The Abomination Of Creeds

[wenglund]

Yes. The Articles of Faith is a Mormon creed.

That is why we refer to them as a creed rather than as articles of faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

I'm sure glad the church went to the trouble to cannonized such "non-core" peripheral doctrine in creedal format.

Let's see...

Nothing about the nature of the Godhead- three distinct persons unified in purpose

Nothing about the bodily nature of God

Nothing about exaltation

Nothing about the redemption of the dead

Nothing about temple ordinances, or even the need for a temple

Nothing about the restoration of the gospel

Nothing about personal revelation or receiving a testimony

But other than those few items, it is definitely a comprehensive list of all our core beliefs. Yessiree. It's all there.

[altersteve]

I agree that it is the creation of a creed that God referred to as "an abomination," because a creed allows no room for continuing revelation, the loss of which resulted in the apostasy.

[KevinG]

I don't think there is a significant functional difference between a creed designed to outline core beliefs and the LDS articles of faith. That is consistent with my belief that the abomination referred to in the Joseph Smith History is not the fact that there were creeds or statements of belief but that there were falsehoods that crept into the creeds as part of the general apostacy that led to contention and infighting.

Read the Joseph Smith History in context and you will find that is a very reasonable interpretation.

[KevinG]

I agree that it is the creation of a creed that God referred to as "an abomination," because a creed allows no room for continuing revelation, the loss of which resulted in the apostasy.

That too!

[Cobalt-70]

You know I skimmed so quickly over that; I agree we often would not use that language; however, we do not deny the veracity of Matt 1:20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." I think we would more often simply say, Son of God. Care should be taken that we do not deny truths only because of unused vocabularly. We may clarify, but I don't think we should deny.

I think perhaps he was referring to statements by a wide swath of Mormon leaders from Brigham Young to Bruce R. McConkie to Ezra Taft Benson that that Jesus was "literally" conceived by the Father. That belief also interferes a bit with the credal statement that Mary was a virgin when she conceived.

[LeSellers]

I think perhaps he was referring to statements by a wide swath of Mormon leaders from Brigham Young to Bruce R. McConkie to Ezra Taft Benson that that Jesus was "literally" conceived by the Father. That belief also interferes a bit with the credal statement that Mary was a virgin when she conceived.

I'll see your bet, and raise you an in vitro fertilization.

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

That is why we refer to them as a creed rather than as articles of faith.

By what definition of the term "creed" is the Articles of Faith not a creed? Articles of faith are just one type of creed, differing from other creeds in that they are numbered statements beginning with "We believe." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Faith

[Cobalt-70]

I don't think there is a significant functional difference between a creed designed to outline core beliefs and the LDS articles of faith. That is consistent with my belief that the abomination referred to in the Joseph Smith History is not the fact that there were creeds or statements of belief but that there were falsehoods that crept into the creeds as part of the general apostacy that led to contention and infighting.

Read the Joseph Smith History in context and you will find that is a very reasonable interpretation.

I sort of agree. In 1838, when Joseph Smith wrote his most famous version of the first vision story, he didn't likely have much problem with creeds in general. He did not, for example, object when Oliver Cowdery published a creed in Messenger and Advocate in October 1834 (p. 2), which later formed the basis for the Articles of Faith. The problem was not creeds in general, but those particular creeds that existed in other faiths. However, in the 1820s, Smith probably didn't like creeds at all, as evidenced by such passages as Mosiah 18:20 and 25:22, which echo the anticredalism of the Disciples of Christ from which Smith drew influence.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[KevinG]

I sort of agree.

Who turned the thermostat down?

[wenglund]

By what definition of the term "creed" is the Articles of Faith not a creed?

The Articles of Faith are not a "system of belief." They are an INformal declarations of some of the things we believe.

I realize that this difference may be lost on the nuanced-challenged (as your response to my quip may attest), but it is there nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

nevermind

Edited February 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

Creeds are an attempt at a summary of core doctrine- the Articles of Faith clearly are not. There is no mention of God having a body, of exaltation, and of many other core doctrines in the A of F.

Creeds are an attempt at a summary of core doctrine- the Articles of Faith clearly are not. There is no mention of God having a body, of exaltation, and of many other core doctrines in the A of F.

CFR that "Creeds are an attempt at a summary of core doctrine".

I think Wikipedia's definition is a better representation of the practical usage of the word:

A creed is a statement of belief—usually a statement of faith that describes the beliefs shared by a religious community—and is often recited as part of a religious service. When the statement of faith is longer and polemical, as well as didactic, it is not called a creed but a Confession of faith. The term "creed" can also refer to a person's political or social beliefs or is sometimes used to mean religious affiliation.

The subsequent canonization and traditional memorization and public recitation by transitioning 11-year-old children only adds to the creed-like sheen for the Articles of Faith.

But I agree that if we define "creed" in such a way that excludes the Articles of Faith, then the Articles of Faith are not a creed.

[Senator]

Can someone explain the functional difference between "creeds" in Christianity, and the Articles of Faith (as highlighted by DaddyG) and Temple Recommend questions?

....and the Proclamation on the Family?

[mfbukowski]

CFR that "Creeds are an attempt at a summary of core doctrine".

I think Wikipedia's definition is a better representation of the practical usage of the word:

A creed is a statement of belief—usually a statement of faith that describes the beliefs shared by a religious community—and is often recited as part of a religious service. When the statement of faith is longer and polemical, as well as didactic, it is not called a creed but a Confession of faith. The term "creed" can also refer to a person's political or social beliefs or is sometimes used to mean religious affiliation.

You are actually CFRing me for an interpretation of a definition? Good luck on that one.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creed

Definition of CREED

1

: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2

: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle

I think clearly that 1 and 2 would exclude the Articles of Faith since they are neither authoritative nor fundamental, and clearly they were not intended to be a "Creed" or otherwise they would be titled as such.

And if you note your highly authoritative wikipedia quote includes the idea of being recited as part of a religious service, and in my experience that doesn't happen a lot in an LDS meeting with the Articles of Faith. Furthermore, according to the wikipedia definition a creed could be almost anything which is a "statement of belief", like "I believe Republicans are wrong". I don't think that is exactly intended by the phrase "Abomination of Creeds".

But it doesn't make much sense to argue about it anymore really. I have said about as much as I have to say on the subject, and I think from here on it will mostly be "Yes they are" versus "No they aren't".

If you look at what the Articles of Faith contain, they hardly distinguish us from those who we call "Creedal Christians". How you can therefore use those as an alternitive "Creed" is beyond me.

I mean the OP itself illustrates how similar they are to the Apostles Creed- and yet they are supposed to be "OUR" distinctive creed about our differences? I don't think so!

If the Articles of Faith are our "Creed" then how are we different from "Creedal Christians"?

[mfbukowski]

Can someone explain the functional difference between "creeds" in Christianity, and the Articles of Faith (as highlighted by DaddyG) and Temple Recommend questions?

Since when are temple recommend questions a public statement of faith?

[Cobalt-70]

The Articles of Faith are not a "system of belief." They are an INformal declarations of some of the things we believe.

I realize that this difference may be lost on the nuanced-challenged (as your response to my quip may attest), but it is there nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The formality of the Articles of Faith is attested by the fact it has been canonized, the words were carefully tweaked by Joseph F. Smith's administration, and Primary children the world over memorize them verbatim. If you think that creeds have to be a comprehensive dissertation on all the faith's beliefs on par with the Catechism, then you are wrong. They typically just outline the major elements of the faith that make that faith distinctive from competitor faiths.

You cannot reasonably deny that the Articles were intended as a statement of Mormon faith, or that they are currently used as a statement of Mormon faith, which makes them a creed. The creed's 1834 predecessor was also presented as a statement of Mormon faith. It was prefaced by, "That our principles may be fully known we here state them briefly:..." (M&A, Oct. 1834, p. 2)

[Cobalt-70]

....and the Proclamation on the Family?

That's a creed too, but an uncanonized creed.

[Senator]

Since when are temple recommend questions a public statement of faith?

Since the rise of the internet!

[Cobalt-70]

I think clearly that 1 and 2 would exclude the Articles of Faith since they are neither authoritative nor fundamental, and clearly they were not intended to be a "Creed" or otherwise they would be titled as such.

The Articles of Faith are authoritative, especially because they have been canonized. They are a description of fundamental (public) Mormon church beliefs circa 1842. Of course, they didn't contain the then-secret elements of Mormonism. But creeds don't have to be comprehensive.

And if you note your highly authoritative wikipedia quote includes the idea of being recited as part of a religious service, and in my experience that doesn't happen a lot in an LDS meeting with the Articles of Faith....

Have you ever been to a Primary sharing time?

[mfbukowski]

Well good then. We have officially now joined the ranks of Creedal Christians. You have convinced me.

[The Nehor]

Well, it looks like we've now expanded the definition of creed to include just about everything that has any connection at all to religion.

The CHI, all the standard works and every verse in them, Sister Doe's testimony on Sunday we all amened.

In fact I think I shall create a new creed right now:

"As for me and my house we will let the Latter-Day Saint faith define on their own what is and is not a creed to them and not let a bunch of agenda-driven apostates and unbelievers define it for us. So let it be written, so let it be done."

[Senator]

"As for me and my house we will let the Latter-Day Saint faith define on their own what is and is not a creed to them and not let a bunch of agenda-driven apostates and unbelievers define it for us. So let it be written, so let it be done."

I've looked over all the posters in this thread. To whom was this comment refering to?

[wenglund]

The formality of the Articles of Faith is attested by the fact it has been canonized, the words were carefully tweaked by Joseph F. Smith's administration, and Primary children the world over memorize them verbatim. If you think that creeds have to be a comprehensive dissertation on all the faith's beliefs on par with the Catechism, then you are wrong. They typically just outline the major elements of the faith that make that faith distinctive from competitor faiths.

You cannot reasonably deny that the Articles were intended as a statement of Mormon faith, or that they are currently used as a statement of Mormon faith, which makes them a creed. The creed's 1834 predecessor was also presented as a statement of Mormon faith. It was prefaced by, "That our principles may be fully known we here state them briefly:..." (M&A, Oct. 1834, p. 2)

Those of us who are not nuance-challenged will not equate "canon" with "creed." We view those words as meaning different things, just as we view the phrase "Articles of Faith" to mean something different than "creed." That is why you don't tend to hear LDS refer to things like the Word of Wisdom or Moroni 10 as a creed, though they are expressions of LDS beliefs.

However, you are free to use the term "creed" in whatever idiosyncratic fashion suites your fancy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

Those of us who are not nuance-challenged ....

Folks are probably not nuance-challenged, as much as they are nuance cynical.

We view those words as meaning different things, just as we view the phrase "Articles of Faith" to mean something different than "creed." That is why you don't tend to hear LDS refer to things like the Word of Wisdom or Moroni 10 as a creed, though they are expressions of LDS beliefs.

So DaddyG was probably right when he stated that there really isn't much functional difference. Christians have a food processor, Mormons have a blender.

[anticipating concise instruction on the differences between a food processor and a blender]

Edited February 8, 2012 by Senator