Re: The Book of Mormon

Yes, archeological evidence is scant in the Western Hemisphere. The Book of Mormon is not very specific in its geographical details. There is also a lack of a comparable contemporary history such as we have in the Old World. This could be seen as a way that the book would be shielded from criticism. But remember, the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation of a sacred record started by a group that dwelled in Jerusalem and left around 600 B.C. This left Joseph Smith open to justifiable criticism concerning the linguistic, geographic, and cultural details in the Book of Mormon about these people.

Thus it is in the Old world that we find so much of the corroborating evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. Most of the evidence came to light well after the book was published in 1830. Some of the proper nouns that are found throughout the book have turned up in texts discovered since 1830. The path traveled to arrive at the sea from Jerusalem has geographical support. Linguistically the English used favors the case for a translation from a Semetic language. There are literally hundreds of points within in the book to which striking parallels can be demonstrated that have all come to light since its publishing.

Ultimately, a testimony of the truth cannot be obtained from flesh and blood, but only as Peter received it--from our Father in Heaven. But there is much internal and external evidence to suggest that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be.

Regarding Talmage, I think you have it right. Certainly Talmage is a respected and even revered scholar in his own right. He is but one. There are others too but he is well regarded.

Irrespective of whom or what you quote, there really are only two issues at the heart of the discussion that matter. All the rest are subordinate issues and if discussed as the primary points, become distractions to what actually matters. The two points of primary importance are #1, whether God has re-opened the canon and #2 whether he has once again called apostles and prophets to lead His church.

These two points are the bedrock upon which Mormonism and all our doctrine are based. That is where we should be going in the discussion. We offer a way to prove of our message to those who are honest seekers. Those who are merely curious or are looking for more ways to prove their own point and are not teachable and have hardened their hearts will not be satisfied regardless of what we say. So for those who are sincere in wanting to know, we provide a way to find out for themselves without the intervention of the understanding of men. But faith precedes the miracle. Without faith no miracle.

Re: Mormon beliefs about Christ--How about this for a start:

"we shall find that among the specific teachings of the Church respecting the Christ are these:
(1) The unity and continuity of His mission in all ages—this of necessity involving the verity of His preexistence and foreordination. (2) The fact of His antemortal Godship. (3) The actuality of His birth in the flesh as the natural issue of divine and mortal parentage. (4) The reality of His death and physical resurrection, as a result of which the power of death shall be eventually overcome. (5) The literalness of the atonement wrought by Him, including the absolute requirement of individual compliance with the laws and ordinances of His gospel as the means by which salvation may be attained. (6) The restoration of His Priesthood and the reestablishment of His Church in the current age, which is verily the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. (7) The certainty of His return to earth in the near future, with power and great glory, to reign in Person and bodily presence as Lord and King."

This is from the book “Jesus the Christ” by James Talmage, an
Apostle in the early 20th century.

Thank you for explanations of the LDS view of the Nicene Creed.
I think your critical point is the wobbliness occurs because of a lack of willingness to "re-interpret with new information". Taking that thread the LDS say such new information exists in the book of mormon etc. While Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox disagree about the meanings of various things in the canon of scripture and about the "traditions" in the end their differences are nowhere near as great as those existing between them and LDS. The events and places of the old and new testament are largely verifiable from archaelogical evidence and other historic contemporary writings. The same cannot be said for Joseph Smith's "revealed" writings in the book of mormon.
Below is a portion of text from an anti mormon website "The Mormon Conspiracy" There is a great deal of information there but I have inserted only the following.

The Mormon Church has spent large sums of money and expended tremendous efforts to prove the archeological truth of the Book of Mormon. But not one shred of evidence has been found to verify this claim. Thomas Stuart Ferguson, a former defender of the faith, who used large monetary grants in an attempt to prove the truth of Joseph Smith’s hoax, became disillusioned in his efforts. Tanner and Tanner write: ... “that he (Ferguson) had come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent 25 years trying to prove Mormonism, [through archeological research] but had finally come to the conclusion that his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away.” 3
3 Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Ferguson’s Manuscript Unveiled, (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, (Introduction), 3

I would say again the Nicene Creed expresses a common understanding of the Apostles teaching and the meaning of scriptures from real historical experience and the work of the Holy Spirit. From this perspective "traditional Christendom" stands upon a sure foundation vs the false "new information" of mormonism.

Like I said above - one thing I have not encountered in Creedal Christianity is a response to what I said earlier. I copied it below.

"It seems critically important to me that traditional Christians have built the credibility of their entire existence on whether the Creeds are accurate. They leave no room to re-interpret with new information or other points of view. That makes them fragile. So when logic and the understanding of history successfully refute any part of the Creeds the whole of traditional Christendom is shaken and starts to go wobbly. I guess you can say it puts much of what they say in doubt."

No Christianity has ever defined itself as simply "belief in the divinity of Christ." Thats why the Creeds exist. They summarize the main points of what Christian faith entails. Unless you are completely altering the historical definition of Christianity, which I believe you are, then you cannot call the above articles of your faith Christian. I hear Mormons say that they are Christian because they 'believe in Jesus Christ as their savior." But that statement is too vague and obviously meant to blur the line between what most of Christianity has believed for 2000 years and what you actually mean when you say that.

The NC says all three combined into one being. We agree with part of the NC in that all three are one in purpose, power and understanding and so forth however they are separate individuals. We take what the NT says about the three literally where the Creeds adopted a Greek version of the nature of God. I think I am correct in that last statement. It has been a while since I researched that part. It seems critically important to me that traditional Christians have built the credibility of their entire existence on whether the Creeds are accurate. They leave no room to re-interpret with new information or other points of view. That makes them fragile. So when logic and the understanding of history successfully refute any part of the Creeds the whole of traditional Christendom is shaken and starts to go wobbly. I guess you can say it puts much of what they say in doubt.

The second part of your question about what a good Christian is to understand takes a little different turn here. We are Christian because we believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ with the same understanding of other believers in Him, for the most part anyway. Some differences are His divine sonship, that His atonement covers every being in the universe not just on earth, that He followed the literal example His father set, that we are also to follow His literal example insofar as we are capable (we can’t bring about an atonement but we can sacrifice for others). Maybe the most controversial part is that in a full partaking of Christ’s inheritance we too can become divine in nature. Some traditional Christians claim that that makes us polytheists. However I think it makes it a little bit more understandable when we take the NT literally and don’t filter it through the NC. The atonement and the full inheritance of Christ is a separate course of study in itself, so brief comments like I include can’t do it justice. Does that answer your question or did I misunderstand?

What is LDS view of the Godhead and the Nicene Creed which Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox ,with some quibbling over a word or two, hold as being a good summary of the main points of what a Christian is to believe?

CT

When we speak of abominations in other dominations’ we mean doctrines which divide God’s children and separate them from Him or deny God his literal fatherhood and Christ his sonship. We hold the Nicene Creed and those like it to be such doctrines. We believe these to be traditions of men and are not supported in the NT. They are an outgrowth of despot’s need to consolidate power in a crumbling Roman empire and are an amalgam of Christianity and paganism. These are pretty strong words and seem to attack the fundamental beliefs of millions of good and decent people. For some, nothing will salve what they consider an assault. We understand that. It is not intended to be a rebuke or to be harsh. But we also believe it can be put to the test.