Re: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth

[Dave Hansen]

Lance Muir wrote: (Nicea)'the glue that holds (believers).together'. Dave, IMO, on this you are historically correct. David, it increasingly appears, is of a mind that holds to a more ideologically 'individualistic'   approach to 'truth'.It's a sort of 'popehood' of all believers approach.You, on the other hand, adhere to a tradition governed by a central authority which establishes the boundaries of (your) belief. DAVEH:   Hmmmmm......I'm having a bit of trouble understanding who you are referring to, Lance.  It would help if you would either note DaveH or DavidM or some variation.  DH or DM would work as well.     If you are suggesting that I (DH) adhere to the central authority tradition.....then I would agree, as that is how I see it in Scripture.  As far as I know, DM does not agree with me on that.   Realistically, IMO, David probably occupies a somewhat similar position to that of the current LDS prophet within his own small group. DAVEH:  I assume you are referring to DM on that one.  I suspect he won't be enamored with your comparison to LDS structure.  Though as a self proclaimed prophet, I suspect he fits that model more than he would prefer.  Perhaps he will share his thoughts on how his prophet status compares to his perception of LDS prophets. He does however, acknowledge the existence of a myriad of other 'groups' employing the same methodology and, hierarchical structure.   Dave, I believe you've been down this road prior to my coming on board but, when YOU say JESUS just what is it that you mean? DAVEH:   I believe Jesus was the firstborn spirit child of our Heavenly Father in the pre-mortal existence.  He implemented the plan of salvation, which included creating the physical earth and then let the gospel plan unfold to its inhabitants in order that they could be redeemed.   In carrying out the will of his Heavenly Father, he was God to the Israelites in the OT, and then became his Father's Only Begotten Son to his believers in the NT.  By virtue of his atoning sacrifice and resurrection he made it possible for us to overcome the barriers to us becoming one with him and his Father.  That Jesus is the one I believe was anointed in the pre-mortal existence to bring forth the immortality and eternal life of those who follow in his footsteps. Are you 'orthodox' LDS? DAVEH:  Yes.   <>What did you make of Ravi & Richard Mouw's appearance at Salt Lake City recently? DAVEH:  I found it very interesting.  I wonder if it wasn't a strategic move on the part of the LDS Church to emphasize that the detractors and protesters who make themselves public embarrassments on Conference weekends in the streets of SLC are simply creating a greater gap than those who take a more civilized approach.  <> Have you heard Ravi's message? DAVEH:  No.  I've been out of town for awhile, and have not had as much access to the net as normal.  When I returned, I had 976 TT emails alone to deal with, not counting all my work related stuff.  Unfortunately, I will probably have to delete most of them without reviewing them.  (If anybody posted anything they expected me to respond to in the past 3 weeks, please send it to me off-Forum and I'll try to respond.) <> Please critique it from your belief perspective. DAVEH:  Can't do that directly until I get a chance to read it.  However, I think there are a lot of LDS folks who are like me, inasmuch as they are curious to why Protestants believe as they do.  But...most really get turned off by the antics of those who ridicule our beliefs and go overboard in their attempt to embarrass us.  Rather than give ear to those who wave our underwear on the public streets of SLC, it is much more intriguing to invite respectful and courteous outsiders into our places of worship and listen to their reserved and civil comments.  I really don't think most LDS folks enjoy obnoxious confrontations.   Nor do I think most LDS folks feel the need to win debates and arguments.   For many LDS, their beliefs are founded in a deep faith and don't feel threatened by hearing the contrasting views of others.     Had Mauw or Ravi used their opportunity to address the LDS congregation in a ridiculing or demeaning manner, I suspect that would have been the end of such future opportunities.  In light of how I think it was perceived by the LDS folks in charge, perhaps we'll see it happen again.   PS:I genuinely mean no disrespect to David Miller. DAVEH:  I understand.  As far as I'm concerned, anybody who doesn't offer DavidM the respect he deserves, is only denigrating themselves. This is just my perception based on observation through this forum. Especially of late when I saw him in action micromanaging the conduct of others, I found it to be more than a little 'controlling'. I extrapolated from this forum (group) to his own group.  DAVEH:  Give DM some slack on that.  As the birth mother of TT, he may want to keep his chicks under his/her wing a bit longer than some of those youngsters would prefer.  I'm sure his perception of how he would like to see TT run is a bit different than that of some of us others.  I suspect he nearly reaches a point of pulling his hair out in angst on occasion, when some of us forget the purpose and rules of TT......not to mention our manners. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Hansen To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 01, 2005 01:53 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The place of creeds in relation to truth David Miller wrote: DAVEH: If a creed compromises perceptions of truth, then couldn't it be a stepping stone on the path to doctrinal error? It could be if the creed was accepted word for word in the same way that Scripture is accepted. DAVEH:  Maybe I'm wrong (again!), but it seems to me that the Nicene Creed is accepted as gospel doctrine by many folks, both Protestant and RCC.    Does it seem that way to you as well? If we tentatively embrace it, however, and our goal is truth and not validation of the creed, then it hopefully is simply helpful in the process of getting to truth. DAVEH: Isn't the Nicene Creed the glue that holds Protestantism together? Once one departs that path, do they not achieve cult status? No, not exactly. The Nicene Creed is embraced also by Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Therefore, this creed does not identify Protestantism at all. DAVEH:  I didn't say it identified Protestantism.  I suggested it is the glue that holds Protestantism together.  Do the RCC folks regard Protestantism as a cult?  I haven't perceived such.  I am guessing that the reason the RCC views Protestantism as a mainstream religion is because they (Protestants) have adopted the Nicene Creed.  If one of the mainstream Protestant denominations were to declare the NC to be doctrinally flawed, would the RCC and other mainline Protestant faiths relegate them to cult status? Part of the problem Protestants had with the Roman Catholic Church during the Reformation was their reliance upon creeds and teachings of the church fathers above that of the Scriptures. This is the crux of what caused Protestants to rebel against Roman Catholicism. DAVEH:  Yet didn't they do the same thing?  Again....I'm perceiving that their creeds (such as the NC) are accepted as doctrinally correct by most of their adherents..... Now there are large segments of Protestantism that really are simply separate institutions that look like miniature Roman Catholic Churches. They sometimes have their own "pope" so to speak (Episcopalians, Anglicans, etc.), and they consider any departure from embraced creeds to be a departure from orthodoxy and Christ. This idea that departing from creeds is indicative of error is the identical view that Roman Catholics had toward Protestants like Martin Luther. Protestants from the Reformed tradition would be examples of those Protestants who place a lot of importance upon creeds. For example, the Westminster Confession would be an example of a creed that establishes Protestantism, and those who depart from it would be considered by Reformed Protestants to be going down the path to cult status. DAVEH:   That's the perception I have from this side of the fence. This was the primary objection to James Arminius when he presented his perspective on predestination. Many accused him of departing from the Westminster Confession of Faith, and therefore, he was supposedly departing from orthodoxy. At this time, his views were considered such by his opponents, but the legacy he left makes it clear that he was not departing from the faith at all. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.