The Abomination Of Creeds

[The Nehor]

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.

Not my problem. I prefer more direct forms of revelation in any case. I think I know how to get more revelation coming down the pipeline but it has to be a group effort.

[Cobalt-70]

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

Maybe not, but to most Mormons, the Articles of Faith is authoritative, given that it was canonized. It is also a statement of what "We [that is, Mormons] believe...."

[Darth_Bill]

Once I started studying early christianity and looking at those creeds I realized that the Articles of Faith play that role also. I think within the LDS community it does set some stakes but are not as "firm" as the early christian creeds. However, early christians have several creeds so I'm not sure how "firm" those are either.

I agree with others in this thread in that the only way the AoF do not serve as a creed is by explicitly leaving it out of the definition. I also think that cannonization of them was probably incorrect because it really leaves out much of what LDS believe or have items that we don't stress. Considering their origin, I'm not sure if they should play the role that we give them.

Just a moderately informed opinion. I could be wrong. I'm happy either way.

[Storm Rider]

Once I started studying early christianity and looking at those creeds I realized that the Articles of Faith play that role also. I think within the LDS community it does set some stakes but are not as "firm" as the early christian creeds. However, early christians have several creeds so I'm not sure how "firm" those are either.

I agree with others in this thread in that the only way the AoF do not serve as a creed is by explicitly leaving it out of the definition. I also think that cannonization of them was probably incorrect because it really leaves out much of what LDS believe or have items that we don't stress. Considering their origin, I'm not sure if they should play the role that we give them.

Just a moderately informed opinion. I could be wrong. I'm happy either way.

I think it is an interesting proposition, but I also think creeds play a greater, more significant role in the religious lives of other churches. They are often repeated in worship services and prayers. Someone pointed out that our primary children memorize the AofF, but that is hardly the equivalent of repeating them in unison or repeating them in prayers.

Yet, I do think that the AofF state our most basic beliefs; to not believe them is in many ways to not be a LDS. Of course there are other concepts, but they fall under these statements of belief; that does not mean they play a subordinate role, but that they are appendages to them.

I also feel that wether the AofF are or are not a creed is meaningless to the topic. I tried to get away from this rather unrelated issue, but others feel that it is more significant than the Lord's condemnation of the Creeds of the day. Regardless, I have been rather pleased with the answers that were brought forward. If there are no more, then I think we have carried this topic as far as it can go. Maybe take the AofF being a creed to another thread if it is found of such importance.

[cinepro]

what would be your idea of doctrinal upper management?

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

You are most welcome. The Joseph Smith quotes on the topic are some of my favorite things about him. Personally, I'd like to see them included as explanatory footnotes in the account in the Pearl of Great Price.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA