The Apostle's Creed

[soren]

Hello Soren,

I do not think that the â??onenessâ? of God is authoritatively defined in LDS theology.

Before I respond to anything else you wrote, I want to ask you about this so I can be sure we are on the same page. What, in your view, are the defining boundaries of LDS orthodoxy? My personal view, that is, the position I would personally take if I were Mormon, is the confirmation of two or three witnesses, so that doctrine is authoritatively defined if three prophets or apostles teach the same thing as doctrine. By this standard, Mormonism has clearly embraced "one in purpose" even if it has not restricted itself to only that meaning.

[3DOP]

tOm

I would suggest that the Council of Chalcedon claims no direct public revelation from God. If revelation from God comes and demonstrates that Chalcedonâ??s dual natured Christology was not a good understanding of the God-man Christ, there is no turning back. The stake is set and no revelation from God can change it, theoretically.

3DOP

It appears that you think it is a bad thing that we having teachings that are permanent and irreformable. Do Mormons not believe in any "set stakes"? Every LDS teaching is reformable and able to be overturned by revelation? I don't see how. How is it a bad thing for us but not for you?

If revelation from God comes and demonstrates that infant baptism is correct practice, is there "turning back" for the Latter Day Saint? Would that "prophet" not get "run out of town on a rail" (and rightly so if Mormonism has any irreformable integrity at all in its teachings and practices)? You would decide he wasn't a prophet, just like we will if someone shows up telling us to change things we already know.

[ebeddoulos]

I thought I would toss the following out. The Latin version is probably the best est known version throughout history, though the Greek Orthodox may not agree since the Greek text is most likely the oldest.

Traditional English Text

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the Holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

Latin Text

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem; Creatorem coeli et terrae.

Et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum; qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria virgine; passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus; descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis; ascendit ad coelos; sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis; inde venturus (est) judicare vivos et mortuos.

Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam catholicam; sanctorum communionem; remissionem peccatorum; carnis resurrectionem; vitam oeternam. Amen.

Greek Text

Πιστεύω εις Θεον Πατερα, παντοκράτορα, ποιητην ουρανου και γης.

Και (εις) `Ιησουν Χριστον, υίον αυτου τον μονογενη, τον κύριον ήμων, τον συλληφθέντα εκ πνεύματοσ άγίου, γεννηθέντα εκ Μαρίας της παρθένου, παθόντα επι Ποντίου Πιλάτου, σταυρωθέντα, θανόντα, και ταφέντα, κατελθόντα εις τα κατώτατα, τη τρίτη `ημέρα `αναστάντα `απο των νεκρων, `ανελθόντα εις τους ουρανούς, καθεζόμενον εν δεξια θεου πατρος παντο δυνάμου, εκειθεν ερχόμενον κρϊναι ζωντας και νεκρούς.

Πιστεύω εις το Πνυμα το `Αγιον, αγίαν καθολικην εκκλησίαν, αγίων κοινωνίαν, άφεσιν αμαρτιων, σαρκος ανάστασιν, ξωήν αιώνιον. Αμήν.

This creed has a rather long history of controvery. A Lutheran pastor, by the name of Schrempf in 1892 refused to use it in a baptismal service. One of the arguments, as I understand it is that language is dynamic so that the the words now have a different sense or meaning from when they were originally inked on parchment. I wish my German was not limited to my 40 year old High School understanding, because man there is a large body of literature on the arguments surrounding this event.

One of the older arguments was that â??Fatherâ? and â??Sonâ? do not have a trinitarian reference, which in large part brought about some of the other creeds whose express purpose was to add clarity to the theory of the trinity.

Another point of controversy is that the substitution of Christian for Catholic is a Protestant contrivance. Listening to Catholics and Protestants lay members discuss this creed is entertaining. Listening to Catholic and Protestant clergy discuss it is educational.

It is not only the Latter-day saints who have difficulty with this creed.

[Log]

I much prefer the Mormon creed (and yes, there is one): "Mind your business." - BY

[soren]

A very telling fact about the history of creeds, is that "creed" is not the original name under which they were know. Rather, the Creed was called the "Symbolum" or "sign." This early name is indicative of its purpose. The reasons it was called this was to distinguish the words of the creed from the substance of faith itself. The creed is a sign whose terms indicated correctly but were not to be confused with the faith of Christ. The Catholic Cathechism teaches precisely this, as you can see from the quote in my signature line. The full context of it goes:

We do not believe in formulas, but in those realities they express, which faith allows us to touch. "The believer's act [of faith] does not terminate in the propositions, but in the realities [which they express]."56 All the same, we do approach these realities with the help of formulations of the faith which permit us to express the faith and to hand it on, to celebrate it in community, to assimilate and live on it more and more.

The Church, "the pillar and bulwark of the truth", faithfully guards "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints". She guards the memory of Christ's words; it is she who from generation to generation hands on the apostles' confession of faith.57 As a mother who teaches her children to speak and so to understand and communicate, the Church our Mother teaches us the language of faith in order to introduce us to the understanding and the life of faith. (CCC 170-71)

The point made here by the Catechism was understood by ancient Christians. St. Augustine is a good example. He had a high revernce for the Creed as we see in Sermon 212, where Augustine, having just recited it and explained it to a group of catechumens explains why the Creed is to be memorized but not written down:

But the fact that the Synbol, put down and reduced to a certain form in this way, may not be written down, is a reminder of God's promise, where he foretold the new covenant through the prophet, and said "This is the covenant which I will draw up for them in those days, says the Lord; putting my laws into their minds, I willwrite them also on their hearts." It is to illiustrate this truth that by the simple hearing of the Symbol it is written not on tables, or on any other material, but on people's hearts. The God who has called you to his kingdom and his glory will also ensure that it is also written on your hearts by the Holy Spirit, once you have been born again by his grace. ... So this is the Symbol which has been imparted to you as catechumens through the scriptures and sermons in church, but which has to be confessed and practiced and made progress in by you as baptized believers.

Yet Augistine's high opinion of the Creed, does not cause him to confuse the sign with the substance. In Sermon 213, after reciting the creed to another group of catechumens who had the task of memorizing it and reciting it back to him the following week, Augustine says,

It isn't very much, but it is very much; there's no need for you to count the words, but rather to weigh them. ... In eight days time you are going to give back what you have received. Let your parent [meaning Godparents], who support you, start teaching you, so that you may be found ready; teaching you how you should wke up a cockcrow for the prayers which you celebrate here. Now we begin to give you the Symbol here, so that you may diligently learn it by heart; but none of you must get into a state and because of such agitation fail to give it back. Don't worry, we are your fathers, and we aren't carrying the canes and switches of schoolmasters. If any of you get the words wrong, at least don't get the faith wrong.

[3DOP]

I thought I would toss the following out. The Latin version is probably the best est known version throughout history, though the Greek Orthodox may not agree since the Greek text is most likely the oldest.

This creed has a rather long history of controvery. A Lutheran pastor, by the name of Schrempf in 1892 refused to use it in a baptismal service. One of the arguments, as I understand it is that language is dynamic so that the the words now have a different sense or meaning from when they were originally inked on parchment. I wish my German was not limited to my 40 year old High School understanding, because man there is a large body of literature on the arguments surrounding this event.

One of the older arguments was that â??Fatherâ? and â??Sonâ? do not have a trinitarian reference, which in large part brought about some of the other creeds whose express purpose was to add clarity to the theory of the trinity.

Another point of controversy is that the substitution of Christian for Catholic is a Protestant contrivance. Listening to Catholics and Protestants lay members discuss this creed is entertaining. Listening to Catholic and Protestant clergy discuss it is educational.

It is not only the Latter-day saints who have difficulty with this creed.

Language dynamics would permit a broader interpretation. The only people who might object to this would be those fighting for original concepts. Personally, I am satisfied with the modern laguage, and I don't think it excludes Mormons. Tom Nossor could subscribe to the Nicene Creed, even though his fellows think they are obligated to oppose it.

I am going to help Tom out, and tell him what I would do if I were LDS, in regard to the "creeds are an abomination" teachings of Joseph Smith. I would point out that Joseph's environment was Protestant. Because the creeds of Protestantism have slipped into obscurity and obsolence as Protestantism has matured, (unlike the Catholic creeds which have retained their force for all Catholics) we sometimes forget that in 1830, most Protestant denominations had formulated doctrinal distinctives which as time went on, have been been discarded as the same denomination slips toward liberalism (or climbs up away from doctrinal rigor, according to your viewpoint). The history of the Protestant community is a history of the easing of doctrinal standards, followed by a conservative split and reaction. The result is that the same community that once held to a particular creed no longer believes the same things after several generations. Perhaps for that reason, a continuing proliferation of individual creeds are not as popular among Protestants as they were prior to and during Joseph's day. Following is a sample list of creeds and those who formulated them, extant at the time of Jospeh Smith:

The Augsburg Confession. A.D. 1530.

Luther's Small Catechism. A.D. 1529.

The Formula of Concord. A.D. 1576 (1584)

The Saxon Visitation Articles, A.D. 1592

The Sixty-seven Articles of Ulrich Zwingli, A.D. 1523.

The Ten Theses of Berne, A.D. 1528

The First Helvetic or Second Basle Confession, A.D. 1536.

The Second Helvetic Confession.

The Heidelberg Catechism. A.D. 1563.

The French Confession of Faith. A.D. 1559.

The Belgic Confession. A.D. 1561. Revised 1619.

The Scotch Confession of Faith. A.D. 1560.

The Second Scotch Confession, or the National Covenant. A.D. 1580.

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Church of England Published A.D. 1571.

The Anglican Catechism. A.D. 1549, 1662.

The Lambeth Articles. A.D. 1595.

The Irish Articles of Religion. A.D. 1615.

The five Arminian Articles. A.D. 1610.

The Canons of the Synod of Dort, A.D. 1619 and 1619.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, A.D. 1647.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, A.D. 1647. With the American Alterations.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism. A.D. 1647

Savoy Declaration of the Congregational Churches. A.D. 1658.

The Declaration of the Congregational Union of England and Wales. A.D. 1833.

Declaration of Faith of the National Council of Congregational Churches, held at Boston, Mass., June 14â??24, 1865.

The Oberlin Declaration of the National Congregational Council. A.D. 1871.

The Baptist Confession of 1688, or The Philadelphia Confession.

The New Hampshire Baptist Confession. A.D. 1833.

Confession of the Free-will Baptists. A.D. 1834, 1868.

The Confession of the Waldenses. A.D. 1655.

The Confession of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. A.D. 1829.

The Auburn Declaration. A.D. 1837.

Confession of the Evangelical Free Church of Geneva. A.D. 1848.

Creed of the Free Christian Church in Italy.

The Confession of the Society of Friends, Commonly Called Quakers. A.D. 1675.

Easter Litany of the Moravian Church. A.D. 1749.

Methodist Articles of Religion. A.D. 1784.

Articles of Religion of the Reformed Episcopal Church in America. A.D. 1875.

The Doctrinal Basis of the Evangelical Alliance. A.D. 1846.

It would be a dizzying task to try to pick and choose among them. Nowadays, few Protestant are even aware of any of these formulae which were ubiquitous in 1830. Much less are they inclined to defend one of them. Like modern Mormons, modern Protestants talk more about the Catholic creeds, which are not nearly so doctrinally specific as virtually all of these obsolete texts are. Modern Day Latter Day Saints (oxymoron or oxymormon? heh!) seem to assume that they are obligated to oppose the rather basic truths of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Why? Those are the only creeds Mormons ever hear about now. But Mormons can easily find ways to accomodate the words of the Catholic creeds. On the other hand, I am inclined to speculate that you can take the Protestant list from above, put them all in a handbasket, and call them an abomination and find it difficult to offend anyone. Who would defend them? Nobody will defend them as a whole. You might happen upon someone who takes up for the Westminster or Augsburg Confession individually and I wouldn't necessarily interpret them to be individually "abominable" if I were LDS. More important than being inoffensive to most non-Mormons, this interpretation of "the creeds" would probably condemn that which Joseph more likely had in mind, while leaving Mormons free to agree with that which Joseph more likely did NOT have in mind.

With regard to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, it just seems to me that with a few exceptions, Tom Nossor being one, modern Mormons oppose them out of a misplaced obligation that really doesn't reflect any teachings that they could declare to be opposed to LDS revelation.

3DOP

[soren]

I am going to help Tom out, and tell him what I would do if I were LDS, in regard to the "creeds are an abomination" teachings of Joseph Smith. I would point out that Joseph's environment was Protestant. Because the creeds of Protestantism have slipped into obscurity and obsolence as Protestantism has matured, (unlike the Catholic creeds which have retained their force for all Catholics) we sometimes forget that in 1830, most Protestant denominations had formulated doctrinal distinctives which as time went on, have been been discarded as the same denomination slips toward liberalism. The history of the Protestant community is a history of doctrinal slippage, followed by a conservative split and reaction. The result is that the same community that once held to a particular creed no longer believes the same things after several generations. Perhaps for that reason, a continuing proliferation of individual creeds are not as popular among Protestants as they wereprior to and during Joseph's day.

This is a very good defense of Smith, which I had never thought of. I will give him a pass.

[mnn727]

I know LDS say they don't believe the creeds.. But why not? I always assumed it was because of the trinity, but the Apostles and Nicene seem to be harmonious with the godhead idea. So what's the problem?

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

This is the first problem, He was conceived by the POWER of the Holy Ghost when the Highest (the Father) overshadowed Mary

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

depends on your defination of Hell and by the RCC's defination of Hell this is wrong.

9. I believe in the holy christian church: the communion of saints:

Major problem - major

Also lets be fair here, the word was not "Christian Church" it was "Catholic Church" (and yes I know Catholic means Universal.)

[mnn727]

But overall I like the Apostle's Creed and have no problem saying it when visiting other denominations.

Really, I have a major problem saying it when I visit other denomination, I refuse to (I don;t make a big deal of it, I sit there silently) as it is incorrect (see my above post) and would be an afront to God if I as a Priesthood holder acted as if I agreed with it.

[Dr. Sandwich]

New around here?

Sure am.

Sarcastic much?

Mormons are a little bit subordinationalists...if that is a word. And no, anyone who is a god isn't necessarily the highest or the "One True God". Volumes have been written about that in this forum and in other books, and i won't repeat them here.

So "the highest" only refers to the father. If there's scripture where someone is called "the highest" then that person is the same as the father.

Are you SURE?

I don't like the creeds because they are "creeds". I have been in primary for the past several years and I'm really, really glad we don't teach our kids to parrot the Articles of Faith anymore. I think they were starting to be used as a creed and we seem to be getting away from that again.

How about the baptismal interview questions? Are those okay?

Well, it is what isn't said that is the real bone in the throat. On the surface, the Nicean Creed isn't too objectionable...until you get into the meaning and the underlying controversy. Ostler spent a whole book going into why it is philosophically wrong to adhere to the creed.

Weâ??re not talking about the Nicean creed

â?¦For a reasonâ?¦

[Dr. Sandwich]

It is definitely not true of necessity. The Apostleâ??s Creed was likely not a product of the Apostles. It has not been â??accepted by common consentâ? by the authority of the CoJCoLDS as true. So it is not â??true by necessityâ? or even as close to â??true by necessityâ? as other aspects of the CoJCoLDS.

Right, Thatâ??s what I said.

I personally have no problem with any of the statements. I can even embrace the Nicene Creed as long as the understanding of Homoousian is as it was by the majority of the council not as it was 80+ years later.

Ok so thatâ??s one for â??agreeâ?

I should have made this a pollâ?¦

Concerning #3

LDS believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father. They believe that the Sonship of Christ is true of Christ incarnate as well as Christ pre-incarnate. LDS do not believe that the Holy Ghost is identical to God the Father (nor do non-LDS Christians, but LDS Christians often believe that this is the view of non-LDS Christians OR that non-LDS Christians are too close to this view). So #3 will elicit concern.

As you understand #3, do you believe that itâ??s intended to mean that Christ is the son of the Holy Ghost rather than the Father?

Because if so I think we can resolve your concern right here and now!

The purpose of creeds is to define orthodoxy once and for all. While there is certainly post council â??coming to gripsâ? with the creeds, the purpose is to draw a line in the sand. The view embraced by Arius was declared non-Christian by Nicea. The intent was that no longer could Christians claim that Christ was â??mere creatureâ? and be Christian. Christ was of the same substance with God.

For 60 years after that there were debates and advances/retreats along this line, but the stake was a starting point. Full blown Arianism was generally outside of Christianity. Over time the view called semi-Arianism became not part of Christianity. The words of St. Justin Martyr written long before Nicea would not be written / embraced by canonized Saint after 400AD. A stake had been driven in that defined orthodoxy and Justinâ??s words would no longer be kosher.

Now, you may believe that such a stake is/was a good thing, but I do not believe that you can deny that such a stake was the intent of the Council of Nicea. I personally believe that early councils did a fair job defining Christianity from the point of their â??foundational slip.â? The foundational slip IMO is the embracing of Creation ex Nihilo.

I see.

How do you believe the church should have dealt with heresy instead?

So future EC can define beyond the previous council, but there IRREFORMABLE character means that if a Prophet standing in the presence of God recognizes truth in conflict with the EC, they cannot teach it (or they have been deceived or â?¦). I would say that Christ is not dual natured such that He is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity and homoousian with humans in His humanity but rather the God-man incarnate who possesses one nature.

â?¦Okâ?¦

I would suggest that the Council of Chalcedon claims no direct public revelation from God. If revelation from God comes and demonstrates that Chalcedonâ??s dual natured Christology was not a good understanding of the God-man Christ, there is no turning back.

Whoâ??s asking about the Council of Chalcedon?

The stake is set and no revelation from God can change it, theoretically.

Arius and I two Bishops refused to sign the creedal declaration of Nicea. They were excommunicated by the church and expelled from society by the state (which was intertwined with the church). For 60 years there was debate and violence. The state/church alternatively expelled Arius and Arians and Athanasius and Athanasians.

Please, Iâ??d be interested to read some historical documents to the effect of the church expelling Athanasius and the Athanasians.

Again, you may believe such definitions are important, but they did divide what was once a single group of believers.

No.. they didnâ??t. Arius and the Arians didnâ??t splinter off and start a new denomination, they were declared heretics, unchristianâ?¦ The splinters are something else

Later councils turned on far more technical stuff. Did Christ posses one nature or two natures? One will or two wills? Oriental Christians exist today refusing to assent to the technicalities of such definitions.

Weâ??ll talk about those later

Few folks in the pew have any idea why they are not Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic, but they are not. There is no question that historically creeds have been used in a way that has schism-ed the church.

Iâ??m having trouble understanding you.

Do you believe that those folks in pews, if they were to realize it are not roman catholic or eastern orthodox because they disagree with a creed?

Also, while your example of the Episcopal Church may seem accurate, ECs do not necessarily reflect the â??will of the people.â? And even to the extent that they represent the will of the majority of people or more likely the majority (often almost but not usually completely unanimous will) of Bishops, they still often result in the minority splitting.

Ok, Iâ??ll play.

Like what?

And donâ??t you dare say Arius unless you are prepared to point to an Arian Christian church

[Dr. Sandwich]

I personally have no real problems with The Apostle's Creed

Cool! Me neither.

, however there are different versions of it. The one you wrote was not the one I said as a Presbyterian and they know say something a little big different.

It was written in another language.

And when it was first translated English was pretty different.

Do you ever watch foreign movies, and notice that sometimes the dubbing doesn't match he subtitles?

Same thing.

Again they also change The Lord's Prayer a bit now and again (trespassers to sins to debtors).

Well that one is not our fault.

Luke and Matthew say different things.

Matthew being a tax colecter thought of it more in monetary terms

Anyway the part of the holy christian church might get a few people because LDS might look at that differently. I think the part of 'hell' would be fine as we believe that to mean the Spirit world. Sometimes the part about the Holy Ghost might be confusing as we believe that Heavenly Father is the father of Christ and the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Father are different beings.

yeah i don't know any Christians that think the father is not the father.... That would be silly.

But overall I like the Apostle's Creed and have no problem saying it when visiting other denominations. It is simple and beautiful.

Again, cool.

[ldsquest]

I think LDS should acknowledge that the AoF are generally a creed. They are canonized scripture so we believe they do have inspiration as their source. Also, while not perfect, I think the CoJCoLDS has done better not dividing based on doctrinal issues defined in some creedal orthodoxy.

Charity, TOm

The CoJCoLDS divided into the FLDS, the Community of Christ, the Strangites, the Church

of Christ spreading the Elijah Message, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), the Church of

Christ (Fetting/Bronson), the Apostolic United Brethren, the Church of Jesus Christ

(Bickertonite), and other smaller groups.

Regards,

Pete

[Dr. Sandwich]

This is the first problem, He was conceived by the POWER of the Holy Ghost when the Highest (the Father) overshadowed Mary

Good point.

Some of the translations say power. Thatâ??s generally understood to be implied, but I can see you wanting it in there in black and white I guess.

depends on your defination of Hell and by the RCC's defination of Hell this is wrong.

Every Creedal Christian group says that their linage reaches back to the apostolic church. The Catholics arenâ??t the sole authority on the creed/

Major problem - major

Also lets be fair here, the word was not "Christian Church" it was "Catholic Church" (and yes I know Catholic means Universal.)

Wellâ?¦ Because you know catholic means universal then you know why is would be more confusing than helpful to use that English word as a translation for the latin.

It does not say the â??Cathloic Churchâ? as in the RCC, it says the â??catholic Churchâ? as in the church that is catholic, which we call the â??Christian Churchâ?

Really, I have a major problem saying it when I visit other denomination, I refuse to (I don;t make a big deal of it, I sit there silently) as it is incorrect (see my above post) and would be an afront to God if I as a Priesthood holder acted as if I agreed with it.

Though I disagree with your opinion but I respect your integrity for dealing with it the way you have

[ed2276]

There's no partial credit given here it's like a true false question. Is it, as a whole, heretical or orthodox?

I had to take a break from this last night, as I was tired and honestly quite shocked that I would be invited to label something as heresy! We all know that bad things happen when people start throwing that word about!

Seriously, I reject the notion that I must make an either/or declaration. I don't feel bound to do so. As I wrote, I can embrace the statements of the creed where they are correct and reject that portion of them that are incorrect. I don't see why I must embrace error along with truth and call error orthodoxy or reject both truth and error together and call truth heresy. I see no reason why I cannot embrace truth and reject error, replacing error with truth.

For example, where the creed says that Jesus descended to hell, if some churchman tells me that unless I confess, according to his own interpretation, that Jesus descended to the firey hell that I am a heretic then I will tell him to go just to where he says Jesus went ( I won't really; I was just trying to be clever). Well, I will confess that Jesus went to visit the spirits in prison and to preach the gospel to them, but not that he descended to the firey hell of brimstone, etc. and if the former is what is meant by that part of the creed then I will accept it.

I see here in your either/or proposition just the sort of thing Joseph Smith criticized about the creedalists setting up stakes.

[Cold Steel]

Elder B.H. Roberts had this to say on the Apostles' Creed:

As already observed, the statement of the Christian faith as formulated in the Apostles' Creed, so far as its doctrine of the Godhead is concerned, might well be accredited to the Apostles, so unexceptional is it in the plain statement of truth respecting the doctrine of God, as that doctrine may be gathered from the scriptures. But the matter in the Patristic period did not stop here, and perhaps it could not stop with the statement of this first formula of a creed. Not only had the existence of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be affirmed, but the nature of that existence had to be declared, and the relationship of the persons of the Trinity also had to be stated. Moreover, the relationship of this Christian doctrine to the Greek and Oriental philosophies had to be explained. If in harmony with these preceding philosophies which dealt with God-for knowledge of God, or the "Supreme Being," is always the object of philosophy-then it must be stated in what the harmony consists; if in antagonism to them, the points of antagonism must be stated and justified, and the superiority of the Christian doctrine vindicated. It may be all very well for safe and formal men to state a truth within the lines of common-place facts, and say "We will be content with this and beyond it we will not go;" but a creed or book once formulated and published to the world, remains no longer the possession of those who published it. It belongs to the world, and the world will have its way with it. If there are defects in it, from any cause whatsoever, the world will find them out, let the defects be what they may-under-statement of the truth, over-statement of the truth, misstatement of the truth, or exact statement of the truth-all will come out, and Time, the arbitrator for truth, will pronounce his judgment, resulting in condemnation or justification.

So it proved to be with this first formulated Christian Creed. It was all very well to say, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son," and so following. But the adult question came, and it was inevitable that it should comeâ??"What is the nature of this 'Father Almighty,' and of this 'Son,' and what their relationship?" ... Seeking an answer to these questions, brought the Christian Fathers of our period in contact with both Oriental and Greek philosophy; and soon the tendency to harmonize the facts of Christian doctrine with Pagan philosophies set in, resulting eventually in the paganization of the Christian doctrine.

Seventy's Course in Theology, 3:, p.124 - 126.

The primary objection, of course, is that the apostles never wrote it, neither did they read it. And had they been asked to write an article of belief, they most likely would have added a great deal of clarity absent in the creed. As a creed, it reflects the information found in the scriptures, but does little to clarify, only to regurgitate.

In 1924, Elder John M. Knight recounted:

Recently in New York a pastor read the Apostles' Creed to a large congregation, and asked everybody who believed it to stand up. Not one present arose." How different with the Latter-day Saints! Were I to read the articles of our faith and ask all who believed them to stand up, this vast audience would arise to a man.

He went on to say:

One thing that impresses me is this thought, the Latter-day Saints must be forever the champions of the divinity of Christ's mission, and ever be his chief defender in the world. I have little patience with agnostic Christians, who accept a salary for preaching to please their congregations, and who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ's mission, and who are doing all in their power to eradicate belief in him from the minds and hearts of the people who look to them for guidance. You go among them and propound the same question that Jesus of Nazareth asked of the Jews in his day, "What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is he?" and I am sure that you will be astounded at the number and the uncertainty of the answers that you will receive from them. One will say to you, "He is a prophet sent of God." Another will say, "He is the ideally perfect character." Another will tell you that he is the greatest of all moral teachers. But you press them for something more definite; ask them, "Is he divine? Was he God Is he God?" and they will tell you, some of them, "We do not know," "We cannot tell," "We cannot concern ourselves with difficult theological questions." Some of them more honest than the rest will tell you outright, "No he is not God; he is not the Son of God, and he never claimed to be, in any of his well attested sayings." They will tell you that he was a man in every sense of the word, with not only a human body but with human intellect and will, and that he bore the same relationship to the human family that you and I bear to that family.

They tell you that Christ never claimed to be the Son of the living God. Did he? It would take a long time to point out the many evidences that are contained in the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Some one will tell you if you quote the gospel of St. John that that is not well authenticated; that it cannot be considered as historically true. Let me read to you a definite message of the Savior:

"And the high priest arose and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace, and answered nothing. And the high priest answered and said unto him. ... Tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: ... Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven, Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? * * * * Ye have heard his blasphemy; what think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death."

Blasphemy was the final indictment against the Christ. He was either a blasphemer or the Son of God; take your choice. It matters not what we think, nor what we believe about him.

I believe it to be a matter of measureless importance that we know who Jesus Christ is. He declared in that wonderful prayer, recorded in the 17th chapter of John. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." It is life eternal to know him, and he was particular to impress that message upon his immediate followers.

As he walked in the streets of Philippi, he abruptly turned to his disciples and said to them, "Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias; or one of the prophets." Then he turned to his disciples and said, "But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." He had told them before that no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Conference Report, October 1924, Third Dayâ??Morning Session, p.121.

Anyone who believes Mormons are not Christians is either a fool or has an agenda. Seeing today's clergy, everyone from Jesse Jackson to the "Reverend" Jim Wright to the Anglican church "scholars" and other, in Elder Knight's words, "agnostic Christians," we should, I suppose, be happy to find Christians who believe the "Apostles" Creed. We, as Latter-day Saints, could add much more truth to the creed, and clarify it. Ultimately, though, the knowledge of God, as Elder Knight said, must come from God.

[TOmNossor]

Before I respond to anything else you wrote, I want to ask you about this so I can be sure we are on the same page. What, in your view, are the defining boundaries of LDS orthodoxy? My personal view, that is, the position I would personally take if I were Mormon, is the confirmation of two or three witnesses, so that doctrine is authoritatively defined if three prophets or apostles teach the same thing as doctrine. By this standard, Mormonism has clearly embraced "one in purpose" even if it has not restricted itself to only that meaning.

Actually, I believe that that the following thread best describes the highest sealing of truth within the CoJCoLDS.

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/forum/viewtopic/id/10382

From that thread:

President Harold B. Lee

The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973, with Reports and Discourses

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

I am not suggesting that â??one in purposeâ? is not solid LDS teaching. I think Elder Hollandâ??s talk should guide all LDS in their understanding of how the Godhead is one.

But, I do not believe orthodoxy is near as important in the CoJCoLDS as it is within the Catholic Church.

As a more direct answer to your question. It never occurred to me that three prophets who taught â??one in purposeâ? made it binding doctrine (further more irreformable). I think the case could be made that â??one in purposeâ? is taught by general authorities and is contained within the scriptures. This is close. Now, if it is explicitly said in canonized scriptures and taught by current GA then this would be even higher. It is IMO binding that â??that ye may be one even as the Father and I are one.â?

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

tOm

I would suggest that the Council of Chalcedon claims no direct public revelation from God. If revelation from God comes and demonstrates that Chalcedonâ??s dual natured Christology was not a good understanding of the God-man Christ, there is no turning back. The stake is set and no revelation from God can change it, theoretically.

3DOP

It appears that you think it is a bad thing that we having teachings that are permanent and irreformable. Do Mormons not believe in any "set stakes"? Every LDS teaching is reformable and able to be overturned by revelation? I don't see how. How is it a bad thing for us but not for you?

If revelation from God comes and demonstrates that infant baptism is correct practice, is there "turning back" for the Latter Day Saint? Would that "prophet" not get "run out of town on a rail" (and rightly so if Mormonism has any irreformable integrity at all in its teachings and practices)? You would decide he wasn't a prophet, just like we will if someone shows up telling us to change things we already know.

Having once said that there would be something nice associated with having a LDS CCC, I have mixed views on this.

Joseph Smith supposedly claimed that walking in heaven with God for 5 minutes could teach one more about the subject than reading all the books ever written on it. With such heights accessible, and according to Joseph accessible to everyone from the new deacon to the 75 year old High Priest, I can see how creedal definitions would seem problematic. If all the books in the world cannot elucidate a subject well, it would seem to me that setting upon 500 word creeds on the subject might be unwise.

All that being said, there is absolute truth IMO. God either created ex nihilo or He did not. If the CoJCoLDS is what it claims to be God will not direct true doctrines to be change to false doctrines. I do believe that the CoJCoLDS is a far more conservative religion than is the bulk of Protestantism and even a significant (though errant) subset of Catholicism. But for good or evil, I do not think the CoJCoLDS is so conservative due to an irreformable dogma that prohibits change.

Charity, TOm

[Ron Beron]

'mnn727' comments on, Dr. Sandwich @ Sep 1 2008, 11:53 PM)

9. I believe in the holy christian church: the communion of saints:Major problem - major

Also lets be fair here, the word was not "Christian Church" it was "Catholic Church" (and yes I know Catholic means Universal.)

Mormons do not believe in the communion of saints unless it is on Sunday morning. It places too much emphasis on a heirarchy of heaven, i.e., the Church Militant, the Church Penitent, and the Church Triumphant.

[TOmNossor]

As you understand #3, do you believe that itâ??s intended to mean that Christ is the son of the Holy Ghost rather than the Father?

Because if so I think we can resolve your concern right here and now!

It is not a problem IMO. I was just attempting to explain why some in this thread have pointed to this.

How do you believe the church should have dealt with heresy instead?

In the absent of general authorities who receive revelation from God on how to deal with such heresies, I think the Early Church did fair. I think the â??Divine Churchâ? is lead by prophets/apostles. Unity is orthopraxic and largely associated with a relationship with Christ guided by His servants who are sustained in words and deed by Christians.

As a believer in an apostasy of authority, I do not believe the Peterine authority was present during the Council of Nicea or during the creation of most of the creeds.

Whoâ??s asking about the Council of Chalcedon?

Perhaps I read to much into your question.

It seemed to me that from somewhere you developed the idea that LDS had problems with creeds. You then said, what is the problem with the Apostlesâ?? Creed. I responded that the Apostlesâ?? Creed was a poor example IMO of creeds that lead God to say that â??their creeds are an abomination.â?

Chalcedon is better because:

1. There are schismatic Christians who exist today who left communion in response to Chalcedon.

2. There are doctrinal aspects of the Chalcedon Creed that I do not believe are true

I used Nicea because it illustrated another aspect of problematic creeds. That was the violence perpetrated in the name of orthodoxy.

I will go so far as to say that as I PERSONALLY and currently understand Godâ??s words â??their creeds are an abomination,â? I do not believe God would have uttered them if the Apostlesâ?? Creed was the only Christian creed.

I think 3DOP offers a good point in the within Joseph Smithâ??s environment there were dozens + creeds. It is possible that God was merely referring to the Protestant aberration and perhaps God would have been less willing to say â??their creeds are an abominationâ? were the creeds in existence only those produced via Catholic ECs.

Please, Iâ??d be interested to read some historical documents to the effect of the church expelling Athanasius and the Athanasians.

History tells us the every Bishop across the church was lead to sign an Arian confession. Athanasius was in exile at the time.

Pope Liberius was essentially forced to excommunicate Athansius. Pope Liberius was coerced to sign an Arian (or at least ambiguous) confession. Pope Liberiusâ??s fellow Bishops for the most part were far more willing to embrace Arian and semi-Arian confessions.

Here are the words of Catholic scholar Cardinal Newman (ellipses in the original):

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/characte...cs/part3-2.html

WHEN Arianism broke out, it was Athanasius and the Egyptians who were "faithful found among the faithless;" even the Infallible See ... [was] not happy in the man who filled it. Liberius ... anathematized Athanasius on a point on which Athanasius was right and Liberius was {188} wrong. [but] it is astonishing to me how any one can fancy that Liberius, in subscribing the Arian confessions, promulgated them ex cathedr

[emeliza]

Really, I have a major problem saying it when I visit other denomination, I refuse to (I don;t make a big deal of it, I sit there silently) as it is incorrect (see my above post) and would be an afront to God if I as a Priesthood holder acted as if I agreed with it.

The problems you see with it aren't a big deal to me I guess. I interpret the meaning of the creed to mean what I believe and that works in my own mind. Doesn't matter if others believe the same meaning or not.

[Dr. Sandwich]

I had to take a break from this last night, as I was tired and honestly quite shocked that I would be invited to label something as heresy! We all know that bad things happen when people start throwing that word about!

I think you might be taking this more seriously than I am.

I mean true or false, is it true or false

Seriously, I reject the notion that I must make an either/or declaration. I don't feel bound to do so. As I wrote, I can embrace the statements of the creed where they are correct and reject that portion of them that are incorrect. I don't see why I must embrace error along with truth and call error orthodoxy or reject both truth and error together and call truth heresy. I see no reason why I cannot embrace truth and reject error, replacing error with truth.

Do you have a lot of trouble with scantron tests?

Is gave you the statement "The Japanese bombed pearl harbor in December 7th of 1949" and asked you to bubble true or false, would you refuse to bubble false on the grounds that the Japanese did in fact bomb perl harbor on some December 7th?

I see here in your either/or proposition just the sort of thing Joseph Smith criticized about the creedalists setting up stakes.

You won't call a creed you disagree with heretical but you'll imply I'm an abomination?

You must not realize that's what you are doing... But:

The creeds are an abomination

The problem with the creeds is that they set up stakes

You are telling me I'm guilty of setting up stakes...

[Dr. Sandwich]

(Dr. Sandwich @ Sep 2 2008, 07:34 PM) *

As you understand #3, do you believe that itâ??s intended to mean that Christ is the son of the Holy Ghost rather than the Father?

Because if so I think we can resolve your concern right here and now!

It is not a problem IMO. I was just attempting to explain why some in this thread have pointed to this.

Oh okay.

(Dr. Sandwich @ Sep 2 2008, 07:34 PM) *

How do you believe the church should have dealt with heresy instead?

In the absent of general authorities who receive revelation from God on how to deal with such heresies, I think the Early Church did fair. I think the â??Divine Churchâ? is lead by prophets/apostles. Unity is orthopraxic and largely associated with a relationship with Christ guided by His servants who are sustained in words and deed by Christians.

As a believer in an apostasy of authority, I do not believe the Peterine authority was present during the Council of Nicea or during the creation of most of the creeds.

Okay I think you can help me with this.

This is a piece of LDS doctrine that Iâ??ve never understood properly. (or at least I suspect I havenâ??t)

Were the people who lived during the great apostasy apostate because they were somehow less righteous than Joseph and his church, or was it just because they lived at an unfortunate time in history, or some mix of those, or what?

Of course unity is great when you can have it, but when someone persists in something false eventually a division must be made.

Itâ??s happened in the CoJCoLDS too.

As I understand you, the difference is that the LDS has authority and the councils did not. But certainly they has every reason to think they still had authorityâ?¦ And assuming that, then they did the right thing.

So is it all just a depressingly honest mistake?

(Dr. Sandwich @ Sep 2 2008, 07:34 PM) *

Whoâ??s asking about the Council of Chalcedon?

Perhaps I read to much into your question.

It seemed to me that from somewhere you developed the idea that LDS had problems with creeds. You then said, what is the problem with the Apostlesâ?? Creed. I responded that the Apostlesâ?? Creed was a poor example IMO of creeds that lead God to say that â??their creeds are an abomination.â?

Ok, that much fills the scope of this thread. But I see where youâ??re coming from.

Chalcedon is better because:

1. There are schismatic Christians who exist today who left communion in response to Chalcedon.

2. There are doctrinal aspects of the Chalcedon Creed that I do not believe are true

Yeah thatâ??s Precisely why I didnâ??t start with a creed like Chalcedon

That one in particular is pretty obscure too, basically for general Christian creeds weâ??re talking about the big three, Apostles Nicene and Athanasian,

Baby bear, Mama bear and Papa bear.

Chalcedon is Uncle Grisly who is talking about oatmeal while everybody else is looking for porrige

I used Nicea because it illustrated another aspect of problematic creeds. That was the violence perpetrated in the name of orthodoxy.

Seriously.

You know Santa slapped a guy at Nicea?

<<some stuff omitted>>

(Dr. Sandwich @ Sep 2 2008, 07:34 PM) *

Please, Iâ??d be interested to read some historical documents to the effect of the church expelling Athanasius and the Athanasians.

<<Bunch of stuff for me to read>>

Wow thatâ??s a lot of stuff

Iâ??ll look into it.

(Dr. Sandwich @ Sep 2 2008, 07:34 PM) *

No.. they didnâ??t. Arius and the Arians didnâ??t splinter off and start a new denomination, they were declared heretics, unchristianâ?¦ The splinters are something else

Well, yes and no. Arians or at least semi-Arians were quite powerful for 60 years or so after Nicea. There were times when most of the church was Arian. Other times when little of the church was Arian. And other times when the mix was more even.

I am not aware of a continually Arian group that survived that time period, but JWs are modern Arians.

Iâ??m going to have to look more deeply into your sources I had never heard that Arians did much of anything after Nicea

â?¦Of course the great heresies are recursive, they come back over and over.

And that Aryanism, is precisely why the JWs are almost univocally known as heterodox

You said more stuff, and I donâ??t want to Just brush it aside, but itâ??s mostly about Chalcedon, and this response is getting long already.

I think you can get the idea of what I would say to that stuff by looking like what I said in this post already

Good talking to you Tom,

[Calm]

Dr. Sandwich, Mormons are just obstinate. They'll find issue with any creed, even if they agree with every part of it, as this video illustrates.

That was a bizarre and excrutiating video watching Ronald McDonald 'dance'.

[Tsuzuki]

That was a bizarre and excrutiating video watching Ronald McDonald 'dance'.

Oops. Wrong video. Try this one.