The Abomination Of Creeds

[wenglund]

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

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.

They have their apples and we have our oranges, and most of us lack the nuance cynicism and think there is a difference. LOL

I am left to wonder why my Sunday School instructors haven't said something like: "Please turn to the first chapter in 1st Nephi and read the creed in the first three verses."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Speaking of the nuance-challenged, I did not equate "canon" with "creed," nor did I say that Articles of Faith are synonymous with creeds. Here are your nuances: (1) not all canon is creed, and not all creed is canonized, but a statement of faith is more likely to be a creed if it is canonized. (2) All articles of faith are creeds, but not all creeds are articles of faith, because articles of faith are a species of creed. (3) Moroni 10 is not a creed because it is a statement of beliefs, whereas a creed is a statement of belief.

[wenglund]

Speaking of the nuance-challenged, I did not equate "canon" with "creed," nor did I say that Articles of Faith are synonymous with creeds. Here are your nuances: (1) not all canon is creed, and not all creed is canonized, but a statement of faith is more likely to be a creed if it is canonized. (2) All articles of faith are creeds, but not all creeds are articles of faith, because articles of faith are a species of creed. (3) Moroni 10 is not a creed because it is a statement of beliefs, whereas a creed is a statement of belief.

Then we can safely say that the verbal pretzel quoted above is your personal creed, even though it hasn't been canonized.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

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."

+1

[The Nehor]

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

No one in particular. Several people generally.

[mfbukowski]

Speaking of the nuance-challenged, I did not equate "canon" with "creed," nor did I say that Articles of Faith are synonymous with creeds. Here are your nuances: (1) not all canon is creed, and not all creed is canonized, but a statement of faith is more likely to be a creed if it is canonized. (2) All articles of faith are creeds, but not all creeds are articles of faith, because articles of faith are a species of creed. (3) Moroni 10 is not a creed because it is a statement of beliefs, whereas a creed is a statement of belief.

I think that for the last 20 years it is ok for me now to officially use the phrase "to me, it is a mass of confusion".

[altersteve]

Even Jesus hates Creed.

(If you get the reference, I applaud you.)

Edited February 8, 2012 by altersteve

[Storm Rider]

As Lehi has pointed out, "catholic" here means universal and I agree that in our context we would be the universal church.

The "communion of saints" is actually quite close to our concept of the Patriarchal Order and Church of the Firstborn.

As I understood this, but I just did not take the time to make this comment, rather I took it as it was meant when first written, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The universality fo "the" Christian church is something that we claim to be, but we just don't use this langauge.

[Storm Rider]

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 AofF are a part of scripture. As such, I find it difficult to call them anything but authoritative and fundamental. They summarize our most basic beliefs and that was the purpose of their creation.

[Cobalt-70]

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."

Lets put aside this straw man. Nobody thinks a creed is anything connected to religion. It is not the entire canon (though at least one church leader thought otherwise: http://books.google.com/books?id=oHAtAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA70), and it is not the CHI. A creed is simply what the dictionary says it is. The Articles of Faith is a classic creed under any definition that people actually use, not counting the attempted Mormon-only definitions we've seen here which are specifically designed to exclude the Articles of Faith. In fact, the Latin word "credo," which begins the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, means "I believe...." Any authoritative list of theological principles for a faith, each of which begins with "We believe..." is a creed by any rational measure.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Storm Rider]

The topic is why were the Creeds identified as an abomination. I do not think that Jesus was saying that a creed, by the mere fact that it is a creed, is an abomination, but that all the creeds of the day were an abomination. This discussion about the Articles of Faith, while riveting, has nothing to do with the topic and is and of itself a straw man regarding the topic.

I have appreciated some of the responses that addressed the topic and I would appreciate it there were anymore else that is germane to the topic be added.

[Cobalt-70]

The topic is why were the Creeds identified as an abomination. I do not think that Jesus was saying that a creed, by the mere fact that it is a creed, is an abomination, but that all the creeds of the day were an abomination. This discussion about the Articles of Faith, while riveting, has nothing to do with the topic and is and of itself a straw man regarding the topic.

I have appreciated some of the responses that addressed the topic and I would appreciate it there were anymore else that is germane to the topic be added.

I think the Articles of Faith issue was relevant because it is a counterexample to those who argue that Mormonism has no creeds, which is a prerequisite to the theory that Joseph Smith's account of his first vision meant that all creeds are abominable. That horse being beaten at least to the point of a profound illness, I still think that Smith had a dim view of creeds, even though he wrote one. But that dim view of creeds is mostly a carry-over from his 1820s theology as reflected in the Book of Mormon and early revelations.

Those revelations reflect the idea that there were two churches only, and that what distinguished the church of God from the church of the devil is not the correctness of its doctrine or creeds, but rather its charismatic authority. Smith had seen the churches argue over their creeds, and he thought there had to be a better way: a church in which preachers taught only repentance and faith in Jesus, not points of doctrine. This Book of Mormon ideal was not completely expressed in the LDS Church, but the church comes closer than most churches. The LDS Church does have creeds, and its preachers teach far more than repentance and faith in Jesus, but Mormon creeds or tenets of doctrine are not what define the LDS faith, at least not the way that creeds define other faiths. The LDS faith is still rooted primarily in charismatic authority, as it was from the beginning.

[Kevin Christensen]

The topic is why were the Creeds identified as an abomination. I do not think that Jesus was saying that a creed, by the mere fact that it is a creed, is an abomination, but that all the creeds of the day were an abomination. SNIP

Yet, Joseph Smith, the one reporting the visionary discussion, explained, as I noted previously here (on many occasions over the years) that he objected primarily to the function of creedal statements. No discussion of the meaning passage about creeds should ignore Joseph Smith's articulate explanations.

Joseph Smith explained the problem with creeds, while pointing out that "all of them contain some truth."

"creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to." (TPJS, 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. (HC 5:215.)

He also explained that "It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine"; see Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, 183-84.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[wenglund]

I think the Articles of Faith issue was relevant because it is a counterexample to those who argue that Mormonism has no creeds, which is a prerequisite to the theory that Joseph Smith's account of his first vision meant that all creeds are abominable. That horse being beaten at least to the point of a profound illness, I still think that Smith had a dim view of creeds, even though he wrote one. But that dim view of creeds is mostly a carry-over from his 1820s theology as reflected in the Book of Mormon and early revelations.

Those revelations reflect the idea that there were two churches only, and that what distinguished the church of God from the church of the devil is not the correctness of its doctrine or creeds, but rather its charismatic authority. Smith had seen the churches argue over their creeds, and he thought there had to be a better way: a church in which preachers taught only repentance and faith in Jesus, not points of doctrine. This Book of Mormon ideal was not completely expressed in the LDS Church, but the church comes closer than most churches. The LDS Church does have creeds, and its preachers teach far more than repentance and faith in Jesus, but Mormon creeds or tenets of doctrine are not what define the LDS faith, at least not the way that creeds define other faiths. The LDS faith is still rooted primarily in charismatic authority, as it was from the beginning.

Sorry, you can't shoehorn this LDS into your idiosyncratic box. If you wish to define your personal LDS faith as creedal, that's your choice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Yet, Joseph Smith, the one reporting the visionary discussion, explained, as I noted previously here (on many occasions over the years) that he objected primarily to the function of creedal statements. No discussion of the meaning passage about creeds should ignore Joseph Smith's articulate explanations.

Joseph Smith explained the problem with creeds, while pointing out that "all of them contain some truth."

"creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to." (TPJS, 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. (HC 5:215.)

He also explained that "It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine"; see Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, 183-84.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Thanks- I had never seen that quote before.

[The Nehor]

Lets put aside this straw man. Nobody thinks a creed is anything connected to religion. It is not the entire canon (though at least one church leader thought otherwise: http://books.google....AAJ&pg=RA1-PA70), and it is not the CHI. A creed is simply what the dictionary says it is. The Articles of Faith is a classic creed under any definition that people actually use, not counting the attempted Mormon-only definitions we've seen here which are specifically designed to exclude the Articles of Faith. In fact, the Latin word "credo," which begins the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, means "I believe...." Any authoritative list of theological principles for a faith, each of which begins with "We believe..." is a creed by any rational measure.

I disrespectfully disagree.

A creed has to be thought of as a creed by the followers of said faith to be a creed. LDS do not. I have no objection to non-LDS using it as their creed if they wish but it is not my creed.

[altersteve]

The topic is why were the Creeds identified as an abomination. I do not think that Jesus was saying that a creed, by the mere fact that it is a creed, is an abomination, but that all the creeds of the day were an abomination. This discussion about the Articles of Faith, while riveting, has nothing to do with the topic and is and of itself a straw man regarding the topic.

I have appreciated some of the responses that addressed the topic and I would appreciate it there were anymore else that is germane to the topic be added.

I think Jesus said the creeds are an abomination to Him because a creed leaves no room for continuing revelation, as I said previously. That's how I've always understood it.

[cinepro]

FWIW, I agree with Jesus that

is an abomination.

[Cobalt-70]

I disrespectfully disagree.

A creed has to be thought of as a creed by the followers of said faith to be a creed. LDS do not. I have no objection to non-LDS using it as their creed if they wish but it is not my creed.

A Mormon who says "this is an authoritative statement of what I believe, but it's not my creed" simply disagrees with the dictionary. It's like saying, "this triangle has three equal sides, but it is not equilateral."

Edited February 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Flyonthewall]

It really doesn't matter if the Articles of Faith can be labeled a "creed" or a type of creed, because the "creeds" Joseph was talking about are the ones that put God in a box, so to speak, and left no room for continuing revelation. If it didn't fit in the box then it was discarded as hertical.

[cinepro]

It really doesn't matter if the Articles of Faith can be labeled a "creed" or a type of creed, because the "creeds" Joseph was talking about are the ones that put God in a box, so to speak, and left no room for continuing revelation. If it didn't fit in the box then it was discarded as hertical.

Thank goodness the modern LDS Church is so open to ideas that are "outside the box". It would be a shame if, after the first few decades of doctrinal development, the Prophets and Apostles were relegated to a role of doctrinal middle-management.

[Flyonthewall]

Thank goodness the modern LDS Church is so open to ideas that are "outside the box". It would be a shame if, after the first few decades of doctrinal development, the Prophets and Apostles were relegated to a role of doctrinal middle-management.

what would be your idea of doctrinal upper management?

[KevinG]

Thank goodness the modern LDS Church is so open to ideas that are "outside the box". It would be a shame if, after the first few decades of doctrinal development, the Prophets and Apostles were relegated to a role of doctrinal middle-management.

Some ancient Jews were no doubt kvetching that Aaron never revealed commandments 11-20 once Moses had broght down 1-10.

[Storm Rider]

Yet, Joseph Smith, the one reporting the visionary discussion, explained, as I noted previously here (on many occasions over the years) that he objected primarily to the function of creedal statements. No discussion of the meaning passage about creeds should ignore Joseph Smith's articulate explanations.

Joseph Smith explained the problem with creeds, while pointing out that "all of them contain some truth."

"creeds set up stakes, and say, "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further'; which I cannot subscribe to." (TPJS, 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. (HC 5:215.)

He also explained that "It dont [sic] prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine"; see Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, 183-84.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin, I really enjoyed both of your postsa and I think you have provided the better reason relative to the one I proposed. Thank you.

[The Nehor]

A Mormon who says "this is an authoritative statement of what I believe, but it's not my creed" simply disagrees with the dictionary. It's like saying, "this triangle has three equal sides, but it is not equilateral."

It's not an "authoritative statement of what I believe". I don't have any of those.