... All Their Creeds Were An Abomination In His Sight

[dougtheavenger]

The underlying purpose of my post is to hone my missionary skills. I have had some experiences where in criticizing the LDS church, people have repudiated parts of the Nicene or Athanasian creed and thus the doctrines of their own church. Of particular interest is the doctrine that Jesus was "begotten by the Father before all worlds" (Nicene creed). Recently this has been "translated" into "Eternally begotten" or at least a change has been proposed, but the very act of changing it is in conflict with the notion of "historic" Christianity. When investigators come into contact with people claiming Mormons are not Christian, this information could be useful.

http://www.creeds.ne...ient/nicene.htm

Edited June 29, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[dougtheavenger]

I had issue with number 3 as well.

My belief, and I believe the Church's, is that we believe that Christ was created in the same manner that we were, aside from His divine physical parentage. However, Christ is the Only Begotten in the flesh.

I think this is worth discussing.

Moses 1:3 states

"And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?"

[dougtheavenger]

begotten vs created.

It is my understanding that we are all begotten sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father and that there is a difference between begotten and created.

D&C 93: 29 "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not creatd or made, neither indeed can be.

Book of Abraham - Chapter 3

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

Edited June 29, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[Evangeline]

In regards to the general direction of this topic, I believe that the issue is that we do believe in divinely revealed creeds, however we do not believe in the creeds of men. The creeds referenced are creeds written by men without revelation to further define the gospel, in my opinion man adding to scripture. I fail to see how man, without God's guidance, can better define the gospel than God did or, in the LDS paradigm, does. So, I think that the real disparity is that we do not believe in the traditions (creeds) of men, but in the continuing revelations (creeds) of God. Man has some truth, but he, man, often inserts his own beliefs and interpretations into his, man's, statements.

I like that. Thanks.

[David T]

begotten vs created.

It is my understanding that we are all begotten sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father and that there is a difference between begotten and created.

If by 'begotten' you mean biologically reproduced, that concept, while popular, is still very much in the air. There are some significant historical and philosophical concerns with full-out advocating that particular reading.

FWIW, when our current scriptures make reference to us as begotten children of God, they generally speak of it terms of covenant adoption, through Christ. (Also, 'Only Begotten in the Flesh' is not scripture, but an attempt to reconcile the title with varying uses and understanding of what 'begotten' is referencing in the scriptures).

[bryan11]

as best as I can come up with is that Christ was born of a mortal mother making him the only son of god to be born

[William Schryver]

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." (TPJS, 327). Joseph Smith also said of the creeds that "all of them have some truth."

"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.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I have noted over the years that, for whatever reason, the concept that your quotes describe is one of the very hardest truths for some to wrap their minds around.

I think the May 11, 1842 Joseph Smith Letter to Nancy Rigdon embodies the same fundamental principles.

Perhaps, if anything, it could be said that the creed of the Latter-day Saints is (or at least ought to be) to keep ourselves "ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time."

[David T]

as best as I can come up with is that Christ was born of a mortal mother making him the only son of god to be born

In the New Testament, it is understood that Jesus is "the Son of God". The Gospel writers, however, show that it wasn't fully understood by everyone what that meant. For Mark , Jesus became the Son of God at his Baptism (Paul's language seems to favor an adoptionist reading as well). For Matthew and Luke, they both gave distinct narratives that explained him as being called Son of God in terms of having had a miraculous human-father-less conception. For John, he's the Son of God because he premortally came forth from God.

All NT writers that express humanity as having a sonship relationship view humans as sons of God only asmuch as they are adopted into the Covenant.

Therefore, when Latter-day Saint theology developed and expressed the concept that we all premortally became/are children of God, the explanation of the title 'One and Only/Unique/Only Begotten Son of God' as applied to Jesus then didn't make literal sense. Qualifiers (like "in the flesh") had to be added.

I don't think we need to affirm that Jesus of Nazareth is a biological demigod to declare him as a unique and prototypical Son of God.

Speaking of the importance of allowing for expanded and revised understanding ...

Edited June 29, 2012 by David T

[bryan11]

In the New Testament, it is understood that Jesus is "the Son of God". The Gospel writers, however, show that it wasn't fully understood by everyone what that meant. For Mark , Jesus became the Son of God at his Baptism (Paul's language seems to favor an adoptionist reading as well). For Matthew and Luke, they both gave distinct narratives that explained him as being called Son of God in terms of having had a miraculous human-father-less conception. For John, he's the Son of God because he premortally came forth from God.

All NT writers that express humanity as having a sonship relationship view humans as sons of God only asmuch as they are adopted into the Covenant.

Therefore, when Latter-day Saint theology developed the concept that we all premortally became sons of God, the explanation of the title as applied to Jesus then didn't make literal sense. Qualifiers (like "in the flesh") had to be added.

I don't think we need to affirm that Jesus of Nazareth is a biological demigod to declare him as a unique and prototypical Son of God.

Speaking of the importance of allowing for expanded and revised understanding ...

I should clarify my thinking

OP made a comment asking how we as lds should respond about the Nicene creed. Using the Nicene trinity as an arguement, saying that Christ could not have had a literal brother who is satan there for the lds thinking is wrong based on Christ being the only begotten son of god. But if only begotten means that he was the only one to be born to a mortal woman, with god as his immediate father. Then it doesn't exclude the possibility of there being siblings to christ.

So yes I agree that we are all children of god but as far as the nicene creed vs lds belief as far as christ is concerned I think it necessary to point that out because so often people take christ and satan as brothers as either demeaning to christ or elevating satan to a higher level

[David T]

I should clarify my thinking

OP made a comment asking how we as lds should respond about the Nicene creed. Using the Nicene trinity as an arguement, saying that Christ could not have had a literal brother who is satan there for the lds thinking is wrong based on Christ being the only begotten son of god. But if only begotten means that he was the only one to be born to a mortal woman, with god as his immediate father. Then it doesn't exclude the possibility of there being siblings to christ.

Why does the Nicene Creed's definitions need to be responded to? We're a Church based on a principle of continuing revelation, and new light correcting and expanding on earlier understandings - even scriptural ones.

As was pointed out, even the NT authors couldn't agree what the title 'Son of God' must have meant in regards to Christ's relationship to God.

We're still working out the relationships. Which is why a concrete creed specifically defining that relationship is unhelpful.

Edited June 29, 2012 by David T

[CASteinman]

The Articles of Faith, in my opinion, should never have been raised to the level of Canon of Scripture. It was a mere answer to a reporter. Such things do not seem to me to be full of glory. But it is not my call.

[Yep]

Over the weekend I came across the following:

　

　ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS - VOL 3, p. 165

　The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God of the Athanasian Creed

Question: "May I raise a question about one of your statements? You state that in the year A.D. 325 the bishops of the church 'rejected the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and substituted the Athanasian Creed.' For me this statement needs clarification. May I inquire in what respect 'the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' differs from the God as stated in the Athanasian Creed?"

Answer: The God of Abraham came down to visit Abraham and instruct him on several occasions, as he did likewise to others of the prophets. So Abraham became acquainted with our Heavenly Father and knew him. All I need to do to show that the God of Athanasius is not the God of Abraham is to refer to three points.

1. The creed says that God is "incomprehensible," confounding the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This certainly is in conflict with what is written in the scriptures:

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more. fn

Then in that wonderful soul-stirring prayer of our Savior to his Father, shortly before his crucifixion, he prayed:

Now this is everlasting life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. fn

　ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS - VOL 3, p. 166

　SCRIPTURES ARE CLEAR ON DOCTRINE OF GODHEAD

2. The creed is at fault in stating that there are not "three Eternals" but "one Eternal," thus confounding the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, when the scriptures are definitely clear that the three members of the Godhead are separate and distinct from each other; each with a definite mission to perform. The Savior told his apostles that when he went away he would send them the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost.

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your mind whatsoever I have said to you.John 14:26. fn

Here we have the promise that the Son would go but the Advocate, or Holy Spirit, would be sent to be with the apostles.

3. In the fact that the creed declares that in the Trinity, "None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-Eternal together, and Co-Equal" we find a conflict which is contrary to what is written in the scriptures. Arius, at that council, tried to establish one truth that was rejected. That is, that there never was a Son that was not younger than his Father, but the creed emphatically declares that the Son, as well as the Father, is "Uncreate."

In Hebrews we find it written:

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, And let all the angels of God adore him. fn

If Christ is the Firstborn, it must have been in the pre-existence before the earth was formed. According to what is written we are all the offspring of God, as Paul declared in Athens:

For in him we live and move and have our being, as indeed some of your own poets have said,

For we are also his offspring.

If therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to imagine that Divinity is like gold or silver or stone, to an image graven by human art and thought. fn

Christ is, of course, the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that those who believe in him may not perish, but have life everlasting. fn

　ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS - VOL 3, p. 167

　DISTINCTION EMPHASIZED BETWEEN FATHER AND SON

Contrary to the creed, Jesus Christ has said:

You have heard me say to you, if you love me, you would indeed rejoice that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.John 14:28. fn

Jesus answered them and said, My teaching is not my own, but his who sent me.

If anyone desires to do his will, he will know of the teachings whether it is from God, or whether I speak on my own authority.John 7:16-17. fn

Paul has written:

For he must reign, until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

And the last enemy to be destroyed will be death.

For he has put all things under his feet. But when he says all things are subject to him, undoubtedly he is excepted who has subjected all things to him.

And when all things are made subject to him, then the Son himself will also be made subject to him who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all. fn

Moreover, when Jesus prayed in Gethsemane he prayed to his Father, saying:

Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will but thine be done. fn

Thus he sought in prayer something which the Father denied him.

These passages are a few which show that the Athanasian Creed was not inspired by the Father, but was man-made. On the occasion there was no revelation given; nor was one sought. To the contrary, men contended, bitterness followed, and there came a division among them. They had no prophet to speak, no divine word of the Lord was received, but merely the opinions of men who lacked inspiration.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have noted over the years that, for whatever reason, the concept that your quotes describe is one of the very hardest truths for some to wrap their minds around.

I think the May 11, 1842 Joseph Smith Letter to Nancy Rigdon embodies the same fundamental principles.

Perhaps, if anything, it could be said that the creed of the Latter-day Saints is (or at least ought to be) to keep ourselves "ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time."

Probably because the reason why JS (or Jesus) opposed them has been misrepresented.

[wenglund]

I think the semantic wrestling over the word "creed" misses God's, and latter Joseph's, point about creeds being an abomination.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think the semantic wrestling over the word "creed" misses God's, and latter Joseph's, point about creeds being an abomination.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Exactly. I could not have said it better.

[Loose screw]

Why did God say that creeds an abomination to him? I think the answer is far more fundamental than what is being discussed so far. If the Lord wanted creeds but only from his Church why from all the dispensations of the past do we find the Lord has authorized none, not one, at least I can think of none? None of the prophets were commanded to send out creeds listing what is to be believed. There are of course some singular statements that make something clear but only to a limited point. There are Commandments and instruction on conduct but creeds of belief. Creeds tend to extensive either on one subject or covering numerous subjects. The Lord purposely leaves room for addition understanding but NOT for the reason of leaving room for "additional revelation" but for additional discovery, growth and comprehension by the individual because the individuals need to take it in gradually and in pieces. The process of searching, questioning and coming to a understanding and belief is as important if not more to the individuals growth than the truth it self.

 

It is the people (usually leaders) who are motivated to create creeds not the Lord and they do it for their own reasons. It is the nature of man to try to make things easier and simpler for themselves, for the Church, for member and nonmembers to clarify and define and set things forth, to end error and disputes. In doing so we think we have accomplished something good and righteous for the Lord and everyone else. The fact is if the Lord wanted a creed, any creed he is fully capable of sending one forth and he doesn't need the feeble minds of mortal men to assist him in it's content.

 

I believe the real reason he doesn't authorize creeds but finds them abominable is that they are in conflict with the natural order of learning and progress of the Father who made us agents unto ourselves to act and learn. Creeds puts people under unnecessary condemnation or jeopardy for not accepting the creed and every word of it the moment they received it. Everyone is at different levels of understand and accountability. Creeds disrespect that fact. Even the Church suffers under this condition to some degree.

 

Example: When Joseph had the 1st vision he was under the influence of the spirit (he was transfigured),  saw the Father and the Son and heard them, and from that experience there were many possible assumptions and conclusions the Prophet could have made. Some were made and accepted by him at the time, some later and others not at all. But the Prophet taught and approve others to teach in the School of the Prophets a course called The Lectures on Faith. Lecture #5 declaring the nature of the Godhead and their individual nature. It is a mistake to think the first vision settled all the fundamental questions regarding the Godhead. The fact is for many years Joseph and other leaders believed and taught that God the Father did NOT have a body of flesh and bones but was only a personage of spirit but looked like the Son who DID have a body of flesh and bone and that the Holy Ghost was NOT a personage at all but was only the influence or spirit of God and NOT an entity at all. (see Lecture #5 and the summary questions and answers at it's end) This teaching went on for many years, it was even published as the official teachings of the Church in the book of commandments. It was finally recognized as having serious error and the lectures were deleted from the cannon of scriptures. But the point is the Lord let Joseph and everyone else think and accept whatever level of truth and understand they could arrive at that time, just as he had in pass ages.They were allow to be wrong. Members were not forced to accept these official teachings and erroneous conclusions nor were they forced to accept a correction then when addition light was revealed on the subject at least they were not put on trial for their membership. The members were free to grow and believe as well as they could, both individually and as a people without force.

 

Think of it this was way - in the Lord's eyes we are all savages, idiots and ignoramuses and so far from really comprehending anything fully and correctly. The truth is comprehended by mortals only in bits and pieces and just line upon line. As mere mortals we naturally know almost nothing and possess more error than correct understanding. Like a father trying to explain to his 1 year old what daddy does for a living. You have to keep it short and simple and accept the fact his toddler is not really going to understand and will form some errors that he will have to just grow out of later, but he has to start someplace and so he is given initial starting point of understanding and if diligent additional light and knowledge each new portion clarifying and expanding. 

 

A good father will allow his son to grow at his own pace and feeds him no more than he can chew. He also understands some of it is going to end up on the floor, some will be spit out and some will even be refuse to be tried. But the wise father excepts the fact that in time there will be progress. Immediate comprehension and perfection is not necessary or expected. Just give him something small to chew on and them just a little more later and he will eventually learn to eat for himself and with just some help and guidance along the way he'll progress to his full expected ability.  Creeds ignore that natural progress of us mere mortals and ignore the author's mortal ignorance and error filled convictions they are trying to establish on others.

 

Creeds conflict with that natural learning process of man and are an extension of the Devils methods of telling people what to believe and then forcing them to accept it under the premise it is necessary to prevent confusion, disbelief and apostasy of the weak in the faith. Is it any wonder creeds are an abomination in the site of God - his method is gradual, first the milk, much later the meat and always in small pieces. Since many factors cause people to be at different levels, the truth is given in fragments and is dispersed in many source, individuals have to look to find it's clues and many pieces and they will not find it all at once or in one place and they shouldn't find it all at once - they couldn't handle that. Creeds attempt to pull it all together and establish their understanding as THE TRUTH   and of course they have their reasons, justifications and excuses. They also have their supporters - sound familiar (war in heaven) but it is fundamentally in direct conflict with the Lord's way - free agency - each progressing at their own pace, not forced and not handed what to believe. Creed both force what is to be believe but also limit what is to be believed. 

 

Creeds really don't settle any question, they are just meant to silence those would continue the discussion and questions.

 

The Devil uses creed and similar methods that dis-empower the individual's rights and abilities.

The Lord's use methods that exercise and empowers the individual's rights and abilities. The Lord's method makes you search, think, work, pray and obey and gives you power. The Devils makes you obey and make you weaker and enslaved. You can feel the difference. I don't accept creeds and being told believe this; anymore than I accept Kool-Aid and being told drink this.

[cinepro]

The Articles of Faith, in my opinion, should never have been raised to the level of Canon of Scripture. It was a mere answer to a reporter. Such things do not seem to me to be full of glory. But it is not my call.

 

Perhaps the Articles of Faith were foreshadowing the role of the modern PR department in the Church today, and the important role that "newsroom" pronouncements have in expounding for the Church.

[Loose screw]

Why would the Lord use the word ABOMINATION, a very extreme word. Not just wrong, improper or foolish but one of the strongest words he could of used in the English language to reject and condemn them. He said the authors of these creeds had a form of Godliness but denied the power thereof. Joseph said that those creeds all had some true but all of them were wrong.

 

I don't think the Lord used the word abomination because they weren't perfect orexceeded some percentage of error vs. truth ratio.

 

They are an abomination because they are a betrayal of God, usurping God's role and ways and establishing their own ways and beliefs. 

 

Mere mortals issuing Creeds and declarations of what is true and should be believed? Who do they think they are? God! What contempt and usurpation of authority.  It's mortals setting themselves up as Gods - deciding what is true. He called all the creeds an abomination even though some of the people who produced them no doubt had good intentions. But still "..all their creeds were an abomination in his sight"

 

Was it their content?

Or was it there very existence?   Abomination (most vile and offensive) is an extreme word, not to be used lightly.   

 

I think the Church would be wise to not establish or let other's in Church issue or convert anything into a creed or that might be thought of as a creed or anything like unto. Avoid the very appearance of evil and certainly anything the Lord calls an abomination.

[MiserereNobis]

I think the Church would be wise to not establish or let other's in Church issue or convert anything into a creed or that might be thought of as a creed or anything like unto. Avoid the very appearance of evil and certainly anything the Lord calls an abomination.

 

Then you have to get rid of the Articles of Faith.  They are a creed, hands down.  Each statement begins with "We believe" and then gives a statement of doctrine.

 

That is the very essence, pattern included, of a Christian creed:  we believe followed by doctrine (except, in Latin, it is "I believe": Credo!)

 

You can't have it both ways, as previous posters have pointed out.

 

Don't LDS children memorize the Articles of Faith, too?  That is very much like Catholic children (and adults) memorizing the Nicene and Apostles' creeds.

Edited July 1, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[saemo]

Let it never be said that Mormons don't spend time putting down other regions.

At any rate, every organization has its core beliefs that everyone is expected to agree with. Creeds being an abomination is one of those, for Mormons. Very long posts to explain exactly why Mormons believe a creed is an abomination.

A creed against creeds.

Edited July 1, 2014 by saemo

[CV75]

In Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision, he tells us

'I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”'

So from this we see that the Nicene creed and Athanasian creed and other creeds are an abomination in the sight of God. So clearly these creeds are at odds with LDS doctrine. Where does LDS doctrine and these creeds agree and where do they differ?

Where do LDS doctrine and the creeds agree?

1. Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father.

2. Jesus was begotten of the Father before all worlds.

3. Jesus was "not made, nor created; but begotten". Thus there is a clear distinction between begotten and created.

Where do LDS doctrine and the creeds differ?

1. "The Son is of the Father alone". (Athanasian creed) From this, we may deduce there is no Heavenly Mother.

2. "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God," (Nicene creed) From this we might deduce that God the Father has no other sons, or daughters.

I think in this usage, "creed" means "system" of religious belief, not particular points or statements of doctrine or belief. A system is corrupt when it is in an apostate condition and operating outside proper legal authority and standards.

[Loose screw]

In looking up the definition, that doesn't seem to be the case  the word creed is the statement, document or authoritive establishment of a set of belief and is not used to refer to the organization that issue it. Do you have a reference that it is used in the way you suggest?

[Loose screw]

 

Let it never be said that Mormons don't spend time putting down other regions.

At any rate, every organization has its core beliefs that everyone is expected to agree with. Creeds being an abomination is one of those, for Mormons. Very long posts to explain exactly why Mormons believe a creed is an abomination.

A creed against creeds.          

 

 

Don't blame the messenger or the message. 

Joseph was surprised when the Lord said their creeds were all abominations, but what was he to do - ask the Lord to lighten up a little? It certainly would of made Joseph's life a lot easier. Either the Lord said it and it maters, or he didn't and in that case it's not the same issue.

 

But I know of no creeds in the New Testaments, if they weren't necessary or appropriate then what make them, now?  Creeds who needs them?

 

 

[CV75]

In looking up the definition, that doesn't seem to be the case  the word creed is the statement, document or authoritive establishment of a set of belief and is not used to refer to the organization that issue it. Do you have a reference that it is used in the way you suggest?

I Googled it (see the first definition on the list):

 

creed

krēd/

noun

noun: creed; plural noun: creeds

1. a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith.

   "people of many creeds and cultures"

   synonyms: faith, religion, religious belief, religious persuasion, church, denomination, sect More

   "people of many creeds and cultures"

   • a formal statement of Christian beliefs, especially the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed.

     noun: Creed; noun: the Creed

     synonyms: system of belief, set of beliefs, beliefs, principles, articles of faith, ideology, credo, doctrine, teaching, dogma, tenets, canons More

     "his political creed"
   • a set of beliefs or aims that guide someone's actions.

     "liberalism was more than a political creed"

[ERayR]

Let it never be said that Mormons don't spend time putting down other regions.

At any rate, every organization has its core beliefs that everyone is expected to agree with. Creeds being an abomination is one of those, for Mormons. Very long posts to explain exactly why Mormons believe a creed is an abomination.

A creed against creeds.

 

If it is a creed it is a very open ended creed.  See AoF #9. 

 

9 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.9 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.