The Apostle's Creed and Mormons

[3DOP]

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.

I have thought this a thousand times and said it very seldom. To say you don't have creeds is to say you don't have beliefs. There have to be some common beliefs to which every Latter Day Saint consents. It is that to which the ancient creeds refer. As you point out, they are tame, and some Mormons are only individually excluded from them because of some LDS hypersensitivity to the word "creed". Call it "belief" (which is a fairly perfect synonym) and the problem seems to disappear. For the reasons you point out, I happily include all Mormonism as a Christian belief, even if there are those among you who try hard to find ways to disbelieve anything that happens to come under the label of "creed".

Good job Sargon,

3DOP

[JLFuller]

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.

NOW WAIT JUST MINUTE BUB!! Paranoids have enemies too you know! I resemble that remark.

"...some LDS hypersensitivity to the word "creed". Say it ain't so Sargon. Say it ain't so!

[mfbukowski]

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.

It's ironic that I had to memorize this as an altarboy when I was a young Catholic, and I still believe the same things. A few more also, but these core points haven't changed! Actually, being an altarboy was the best training I ever got for when I was an ordinance worker!

[Eguzkitanedan]

I have thought this a thousand times and said it very seldom. To say you don't have creeds is to say you don't have beliefs. There have to be some common beliefs to which every Latter Day Saint consents. It is that to which the ancient creeds refer. As you point out, they are tame, and some Mormons are only individually excluded from them because of some LDS hypersensitivity to the word "creed". Call it "belief" (which is a fairly perfect synonym) and the problem seems to disappear. For the reasons you point out, I happily include all Mormonism as a Christian belief, even if there are those among you who try hard to find ways to disbelieve anything that happens to come under the label of "creed".

Good job Sargon,

3DOP

Good post. I'll just make it explicit, and point out that "creed" comes from "credo" meaning "I believe" in Latin.

[thesometimesaint]

Eguzkitanedan:

You sounded like you had.

[Eguzkitanedan]

Eguzkitanedan:

You sounded like you had.

Yeah, the earlier post was a bit unclear. Thanks for pointing it out.

[soren]

Hi soren.

No matter what it is supposed to be used for, the reality is that many folks use it as a doctrinal litmus test.

I am not saying that that is shouldn't be used as a test. In can and should be used in that way. But it is not a test of who is Christian, it is a test of who is Catholic.

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.

The whole point of saying "Holy Catholic Church" is to indicate to schismatics that their separation from the Church entails denial of a necessary article of faith. In any case, the Church spoken of here cannot be the LDS Church.

I guess I need further explanation to understand what you mean.

Oops. I have discussed this topic on a thread before, and I somehow thought you had been involved, so I didnâ??t think I needed to explain my position. Here follows the big can of worms that underlies my earlier claim:

The doctrine of the communion of the saints states that solidarity exists among all holy souls on earth, in purgatory, and in heaven, in the capacity of common membership in one Mystical Body of Christ. That might not sound too un-Mormon on the surface, but I think Mormon Scripture conflicts radically with this idea. The two most evident places are the story of the Three Nephites and the denial of infant baptism in D&C 20.

Setting aside the specifically Catholic ideas of purgatory and mysticism, let us consider the easier topic of what it means for the members of Christ to be in solidarity. St. Paul says Church members are â??citizens of Heaven.â? (Phil 3:20) and the author of Hebrews says we â??have now come to Mt. Zion and to the heavenly Jerusalem.â?? The whole point of referring to the Church as Zion is to indicate that it is the same kingdom that reigns in heaven and that we are common members of the same body that the saints in the glory are. Possession of that Kingdom is given to the Apostles by divine covenant: â??I covenant to you, as my Father covenanted to me, a kingdom.â? (Luke 22:29) (Beware the KJV translation which says â??appoint.â? The word here is definitely â??covenant.â?)

For this reason, all of the principles related to the association of Church members with one another apply to those in heaven, for Christ has only one body, not two. Therefore, when Paul says that â??the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you,â? (1 Cor 12:21) it follows that the souls in heaven, as members of the same body that we are in, participate actively in the life of every member in the Church. If they did not, then the hand would have no need of the eye. Therefore, the souls in heaven participate in the life and salvation of souls here on earth.

On a parallel course of reasoning, it is also important to remember that Christ conquered death, and that membership in his body is membership in an immortal body. If a real divide existed between the living and the dead, then death would have a sting for those who are beyond death.

You might already have guessed why I think this clashes with the story of the Three Nephites. The reason that the Nephites and John want to stay on earth is to bring souls to Christ. Yet, if you believe in the communion of saints, the choice between going to heaven and bringing souls to Christ is a false dilemma because dying and going to heaven are not impediments to evangelizing. A saint who reigns in heaven with the authority of God is a catalyst to bring grace to earth, through the Church, for the salvation of men. That is why I believe that John the Apostle died on Patmos around 100 a.d. and has been bringing souls to Christ ever since, more than he could have done in a mortal life. Otherwise death would have had a sting for him. Seen in light of the communion of saints, it is better to die and go to heaven, hands down.

In the case of infant baptism, it is even plainer, because D&C says not only that children must not be baptized, but that â??No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance.â? (D&C 20:71) The italicized phrase denies to children solidarity with the other saints to the extent of denying them Church membership. One could reject infant baptism while upholding the communion of saints, but not by the rationale of D&C 20:71. Instead, one would have to say that children need no baptism because as sinless individuals they are already exemplar Church members, not that they are non-members. To deny them reception into the Church while maintaining that they belong to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 19:14) assumes a logic opposed to the communion of saints.

This is not to say that no association exists among Latter-day Saints that can be described as a communion. In fact, there is even a joint endeavor for saving souls between the saints on earth and in heaven in the form of proxy baptism. Yet the underlying theology of such things does not match up to what â??communion of saintsâ? describes, which is fundamentally the scope and unity of the Church as such.

[Sargon]

Hi soren. Thanks for the brief explanation of "communion of the saints".

Do you think that this doctrine, as you described it, was fully developed the way it is today at the time the creed was written?

I mean, if someone in roughly 150 AD were to ask if John the apostle had stayed on the earth in a "translated" state (to use Mormon jargon), would a colleague then recite the Apostle's Creed to refute that idea? Do you think the doctrine was really that well developed?

Thanks.

Sargon

[mfbukowski]

Good post. I'll just make it explicit, and point out that "creed" comes from "credo" meaning "I believe" in Latin.

Coming from Catholicism, when I first saw the Articles of Faith, I said "Oh- no problem -- I get it -- like the Credo". The "problem" is strictly semantic.

[JLFuller]

Coming from Catholicism, when I first saw the Articles of Faith, I said "Oh- no problem -- I get it -- like the Credo". The "problem" is strictly semantic.

It really isn't but ....

[mfbukowski]

I am not sure if we agree or disagree, but I definitely disagree with my understanding of what you wrote here

The whole point of saying "Holy Catholic Church" is to indicate to schismatics that their separation from the Church entails denial of a necessary article of faith. In any case, the Church spoken of here cannot be the LDS Church.

But we know that the meaning of "Catholic" is "universal". Looking at what the Creed says in plain English out of a historical context, "all" that is being professed is a belief in One Holy Universal Church. From an LDS perspective, we believe that there is one church which is both "holy" (in the sense of sanctified to the Lord) and "universal" -- it is the "one true church" on the earth today. So again, stripping away the historical purpose of the Creed and looking at it strictly theologically, I see no reason why the LDS church could not be "catholic" in this sense.

....The doctrine of the communion of the saints states that solidarity exists among all holy souls on earth, in purgatory, and in heaven, in the capacity of common membership in one Mystical Body of Christ. That might not sound too un-Mormon on the surface, but I think Mormon Scripture conflicts radically with this idea. The two most evident places are the story of the Three Nephites and the denial of infant baptism in D&C 20.

Setting aside the specifically Catholic ideas of purgatory and mysticism, let us consider the easier topic of what it means for the members of Christ to be in solidarity. St. Paul says Church members are “citizens of Heaven.” (Phil 3:20) and the author of Hebrews says we “have now come to Mt. Zion and to the heavenly Jerusalem.“ The whole point of referring to the Church as Zion is to indicate that it is the same kingdom that reigns in heaven and that we are common members of the same body that the saints in the glory are. Possession of that Kingdom is given to the Apostles by divine covenant: “I covenant to you, as my Father covenanted to me, a kingdom.” (Luke 22:29) (Beware the KJV translation which says “appoint.” The word here is definitely “covenant.”)

For this reason, all of the principles related to the association of Church members with one another apply to those in heaven, for Christ has only one body, not two. Therefore, when Paul says that “the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you,” (1 Cor 12:21) it follows that the souls in heaven, as members of the same body that we are in, participate actively in the life of every member in the Church. If they did not, then the hand would have no need of the eye. Therefore, the souls in heaven participate in the life and salvation of souls here on earth.

A very interesting point, that though I was raised Catholic, I never thought about before. Yet in the LDS church, there is a common belief that the work for the dead goes on on both sides of the veil. I have heard many times from temple presidents the notion that there is somehow a parallel work happening in the spirit world where families, for example, may be inspired to seek out their dead by that very dead relative who wants his work done, or even the notion that the actual organization of the work on the other side parallels in some way, what we do here. So we do believe that the spirits on the other side are actively engaged in interaction with the living for the performance of ordinances etc. in multiple ways.

On a parallel course of reasoning, it is also important to remember that Christ conquered death, and that membership in his body is membership in an immortal body. If a real divide existed between the living and the dead, then death would have a sting for those who are beyond death.

This is not unlike the LDS notion of the "Church of the Firstborn" which is made up of those who will receive exaltation.

You might already have guessed why I think this clashes with the story of the Three Nephites. The reason that the Nephites and John want to stay on earth is to bring souls to Christ. Yet, if you believe in the communion of saints, the choice between going to heaven and bringing souls to Christ is a false dilemma because dying and going to heaven are not impediments to evangelizing. A saint who reigns in heaven with the authority of God is a catalyst to bring grace to earth, through the Church, for the salvation of men. That is why I believe that John the Apostle died on Patmos around 100 a.d. and has been bringing souls to Christ ever since, more than he could have done in a mortal life. Otherwise death would have had a sting for him. Seen in light of the communion of saints, it is better to die and go to heaven, hands down.

But there are more important ways to "bring souls to Christ" than individual conversions and missionary work which would have been practically impossible in an apostate environment.

What has always fascinated me is that though the Catholic church apostasized in our view, in the sense that the priesthood authority was lost, what is incredible is that the central gospel that this person named Jesus who was the Word, was in fact the Son of God and came to earth and suffered and was crucified for the sins of man-- that central point of Christianity was preserved throughout history. It was not lost the way the central ideas of say Zoroastrianism were lost, the cult of Mithras was lost, and who know how many other possible religions notions were lost instead. Who's to say that the Lord was not conducting "covert operations" if you will, perhaps by the 3 Nephites and John, who were here appearing as normal humans, to preserve these central truths in preparation for the restoration. The restoration would not have worked unless there was already a large body of Christians in the world.

Maybe I have watched too many "Mission Impossible" episodes but eliminating the wrong pope at the right time, helping reformers etc. could have allowed people their own agency and to reap the consequences of their actions, while allowing the Lord to "tweak" history as needed. (all rights reserved for screenplays etc. ) Totally speculative I know, but why not?

In the case of infant baptism, it is even plainer, because D&C says not only that children must not be baptized, but that “No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance.” (D&C 20:71) The italicized phrase denies to children solidarity with the other saints to the extent of denying them Church membership. One could reject infant baptism while upholding the communion of saints, but not by the rationale of D&C 20:71. Instead, one would have to say that children need no baptism because as sinless individuals they are already exemplar Church members, not that they are non-members. To deny them reception into the Church while maintaining that they belong to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 19:14) assumes a logic opposed to the communion of saints.

This one I am definitely not buying. Again, they are members of the Church of the Firstborn. All those in the celestial kingdom are, and children are saved in the Celestial Kingdom. Is Jesus a member of the Church? Doesn't have to be -- but is He included in the communion of saints? I would hope so.

This is not to say that no association exists among Latter-day Saints that can be described as a communion. In fact, there is even a joint endeavor for saving souls between the saints on earth and in heaven in the form of proxy baptism. Yet the underlying theology of such things does not match up to what “communion of saints” describes, which is fundamentally the scope and unity of the Church as such.

You seem to be touching on what I am thinking, but I am not seeing anything which prevents it from "matching up"

[mfbukowski]

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.

On the other hand I don't want anything to do with the Nicene Creed. "Substance" is definitely a "mystery". Don't get me started on that one!

[blueadept]

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.

Thanks for breaking down the 12 points of the Apostle's Creed Catholics are suppose to remember when they sing the 12th day of '12 days of Christmas' song.

I always seem to be off when breaking down the 12 points.

[3DOP]

Thanks for breaking down the 12 points of the Apostle's Creed Catholics are suppose to remember when they sing the 12th day of '12 days of Christmas' song.

I always seem to be off when breaking down the 12 points.

Hey blueadept,

Thanks. Interesting. I had never heard of that custom but I'll try to keep it mind next year during those days!

3DOP