Mike Thomas, an Evangelical critic of the LDS Church who lacks any modicum of intellectual integrity, wrote the following recently about a forthcoming conference on the translation of Book of Mormon:
In a March 1988 Ensign article Dan Peterson and Stephen Ricks say of Nicea, 'Latter-day Saints do reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today. For the most part, these creeds—the most famous of which is the Nicene Creed—were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. following centuries of debate about the nature of the Godhead. Consequently, it is highly questionable whether these creeds reflect the thinking or beliefs of the New Testament church.'
The early councils of the Christian Church are typically characterised by the cults as attempts to understand doctrines long lost in apostasy. These councils were, in fact, more to do with clarifying what was believed in an attempt to refute heresies that crept into the church from the beginning.
The irony here is that, while Mormon scholars criticise councils for adding confusion to obfuscation, here we have Mormon scholars attempting to understand the 'translating process' of their founding prophet less than 200 years after the event for a church that has enjoyed unbroken control over everything it knows and teaches.
I am sorry (actually, I am not)—this is just stupid. Firstly, to compare the seriousness of the topics debated at Nicea and elsewhere (Ephesus; Chalcedon, etc) that dealt with the nature of Jesus and the nature of the Holy Spirit with the exact nature of the translation process of the Book of Mormon is simply idiotic. The former issues are core issues that greatly impact the Gospel; the latter is not an issue that impacts upon the gospel and is one of those truly tertiary issues Latter-day Saints can disagree with without anathemising one another to hell (you know, like the councils did).
Secondly, and this should be obvious, there is a difference between an Ecumenical Council and a scholarly conference. Using Thomas’ “logic,” the recent series of G3 Conferences that features a number of “heavy hitters” (e.g., D.A. Carson) within Protestantism are en par with an Ecumenical Council. If that sounds idiotic it is meant to be as I am joking and only taking Thomas' "logic" to his Protestantism—sadly, Thomas is being serious when he tries to make the comparison.
Thirdly, the conference does not claim to speak authoritatively for the LDS Church. The Ecumenical Councils did.
Fourthly, Thomas, a Protestant, is not being honest when it comes to his own approach to Ecumenical Councils. After all, as a Protestant, he would (rightly) reject the Second Council of Nicea (787) and its dogmatising the veneration of images. And something tells me he would take great exceptions with other Ecumenical Councils such as Florence, Lyons, and Trent ;-) As the 21st article in the 39 Articles of Religion of the Anglican faith states, "[councils] may err. Indeed they sometimes have erred, even in things relating to God." I am sure Thomas will agree with that.
Fifth, Latter-day Saints have no issues with councils per se; we have issues with ones that are not led by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Acts 15 is part-and-parcel of the LDS approach to such. Interestingly, this council disproves Thomas’ Protestant theology. See my discussion of Acts 15 in my article Latter-day Saints and the Bible (a response to Mike Thomas on the LDS view of the Bible and other issues).
Much more could be said, but it is clear that such "arguments" are intellectually disingenuous. For those wishing to learn more about the history of the early Councils, see Ramsay MacMullen, Voting about God in Early Church Councils (Yale University Press, 2006).