:
 (lots of stuff about the Nicene Creed deleted which can be read in the
  original basenote.  I will also leave it up to other LDS netters to
  take Mr. Weiss to task on using Mormon Doctrine to declare the difinitive
  word on what the LDS Church teaches as doctrine.  Hopefully the LDS 
  netters will be amiable in their explanation.)

Since it would do no good to rebut what Mr. Weiss has stated on the origin
of the Nicene Creed and its status as devine and inspired (I say "no good"
because it cannot be proved through discussion or debate as to whether or not 
the authors of the Creed were inspired), I leave you (it will be some time 
before I post again) with the following thought authored by Eugene England, 
Professor of English at Brigham Young University.  Mr. England wrote the 
following as part of a book review section in This People's magazine (Spring 
1993 edition):

  "I conclude with a little sermon because I believe we will not be a Mormon--
  or human--family until we can get over labeling and rejecting each other 
  with terms like feminist or patriarchal, liberal or conservative (Christian 
  or non-Christian -- Hal 8^).  When we are tempted to draw a circle around
  a set of beliefs and traditions and styles and call it American, then exclude
  those who don't fit, it may be well to consider that perhaps the most central
  defining characteristic of a good American might be "one who doesn't draw
  exclusive circles" -- that the surest way of excluding ourselves from the 
  central American ideal is by excluding others.  And when we are tempted to
  draw a circle around "Mormon" or "Christian," to decide who is "orthodox"
  and who isn't by how much they agree with us, it might be well to consider
  that the central pillar of Christ's "orthodoxy" is our ability to love
  unconditionally those who are different and include them in our family.

  "I recently spent some time in a "Christian" bookstore in California. The
  service was excellent, the clerks and customers all smiling, neat, and
  well-scrubbed, and there were the expected wholesome offerings of scriptural
  commentaries, sentimental fiction, and collections of evangelistic sermons.
  But I was dismayed to find how much shelf space was given to attacking 
  others, often viciously---whether the political left, our modern American
  culture, or other religions.  A whole section was devoted to "Cults and the
  Occult," and as you might expect, Mormonism was right there under the same
  rubric and indictment (often by the same authors) as Satanism.  And I found
  I could either rent or buy (in English or Spanish) copies of The God Makers
  (that absurdly inaccurate, even libelous, but very popular and dangerous
  anti-Mormon film that uses exaclty the same techniques and even accusations
  of the Nazi films that scapegoated Jews in the 1930s).

  "It seems to me one major indication that a person is a genuine convert to
  Christ and his redemptive love is his lack of paranoia and anxiety ("Perfect
  love casteth out fear," I John 4:18).  I have always been pleased that the
  LDS Church has not engaged in attacks on other faiths, though I find a 
  disheartening increase in willingness of individual Mormons to engage in the
  same kinds of stereotyping and scapegoating---and even threats of coercive
  action---as the "religious right wing" has launched this year against the
  political left and American cultural and religious styles they don't like.
  It is a fearful irony that in so doing Mormons take common cause with the
  very people who have most slanderously attacked Mormons---people who would,
  if they had power, forcefully restrict Mormons' rights along with those of
  others they believe to be evil."


The above "sermon" was addressed to the LDS audience who usually subscribe
to This People's magazine, but would certainly apply to all of us who
rely on the mercies and grace of Jesus Christ to bring us back into His
arms.  

Even though the LDS Church claims devine authority to exercise the principles 
of the restored gospel---as in the days of Christ, the Church does not claim 
perfection and infallibility in how those with authoritative status have or do 
now lead the Church.  I, for one, do not wish to be labelled "Christian", if 
those who profess themselves as Christians attack my beliefs because they are 
intollerent (for example) of the way my religion may interpret Biblical 
scriptures of the same source to have a different meaning and implication 
than mainstream Christianity would give it.  Once again, being in the 
majority does NOT in and of itself PROVE anything except that your collective 
voice is louder.  That's really all the critics of the LDS Church have to stand
on in terms of the kind of Biblical interpretation used as proof to counter 
the LDS Church' interpretation!  Using someone elses biased research of truths 
and non-truths (whose to say what the mixture is?) as an authoritative tool to 
disprove or discredit is not being fair to anyone, least of all themselves. 
Let us simply agree to disagree, and share beliefs through adult discussion 
and conversation, thereby uplifting everyone.  
