39 replies to this topic

[dougtheavenger]

thesometimesaint, on 29 June 2012 - 07:03 AM, said:

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.

I'm not sure I understand your objection to 3. It is true that Jesus was the first begotten but the phrase "not made, nor created; but begotten" is meant to leave no doubt about whether Jesus was a created being or not. He was not created.

[David T]

Yep, on 29 June 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

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.



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.

I never argued that Joseph designed them to be as such. It was prepared for a specific publication for a specific time as part of a specifically purposed presentation of Church History. I have the feeling that he, and the Pratts (whose language and organization was borrowed by Joseph for the presentation) would have been quite uncomfortable with it being given canonical status. Canonicity implies " the normative and prescriptive sense".

Edited by David T, 29 June 2012 - 12:12 PM.

[Yep]

dougtheavenger, on 29 June 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

I'm not sure I understand your objection to 3. It is true that Jesus was the first begotten but the phrase "not made, nor created; but begotten" is meant to leave no doubt about whether Jesus was a created being or not. He was not created.

I had issue with number 3 as well.

My belief, and I believe the Church's, is that we believe that Christ was created in the same manner that we were, aside from His divine physical parentage.  However, Christ is the Only Begotten in the flesh.

[ERayR]

David T, on 29 June 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

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.

In the context of this disscussion "I beleive" that number 10 is key.  The "... and he will yet reveal..."  clause leaves it wide open.  Joseph's antipathy toward creeds was that they were limiting.  He envissioned a religion that freed the person instead of constricting them.

Edited by ERayR, 29 June 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[Yep]

David T, on 29 June 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

I never argued that Joseph designed them to be as such. It was prepared for a specific publication for a specific time as part of a specifically purposed presentation of Church History. I have the feeling that he, and the Pratts (whose language and organization was borrowed by Joseph for the presentation) would have been quite uncomfortable with it being given canonical status. Canonicity implies " the normative and prescriptive sense".

Ok, I understand, I had thought you were claiming that their intent was as creedal in nature.  I do feel that they verge on being creedal, but with the caveat that is presented in my quote: "This fact tends to emphasize their personal, confessional quality."  Which in my opinion does estrange the AoF from a de facto creed.

[dougtheavenger]

The underlying purpose of my post is to hone my missionary skills. I have had some experiences where in criticizing the LDS church, people have repudiated parts of the Nicene or Athanasian creed and thus the doctrines of their own church. Of particular interest is the doctrine that Jesus was "begotten by the Father before all worlds" (Nicene creed). Recently this has been "translated" into "Eternally begotten" or at least a change has been proposed, but the very act of changing it is in conflict with the notion of "historic" Christianity. When investigators come into contact with people claiming Mormons are not Christian, this information could be useful.

http://www.creeds.ne...ient/nicene.htm

Edited by dougtheavenger, 29 June 2012 - 12:25 PM.

[dougtheavenger]

Yep, on 29 June 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

I had issue with number 3 as well.

My belief, and I believe the Church's, is that we believe that Christ was created in the same manner that we were, aside from His divine physical parentage.  However, Christ is the Only Begotten in the flesh.

I think this is worth discussing.

Moses 1:3 states
"And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?"

[dougtheavenger]

begotten vs created.

It is my understanding that we are all begotten sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father and that there is a difference between begotten and created.

D&C 93: 29 "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not creatd or made, neither indeed can be.

Book of Abraham - Chapter 3
18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

Edited by dougtheavenger, 29 June 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[Evangeline]

Yep, on 29 June 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

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.

I like that.  Thanks.

[David T]

dougtheavenger, on 29 June 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

begotten vs created.

It is my understanding that we are all begotten sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father and that there is a difference between begotten and created.

If by 'begotten' you mean biologically reproduced, that concept, while popular, is still very much in the air. There are some significant historicaland philosophicalconcerns with full-out advocating that particular reading.

FWIW, when our current scriptures make reference to us as begotten children of God, they generally speak of it terms of covenant adoption, through Christ. (Also, 'Only Begotten in the Flesh' is not scripture, but an attempt to reconcile the title with varying uses and understanding of what 'begotten' is referencing in the scriptures).

[bryan11]

as best as I can come up with is that Christ was born of a mortal mother making him the only son of god to be born

[William Schryver]

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

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

I have noted over the years that, for whatever reason, the concept that your quotes describe is one of the very hardest truths for some to wrap their minds around.

I think the May 11, 1842 Joseph Smith Letter to Nancy Rigdon embodies the same fundamental principles.

Perhaps, if anything, it could be said that the creed of the Latter-day Saints is (or at least ought to be) to keep ourselves "ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time."

[David T]

bryan11, on 29 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

as best as I can come up with is that Christ was born of a mortal mother making him the only son of god to be born

In the New Testament, it is understood that Jesus is "the Son of God". The Gospel writers, however, show that it wasn't fully understood by everyone what that meant. For Mark , Jesus became the Son of God at his Baptism (Paul's language seems to favor an adoptionist reading as well). For Matthew and Luke, they both gave distinct narratives that explained him as being called Son of God in terms of having had a miraculous human-father-less conception. For John, he's the Son of God because he premortally came forth from God.

All NT writers that express humanity as having a sonship relationship view humans as sons of God only asmuch as they are adopted into the Covenant.

Therefore, when Latter-day Saint theology developed and expressed the concept that we all premortally became/are children of God, the explanation of the title 'One and Only/Unique/Only Begotten Son of God' as applied to Jesus then didn't make literal sense. Qualifiers (like "in the flesh") had to be added.

I don't think we need to affirm that Jesus of Nazareth is a biological demigod to declare him as a unique and prototypical Son of God.

Speaking of the importance of allowing for expanded and revised understanding ...

Edited by David T, 29 June 2012 - 03:32 PM.

[bryan11]

David T, on 29 June 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

In the New Testament, it is understood that Jesus is "the Son of God". The Gospel writers, however, show that it wasn't fully understood by everyone what that meant. For Mark , Jesus became the Son of God at his Baptism (Paul's language seems to favor an adoptionist reading as well). For Matthew and Luke, they both gave distinct narratives that explained him as being called Son of God in terms of having had a miraculous human-father-less conception. For John, he's the Son of God because he premortally came forth from God.

All NT writers that express humanity as having a sonship relationship view humans as sons of God only asmuch as they are adopted into the Covenant.

Therefore, when Latter-day Saint theology developed the concept that we all premortally became sons of God, the explanation of the title as applied to Jesus then didn't make literal sense. Qualifiers (like "in the flesh") had to be added.

I don't think we need to affirm that Jesus of Nazareth is a biological demigod to declare him as a unique and prototypical Son of God.

Speaking of the importance of allowing for expanded and revised understanding ...

I should clarify my thinking

OP made a comment asking how we as lds should respond about the Nicene creed. Using the Nicene trinity as an arguement, saying that Christ could not have had a literal brother who is satan there for the lds thinking is wrong based on Christ being the only begotten son of god. But if only begotten means that he was the only one to be born to a mortal woman, with god as his immediate father. Then it doesn't exclude the possibility of there being siblings to christ.

So yes I agree that we are all children of god but as far as the nicene creed vs lds belief as far as christ is concerned I think it necessary to point that out because so often people take christ and satan as brothers as either demeaning to christ or elevating satan to a higher level

[David T]

bryan11, on 29 June 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

I should clarify my thinking

OP made a comment asking how we as lds should respond about the Nicene creed. Using the Nicene trinity as an arguement, saying that Christ could not have had a literal brother who is satan there for the lds thinking is wrong based on Christ being the only begotten son of god. But if only begotten means that he was the only one to be born to a mortal woman, with god as his immediate father. Then it doesn't exclude the possibility of there being siblings to christ.

Why does the Nicene Creed's definitions need to be responded to? We're a Church based on a principle of continuing revelation, and new light correcting and expanding on earlier understandings - even scriptural ones.

As was pointed out, even the NT authors couldn't agree what the title 'Son of God' must have meant in regards to Christ's relationship to God.

We're still working out the relationships. Which is why a concrete creed specifically defining that relationship is unhelpful.

Edited by David T, 29 June 2012 - 04:27 PM.

[CASteinman]

The Articles of Faith, in my opinion, should never have been raised to the level of Canon of Scripture. It was a mere answer to a reporter.  Such things do not seem to me to be full of glory.  But it is not my call.

[Yep]

Over the weekend I came across the following:

　

　ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS - VOL 3, p. 165

　The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God of the Athanasian Creed

Question: "May I raise a question about one of your statements? You state that in the year A.D. 325 the bishops of the church 'rejected the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and substituted the Athanasian Creed.' For me this statement needs clarification. May I inquire in what respect 'the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' differs from the God as stated in the Athanasian Creed?"

Answer: The God of Abraham came down to visit Abraham and instruct him on several occasions, as he did likewise to others of the prophets. So Abraham became acquainted with our Heavenly Father and knew him. All I need to do to show that the God of Athanasius is not the God of Abraham is to refer to three points.

1. The creed says that God is "incomprehensible," confounding the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This certainly is in conflict with what is written in the scriptures:
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more. fn

Then in that wonderful soul-stirring prayer of our Savior to his Father, shortly before his crucifixion, he prayed:
Now this is everlasting life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. fn

　ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS - VOL 3, p. 166

　SCRIPTURES ARE CLEAR ON DOCTRINE OF GODHEAD

2. The creed is at fault in stating that there are not "three Eternals" but "one Eternal," thus confounding the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, when the scriptures are definitely clear that the three members of the Godhead are separate and distinct from each other; each with a definite mission to perform. The Savior told his apostles that when he went away he would send them the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost.
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your mind whatsoever I have said to you.John 14:26. fn

Here we have the promise that the Son would go but the Advocate, or Holy Spirit, would be sent to be with the apostles.

3. In the fact that the creed declares that in the Trinity, "None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-Eternal together, and Co-Equal" we find a conflict which is contrary to what is written in the scriptures. Arius, at that council, tried to establish one truth that was rejected. That is, that there never was a Son that was not younger than his Father, but the creed emphatically declares that the Son, as well as the Father, is "Uncreate."

In Hebrews we find it written:
And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, And let all the angels of God adore him. fn

If Christ is the Firstborn, it must have been in the pre-existence before the earth was formed. According to what is written we are all the offspring of God, as Paul declared in Athens:
For in him we live and move and have our being, as indeed some of your own poets have said,
For we are also his offspring.
If therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to imagine that Divinity is like gold or silver or stone, to an image graven by human art and thought. fn

Christ is, of course, the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that those who believe in him may not perish, but have life everlasting. fn

　ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS - VOL 3, p. 167

　DISTINCTION EMPHASIZED BETWEEN FATHER AND SON

Contrary to the creed, Jesus Christ has said:
You have heard me say to you, if you love me, you would indeed rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.John 14:28. fn
Jesus answered them and said, My teaching is not my own, but his who sent me.
If anyone desires to do his will, he will know of the teachings whether it is from God, or whether I speak on my own authority.John 7:16-17. fn

Paul has written:
For he must reign, until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
And the last enemy to be destroyed will be death.
For he has put all things under his feet. But when he says all things are subject to him, undoubtedly he is excepted who has subjected all things to him.
And when all things are made subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subject to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all. fn

Moreover, when Jesus prayed in Gethsemane he prayed to his Father, saying:
Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will but thine be done. fn

Thus he sought in prayer something which the Father denied him.

These passages are a few which show that the Athanasian Creed was not inspired by the Father, but was man-made. On the occasion there was no revelation given; nor was one sought. To the contrary, men contended, bitterness followed, and there came a division among them. They had no prophet to speak, no divine word of the Lord was received, but merely the opinions of men who lacked inspiration.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

William Schryver, on 29 June 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:

I have noted over the years that, for whatever reason, the concept that your quotes describe is one of the very hardest truths for some to wrap their minds around.

I think the May 11, 1842 Joseph Smith Letter to Nancy Rigdon embodies the same fundamental principles.

Perhaps, if anything, it could be said that the creed of the Latter-day Saints is (or at least ought to be) to keep ourselves "ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time."

Probably because the reason why JS (or Jesus) opposed them has been misrepresented.

[wenglund]

I think the semantic wrestling over the word "creed" misses God's, and latter Joseph's, point about creeds being an abomination.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

wenglund, on 02 July 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

I think the semantic wrestling over the word "creed" misses God's, and latter Joseph's, point about creeds being an abomination.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Exactly. I could not have said it better.