being able to make dead prophets and angels appear, Jesus could also cure leperosy, feed several thousand people with a few bits of fish and some bread, and turn a couple bathtubs worth of water into high test hootch.

So exactly what makes Joe Smith so special?

what exactly is your problem with the various accounts?

I never said, at least in the context of this thread, that I had a problem with them, Gaze.

But since ya asked...

Same problem I find with anyone trying to claim anecdote as evidence. I could write stories about how my Spaghetti-O's told me Pastafarianism was the one true church and the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Earth with a spare meatball. Anecdote is worthless except as entertainment. That's the problem I have with your "accounts".

[_Coggins7]

The creeds are statements made up by a comittee as a statement of faith as to what they assume is the nature and will of God.

Besides it being completely based in biblical scripture?

Then I'm sure you could give us some compelling biblical references in which anything approaching the Christology we see in the Nicean, Athanasian, and Chalcadon creeds is to be seen in 1st century concepts of God.

The ideas found in these creeds regarding Christ's nature and his relationship to the other members of the Godhead (from which the equally unbiblical doctrine of the Trinity is derived) are completely Hellenistic in nature, and are philosophical concepts with no bearing on the concepts taught in the New Testament either by Jesus himself or his Apostles. What we see in the early medieval church is the utter displacement of primitive Christian doctrine by a thoroughly alien metaphysical system.

The idea that the Articles of faith developed over time is hardly anything but pedestrian, nor is the observation that there are multiple (but hardly logically contradictory) versions of the First Vision. The New Testament presents us with all of these very same problems. Many of the claims made about Jesus and what he did were written down not years, but decades after the events described.

Interesting that Coffee sees no problems here, nor with the imposition of neo-Platonic metaphysical concepts upon Christian doctrinal foundations well over a century removed from the organized primitive church.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Then I'm sure you could give us some compelling biblical references in which anything approaching the Christology we see in the Nicean, Athanasian, and Chalcadon creeds is to be seen in 1st century concepts of God.

Ok, so you're saying that the Bible does NOT say that "God" is "he Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible", or "Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father", or that Jesus' mom was impregnated by "God", or that "crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and 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", etc?

I guess we must have read two entirely different books then.

All the Creed says is "We believe this line of BS to be true". Which wouldn't you know, is the EXACT SAME THING that the Articles do.

The idea that the Articles of faith developed over time is hardly anything but pedestrian, nor is the observation that there are multiple (but hardly logically contradictory) versions of the First Vision. The New Testament presents us with all of these very same problems.

And the only difference between the two is the span of time over which both have existed. Both have been changed over time by multiple parties. The Nicene Creed has just been around for a lot longer, hence it's had more time for changes or additions.

Interesting that Coffee sees no problems here, nor with the imposition of neo-Platonic metaphysical concepts upon Christian doctrinal foundations well over a century removed from the organized primitive church.

No, what I have a problem with is GBH stating that his line of BS is shomhow better than someone elses or that anyone who believes differently is somehow wrong.

How about you stick to the actualy topic and quit with the strawmandering, champ?

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Coggins7 wrote:
Then I'm sure you could give us some compelling biblical references in which anything approaching the Christology we see in the Nicean, Athanasian, and Chalcadon creeds is to be seen in 1st century concepts of God.

Ok, so you're saying that the Bible does NOT say that "God" is "he Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible", or "Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father", or that Jesus' mom was impregnated by "God", or that "crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and 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", etc?

Would you please read the entire thread and my comments here? The question is about the Christology of the creeds, to whether God exists or whether Jesus is the Messiah.

All the Creed says is "We believe this line of BS to be true". Which wouldn't you know, is the EXACT SAME THING that the Articles do.

No matter how much homework you could possibly do at this point, it would probably be years before you could have an intelligent, informed discussion on this subject.


Coggins7 wrote:
The idea that the Articles of faith developed over time is hardly anything but pedestrian, nor is the observation that there are multiple (but hardly logically contradictory) versions of the First Vision. The New Testament presents us with all of these very same problems.

And the only difference between the two is the span of time over which both have existed. Both have been changed over time by multiple parties. The Nicene Creed has just been around for a lot longer, hence it's had more time for changes or additions.

There are vast differences between the two, and the "changes" are nothing more than insertions of pertinent information missing in the others or left out for whatever reason, just as in the alternate accounts of the crucifixion of Christ in the New Testament. Alternate versions, as long as they are not logically contradictory, tell us nothing about whether the events therin are true or not, either as a matter of history or doctrine.


Coggins7 wrote:
Interesting that Coffee sees no problems here, nor with the imposition of neo-Platonic metaphysical concepts upon Christian doctrinal foundations well over a century removed from the organized primitive church.

No, what I have a problem with is GBH stating that his line of BS is shomhow better than someone elses or that anyone who believes differently is somehow wrong.

How about you stick to the actualy topic and quit with the strawmandering, champ?

Try to make intellectually substantive statements in debates such as this, and stop pretending to be Vegas, Dude, or Harmony.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Then I'm sure you could give us some compelling biblical references in which anything approaching the Christology we see in the Nicean, Athanasian, and Chalcadon creeds is to be seen in 1st century concepts of God.

Which has precisely Jack and S*** to do with GBH's statements. GBH said someone else's BS is bad because of X, but his BS is good because of X. That's the topic, Coggins. Try to pay attention.

Would you please read the entire thread and my comments here? The question is about the Christology of the creeds, to whether God exists or whether Jesus is the Messiah.

No, Coggins, the question thus far is if GBH is an ass for chidding others for doing the same thing he does. Your BS about Christology is nothing more than time wasting distractions from that issue.

No matter how much homework you could possibly do at this point, it would probably be years before you could have an intelligent, informed discussion on this subject.

You got to be kidding me. The best you've got is idiotic distractions and ad hominems, Coggins. Go see a doctor and ask them to preform a rectalectimy to cure that case of rectal cranial inversion you've got.

There are vast differences between the two

Not in the context of the topic, which is weither or not GBH is an ass for suggesting that his man-made creed is any better than someone elses.

Try to make intellectually substantive statements in debates such as this, and stop pretending to be Vegas, Dude, or Harmony.

Sure thing, once you put out an argument that isn't a long winded strawman or a run-of-the-mill ad hominem attack we can get back to the topic.

[_Coggins7]

Then I'm sure you could give us some compelling biblical references in which anything approaching the Christology we see in the Nicean, Athanasian, and Chalcadon creeds is to be seen in 1st century concepts of God.

Which has precisely Jack and S*** to do with GBH's statements. GBH said someone else's BS is bad because of X, but his BS is good because of X. That's the topic, Coggins. Try to pay attention.

Would you please read the entire thread and my comments here? The question is about the Christology of the creeds, to whether God exists or whether Jesus is the Messiah.

No, Coggins, the question thus far is if GBH is an ass for chidding others for doing the same thing he does. Your BS about Christology is nothing more than time wasting distractions from that issue.

No matter how much homework you could possibly do at this point, it would probably be years before you could have an intelligent, informed discussion on this subject.

You got to be kidding me. The best you've got is idiotic distractions and ad hominems, Coggins. Go see a doctor and ask them to preform a rectalectimy to cure that case of rectal cranial inversion you've got.

There are vast differences between the two

Not in the context of the topic, which is weither or not GBH is an ass for suggesting that his man-made creed is any better than someone elses.

Try to make intellectually substantive statements in debates such as this, and stop pretending to be Vegas, Dude, or Harmony.

Sure thing, once you put out an argument that isn't a long winded strawman or a run-of-the-mill ad hominem attack we can get back to the topic.

No Mr. Coffee, its really all about the fact that you can't stand GBH or anybody else taking a strong and settled stand on anything having to do with the really serious questions of our existence here on this earth at all. It really bothers you. Indeed, it makes who furious. Who are these Mormons to say 'a' is right and 'b' is wrong?

GBH is doing nothing more or less than what most other religions have always done; he has claimed that certain things are true, certain things are not true, and that the system of belief of which he is a part has a much more complete and pure version of it than others do. He speaks it with love and civility, and perhaps that is what really bothers you.

If GBH were not willing to make such statements regarding the truth value of the propositions and claims the Church makes about various things, he would have little credibility at all and just be another wishy washy Liberal Protestant that, like a fallen leaf, just follows the river and everything else carried along with it out to sea.