39 replies to this topic

[dougtheavenger]

In Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision, he tells us
'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.”'

So from this we see that the Nicene creed and Athanasian creed and other creeds are an abomination in the sight of God. So clearly these creeds are at odds with LDS doctrine. Where does LDS doctrine and these creeds agree and where do they differ?

Where do LDS doctrine and the creeds agree?
1. Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father.
2. Jesus was begotten of the Father before all worlds.
3. Jesus was "not made, nor created; but begotten". Thus there is a clear distinction between begotten and created.

Where do LDS doctrine and the creeds differ?
1. "The Son is of the Father alone". (Athanasian creed) From this, we may deduce there is no Heavenly Mother.
2. "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God," (Nicene creed) From this we might deduce that God the Father has no other sons, or daughters.

Edited by dougtheavenger, 29 June 2012 - 05:44 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

Dougtheavenger:

Where do LDS doctrine and the creeds agree?
1. Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father.
2. Jesus was begotten of the Father before all worlds.
3. Jesus was "not made, nor created; but begotten". Thus there is a clear distinction between begotten and created.

1. Partially true, but that equality doesn't extent to everything. IE; God the Father alone knows when Jesus is to return.
2.True, but in LDS theology we are all Gods' children and thus spiritually begotten by the Father before all the worlds.
3. Not true. Jesus was the first begotten of all his children.

[Kevin Christensen]

Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings,  ("It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine"; Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183-84), but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to." (TPJS, 327).  Joseph Smith also said of the creeds that "all of them have some truth."

"The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members [of] the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time." DHC 5:215.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[David T]

Quote

Joseph Smith opposed creeds

As did the Pratt brothers. Which makes it ironic that since Joseph's death, we have canonized and set up the Articles of Faith as a very literal Creed - even though the wording and emphases in Joseph's 1840s summary based off of a Pratt brother's earlier summary isn't completely representative of further developments (even in Joseph's lifetime), or especially 21st Century Mormonism.

I'd love to see some additions and revisions to the AoF, and view them as just as flexible as, say, the RS Motto, or YW theme.

Edited by David T, 29 June 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

David T:

I  think there is a big difference between stating what we believe, and the self initiated limits of a creed.

We could add to them anytime we really wanted to, but I  see no need to right now.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 29 June 2012 - 07:55 AM.

[David T]

thesometimesaint, on 29 June 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

David T:

I  think there is a big difference between stating what we believe, and the self initiated limits of a creed.

thesometimesaint,

Creed literally means a profession of beliefs. It comes from the term 'credo', which means, 'I believe'.

When we are reciting 'We Believe...' as part of a set document, we are, by definition, reciting a creed.

Quote

We could add to them anytime we really wanted to, but I  see no need to right now.

And Talmage did edit it about a Century ago. But just by tweaking a word or two.

Perhaps amend the part about New Jerusalem to express that the current revealed expression of the building of Zion is worldwide, and not simply Americentric. "We believe in the literal gathering of Israel; that Zion will be built wherever the Saints are found;", etc.

Perhaps a mention that we also affirm the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price ("We believe that the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are inspired, and contain the word of God"), and perhaps an additional expression of 'We believe that the Covenants and blessings available in Temples provide for bonds of Eternal Family Unity', remove references to 'pastors' and 'evangelists' which are not terms we even use in the Church today, etc.

Edited by David T, 29 June 2012 - 08:16 AM.

[David T]

Something like this:

• We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
  
• We believe that men and women will be punished  are responsible for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
  
• We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
  
• We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
  
• We believe that the Covenants and blessings available in Temples provide for further bonds of Eternal Family Unity
  
• We believe that a man one must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
  
• We believe in an inspired pattern of Church the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, , and offices namely living apostles, prophets, Seventies, pastors Bishops, Elders, Priests, teachers, evangelists, deacons, Patriarchs, and so forth.
  
• We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
  
• We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are inspired, and contain to be the word of God.
  
• We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
  
• We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent wherever the Saints are found; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
  
• We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
  
• We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
  
• We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

[altersteve]

The creeds are an abomination to God because they leave no room for continuing revelation. That's how I've always seen it.

[Evangeline]

David T, on 29 June 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

Creed literally means a profession of beliefs. It comes from the term 'credo', which means, 'I believe'.

When we are reciting 'We Believe...' as part of a set document, we are, by definition, reciting a creed.

This was my impression as well.  

creed  (krd)
n.

1. A formal statement of religious belief; a confession of faith.

2. A system of belief, principles, or opinions: laws banning discrimination on the basis of race or creed; an architectural creed that demanded simple lines.

I don't see anywhere in that definition the caveat "not subject to change,"  although admittedly many might see it that way.

Edited by Evangeline, 29 June 2012 - 10:07 AM.

[Evangeline]

Kevin Christensen, on 29 June 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

"The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members [of] the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time." DHC 5:215.

Isn't this a sort of creed?  

Perhaps the definition of creed that Joseph Smith was using needs to clarified.

[thesometimesaint]

David T:

Not really. A creed puts a limit on what we believe as to continuing revelation. IE; A closed canon.

[David T]

thesometimesaint, on 29 June 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

David T:

Not really. A creed puts a limit on what we believe as to continuing revelation. IE; A closed canon.

That's a special pleading definition. IE, "Everyone else's creed but ours". A creed is a statement of beliefs, period. While most view established creeds as being unchangeable and as a de-facto test for orthodoxy, they do not need to be such.

The Articles of Faith are a creed. And they have been mostly static for nearly 175 years. While we are theoretically able to update and revise it as revelation (and one of the Articles!) specifically allows, apart from adjustment of a couple words, the fact is, we haven't.

We just don't tend to like to call it a creed, because creed has become a dirty word in Mormonism. But it really is a creed. Potentially elastic, yes, but still a canonized, authoritative, oft recited creed.

Edited by David T, 29 June 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[TAO]

David T, on 29 June 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

That's a special pleading definition. IE, "Everyone else's creed but ours". A creed is a statement of beliefs, period. While most view established creeds as being unchangeable and as a de-facto test for orthodoxy, they do not need to be such.

The Articles of Faith are a creed. And they have been mostly static for nearly 175 years. While we are theoretically able to update and revise it as revelation (and one of the Articles!) specifically allows, apart from adjustment of a couple words, the fact is, we haven't.

We just don't tend to like to call it a creed, because creed has become a dirty word in Mormonism. But it really is a creed. Potentially elastic, yes, but still a canonized, authoritative, oft recited creed.

David, if you look at what Joseph Smith said, I think he was probably (in my opinion) referring to the creeds of the special definition that thesometimessaint listed - that is, he opposed a closed cannon, and preferred a cannon where people could learn truths where and when they came to them.

Edited by TAO, 29 June 2012 - 10:55 AM.

[altersteve]

David T, on 29 June 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

That's a special pleading definition. IE, "Everyone else's creed but ours". A creed is a statement of beliefs, period. While most view established creeds as being unchangeable and as a de-facto test for orthodoxy, they do not need to be such.

The Articles of Faith are a creed. And they have been mostly static for nearly 175 years. While we are theoretically able to update and revise it as revelation (and one of the Articles!) specifically allows, apart from adjustment of a couple words, the fact is, we haven't.

We just don't tend to like to call it a creed, because creed has become a dirty word in Mormonism. But it really is a creed. Potentially elastic, yes, but still a canonized, authoritative, oft recited creed.

What made the Christian creeds an abomination to God was that their purpose was to define their doctrines in such a way that they cannot be added to or changed with additional understanding. The idea of continuing revelation was foreign to these creeds' authors. "Hitherto shalt thou come and no further." The Articles of Faith say no such thing.

[Evangeline]

altersteve, on 29 June 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

What made the Christian creeds an abomination to God was that their purpose was to define their doctrines in such a way that they cannot be added to or changed with additional understanding. The idea of continuing revelation was foreign to these creeds' authors. "Hitherto shalt thou come and no further." The Articles of Faith say no such thing.

Agreed.  So, in other words, it is those particular creeds, not the concept of "creeds" in general that is the issue.

[altersteve]

Evangeline, on 29 June 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Agreed.  So, in other words, it is those particular creeds, not the concept of "creeds" in general that is the issue.

Exactly. And it's not even what the creeds said, necessarily, that was abominable to God, it's that those creeds themselves did not allow any room for their errors to be corrected.

Edited by altersteve, 29 June 2012 - 11:21 AM.

[David T]

Evangeline, on 29 June 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Agreed.  So, in other words, it is those particular creeds, not the concept of "creeds" in general that is the issue.

Or rather, how the creeds were treated and viewed. For example, if there is ever an outcry or view that the AoF can or should never be revised, then it will have fit the definition.

I just find it unfortunate that after 175ish years, and many important developments, our "Good Kind of Creed" hasn't been updated to more clearly reflect the changes that it anticipates and invites.

[Evangeline]

David T, on 29 June 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

Or rather, how the creeds were treated and viewed. For example, if there is ever an outcry or view that the AoF can or should never be revised, then it will have fit the definition.

I just find it unfortunate that after 175ish years, and many important developments, our "Good Kind of Creed" hasn't been updated to more clearly reflect the changes that it anticipates and invites.

Fair enough.  What actually bothers me is the idea that our religion is somehow "above" creeds.  I personally see that as false and rather prejudicial.

[David T]

Evangeline, on 29 June 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Fair enough.  What actually bothers me is the idea that our religion is somehow "above" creeds.  I personally see that as false and rather prejudicial.

Not 'above', just non-conducive. A religion based on the principle of continuing revelation is not compatible with a set never-designed-to-be-updated statement of defining beliefs. Manuals that get revised, updated, replaced, and set aside are fantastic, and to be expected.

However, the dynamic ideas of "we don't have a set creed" and "The canon is open" is somewhat worthless if practically, there is an unchanging set creed, and the canon is rarely ever revised or added to.

"We believe we can do these things, but we just don't."

Edited by David T, 29 June 2012 - 11:39 AM.

[Yep]

In regards to the general direction of this topic, I believe that the issue is that we do believe in divinely revealed creeds, however we do not believe in the creeds of men.  The creeds referenced are creeds written by men without revelation to further define the gospel, in my opinion man adding to scripture.  I fail to see how man, without God's guidance, can better define the gospel than God did or, in the LDS paradigm, does.  So, I think that the real disparity is that we do not believe in the traditions (creeds) of men, but in the continuing revelations (creeds) of God.  Man has some truth, but he, man, often inserts his own beliefs and interpretations into his, man's, statements.

David T, on 29 June 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

[/font][/color]

As did the Pratt brothers. Which makes it ironic that since Joseph's death, we have canonized and set up the Articles of Faith as a very literal Creed - even though the wording and emphases in Joseph's 1840s summary based off of a Pratt brother's earlier summary isn't completely representative of further developments (even in Joseph's lifetime), or especially 21st Century Mormonism.

I'd love to see some additions and revisions to the AoF, and view them as just as flexible as, say, the RS Motto, or YW theme.

The AoF were not intended as a creed.  While canonized,I do not believe that we should attempt to view them in a different manner than they were intended.
(Literature of Belief, Footnotes)

5. A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1930), 2:131. Recent research suggests that Joseph Smith's formulation of the Articles of Faith may not have been as spontaneous and immediate as B. H. Roberts' description might lead one to believe: Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Young—a brother of Brigham Young—Orson Pratt, and Orson Hyde each wrote a series of Articles of Faith before those written by Joseph Smith. Although Joseph Smith's bear a marked similarity to earlier versions and may have been based on them in certain respects, his are more precise, more penetrating, and considerably broader than any of the earlier versions. Even in light of these facts, B. H. Roberts is surely correct in his assertion that they "were not produced by the labored efforts and the harmonized contentions of scholastics" (p. 131). See John W. Welch and David J. Whittaker, "'We Believe . . .' Development of the Articles of Faith," Ensign, Sept. 1979, pp. 51-55. See also T. Edgar Lyon, "Joseph Smith: The Wentworth Letter and Religious America of 1842," 5 December 1954, in vol. 2, Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermons (Logan, Utah: LDS Institute of Religion, 1966), pp. 116-19. Here the point is made, among others, that Joseph Smith did not intend the Articles of Faith to be a creed in the normative and prescriptive sense in which some creeds function. This fact tends to emphasize their personal, confessional quality.