"...Because None Of Them Had The Complete Truth."

[LDSGuy]

LDS Guy,

You wrote:

I don't claim that the video's producer intentionally sought to mislead people. I do think, however, the video's paraphrase is misleading, since, as you acknowledge, it appears intended to avoid offending people. I'd rather be offended and told what you really believe than to be told something that is inoffensive but not the whole truth about what you believe. And there's the irony of this whole thing. The video does exactly what its producers claim Christ said the churches did -- it fails to tell the whole truth. By omitting the offensive bits, the video omits crucial elements of LDS doctrine and thus misleads by omission -- just as you and others here have argued that traditional Christian churches were "wrong" because they were missing important elements of the gospel of salvation.

A person can be direct, and not be offensive.

I know where you're coming from, but you're straining at a gnat swallowing a camel. You are interpreting this as misleading, but in reallity it is not. The video is about making things simple (a.k.a kindnergarden level). The producer is considering the level of understanding of his target audience, not trying to mislead people on the church's position.

[cinepro]

Why would you reject the traditional definition of "creed" and invent one of your own?

A creed is, in nearly every religion derived from ancient Christianity, a formal statement of beliefs. In general, a creed is one of several such statements crafted by men in the III~XVI, e.g., The Apostolic Creed, the Nicean Creed.

Your making Christ's words to Joseph into something other than what they actually say makes one visualize an ulterior motive.

Lehi

I was responding to T-shirts suggestion that Christ was somehow referring to the "churches" and not the "various beliefs" of those churches (whatever that means). I'm not sure your definition of "creed" makes it any better.

Joseph: "So Jesus, when you said their creeds were an abomination, that still means there might be other teachings that you like, right? You're only talking about the formal statements of beliefs, and not their informal unstated ones, right?"

Jesus: "Yes, of course, once you get past their core beliefs and doctrines and corrupt professors, and their man-made doctrines, there's actually some good stuff there."

Edited October 21, 2011 by cinepro

[Deborah]

Anyone feel like this yet?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Anyone feel like this yet?

I felt like the topic really was a non starter. So yeah.

[Kevin Christensen]

This discussion has been handicapped by not recognizing that Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings, ["It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine"; Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183-84.] but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to." [Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 327]

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

[DHC

5:215]

The issue is a question of orientation—of the wine or the wine-bottle, which has priority? You need both to enjoy either. But should theory, paradigm, or creed determine experience, or should experience constrain and determine theory? In Alma's 32's terms, do you filter experience through what you simply and finally "know," or do you accept theories tentatively, and only to the extent that your ongoing experience gives "cause to believe?" Do you settle for the current academic or religious orthodoxy, or do you seek for ever greater light and knowledge?

Creeds make for rigid background expectations which impede the growth of knowledge.

Doctrine and Covenants 1:25-28 emphasizes that Mormonism is incomplete, socially imperfect, and nonexclusive with respect to truth and virtue. I agree that the "none of them had the complete truth" version is somewhat misleading, if not quite wrong enough to have a cow about. However, no discussion of the 1838 report of "creeds" as a problem can get out of the deep grooves of misunderstanding without taking the leap of immediately looking to see how Joseph Smith explained the matter.

Once again, as often before on this same topic. (See "Paradigms Crossed." in RBBM 7:2), FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree that the "none of them had the complete truth" version is somewhat misleading, if not quite wrong enough to have a cow about. However, no discussion of the 1838 report of "creeds" as a problem can get out of the deep grooves of misunderstanding without taking the leap of immediately looking to see how Joseph Smith explained the matter.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

So it would seem, then, that what Rob thinks he knows about the message conveyed in the Joseph Smith — History account is no more accurate than what is in the retelling in the non-authoritative YouTube video to which he so strenuously objects.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

• Mormons Made Simple is not an official LDS Church website (I never suggested it was, and there is no rational reason for ignoring what Mormons say unofficially)
  

I was one who made that point early on in the discussion.

The way you framed your opening post could imply, intentionally or not, that the video was official. ("In this LDS video..." etc.)

I was uncomfortable with the possibility that others might draw that erroneous inference, so I wanted to make that clarification, as you yourself had not done so.

It is not fair to hold the Church accountable for what people may unauthoritatively say about it.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

• My intentions are bad (my intentions are irrelevant, but the truth is that my intentions are not bad)
  
• I make a career out of criticizing the LDS Church (This has been a major part of what I do only for the past three years, and I would say the same thing regardless, so this criticism is irrelevant)
  

As several respondents have indicated here, the criticism really does seem trivial, and the critic's vocation or avocation could go to motive and bias. That is the relevancy.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[ldsfaqs]

The responses to my opening post here have been fascinating because they have been all over the place. One person acknowledged forthrightly that it is a “misrepresentation”; two others admitted that it was a “slight” misrepresentation, or a misrepresentation “to a degree.” Another compared it to using euphemisms to express vulgarities in the Bible; similarly, someone suggested that it is a “softer” was of saying the same thing. One suggested that Christ’s harsh words of condemnation in the First Vision story applied only to local congregations of Joseph’s day and place. All of the other responses have been attempts to divert attention to irrelevancies:

• The First Vision doesn’t teach that other churches have no truth at all (this has been the most popular response; but I never suggested it did)
  
• Mormons Made Simple is not an official LDS Church website (I never suggested it was, and there is no rational reason for ignoring what Mormons say unofficially)
  
• Mormons Made Simple is intended for children (partly, but would it hurt the kids to tell them that Christ said that all of the churches were wrong and their creeds offended God?)
  
• It’s a summary (no kidding, but the issue is whether the summary is accurate)
  
• It’s a paraphrase (no kidding, but the issue is whether the paraphrase is accurate)
  
• It isn’t necessary to use the exact words (I never suggested it was)
  
• Evangelicals feel slighted by the LDS Church’s claim (my feelings are irrelevant to the issue)
  
• Mormons don’t preach against other religions (they do if they preach what Christ supposedly told Joseph, instead of some softer restatement)
  
• Mormons believe in Christ (I never said they didn’t)
  
• The criticism is a “gotcha” (no, not for honest Mormons)
  
• My intentions are bad (my intentions are irrelevant, but the truth is that my intentions are not bad)
  
• I make a career out of criticizing the LDS Church (This has been a major part of what I do only for the past three years, and I would say the same thing regardless, so this criticism is irrelevant)
  
• I’m promoting a conspiracy theory about Mormons as liars (simply false)
  
• Vague complaints about people being unloving in their criticisms of the LDS religion (nothing here of substance to answer)
  
• I supposedly hate Mormons (Not so, but some of them are very irritating!)
  
• I don’t monitor and criticize every fundamentalist publication or video (nor do I expect Mormons to monitor or criticize every LDS work)
  
• I supposedly consign everyone in China to hell (I don’t)
  
• Joseph heard other things not recorded (Is the video’s statement supposed to summarize things we have not been told in the First Vision story??)
  
• Joseph did translate the plates as depicted in LDS artwork (This one wins the prize for the most irrelevant comment!!)
  

Those of you who are indignant at me because I didn’t accept your answer might want to reflect on the fact that other Mormons here gave different answers—and that most of those answers have been demonstrably irrelevant to the issue.

Funny how your quotes completely IGNORE the actual direct answers to your question, and you only "cherry pick" the additional added information that only relate. Not only that, but at the end you accuse US of giving you different and irrelevant answers.

Take your last quote. You completely ignore the information I gave that was specifically addressing your question, that it was simply a basic summary, and you cherry-pick the related side point. Not only that, but all your other quotes, you do the EXACT same thing. You cherry pick the related (i.e. so-called irrelevant) completely ignore peoples actual answers, and THEN you lie about us, claiming we are only giving you the run-around.

Is that really what you call being "honest" of your fellow men ROB....???

Why don't you redo your "list" Rob, and pick our ACTUAL ANSWERS to you on the subject, instead of bearing false witness of us like you anti-mormons just love to always do???

Edited October 21, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

This discussion has been handicapped by not recognizing that Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings, ["It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine"; Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center Monograph, 1980), 183-84.] but because "creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to." [Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 327]

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

First of all, it doesn't make sense for God to condemn creeds as "an abomination" supposedly because they limit what people can believe.

Second, your quote from Joseph doesn't affirm that the creeds are true or even refer to creeds per se at all, but only admits that people can be good people even if they believe false doctrine. How does this quotation show that he didn't think the creeds were false teachings?

Third, the claim that creeds restrict people to believing only what is stated in them is false and silly. I believe a lot of things that are not stated in any creed. The creeds do not limit what people can know or believe, but they do state some things that the framers of the creed think Christians should believe. For example, when the Apostles Creed affirms that Jesus Christ died on the cross, was buried, and rose from the dead, it is not limiting us from knowing other things about Jesus taught in the Gospels but not mentioned in the creed.

Fourth, Articles of Faith is itself a creed. I know, Mormons don't admit it's a creed, but that's like Calvary Chapel members not admitting that Calvary Chapel is a denomination or Keith Olbermann not admitting that he is a liberal. The term creed simply means a statement of belief (from credo, "I believe"). All thirteen of the articles begin "We believe...." That makes it patently and undeniably a creed. The website Mormon.org (an official LDS site) describes them as "Thirteen basic points of belief to which Mormons ascribe." That's a creed.

[selek1]

First of all, it doesn't make sense for God to condemn creeds as "an abomination" supposedly because they limit what people can believe.

Except, of course, for that fact that the glory of God is intelligence and truth.

It is God's goal to bring about the redemption and exaltation of man- and anything that stands between man and God and the true light of Christ IS an abomination.

Sin is an abomination precisely because it stands between us and a true-and-living relationship with our Heavenly Father- both coming to know him as he truly is, and changing us to be more like him.

The creeds you are so desperate to defend are abominations for exactly the same reasons.

I find it very interesting that you're all for (as per your argument above) limiting what people can and cannot believe.

But then again, that's neither new nor novel to your "ministry".

Simply put- rather than thinking for themselves or seeking God on his terms, you demand that people pidgeon-hole themselves into the narrow ideological box you've constructed- and condemn everything outside that box as "heresy" and everyone outside your clique as "damned".

That's not how Christ operated, nor is it how his true Church can or should be managed.

Second, your quote from Joseph doesn't affirm that the creeds are true or even refer to creeds per se at all, but only admits that people can be good people even if they believe false doctrine. How does this quotation show that he didn't think the creeds were false teachings?

You're being deliberately obtuse here, Bowman, and the facade is growing painfully thin.

Of course the creeds were false- that's why they were (and are) an abomination.

What the second quote shows is that unlike yourself, we do not believe that Christ will happily damn individuals for error- only for sin. We do not believe that a just and merciful God can or will condemn people for being mistaken, only for being wilfully disobedient to God's commandments.

Third, the claim that creeds restrict people to believing only what is stated in them is false and silly. I believe a lot of things that are not stated in any creed. The creeds do not limit what people can know or believe, but they do state some things that the framers of the creed think Christians should believe.

This is both a strawman and a redherring- because those creeds not only determine what peopel "must" believe, it also defines what they cannot- are not allowed- to believe.

You and your ilk have long argued that one must beleive the Athanasian/Nicean creeds in order to be considered "Christian". You and yours have flatly argued that a Christian CANNOT disagree with those creeds- and have damned everyone who disagrees with you as fallen or worse.

You and your like have used the creeds as a weapon to to persecute and dehumanize those who disagree with you, to enforce orthodoxy, and to exclude free thought since the days of Martine Luther. (Though in fairness, your forebearers cheerfully exiled or executed those who wouldn't sign on to the decree at the Council of Nicea, too.)

That you (and others before you) have used those creeds as a weapon to cast those who believe differently than you out of "Christ's Church" is proof-in-the-pudding that they are an abomination.

It's one thing to censure the sinful for their crimes.

It's something entirely different- and Orwellian- to punish the penitent for their thoughts.

Fourth, Articles of Faith is itself a creed.

In your opinion. Fortunately, your dogma and bias are not binding upon the rest of us. Edited October 22, 2011 by selek1

[california boy]

Why does it seem this way?

I doubt it's word for word. It was recorded well after the fact, and it is a paraphrase itself. I don't think that means much, though.

And one has to answer, "a human one."

Absolutely.

I know lots of people who are ok with glossing over the genocide commanded by God in the Bible, or the fact that the person who murders Babylonian infants will be blessed, or the fact that Christ said to give all your money to charity in order to be saved, or that you should gouge out your eye if it causes you to sin, or even that only those who do God's will will be saved. I think it's silly that people insist on taking rhetoric literally in some places and not in others.

You may be right. Personally I think if Christ spoke directly to me, one of the first things I would do is write it down word for word maybe counting on the Holy Ghost to help me get it right.

I don't think Joseph Smith was unique in being human and maybe stating things as he felt or tried to recall what was actually said. Sometimes prophets are just giving their opinions. It is why I am always amazed at the person that believes every single word in the Bible came from God. I highly doubt that even a lot of it came directly from God. Maybe that is why dogma hanging from a single verse is just really not that important.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

You wrote:

First of all, it doesn't make sense for God to condemn creeds as "an abomination" supposedly because they limit what people can believe.

At issue in this discussion is how Joseph Smith understood the issue whether it makes sense to you or me or represents God accurately or not. The two direct statements by Joseph Smith belong in the discussion of how he understood the story he told. I personally would like to see both of them included as footnotes to the Pearl of Great Price account. I think it would prevent a lot of misunderstanding.

As far as creedal statements of faith limiting what people can believe, the "supposedly" does not account for a great deal of violent conflict in Christian history. The goings on in the streets during the council in Nicea, the Donatists, Giordano Bruno, William Tyndale, etc.

Second, your quote from Joseph doesn't affirm that the creeds are true or even refer to creeds per se at all, but only admits that people can be good people even if they believe false doctrine. How does this quotation show that he didn't think the creeds were false teachings?

In one of his comments on creeds, Joseph said of the Christian creeds "all of them have some truth." He also publically spoke against some of the ideas expressed in Christian creeds, such as the nature of God, or the finality and sufficiency of the Bible revelation. The quote on "it don't prove a man is not a good man because he believes false doctrine" illustrates his attitude toward the notion of thought crime, whether in or out of the LDS movement. D&C 1 bluntly states of LDS leaders that "these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

We all believe some things that are not correct, and we all lack omniscence, which means, all of us have room to repent of false beliefs and ignorance.

Such an attitude goes nicely with "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." Our statements of faith contain provision and room for change. They do not set up stakes and bounds to the work of the almighty. And compared to the 12 Volumes and 90 essays of The Fundamentals published from 1910 to 1915, they leave much more room for discussion and ongoing revelation. "Hitherto thou should come," (not shall), and definitely no trace of "and no further."

The plenary view of scripture, for example, (not necessarily your approach but important in Protestant history), that scripture is "complete, inerrant, and sufficient" does set up stakes against things like the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Third, the claim that creeds restrict people to believing only what is stated in them is false and silly.

But with regard to the topics which the creeds address, restriction is the point. The idea has always been to provide a final solution to controversy as a step towards peace and unity on divisive topics. It is true that the Nicean Creed doesn't tell me much about who is the best NBA player, or which phone to buy, or how to vote this year. Even so, Christian history is littered with examples of efforts to restrict and enforce various beliefs, including enforcement by the sword and/or inquisition.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[LeSellers]

I think if Christ spoke directly to me, one of the first things I would do is write it down word for word maybe counting on the Holy Ghost to help me get it right.

I'm a "writer" by trade, but not a "recorder". Joseph was not a recorder, either: he had others write revelations, and even his journal.

I don't think Joseph Smith was unique in being human and maybe stating things as he felt or tried to recall what was actually said. Sometimes prophets are just giving their opinions. It is why I am always amazed at the person that believes every single word in the Bible came from God. I highly doubt that even a lot of it came directly from God. Maybe that is why dogma hanging from a single verse is just really not that important.

The only problem with this position is that, like it not, the record is all we have.

That said, what you've said is important. It's why living prophets are (and must be) more immediately valuable than scripture. They, and they alone, are authorized to interpret scripture and declare doctrine.

Lehi