LDS Definition of Christian

[Rescued One]

Elder Robert D. Hales gave a talk entitled Being a More Christian Christian.

He says, "The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority."

OOPS! What about non-Mormons who are baptized by non-Mormons?

Like all other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints study the life of our Savior as reported in the New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I will review examples and teachings contained in these four books of the Holy Bible and invite each of us and all other Christians to consider how this restored Church and each of us qualify as followers of Christ.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Followers of Christ, General Conference, April 2013

All other Christians? Elder Hales said, "The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority."

Stephen R. Robinson said, "No one 'owns' the term Christian or has the right to deny it to others who worship Jesus as the divine Son of God...
"Name calling has often been used in religious controversies. At one time, Catholics called Protestants “heretics,” and Protestants called Catholics “papists.” But this sort of tactic amounts to nothing more than saying, “Boo for your religion, and hurrah for mine.”
Are Mormons Christians? - New Era May 1998 - new-era

That's interesting. Joseph Smith said:
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

Then he claimed that God told him the following:

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Joseph Smith - History, Chapter 1

Oh, but if you remind the Mormon of that, he will reply, "Those weren't Joseph's words! God spoke to him!"

Really. So who is a Christian according to Mormons?

The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth.
Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven

1 Nephi 13
37 And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb; and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.

The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “The building up of Zion is a cause that has interested the people of God in every age; it is a theme upon which prophets, priests and kings have dwelt with peculiar delight; they have looked forward with joyful anticipation to the day in which we live; and fired with heavenly and joyful anticipations they have sung and written and prophesied of this our day; but they died without the sight; we are the favored people that God has made choice of to bring about the Latter-day glory” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society course of study, 2007], 186).
Elder D. Todd Christofferson, Come to Zion, General Conference, October 2008.

Are Mormons inclusive or exclusive? I think it depends on the circumstances. Among themselves, they have one conversation. In order to gain converts, they'll refer to others as good Christians. If you are a critic of Mormonism, it's another story.

 

[Ironhold]

Well, when you consider that Satan smiles at a lot of the tactics our critics have used over the years...

 

[dzheremi]

Well, from what I've been able to find, the LDS view (coming from what is recorded of JS himself) does rest on a revelation which calls all existing churches wrong, and their creeds "abominations", so...it kinda makes you wonder why they then turn around and complain that others are 'denying' them the right to call themselves Christians or whatever. If my Church is wrong and its creed an abomination according to, then why does it matter that we don't consider LDS Christians? I don't exactly sit around crying that the Eastern Orthodox don't consider me Orthodox, or the Roman Catholics don't consider me Catholic. I'm not in communion with either.

What gives?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Well, from what I've been able to find, the LDS view (coming from what is recorded of JS himself) does rest on a revelation which calls all existing churches wrong, and their creeds "abominations", so...it kinda makes you wonder why they then turn around and complain that others are 'denying' them the right to call themselves Christians or whatever.

Yes, LDS believe the mainstream Christian creeds are abominations. But we still acknowledge the good that is in these faiths (cause there is a lot still) and acknowledge these people doing their best to be disciples of Christ (Christians) despite their flawed knowledge (from the LDS perspective).

The reverse is not true: many mainstream deny that LDS doing their best to be disciples of Christ (Christians) despite their flawed knowledge (from the creedal perspective).

If my Church is wrong and its creed an abomination according to, then why does it matter that we don't consider LDS Christians?

It's not about person X beliefs or what person X's church believes. It's about when people try to deny what that LDS people gives their lives as disciples of Christ.

I don't exactly sit around crying that the Eastern Orthodox don't consider me Orthodox, or the Roman Catholics don't consider me Catholic. I'm not in communion with either.

What gives?

Would you like people to deny your relationship with Christ and say "you're not a Christian!"? I don't think so.

 

[Rescued One]

Well, from what I've been able to find, the LDS view (coming from what is recorded of JS himself) does rest on a revelation which calls all existing churches wrong, and their creeds "abominations", so...it kinda makes you wonder why they then turn around and complain that others are 'denying' them the right to call themselves Christians or whatever. If my Church is wrong and its creed an abomination according to, then why does it matter that we don't consider LDS Christians? I don't exactly sit around crying that the Eastern Orthodox don't consider me Orthodox, or the Roman Catholics don't consider me Catholic. I'm not in communion with either.

What gives?

"What gives?" We'd love to have an answer to that.

 

[fatboys]

Elder Robert D. Hales gave a talk entitled Being a More Christian Christian.

He says, "The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority."

OOPS! What about non-Mormons who are baptized by non-Mormons?

Like all other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints study the life of our Savior as reported in the New Testament books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I will review examples and teachings contained in these four books of the Holy Bible and invite each of us and all other Christians to consider how this restored Church and each of us qualify as followers of Christ.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Followers of Christ, General Conference, April 2013

All other Christians? Elder Hales said, "The word Christian denotes taking upon us the name of Christ. We do this by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those holding His priesthood authority."

Stephen R. Robinson said, "No one 'owns' the term Christian or has the right to deny it to others who worship Jesus as the divine Son of God...
"Name calling has often been used in religious controversies. At one time, Catholics called Protestants “heretics,” and Protestants called Catholics “papists.” But this sort of tactic amounts to nothing more than saying, “Boo for your religion, and hurrah for mine.”
Are Mormons Christians? - New Era May 1998 - new-era

That's interesting. Joseph Smith said:
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

Then he claimed that God told him the following:

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Joseph Smith - History, Chapter 1

Oh, but if you remind the Mormon of that, he will reply, "Those weren't Joseph's words! God spoke to him!"

Really. So who is a Christian according to Mormons?

The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth.
Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven

1 Nephi 13
37 And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb; and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.

The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “The building up of Zion is a cause that has interested the people of God in every age; it is a theme upon which prophets, priests and kings have dwelt with peculiar delight; they have looked forward with joyful anticipation to the day in which we live; and fired with heavenly and joyful anticipations they have sung and written and prophesied of this our day; but they died without the sight; we are the favored people that God has made choice of to bring about the Latter-day glory” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [Melchizedek Priesthood and Relief Society course of study, 2007], 186).
Elder D. Todd Christofferson, Come to Zion, General Conference, October 2008.

Are Mormons inclusive or exclusive? I think it depends on the circumstances. Among themselves, they have one conversation. In order to gain converts, they'll refer to others as good Christians. If you are a critic if Mormonism, it's another story.

We call it like is. Look I don't have a problem with critics when they get our beliefs right but most times they have far fetched understanding. If they are corrected and they still spew garbage then that is different. If this is the true church and you spend your time find fault which you can in any religion or organization then you fighting against the true church which is really bad.

 

[dzheremi]

Would you like people to deny your relationship with Christ and say "you're not a Christian!"? I don't think so.

Again, I wouldn't care. I know my Church is Orthodox, and I know its peoples' faith, because that's my faith too.

I don't understand what the big deal is when groups you don't even consider to be believing or worshiping correctly say the same about you. In an LDS context it seems especially strange, as it's not like you were ever in communion with wider Christianity to begin with. You found a church or whatever you'd call it on the belief that not only is everyone else wrong, but that the church itself has been absent from the earth until your particular guy restored it via a revelation that only your group recognizes (what luck), and yet you are upset that this setup actually has an impact on how those same churches and communions that you are condemning see you?

It'd be one thing if the LDS had a long history of communion with other churches prior to some rupture in that communion as the result of doctrinal disagreements (as is the case for the major historical schisms following Ephesus, Chalcedon, or the mutual excommunications of 1054), because then you could legitimately point to the pre-schism eras and use that as a base from which to argue that you share a considerable amount of theology and history with groups that you are nonetheless not in communion with, but when you begin your life as a church/community specifically by denying the common faith by which the identification of such commonalities would be possible, then what on earth do you expect? You're not exactly giving the rest of the Christian world a lot to go on to substantiate your insistence that you're Christian, given the substantial, primordial theological and doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Christianity. Difference that, I remind you, are there entirely on purpose so as to distinguish your 'true', 'restored' church from all those that predate yours, with their abominable creeds and whatnot.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, and to the extent that you try to do so, of course others are going to call you on it and deny that what you are preaching and following is Christianity. You make it that way by attempting to redefine what that means specifically in opposition to what all preexisting Christian traditions say.

So again: Why are you so hurt that others say you are not Christian when the entire reason your religion exists in the first place is to be in opposition to preexisting Christian traditions?

 

[Rescued One]

We call it like is. Look I don't have a problem with critics when they get our beliefs right but most times they have far fetched understanding. If they are corrected and they still spew garbage then that is different. If this is the true church and you spend your time find fault which you can in any religion or organization then you fighting against the true church which is really bad.

Just tell us who you think is a Christian.

 

[fatboys]

Just tell us who you think is a Christian.

Those that follow Christ

 

[Jane_Doe]

Again, I wouldn't care. I know my Church is Orthodox, and I know its peoples' faith, because that's my faith too.

I don't understand what the big deal is when groups you don't even consider to be believing or worshiping correctly say the same about you. In an LDS context it seems especially strange, as it's not like you were ever in communion with wider Christianity to begin with. You found a church or whatever you'd call it on the belief that not only is everyone else wrong, but that the church itself has been absent from the earth until your particular guy restored it via a revelation that only your group recognizes (what luck), and yet you are upset that this setup actually has an impact on how those same churches and communions that you are condemning see you?

It'd be one thing if the LDS had a long history of communion with other churches prior to some rupture in that communion as the result of doctrinal disagreements (as is the case for the major historical schisms following Ephesus, Chalcedon, or the mutual excommunications of 1054), because then you could legitimately point to the pre-schism eras and use that as a base from which to argue that you share a considerable amount of theology and history with groups that you are nonetheless not in communion with, but when you begin your life as a church/community specifically by denying the common faith by which the identification of such commonalities would be possible, then what on earth do you expect? You're not exactly giving the rest of the Christian world a lot to go on to substantiate your insistence that you're Christian, given the substantial, primordial theological and doctrinal differences between Mormonism and Christianity. Difference that, I remind you, are there entirely on purpose so as to distinguish your 'true', 'restored' church from all those that predate yours, with their abominable creeds and whatnot.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, and to the extent that you try to do so, of course others are going to call you on it and deny that what you are preaching and following is Christianity. You make it that way by attempting to redefine what that means specifically in opposition to what all preexisting Christian traditions say.

So again: Why are you so hurt that others say you are not Christian when the entire reason your religion exists in the first place is to be in opposition to preexisting Christian traditions?

You're acting like i'm wanting to join a club or be invited to a party or something. No, it's not about that. I don't care about peer pressure or the traditions of men. I don't want to be a part of your Orthodox church or express your doctrine or anything like that.

I am what I am: a Christian disciple of Christ.

 

[BigDaddy4]

You're acting like i'm wanting to join a club or be invited to a party or something. No, it's not about that. I don't care about peer pressure or the traditions of men. I don't want to be a part of your Orthodox church or express your doctrine or anything like that.

I am what I am: a Christian disciple of Christ.

Who believes in the man made doctrine of the lds church...

 

[Jane_Doe]

.

 

[dzheremi]

You're acting like i'm wanting to join a club or be invited to a party or something. No, it's not about that. I don't care about peer pressure or the traditions of men. I don't want to be a part of your Orthodox church or express your doctrine or anything like that.

I'm not saying you want to be Orthodox. It's pretty clear you don't. That's not the point. My question is why Mormons even care that Christianity rejects them when the entire reason the LDS religion exists is because of its founder's complete and total rejection of Christianity.

It'd be like me getting mad that I'm not accepted as a Muslim, when I completely and totally reject Islam, the Qur'an, Muhammad, and everything brought by him. Of course I'm not a Muslim! It wouldn't hurt my feelings that any Muslim would say so, since it's obviously true, and if it really bothered me so much, I could accept the Islamic creed and become a Muslim.

The LDS, on the other hand, want to reject all other churches and all Christian creeds and still want to be considered Christians by the very people and churches that their own community rejects and calls an abomination. It's a little odd, to say the least. Like I said in the other post, because LDS reject all other churches and all of their statements of belief, you don't exactly give Christian churches or people much of a means by which to affirm your claim that you are Christians...especially when they look at what you believe in instead...

I am what I am: a Christian disciple of Christ.

I'm sorry, but no. Mormonism is not a form of Christianity, so no, you are not. You clearly love Christ and try to follow Him as best as you can within in your chosen religious tradition, but the same can be said about Muslims (and often is, at least by Muslims themselves in interreligious dialogue), and that does not make them Christians either.

 

[Jane_Doe]

The LDS, on the other hand, want to reject all other churches and all Christian creeds

The man made creeds don't determine who's Christian. For that you should refer to God and His words.

Like I said in the other post, because LDS reject all other churches and all of their statements of belief

And yet still acknowledge that you're Christians. The reverse is not true.

I'm sorry, but no. Mormonism is not a form of Christianity, so no, you are not.

As determined by who? God or men and their creeds?

You clearly love Christ and try to follow Him as best as you can within in your chosen religious tradition, but the same can be said about Muslims (and often is, at least by Muslims themselves in interreligious dialogue), and that does not make them Christians either.

As a Muslim doesn't accept Christ and their lord and savior, so this is irrelevant.

 

[dzheremi]

The man made creeds don't determine who's Christian. For that you should refer to God and His words.

As the creeds do. It would take up too much space to paste it all here, but there are various places online where the Nicene Creed -- the primary creed of all Christianity -- is presented with its scriptural support, line by line. Here is one such example from an Eastern Orthodox website: “Nicene Creed”

Here is another such example from an interdenominational/non-denominational organization: http://www.prayerfoundation.org/nicene_creed_scripture_basis.htm

And here is one from a Roman Catholic website: The Catholic Eternal Truth: SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR THE NICENE CREED

Taken together, that's the majority of Christianity right there, since the Creed itself is so basic. Even the Armenians, who do not use the common form of the Creed given above (which is the 'Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan' version, an expanded and clarified form of the 325 creed from the Council of Constantinople, 381), but instead an earlier, intermediate form, most likely attributable to St. Epiphanius of Salamis (written 374, in a synod gathered in Jerusalem consisting of St. Epiphanius and many other bishops), most definitely affirm Nicaea and Constantinople -- for instance, they recite the anathemas given at Nicaea in the liturgy itself, and in the 9th hour prayers of their daily office, directly after the Creed itself.

And yet still acknowledge that you're Christians. The reverse is not true.

Nor should it be. The entire point of having creeds is to determine who is following the faith and who isn't, such that if you do not, the people who do are not going to recognize your faith as being the same as theirs. Hence, the LDS preach a different faith and are a different religion. (Don't get me wrong, there are vast differences within Christianity itself, too, but so long as a given group affirms the Creed, they at least meet the basics of what has been deemed historically necessary to consider them fellow Christians, even as they may be in error in various ways according to whichever church is being looked at, and who is doing the looking.)

As determined by who? God or men and their creeds?

The trouble with this very leading question is that it presupposes that 'God' gives sanction to any belief that a person might come up with by virtue of it not being creedal. If you give it a little bit of forethought, you should see that this question really isn't answerable as asked, because you will not find anyone in any religion, be it expressed by creeds or not, who will say anything other than "I am following God", and yet all religions have some basic means by which they can say that this belief is within the boundaries of what they accept, while this other belief is not. So it is less about "is it in a creed written by men, or are you following God", and more about the means which a given religion or tradition has for determining who among them who claims to be following God actually is doing so, according to that religion's or tradition's common vision of what it means to follow God in the first place. That's how my questions relate directly back to the OP, which is about how the LDS determine who is Christian and who isn't.

So if you take a religion that claims to not be creedal, such as Mormonism, you see that there are still various things which are central enough to that belief which all recognized members agree are central to it, such that lack of belief in them renders a person or an organization not Mormon. It is only 'not creedal' because you don't write them down in the form of a creed which you recite (though I'd be willing to bet that they are probably written down somewhere, in some piece of literature or some part of the lds website). That doesn't keep you from telling the person who claims to be Mormon but refuses to recognize (e.g.) Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon as teaching the correct faith that they are not in fact Mormon.

So this "Creed or God" presupposition really doesn't work, since it presupposes (a) that the creed is somehow in opposition to God, and (b) that the Mormon religion is somehow functionally different than any other religion just because they don't have a written creed as Christianity does. Neither of these things are actually true.

As a Muslim doesn't accept Christ and their lord and savior, so this is an irrelevant red-herring.

Ehhh, you're half right. Islam does not teach that Christ is God, but is very big on Christ being the Messiah. He's referred to in the Qur'an itself several times as al-Masih (المسيح), which is the Arabic translation of 'Messiah', albeit with very different theological implications when used by a Muslim because of their lack of belief in Christ's divinity.

Anyway, that's missing the point of the analogy, which is that Muslims, like Mormons, would say that they are true followers of Jesus Christ, and yet that is not accepted of them by actual Christians because their beliefs are wildly at variance with Christianity, just as Mormon beliefs are wildly at variance with Christianity. So some group outside of the religion saying "We are followers of Christ" doesn't mean anything if their theology is not acceptable, as is the case with both Mormons and Muslims.

 

[Jane_Doe]

As the creeds do. It would take up too much space to paste it all here, but there are various places online where the Nicene Creed -- the primary creed of all Christianity -- is presented with its scriptural support, line by line. Here is one such example from an Eastern Orthodox website: “Nicene Creed”

Here is another such example from an interdenominational/non-denominational organization: http://www.prayerfoundation.org/nicene_creed_scripture_basis.htm

And here is one from a Roman Catholic website: The Catholic Eternal Truth: SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR THE NICENE CREED

Taken together, that's the majority of Christianity right there, since the Creed itself is so basic. Even the Armenians, who do not use the common form of the Creed given above (which is the 'Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan' version, an expanded and clarified form of the 325 creed from the Council of Constantinople, 381), but instead an earlier, intermediate form, most likely attributable to St. Epiphanius of Salamis (written 374, in a synod gathered in Jerusalem consisting of St. Epiphanius and many other bishops), most definitely affirm Nicaea and Constantinople -- for instance, they recite the anathemas given at Nicaea in the liturgy itself, and in the 9th hour prayers of their daily office, directly after the Creed itself.

Who is the author of these creeds?

Ehhh, you're half right. Islam does not teach that Christ is God, but is very big on Christ being the Messiah. He's referred to in the Qur'an itself several times as al-Masih (المسيح), which is the Arabic translation of 'Messiah', albeit with very different theological implications when used by a Muslim because of their lack of belief in Christ's divinity.

Hence my point. Muslims do not accept Christ as their Lord and Savior.

 

[BigDaddy4]

The man made creeds don't determine who's Christian. For that you should refer to God and His words.

And yet the man made lds articles of faith determines who is lds. How quaint your hypocrisy is.

 

[dzheremi]

Who is the author of these creeds?

It depends on what tradition you are looking at. Some traditions (such as my own Coptic tradition) say that HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic authored the Nicene Creed, while others say it was HH St. Athanasius together with HG Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, while still others say that it was a collaborative effort between a number of the bishops present. This is immaterial to the fact that it was accepted by all present, and has been in every church of every tradition ever since, for 1,692 years and counting.

Besides, you're burying the lead, which is that despite the effort to show or claim that it is somehow in opposition to God or the scriptures, it is thoroughly rooted in the scriptures (this despite the fact that it was authored some 42 years before the first list of the common 27-book NT even existed, so it is in a sense 'pre-Biblical', as the most basic/foundational Christian beliefs and traditions are), can be shown to be so, and is accepted as being so by all Christian churches. That's why even those who disagree with many, many things that other churches do on account of their supposed lack of Biblical/scriptural foundation (think the various disagreements between Catholics and Protestants) do not touch the Nicene Creed. Even those churches which have their own much later doctrinal statements, such as the Church of England with its 39 articles (1563), still affirm the Nicene Creed. [You can read about the Anglican use of the Creed here.]

Hence my point. Muslims do not accept Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Yep. We agree that Muslims are not Christians. Again, that's not the point of the comparison.

 

[Jane_Doe]

It depends on what tradition you are looking at. Some traditions (such as my own Coptic tradition) say that HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic authored the Nicene Creed, while others say it was HH St. Athanasius together with HG Bishop Hosius of Cordoba, while still others say that it was a collaborative effort between a number of the bishops present. This is immaterial to the fact that it was accepted by all present, and has been in every church of every tradition ever since, for 1,692 years and counting.

Aka a sinful man or men.

Besides, you're burying the lead, which is that despite the effort to show or claim that it is somehow in opposition to God or the scriptures

They are NOT scripture, which is the very point.

 

[dzheremi]

Aka a sinful man or men.

Jane_Doe, we've been over this and over this. Yes, they are sinful men; no, that does not in even the slightest bit invalidate or diminish the work they have done in outlining the Christian faith in this instance or any other instance. They were sinful men, but by the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the life-giver, all Christians affirm that they got it right in the case of the Creed.

I hate to repeat myself, since I know I've written about this before in one of our earlier conversations when you repeated this same non-accusation as though it means something, but those same sinful men gave you the Bible that your religion uses. HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic was the first to promulgate the standard list of 27 books that have since then (367 AD) comprised the basis of every single Christian church's New Testament (some, like the Ethiopians, have more than these 27, but all have at least those). You quite literally would not have the Bible in the form that you do were it not for sinful men doing their jobs as bishops, whether individually (as is the case for HH's list, which was part of the 39th festal letter he sent to the churches in his country of Egypt) or in synods and councils (as is the case for the Council of Carthage in 382, which was the place where HH's list of books was first accepted by the Western, Latin-speaking Church). None of us would. Before that time, there was no 'the Bible', because there was no canon that was agreed upon by all Christianity.

So clearly your religion has no problem accepting what such 'sinful men' have given you which you take as the basis of your religion by setting up this 'God or men' or 'scripture or men' false dichotomy in the first place. It is no business of mine that this is the case (in the sense that I am not writing any of this to get you to accept the Nicene Creed just because the same person/people behind it also canonized the Bible that we now all use; Mormons would hardly be unique in claiming to be 'non-credal' while unknowingly depending so heavily on what the authors of the Creed, who after all are the early church itself working in that era, gave them), I just want it to be recorded in this thread that this is the historical reality of what we are dealing with when people claim that the Creed or the people who authored it is set up against the Bible. That's literally impossible because the only sense by which anyone in our time has any idea of what 'the Bible' even is (as in, the literal contents of the actual physical book that we can point to and call the 'the Bible', separate from any one sect or church's interpretation of it and its message) is by recourse to the work of those very same men who authored that very same thoroughly Biblical creed which all Christianity takes as its rule of faith.

They are NOT scripture, which is the very point.

Is this going to be a retread of the ongoing conversation about Mormon vs. Christian attitudes towards the cross, wherein you are arguing something that nobody here disputes or has ever claimed, and it goes on forever because you do not see how your replies do not actually address anything that has been posted? I really don't want that to be the case. Please, please recognize what I have actually written. What I wrote was:

"...it (the Creed) is thoroughly rooted in the scriptures (this despite the fact that it was authored some 42 years before the first list of the common 27-book NT even existed, so it is in a sense 'pre-Biblical', as the most basic/foundational Christian beliefs and traditions are), can be shown to be so, and is accepted as being so by all Christian churches." (emphasis added)

You will notice, I hope, that I do not claim that the Creed is scripture. It is rooted in scripture, as was shown by the three links given which detail its scriptural basis.

Please do not respond with further off-topic replies which do not address what I actually write. That is incredibly tiresome. You are debating strawmen of your own making at this point.