File this one under “giant rants.”
Gordon B. Hinckley said this in his April 2007 General Conference talk:
I confess that I do not know everything, but of some things I am certain. Of the things of which I know, I speak to you this morning.
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. [...]
Then this in Gary J. Coleman’s talk:
The first restored truth that I learned was the nature of the Godhead. The true Christian doctrine that the Godhead consists of three separate beings was known in biblical times. God bore witness of Jesus, His Only Begotten Son, on several occasions. He spoke at Jesus’s baptism: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Jesus Himself testified of God, His Father, when He said, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” After Jesus’s death and Resurrection, we learn that Stephen, “he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” What a dramatic testimony of the Godhead from that disciple of Christ.
The knowledge of God and His physical separateness from His Son and the Holy Ghost was lost after the death of Christ and His Apostles. Confusion and false doctrines about the Godhead were fashioned out of the Nicene Creed and Constantinople councils, where men declared that instead of three separate beings, the Godhead was three persons in one God, or the Trinity. Just as Christian Protestant reformers struggled with these creeds of men, I did as well. The teachings about the Trinity that I learned in my youth were incomprehensible to me.
I find this kind of talk annoying, and I’m trying to come up with something that would make a Mormon feel the same way. Surely every time a non-Mormon makes some ignorant claim about LDS beliefs or history, the LDS believer must fight an urge to roll his eyes (or laugh, on a good day). I’m reminded of a class I attended in an Institute where the instructor brought up the Nicene Creed and asked if anyone had read it. I raised my hand. He asked if I knew anything about the Council of Nicaea. I gave a brief summary up to the Council’s deliberations, at which point he made reference to the lengthy arguments and debates that went on (this is where the eye-rolling urge comes in). I pointed out that it took five days to draw up and approve the Creed.
Anyway, here’s my point: the Council of Nicaea has achieved mythical status in Mormonism, where the myth is full of errors. It really wasn’t that complicated. I have several comments addressing the talks’ excerpts, on Nicaea and other things:
1) The debate was not precisely about the nature of Deity. It was about the nature of the Son of God.
2) The “eminent divines” were the bishops of the East, which is where the debate was going on.
3) If there was a “compromise,” I have no idea what it was. If one wants to call it a compromise when Arian teaching is soundly rejected in favor of the apostolic faith, one certainly may. I call it defense of sound doctrine. The Council composed their Symbol (that is, the Creed) in five days and approved it by a vote of 313-5. Three of the five subsequently approved. It has taken longer to elect popes, and popes have been elected by much narrower margins. If the Council was so divided, I don’t know how they arrived so quickly at a compromise on a foundational doctrine of the Faith.
4) We get it. The Creeds were composed by men. So were the Gospels. So was the Book of Mormon. All Christians believe that the Bible was inspired; Mormons believe that the Standard Works were inspired; Catholics believe that Councils were and are inspired, guided by God. Before anyone objects, I’m not trying to put an anathema of Trent on the same level as the Gospel of John – I just want to make the point that if you don’t believe in something, then of course it was “man-made,” and I don’t know who benefits if you automatically attach the phrase every time you mention it.
(For more on Nicaea, visit this page of the website I haven’t written anything on since forever and ever and ever.)
Here’s something else. If it is incomprehensible and you don’t understand it, why make all these claims about it? Why bring up proof texts against it? There is nothing in the quoted texts or in all of Scripture that contradicts Catholic theology rightly understood. I have to wonder how much of an attempt a Mormon has made to understand it if he calls it incomprehensible all the time and quotes Scripture against mischaracterizations of it. I know that it can be difficult to learn, especially if one must learn for the first time all the language and nuances of theology. I have no problem with acknowledging one’s limits and ignorance, as I often do myself. But if you’re not ready to explore it as much as you can, and address what it actually contains, just stick with your claims to the truth and don’t bother with trying to engage the other claims. Call it false all you want – you believe something else. Call it incomprehensible or try to prove it wrong, but not both.
I’m glad for all of the exhortations to goodness and right living in the Conference talks. I join James E. Faust in praising the forgiveness and Christian charity of that Amish community. Regarding the statements about other churches, I feel safe assuming that the talks are directed to a Mormon audience (though I’m not sure if the message of “We’re Christians Too” is more for members or nonmembers). With that in mind, I can understand the emphasis that theirs is the one true church and all others are in error – I just wish they’d get the errors right. I think Mormons bloggers are the best at understanding and actually engaging (or at least coming close) actual beliefs of other churches. I wish Mormon scholars and ecclesial authorities would start to do the same and stop perpetuating the same old mistakes.
And as for M. Russell Ballard’s talk… let’s just not go there, shall we?
Who were these fellows addressing? It seems like nothing more than a Mormon pep rally.
I find this kind of talk annoying, and I’m trying to come up with something that would make a Mormon feel the same way.
Brad, you may have a decent example right in the recent conference talks. In his closing remarks, President Hinckley said, “Husbands, love and treasure your wives. They are your most precious possessions.” Is he saying women are chattel? Surely he’s not. Yet his remarks have already been interpreted that way by some.
[...] I think that President Hinckley’s and Elder Ballard’s remarks in the last general conference may have been a reaction to the video. I notice that Brad Haas suffers some irritation when he encounters Mormon ignorance about the Nicene Creed. I sometimes cringe as well. I would hope he could see President Hinckley’s admission that creeds confuse him as a form of progress. In the past, speaking generally and noting exceptions exist, Mormons have been all too willing to *know* all about the creeds and interpret them as demanding modalism. [...]
I just love commenting on stale threads, and with Fall General Conference coming up had to revisit this.
Finding this kind of talk annoying and looking for something to help LDS see the disconnect. How about:
(1) Proxy baptism and endowment in your temples for Catholic saints is totally unnecessary because they are already in the highest heaven, thank you.
(2) We believe the Bible is the word of God in any language; whether it’s translated from one language to another is a moot point–and we believe this, as ultimately do you, because you have the Catholic Church’s authoritative word on it. Or do you mean something else by “translate?”
(3) Our apostolic authority has been passed from hand to hand for two thousand years, yours for two hundred…at the head of our line of authority is Jesus Christ…at the head of your line of authority is Joseph Smith, oh wait a minute, wasn’t he baptized and confirmed and ordained by Oliver Cowdery, now considered an apostate Mormon? Doesn’t that break your chain of title?
(4) Catholic creeds or professions of faith are our testimony, and we renew them every Sunday at Mass as a community and every time we baptize. This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church. And we are proud to profess it in the name of Jesus Christ, amen!
BTW, thank God the LDS have simplified their credo-critique to the Nicene Creed from the Athanasian, the one most generally cited by Roberts, Talmage, Nibley et al. But maybe we need to simplify it even further down to the Apostles Creed. There, at last, twelve points of belief…shining lights for the darkness, and a springboard for a future Defensor Veritatis article?
Can’t wait for the next installment of edifying conference flabbergab. Prized possession, indeed.