Sargon Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 The Apostle's Creed is often used as a doctrinal litmus test for determining who deserves the coveted title "Christian". There are various translations of the creed, including this one by the Catholic Church:1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. 2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. 3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. 4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. 5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. 6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. 7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. 8. I believe in the Holy Spirit, 9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, 10. the forgiveness of sins, 11. the resurrection of the body, 12. and the life everlasting. Amen.There is really extremely little in this creed that a Mormon would take issue with. Perhaps line 3 isn't worded the way LDS would prefer, but it still isn't wholly contradictory to LDS thought. We do afterall beleive that the power of the Holy Spirit was an indispensable role in the miraculous process by which Jesus was conceived.Point 5 perhaps isn't worded precisely as we LDS might like, but it also is mainly in line with LDS thought. Hell being defined as "spirit prison", we believe that although Jesus did not personally go there, he organized his forces and sent them there which effect was the same or better than had Jesus gone there personally.Therefore, we can conclude that the Apostle's Creed is sufficiently broad so that a Mormon can in good conscious recite it. Wherever it is used as a litmus test for orthodoxy, Mormons pass with flying colors.
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 The question is can we support the modern Apostle's Creed?
thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 I disagree with numbers 1, 2, 5, 9.
Sargon Posted February 16, 2009 Author Posted February 16, 2009 I disagree with numbers 1, 2, 5, 9.On what grounds?
The Nehor Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Therefore, we can conclude that the Apostle's Creed is sufficiently broad so that a Mormon can in good conscious recite it.Well, you can't expect them to recite it unconscious.
thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Sargon:Glad you asked. 1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.God the Father is not the creator of this earth. It is His Son Jesus the Christ who did that.2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.We are ALL sons and daughters of God. Jesus the Christ was the only one that was born in the flesh from God the Father.5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.Christ did not descend to Hell but went to Spirit Prison. 9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,We are not universal or catholic in virtually all senses of the word.
Eguzkitanedan Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 The Apostle's Creed is often used as a doctrinal litmus test for determining who deserves the coveted title "Christian". There are various translations of the creed, including this one by the Catholic Church:There is really extremely little in this creed that a Mormon would take issue with. Perhaps line 3 isn't worded the way LDS would prefer, but it still isn't wholly contradictory to LDS thought. We do afterall beleive that the power of the Holy Spirit was an indispensable role in the miraculous process by which Jesus was conceived.Point 5 perhaps isn't worded precisely as we LDS might like, but it also is mainly in line with LDS thought. Hell being defined as "spirit prison", we believe that although Jesus did not personally go there, he organized his forces and sent them there which effect was the same or better than had Jesus gone there personally.Therefore, we can conclude that the Apostle's Creed is sufficiently broad so that a Mormon can in good conscious recite it. Wherever it is used as a litmus test for orthodoxy, Mormons pass with flying colors.As a former Catholic, I want to point out that the use of the word "hell" refers to the Bosom of Abraham, and Catholics think Jesus Christ broke the bonds of all the good people who had lived before him and died and gone there and then let them into heaven. Also in early medieval times the Harrowing of Hell by Jesus with him trampling on Satan like a victorious Roman emperor was a popular subject, although never official. And, the terms "God" "creator" and "conceived" all have different meanings to Catholics than what us LDS mean by them.
Sargon Posted February 16, 2009 Author Posted February 16, 2009 thesometimesaint,I anticipated the types of responses you would give. I can see why you might disagree, though I don't think you have to. I think the language is sufficiently broad to include us.1. We do in fact believe that God the Father created the earth, he accomplished this task by way of his son Jesus Christ. It is entirely appropriate to say that God the Father created the earth, in my view.2. Jesus Christ is the only son of God the Father! Even non-mormon Christians believe that we are all "sons and daughters of God" (though not in the sense we usually mean it), but we can agree with them that Christ is the only son of God in the flesh. If we want to agree with the Apostle's Creed (just for fun), there is ample room for it on this point.3. As for hell, I already adressed that point.4. I don't see any reason to take issue with the word "catholic", which in greek means "whole" or "complete".So, feel free to disagree. I don't think the Apostle's Creed is meant to be an exhaustive treatise on each of the points listed in it. I, as a Mormon, can agree with what it says.
Sargon Posted February 16, 2009 Author Posted February 16, 2009 As a former Catholic, I want to point out that the use of the word "hell" refers to the Bosom of Abraham, and Catholics think Jesus Christ broke the bonds of all the good people who had lived before him and died and gone there and then let them into heaven. Also in early medieval times the Harrowing of Hell by Jesus with him trampling on Satan like a victorious Roman emperor was a popular subject, although never official. And, the terms "God" "creator" and "conceived" all have different meanings to Catholics than what us LDS mean by them.But this creed wasn't written by the Catholic Church. So, how Catholics interpret it is irrelevant.
thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Sargon:Oh I'm not all that insistent that we all have to see it my way or the highway. There is plenty of room for all of us to agree with the Apostles Creed. Though it probably depends a whole lot on how closely we define the terms.
Eguzkitanedan Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 But this creed wasn't written by the Catholic Church. So, how Catholics interpret it is irrelevant.Yes, but.... its transmission is solely through orthodox and miaphysite Christians (split at Council of Chalcedon). We have no idea whether gnostic Christians or Marcionites would have ascribed to it. Thus, it's hard for me not to see it as "catholic/orthodox" in some sense. It always cracks me up to see Protestants put this on their websites, and I really don't think we should do likewise.
smac97 Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 There is really extremely little in this creed that a Mormon would take issue with.My sense is that creeds are objectionable not only for their content, but for their origins and purpose.My sense is that Latter-day Saints believe creeds to be composed of the philosophies of men, not revelation. And yet they are often construed as being on par with - or perhaps even superior to - actual revelation.As a corollary, I think the purpose of creeds is to supplant (or subordinate) revelation, to privilege certain interpretations of scripture above others, and also to consolidate political power.Therefore, we can conclude that the Apostle's Creed is sufficiently broad so that a Mormon can in good conscious recite it.Why would a Mormon want to recite the Apostle's Creed? Particularly when our scripture condemns those creeds as "an abomination in [God's] sight?" (Joseph Smith â?? History 1:19).That said, perhaps we should discuss Stephen Robinson's comment about the Apostle's Creed (quoted here): The writings of the earliest Christians, the Apostolic Fathers, the Greek apologists, and even some of the Nicene Fathers, provide many examples of an understanding of God that would be "unorthodox" by later post-Nicene trinitarian standards - though no one would argue that they were "unbiblical" or "unchristian." Few would seriously accuse these early Christian writers of being heretics, yet I believe modern critics apply a different standard of post-Nicene Mormons in this regard than they do to ante-Nicene Fathers. For if pre-Nicene mainstream Christians, like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus or Eusebius of Caesarea, can be thoroughly unorthodox in their view of the Godhead (by post-Nicene standards) without being declared heretical, then is it not unfair to demonize the LDS for the same point of view? Remember, I am not talking about departing from the biblical information--only from the creeds.8...8. I should probably make exception here for the Apostlesâ?? Creed, which Latter-day Saints could affirm if allowed to define â??holy catholic churchâ?? as â??true Christianity,â?? as I believe Evangelicals also define it. (How Wide the Divide, pp. 131, 219, fn. #This article (from FARMS, apparently) also has some salient points about the creeds (including the Apostle's Creed): Latter-day Saints believe, however, that the creeds of the later Christian councils did not accurately preserve the biblical doctrine of God. Members of the restored Church of Christ do not recognize the authority of these councils to issue binding formulations of doctrine. Moreover, Latter-day Saints believe that the creeds are not consistent with each other, each becoming more removed from biblical teachings and doctrine as time went by. The earliest form of the Old Roman Creed (from the second century) is fairly simple and close to the Bible. Later forms, however, move step by step away from the Bible. The Caesarean Creed (late third century) and the received form of the Apostles' Creed confess God the Father-instead of Jesus Christ, as taught in the Bible (see John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2)-as the "Creator of all things" or "Maker of heaven and earth." The Nicene Creed (fourth century) began to speak of Jesus as being "from the substance of the Father" and "of one substance with the Father," introducing these nonbiblical expressions into the creedal formulas. Eventually, the so-called Athanasian Creed (about the seventh century) added notions such as "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity" and dictated that to be saved a person "must think in this way of the Trinity."4 Latter-day Saints find certain aspects of these formal creeds to be unbiblical and spiritually limiting. They prefer the testimonies given in the Bible and in modern revelation to the formulations fashioned by councils or synods, however astute they may have been....4. See Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3 vols. (Harper & Row, 1931; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1985); and J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed. (New York: David McKay Co., 1972).-Smac
Eguzkitanedan Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 \9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,We are not universal or catholic in virtually all senses of the word.We (LDS) do believe that we have the keys to the kingdom for the whole earth and jurisdiction. This is how best I can tell it used to be viewed (in the Catholic Church) until Vatican II started talking about more of "a body of believers" than a full church.
Sargon Posted February 16, 2009 Author Posted February 16, 2009 My sense is that creeds are objectionable not only for their content, but for their origins and purpose.My sense is that Latter-day Saints believe creeds to be composed of the philosophies of men, not revelation. And yet they are often construed as being on par with - or perhaps even superior to - actual revelation.As a corollary, I think the purpose of creeds is to supplant (or subordinate) revelation, to privilege certain interpretations of scripture above others, and also to consolidate political power.Why would a Mormon want to recite the Apostle's Creed? Particularly when our scripture condemns those creeds as "an abomination in [God's] sight?" (Joseph Smith â?? History 1:19).All of that is good for discussion. I wasn't so interested in the apropriateness of creeds in general, but in whether or not this specific creed (The Apostle's Creed) can successfully be used as a litmus test to bar Mormons from Christianity.Besides the fact that the Apostle's Creed is not doctrinally out of line with Mormonism, the creed certainly doesn't banish those who disagree with it to "non-Christianity".That said, perhaps we should discuss Stephen Robinson's comment about the Apostle's Creed (quoted here): This article (from FARMS, apparently) also has some salient points about the creeds (including the Apostle's Creed): -SmacCool, thanks.Sargon
thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Eguzkitanedan:Are you Catholic? Or perhaps some other catholic?
Eguzkitanedan Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Eguzkitanedan:Are you Catholic? Or perhaps some other catholic?I was raised Catholic and went to parochial schools. Ever since I ditched it, I find myself forgetting it more and more. I guess it's a similar process to ex-Mormons who come on here and seem to know nothing about the LDS Church, but I'm reasonably certain that what I've said is pretty much right.
smac97 Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 I wasn't so interested in the apropriateness of creeds in general, but in whether or not this specific creed (The Apostle's Creed) can successfully be used as a litmus test to bar Mormons from Christianity.That depends, I suppose, on how one interprets line 9.Besides the fact that the Apostle's Creed is not doctrinally out of line with Mormonism,Even so, might it be a "vain repetition" that we should avoid as per Matthew 6:7.the creed certainly doesn't banish those who disagree with it to "non-Christianity".Agreed.But I see little value in confessing creeds.-Smac
JLFuller Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 The Apostle's Creed is often used as a doctrinal litmus test for determining who deserves the coveted title "Christian". There are various translations of the creed, including this one by the Catholic Church:There is really extremely little in this creed that a Mormon would take issue with. Perhaps line 3 isn't worded the way LDS would prefer, but it still isn't wholly contradictory to LDS thought. We do afterall beleive that the power of the Holy Spirit was an indispensable role in the miraculous process by which Jesus was conceived.Point 5 perhaps isn't worded precisely as we LDS might like, but it also is mainly in line with LDS thought. Hell being defined as "spirit prison", we believe that although Jesus did not personally go there, he organized his forces and sent them there which effect was the same or better than had Jesus gone there personally.Therefore, we can conclude that the Apostle's Creed is sufficiently broad so that a Mormon can in good conscious recite it. Wherever it is used as a litmus test for orthodoxy, Mormons pass with flying colors.Do you think that by acknowledging heretical ideas and terms and allowing them a place of respect, even if only in your accepted LDS lexicon, you make it easier to snuggle up next to some of its teachings too?
soren Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 The Apostle's Creed is often used as a doctrinal litmus test for determining who deserves the coveted title "Christian". There are various translations of the creed, including this one by the Catholic Church:There is really extremely little in this creed that a Mormon would take issue with. Perhaps line 3 isn't worded the way LDS would prefer, but it still isn't wholly contradictory to LDS thought. We do afterall beleive that the power of the Holy Spirit was an indispensable role in the miraculous process by which Jesus was conceived.Point 5 perhaps isn't worded precisely as we LDS might like, but it also is mainly in line with LDS thought. Hell being defined as "spirit prison", we believe that although Jesus did not personally go there, he organized his forces and sent them there which effect was the same or better than had Jesus gone there personally.Therefore, we can conclude that the Apostle's Creed is sufficiently broad so that a Mormon can in good conscious recite it. Wherever it is used as a litmus test for orthodoxy, Mormons pass with flying colors.A creed is not a litmus test to determine who is Christian. It is a summary, in narrative form, of what the Church believes. Creeds are a fundamental catechesis for baptismal preparation which double as a litmus test for who is in communion with the Church in accepting the basic points of Christian truth.At the time the Apostle's Creed was penned, a Mormon could not accept it as true, because the clause expressing belief in the "holy catholic Church" indicates the Church as it existed at that time. Since the Great Apostasy is necessary to the Mormon Church's authority claim, a Mormon must deny the validity of the Church that is indicated by this item in the Creed.Mormonism also denies the Communion of Saints, which is incompatible with the story of John and the three Nephites in 3 Nephi.
Sargon Posted February 16, 2009 Author Posted February 16, 2009 Do you think that by acknowledging heretical ideas and terms a place of respect, even if only in your accepted LDS lexicon, you make it easier to snuggle up next to some of its teachings too?No.
Sargon Posted February 16, 2009 Author Posted February 16, 2009 Hi soren.A creed is not a litmus test to determine who is Christian. It is a summary, in narrative form, of what the Church believes. Creeds are a fundamental catechesis for baptismal preparation which double as a litmus test for who is in communion with the Church in accepting the basic points of Christian truth.No matter what it is supposed to be used for, the reality is that many folks use it as a doctrinal litmus test. At the time the Apostle's Creed was penned, a Mormon could not accept it as true, because the clause expressing belief in the "holy catholic Church" indicates the Church as it existed at that time. Since the Great Apostasy is necessary to the Mormon Church's authority claim, a Mormon must deny the validity of the Church that is indicated by this item in the Creed.This might be a valid point. However, the reference to the "holy catholic church" does not directly specify which church is the "holy catholic church". An unorthodox Chrisitian belonging to a heretical Christian movement at the time this was penned might believe that the movement he belongs to is the "holy catholic church", and not find the creed problematic.Mormonism also denies the Communion of Saints, which is incompatible with the story of John and the three Nephites in 3 Nephi.I guess I need further explanation to understand what you mean.
No Touch Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Do you think that by acknowledging heretical ideas and terms a place of respect, even if only in your accepted LDS lexicon, you make it easier to snuggle up next to some of its teachings too?I believe is purpose is to engage the argument that we LDS are "not Christian". And while I would agree completey with the assessment that we are in fact Christians, I for one do not find engaging in that argument to be a worthwhile endeavour. My sense is that creeds are objectionable not only for their content, but for their origins and purpose.My sense is that Latter-day Saints believe creeds to be composed of the philosophies of men, not revelation. And yet they are often construed as being on par with - or perhaps even superior to - actual revelation.As a corollary, I think the purpose of creeds is to supplant (or subordinate) revelation, to privilege certain interpretations of scripture above others, and also to consolidate political power.Why would a Mormon want to recite the Apostle's Creed? Particularly when our scripture condemns those creeds as "an abomination in [God's] sight?" (Joseph Smith â?? History 1:19).I would disagree 100% with your assessment on the purpose of creeds. As a TBM who was raised Catholic, I see that the early Catholic Church when it was finally becoming organized publicly had a need to define their beliefs in a more condensed form, not unlike how Joseph Smith felt a need to do the same with the Articles of Faith, which read very much like a creed. We emphasize it less, I would say on account of the fact that we have revelation to guide us and that our knowledge base is not so constrained. The fact that these creeds are generally inaccurate is irrelevant. I believe they were still written in an honest effort to define and state the central tenets of their faith, not some devious plan to enslave the world with false doctrine.One more side point - if the point about the Catholic Church was understood to be a major sticking point for us, then it would be just as much a sticking point for any non-Catholic, which would in effect mean that all non-Catholics are not Christian. Perhaps that's not the purpose of this thread, but I think it does illustrate how silly it is when "Christians" make the effort to exclude us from holding that title and the lengths to which they must go to so restrictively define the term.
soren Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 Do you think that by acknowledging heretical ideas and terms a place of respect, even if only in your accepted LDS lexicon, you make it easier to snuggle up next to some of its teachings too?Wow. You seem to know quite a lot about Sargon's motives. Does your keen perception come from moral or intellectual superiority?I think he raised a good question. For one things, the denial of creeds, or at least Joseph Smith's understanding/experience of them is one of the common complaints lodged by Mormons against "creedal" Christianity. For this reason alone, the question is relevant. Further, the acceptability of creedal contents for Mormon theology is defensible in several levels. One of the most respected Catholic participant on this forum, David Waltz, has argued plausibly that it is possible for Mormons even to accept the Nicene creed, because homoousios can be read as indicating that the Father and the Son have the same kind of nature. This reading would have been unthinkable to the men who wrote the creed because they assumed it would be read with a monotheistic hermeneutic, yet it is still logically possible for a Mormon to read the words that way. It would be a legalistic move, but it would not be unprecedented upon comparison to historic reinterpretations of the creed that popped up even within Catholic Christendom.This is not to say that Sargon is right, (In fact I disagree with him.) but only that his question is legitimate, and does not deserve this kind of cynical response.
JLFuller Posted February 16, 2009 Posted February 16, 2009 "Wow. You seem to know quite a lot about Sargon's motives. Does your keen perception come from moral or intellectual superiority?"Good question. It comes from many years of working with people who got into trouble because of their thinking. Thinking drives behavior. It is an incremental thing and evolves over time. They got into trouble because they didn't know how not to. They got into trouble because they didn't know they were going that way in the first place. There is a process for deciding. If asking the question is cynical then I plead guilty. But I don't think it is. If you re-examine the premise of the question you will be better able to gauge your direction. In this case, by acknowledging the term creed as an acceptable LDS term for our belief, in whole or part, does it then mean creed becomes an acceptable term to use elsewhere thus aligning some parts LDS theology with it? If it does then by doing so do we destigmatize Creedalism a bit? I suggest it can become an incremental step in an heretical direction but certainly not always. But why go there? I suggest that keeping Creedalism aligned only with traditional Christianity and not with LDS theology keeps the waters clear. Now if you want to examine whether I am cynical when it comes to traditional Christian behavior towards Mormons then I would agree with you. I am cynical. More than that - I am distrustful. It comes from a life time of experience. But that is off point just a bit.
Sargon Posted February 16, 2009 Author Posted February 16, 2009 I happen to be a non-creed-hating Mormon. My experiences with creeds have not been negative, as they may have been for Joseph. I happen to believe that whether or not we want to admit it, we LDS have our own form of creeds. We probably don't hold to our creeds as rigidly as some Christians do to theirs, but we certainly have creeds. But all of that is besides the point. JLFuller's paranoia is unjustified in this thread. I'm not interested in aligning LDS thought to any particular ancient creed. The entire, and sole, purpose of this thread was to point out that Apostle's Creed can not successfully bar Mormons from Christendom.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.