The Nicene Creed is Christianitys defining catechism, as it was designed to be; Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, Protestants and even non-denominational Christians who differ on so many other basic tenets ALL accept the Nicene Creed. Rejecting it makes one as "Christian" as the Gnostics of the day who claimed Christ to be a purely metaphorical parable of gnosis, or as Unitarians, or Buddhists who consider Jesus one of the Buddhas incaranations. That is "Christianity" as a humanist philosophy in which theology is highly negotiable. If Christianity requires no more than accepting Karmic Law, Wiccans are Christian--but I advise against telling them that. The Nicene Creed is not an area where "reasonable Christians can differ." Catechisms are funny that way.


And yet, we have this, from Joseph Smiths own lips and affirmed as such in "History of the Church" Volume 6:

That is a rather stunning condescending conceit: Joseph Smith claims, despite ignorance he mockingly concedes, to not only know better Hebrew than rabbis, but that one of them admitted just that. And, obviously, he also claims to teach "a plurality of Gods" (prefaced by, "I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.") Yet "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut. 6:4) The refutation he ironically demands from "apostates and learned men" is easily provided.

On the following page Smith presumes to lecture his audience about Koine before continuing to an even more stunning "revelation:"

So now Joseph Smith tells us, not just that there are many gods, but that God the Father likewise had a father who ALSO had a father; Jesus is not merely the Son of God but, according to Joseph Smiths doctrine, also the grandson and great-grandon of God. The bible is apparently "full of such a doctrine" yet I can recall no mention of the Fathers father (let alone HIS father) anywhere. Obviously, people are free to believe that doctrine or any other they like; America is still a free country. To call it Christianity, however, is laughable at best and blasphemous slander at worst. Of course, John did not "discover" that Jesus was anyones grandson simply because Joseph Smith says so, any more than the uncredited "testimony" he cites about Abraham proves it. It does not seem too much to ask that if Joseph Smith is affirming that God the Father had a father who also had a father he might also share with us the source of the "testimony" he cites in support of that doctrine.


I have read that "that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster." So says Joseph Smith, who claims a different doctrine. Why? Because "I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house." Ah. Yes. The papyrus he translated. The one no one else has ever seen nor ever can. That seems a good basis for throwing out 2000 years of Jesus and His disciples teaching trinitarianism (which Joseph Smith miscalls "sectarianism.") Given a choice between placing my faith in what God revealed to all men in a papyrus each of us can hold with our own hands and read for ourselves or what one man says God revealed to him in a papyrus no one else can see, that is a very easy call.


Good to hear, but you should be aware there is STRONG EXPLICIT argument from Joseph Smith in his funeral sermon for King Follett, specifically, in the tellingly titled section "The Righteous to Dwell in Everlasting Burnings":

The actual quote that "a little learning" would have "revealed" to the Prophet is, of course, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philipians 2:12,) but I suppose that language is less suitable for urging people to exalt themselves to Gods throne, probably because man exalting himself to Gods throne is what the serpent preached in the Garden of Eden. I can certainly see how it might lead to "everlasting burnings" though.


He did appear to His disciples after the Resurrection on a number of occasions BEFORE He ascended to heaven, so a pre-Colombian ministry to the Americas is not impossible--provided it was entirely covered in the 40 days between the Resurrection and Ascension.


Well, Tom already provided an example of the bible saying prophecy is no longer NECESSARY, but it seems clear to me that, even after Pentecost, the bible continues to affirm prophecy as a gift of the Holy Spirit and eminently POSSIBLE. Setting aside Revelation, Paul, who was still persecuting the Church when Pentecost occurred, prioritizes prophecy above all other gifts. However, invalidated prophecies makes one a false prophet and unworthy of credence; by OT standards you reference such false prophets were to stoned, IIRC, and I believe Tom also provided a few examples of dated prophecies by Joseph Smith that have not come to pass.


Without getting tangential I think there is an option beside posthumous conversion, based on the Genesis promise of a Savior, given to Adam and Eve (and by extension, all descendants) at their expulsion from Eden. Without getting into conflicting views on Pauls reference to baptism for the dead, John and Jesus both refer to baptism of the Holy Spirit and, outside of strict Baptist doctrine, baptism with water is generally seen as symbolic of ones conversion.


It changes, even inverts, the most basic ones, and thus all those dependent on them, and while the Nicene Creed did not iteself exist until the Fourth Century, it formalized what had been core Christian doctrine since the days of the first Apostles.


As Tom notes, a lot of people believe in Christ who would never identify themselves as Christian, most notably, Jews and Muslims.

So on the one hand, you say Joseph Smith affirms monotheism (as indeed he does in some of his sermons) while on the other he affirms polytheism in no uncertain terms. In addition, he teaches that Jesus not only has a Father, but a father and grandfather, claims "the bible is full of" that contention, despite its categorical dismissal of the idea. Last but not least, we have the classic teaching that man should achieve his OWN kingdom and thereby exalt himself to the very throne of God, which is not so much "Christianity" as the theology that caused the Fall of Man. That is before even addressing Joseph Smiths explicit teaching that God was once a flawed mortal and BECAME a perfect deity in just the way Joseph Smith taught we should.

If you do not hold such doctrine I, as a Christian, am overjoyed to hear it; nonetheless, that IS the official LDS theology and it does explicitly and fundamentally contradict Christianity at multiple points. It has been my experience that a lot of laity who identify as "Mormon" categorically dismiss non-Christian doctrine: They just do not realize they automatically reject the LDS church in doing so. The LDS leadership suffers no such confusion, yet nonetheless falsely presents Mormonism as Christianity both to the general public and to its own laity, and their perpetuation of that demonstrable (demonstrated) falsehood disturbs me deeply. It makes me wonder what else the LDS hierarchy knows that it does not tell or even explicitly denies, not only to me, but to you as well.