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

[giotto]

Maybe I'm speaking in ignorance, but I have to agree with Misere Nobis. The Articles of Faith are technically a creed, although an LDS one. What makes them different from the Nicene, Athanasian, and other creeds is they are revealed truth and not the attempts of men to define God and His doctrine by consortium. They are meant to clearly define essential gospel truths to provide a foundation for further light and knowledge. Remember, Joseph Smith was told that "...all of their creeds were an abomination in his sight," not creeds in general (emphasis added). We consider the Articles of Faith sacred scripture that defines our faith in the simplest and concise terms of what we believe. Is there anything in them that we don't believe or will defend? Is there anything in them that does not define us as Latter Day Saints? In all honesty, how are the Articles of Faith not a creed?

[CV75]

Maybe I'm speaking in ignorance, but I have to agree with Misere Nobis. The Articles of Faith are technically a creed, although an LDS one. What makes them different from the Nicene, Athanasian, and other creeds is they are revealed truth and not the attempts of men to define God and His doctrine by consortium. They are meant to clearly define essential gospel truths to provide a foundation for further light and knowledge. Remember, Joseph Smith was told that "...all of their creeds were an abomination in his sight," not creeds in general (emphasis added). We consider the Articles of Faith sacred scripture that defines our faith in the simplest and concise terms of what we believe. Is there anything in them that we don't believe or will defend? Is there anything in them that does not define us as Latter Day Saints? In all honesty, how are the Articles of Faith not a creed?

The Articles of Faith are a creed, as is the LDS system of belief. From the 1828 (Noah Webster's) American Dictionary of the English Language:

 

CREED, n. [This word seems to have been introduced by the use of the Latin credo, I believe, at the beginning of the Apostles creed, or brief system of Christian faith. See Creed.]

 

    1. A brief summary of the articles of Christian faith; a symbol; as the Apostolic creed.

 

    2. That which is believed; any system of principles which are believed or professed; as a political creed.

 

I think "creed" as used in JSH refers to "all their [apostate systems]" rather than any mere summary of those systems of faith. Because the LDS system is not apostate, the Articles of Faith are not either.

[Damien the Leper]

The Nicene Creed was fine until someone had to go and throw in the false filioque. Arianism to the slightest degree puts someone's soul in danger...but not nearly as bad as Calvinism.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

I have no problem with creeds,

Lets see what God said to JS.

 

 

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

 

All that was declared was that the creeds (of the day) were wrong, of the existing churches. No where does God say that "creeds are an abomination". Sometimes that seems to be the meme that gets told.

 

So we really should be clear what the doctrine of the church is.

 

Yes the Articles of Faith are creeds. Carry on.

 

Now that I read some one else's post I think I see why you are saying what you did.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

I think this is completely incorrect. Creeds are not an abomination. There was a qualifier in the scriptures. That qualifier was "their".

[Flyonthewall]

Maybe I'm speaking in ignorance, but I have to agree with Misere Nobis. The Articles of Faith are technically a creed, although an LDS one. What makes them different from the Nicene, Athanasian, and other creeds is they are revealed truth and not the attempts of men to define God and His doctrine by consortium. They are meant to clearly define essential gospel truths to provide a foundation for further light and knowledge. Remember, Joseph Smith was told that "...all of their creeds were an abomination in his sight," not creeds in general (emphasis added). We consider the Articles of Faith sacred scripture that defines our faith in the simplest and concise terms of what we believe. Is there anything in them that we don't believe or will defend? Is there anything in them that does not define us as Latter Day Saints? In all honesty, how are the Articles of Faith not a creed?

I agree completely... Our Articles of Faith are creeds or creedal statements, but they are a starting point, not a limit.

[saemo]

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?

Besides the fact that Catholics are not sola scriptura, the scripture quote below is considered the first example of a Christian creed. Creeds were, and are still, used to determine if a convert accepts the teachings of Christianity before they are baptized. Creeds are used to teach the faith. LDS have similar in the questions they ask before baptizing someone. Things that must be believed. They are creeds.

This is called the pre-Pauline creed:

1 Cor 15

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Edited July 2, 2014 by saemo

[ERayR]

Maybe I'm speaking in ignorance, but I have to agree with Misere Nobis. The Articles of Faith are technically a creed, although an LDS one. What makes them different from the Nicene, Athanasian, and other creeds is they are revealed truth and not the attempts of men to define God and His doctrine by consortium. They are meant to clearly define essential gospel truths to provide a foundation for further light and knowledge. Remember, Joseph Smith was told that "...all of their creeds were an abomination in his sight," not creeds in general (emphasis added). We consider the Articles of Faith sacred scripture that defines our faith in the simplest and concise terms of what we believe. Is there anything in them that we don't believe or will defend? Is there anything in them that does not define us as Latter Day Saints? In all honesty, how are the Articles of Faith not a creed?

 

Please not as I recall he said 'their' creeds, not all creeds.

[Loose screw]

 

http://www.lexilogos.com/english/dictionary.htm

 

http://www.lexilogos.com/english/dictionary.htm this website has a lot of dictionaries and is very informative about all the dictionaries history and the time range they covered. Don't fail to pan down the long page  A great place to begin a word search.

 

In searching "creed" in these dictionaries they don't have any history of it being used prior to 1200 AD form then up until the time of the 1st vision and beyond until about the early the 1900s the word "creed" was used only used for declaration, guide or collection of belief(s) of an individual, committee, council, or religious body or some other entity, but not for the entity. In the early1900s it did start being used in very limitedly to refer to a entity - a group or individual that was known to live by a creed. This gradual transition is natural as many groups are recognized frequently by their creeds rather than just by their names. Today it is still largely use to refer to the beliefs or to refer to a group or catagory that accepts a particular creed or creeds.

 

Conclusion: At the time of the 1st vision (Spring of 1820) when the Lord said that "...their creeds are an abomination in my sight" the English use of the word "creeds" when spoken to the boy Joseph Smith had only one association or definition - official beliefs statements - not religious orders.  That is also why the Lord made two statement: one about the creeds and another about the various religious sects.

 

Does this confirm the Lord forbids and condemns all creeds? No, but it does establish that in 1820 he at least found all existing creeds an abomination in his sight (he made no exceptions). Since history show no creeds used by God in any age, no revelations were given to Joseph to issue any creeds in the establishing the Church. If we then combine those facts with Joseph correcting the High Council before the whole Church for calling Elder Pelatiah Brown on the carpet for his (erroneous) belief/teaching.

 

"...he was hauled up for trial before the High Council.

I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.

The High Council undertook to censure and correct Elder Brown, because of his teachings in relation to the beasts. Whether they actually corrected him or not, I am a little doubtful, but don't care...." History of the Church, 5:339-345

 

The high council basically wanted to force their beliefs on a member and felt they had the right and authority to do it - the leaders wanted to establishing and enforce at least one little creed and maybe more, Joseph denounced both the creating of any official authorized belief  or the prevent a man from his own beliefs and using a trial or force, alter or correct the beliefs of a member. Members have the right to their beliefs even if there wrong, not just leaders who have a long and well established history of errors. 

 

Does it sound like Joseph thought creeds were OK in the Lord's Church? " I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please." That is just the opposite environment creeds create, as Joseph tried to teach the High Council. Joseph also taught the High Council  in this brief statement that trials, disciplinary courts, courts of love or whatever title is used are to be used in regards to sins and dealing with a man not being a good man -- actual violation of commandments and covenants -- not for a man's beliefs or teachings.

 

I think the record shows Joseph agreed with the Lord - creeds have no place in the Lord's Church - they are an abomination.

 

.

[teddyaware]

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.

In order to understand the reason why the Lord used the word abomination when describing the creeds -- a very strong word indeed -- one must realize He is speaking of churches who teach as certain doctrine that the day of living prophets and continuous revelation from heaven is over; churches who confidently inform their adherents that the canon of scripture is full and that God will never again speak from heaven to prophets.

 

By denying the need for new revelation, additional scripture and further light and knowledge from God, these churches, either wittingly or unwittingly,  attempt to put shackles on the minds of their members that will cause them, if they believe what they are told,  to reject the Restored Gospel out of hand without a moment of consideration. After all, if the day of Apostles, Prophets, revelation and additional scripture is over, why listen to some "gullible fools" who believe otherwise?

 

In the early days of the Restoration these churches were saying, "don't listen to those deluded Mormons and their false God because we all know there can be no more prophets, revelation and additional scripture." If one thinks about it, it's easy to understand why the Lord, in this instance, would use the word abomination: for if God is once again speaking from heaven for the salvation of man, but some churches are teaching their members it's their solemn duty, based on their creeds and doctrines, to ignore Him, it's plain to see why He would be upset. The doctrines and creeds of apostate Christianity teach men to ignore and even condemn as poisonous folly the message of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So if in these latter days God Himself did truly restore His Church through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith, it would indeed be an abomination for men, based on their incorrect doctrines and creeds, to teach others to reject the inspired message salvation as revealed through Christ's Restored Church.   

Edited July 2, 2014 by teddyaware

[Gervin]

In the early days of the Restoration these churches were saying, "don't listen to those deluded Mormons and their false God because we all know there can be no more prophets, revelation and additional scripture."    

 

I'll challenge that.  CFR, please.

[teddyaware]

I'll challenge that.  CFR, please.

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them. (Joseph Smith-History)

 

I'm very surprised you would call for such a reference. Is it not common knowledge that from the very beginnings of the LDS movement, and even up till now, that one of the foremost arguments employed against the Latter-day Saints has been the non-LDS claim that the Bible supposedly teaches there are to be no more apostles and prophets on the earth after the publishing of the Book of Revelation? You surely know this very well-known point of argument and probably believe it. So I'm curious to know what would have motivated you to call for a reference on an point of fact that is undisputed on both sides?

Edited July 2, 2014 by teddyaware

[Gervin]

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them. (Joseph Smith-History)

 

I'm very surprised you would call for such a reference. Is it not common knowledge that from the very beginnings of the LDS movement, and even up till now, that one of the foremost arguments employed against the Latter-day Saints has been the non-LDS claim that the Bible supposedly teaches there are to be no more apostles and prophets on the earth after the publishing of the Book of Revelation? You surely know this very well-known point of argument and probably believe it. So I'm curious to know what would have motivated you to call for a reference on an point of fact that is undisputed on both sides?

 

The Jos Smith quote is anecdotal and antithetical to not only the "abominable" creeds (then and now), but what Christians have claimed as actual experience. 

 

So, again, I'd like references that "these" churches were proclaiming that Mormons were heretical in proclaiming revelation* or visions.  Ditto for your claim that the Bible teaches that there will be no more prophets.**

 

thanks

 

* Do you believe Christians have renounced Ephesians 1:17?

** Do you believe Christians have renounced Romans 12:6?

Edited July 2, 2014 by Gervin

[teddyaware]

The Jos Smith quote is anecdotal and antithetical to not only the "abominable" creeds (then and now), but what Christians have claimed as actual experience. 

 

So, again, I'd like references that "these" churches were proclaiming that Mormons were heretical in proclaiming revelation* or visions.  Ditto for your claim that the Bible teaches that there will be no more prophets.**

 

thanks

 

* Do you believe Christians have renounced Ephesians 1:17?

** Do you believe Christians have renounced Romans 12:6?

Unless you've been living as a recluse, you most assuredly know almost all non-LDS churches have rejected the idea that there will ever again be living Apostles and Prophets -- precisely like Peter and Paul of old -- whom God endows with the power and authority to add new revelatory knowledge and doctrine to the preexisting volumes of scripture -- divine knowledge and doctrine, binding on each and every member of the Church, that exceeds the parameters of heavenly knowledge contained in the extant scriptural canon.

 

This is the heart of the matter: On the continuum of degrees of heavenly inspiration, the nature of the kind of divine revelation that empowers living Prophets to add additional scriptural light and knowledge to the preexisting canon of scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 76 as is an excellent case in point) is significantly different from the forms of inspiration that will not allow for an increase of heavenly knowledge beyond what's already contained in the Bible.

The following is speculation, but I'll tell you what I think may be going on here: It could be that some non-LDS Christians, through dialogue with the Latter-day Saints, have come to the point where they now realize the LDS arguments in favor of continuous revelation and living prophets are so powerful and irrefutable -- in light of the Bible -- that they have decided they can no longer effectively make the case in opposition to this Biblical principle. So rather than futilely continue to try to breathe life into an untenable and moribund doctrinal position, they're now trying to find a way to say they've believed in living prophets and new revelation all along. They do this walking a fine line, saying that while they believe in the principle of continuous revelation, they also steadfastly continue to claim the Bible is the only true word of God. In other words, they're trying to have it both ways because they know they can no longer defend the indefensible.

 

The dynamic in play here may be similar to the Hegelian Dialectic: Thesis (the Church needs living Apostles and Prophets and continuous revelation); Anti-thesis (the church does not need living Apostles and Prophets and continuous revelation); Synthesis (the Church needs continuous revelation but not presiding Apostles and Prophets because every member can receive personal revelation). In other words, what we have here is a hybrid position that lies somewhere between the Church of Christ as it believed and functioned during the Apostolic era, and the non-LDS churches as they believed and  functioned during the days of Joseph Smith.

 

The following explanation of the role of Apostles and Prophets in the ancient Church is from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. I present this because I'm wondering, in light of what you say above, if you're in agreement with ideas expressed?

Question: Are there modern day prophets or is there a need for prophets today?

Answer: In the New Testament, the gift of the office of prophet was a temporary one granted by God for the purpose of building His Church. Contrary to the apostles, who had broad ministries, these men had localized ministries within local churches, as we see illustrated in such places as Acts 11:21-28 and Acts 13:1.

Scripture shows us that the prophets of the New Testament had two primary purposes:

•They were gifted men given to the Church and appointed by God (Eph. 4:11, 1 Cor. 12:28) for the purpose of helping to lay the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20).

•They, like the apostles, received God’s revelation (Eph. 3:5) and truth and proclaimed it to their churches. It is important to remember that the early Church did not have a completed Bible, so God granted this revelation for the purpose of teaching His message to the Church. The New Testament prophets also spoke forth and taught the apostles’ doctrine. Everything taught by these prophets had to be consistent with the teaching of the apostles (1 Cor. 14:36-37).

So, are prophets still needed today? Looking at the two functions listed above, we can see that the office of prophet is one that is no longer necessary and has ceased within the Church because:

•The foundation of the Church was laid long ago.

And

•God’s revealed Word was completed with the close of the New Testament canon.

The Church’s foundation does not need to be laid again and there is no need for further revelation beyond what God has provided for us in His complete Word, the Bible. Today we are blessed to have Scripture as our complete and final authority in all things (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If someone now claims to have received a “special revelation,” we must test it against Scripture. If it is contrary to the Word of God, then it must be rejected. If it is consistent with Scripture, then we have to ask why an “extra” word was necessary if its truth is already contained in the Bible. So while we always need men who are willing to proclaim boldly the Word of God as contained in Scripture (as pastors, teachers, and evangelists), there is no need for the office of “prophet” as it existed in the New Testament.

Edited July 2, 2014 by teddyaware

[Vance]

I'll challenge that.  CFR, please.

The five "Sola"s exclude prophets, revelation and new scripture.

[teddyaware]

The five "Sola"s exclude prophets, revelation and new scripture.

Thanks Vance.

[Loose screw]

This is an obvious point but is apparently being overlooked.

At the time not ALL creeds and churches denounced modern revelation

At the time the Lord said that ALL the creeds were an abomination, the Church had not been restore, no knowledge about the 1st vision, Joseph Smith, Gold plates, the Mormons or the Church and it's teachings existed to created bad feeling among the many churches.  The Lord called all the creeds a abomination before anything had happened. The wrath of the Lord towards the creeds and their advocates and churches was their own doing and NOT because of their opposition towards the restoration and Joseph Smith which had yet to come.

 

I believe the Lord condemned the creeds for what they were, did and do, (the restriction of individual agency) independent of the 1st vision and all that was going take place with the restoration during the years yet to come. They were inherently evil, wrong and even an abomination to the Lord already, and would of been in any age. Creeds are the opposite of the Lord's fundamental plan. The respect of the individual soul to learn, decide, believe and act for themselves.

[ERayR]

This is an obvious point but is apparently being overlooked.

At the time not ALL creeds and churches denounced modern revelation

At the time the Lord said that ALL THEIR the creeds were an abomination, the Church had not been restore, no knowledge about the 1st vision, Joseph Smith, Gold plates, the Mormons or the Church and it's teachings existed to created bad feeling among the many churches.  The Lord called all the creeds a abomination before anything had happened. The wrath of the Lord towards the creeds and their advocates and churches was their own doing and NOT because of their opposition towards the restoration and Joseph Smith which had yet to come.

 

I believe the Lord condemned the creeds for what they were, did and do, (the restriction of individual agency) independent of the 1st vision and all that was going take place with the restoration during the years yet to come. They were inherently evil, wrong and even an abomination to the Lord already, and would of been in any age. Creeds are the opposite of the Lord's fundamental plan. The respect of the individual soul to learn, decide, believe and act for themselves.

 

Note the correction.  He did not say all creeds but all their creeds, referring to the creeds of the churches of the day.  He, God, then proceeded to restore his own church.

[Loose screw]

Thanks for the correction your right "their" creeds.

 

But we still have the Lord not supplying a creed for his new church,  why? 

 Why not a correct, righteous creed  created by him? The membership of the church had a wide variety of beliefs that they brought with them. A creed authored by God could prevented a lot of trouble, could prevent his house from having confusion could of created unity. So why didn't he?

[ERayR]

Thanks for the correction your right "their" creeds.

 

But we still have the Lord not supplying a creed for his new church,  why? 

 Why not a correct, righteous creed  created by him? The membership of the church had a wide variety of beliefs that they brought with them. A creed authored by God could prevented a lot of trouble, could prevent his house from having confusion could of created unity. So why didn't he?

 

Now we are back to the Articles of Faith.  For a church who believes in continuous revelation for both members and leaders that should suffice.

[Thinking]

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."

 

I've always thought it interesting how similar this quote is to these verses.

"For that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." (Luke 16:15)

"Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me" (Isaiah 29:13)

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:9)

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (2 Timothy 3:5)

[Loose screw]

 

Now we are back to the Articles of Faith.  For a church who believes in continuous revelation for both members and leaders that should suffice.

 

Not at all, Joseph like other authors created a brief list of what was felt was commonly held belief among membership but neither they or Joseph intended or circulate their lists as a creed or anything binding on the church or it's members. The Articles of Faith as they are now circulated have become a creed but without Joseph's consent and if we consider his other teachings on the subject I think he would have been very opposed to it or any other creed in the Church.

[MiserereNobis]

The five "Sola"s exclude prophets, revelation and new scripture.

 

And, of course, Catholics fully reject the five Solas.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thanks for the correction your right "their" creeds.

 

But we still have the Lord not supplying a creed for his new church,  why? 

 Why not a correct, righteous creed  created by him? The membership of the church had a wide variety of beliefs that they brought with them. A creed authored by God could prevented a lot of trouble, could prevent his house from having confusion could of created unity. So why didn't he?

JS said something that the problem with the creeds is that they were limiting.

 

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes [limits], and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’ [Job 38:11]; which I cannot subscribe to

 

So, I am going to take this is the reason for the creeds of the day being an abomination. The AoF 9 does have the bit about continuing revelation.

 

Make no mistake the creeds of the LDS faith are the articles of Faith.

 

Keep in mind I don't wish to debate how others creeds are limiting. If we want to do that we should open up a new thread.

[ERayR]

Not at all, Joseph like other authors created a brief list of what was felt was commonly held belief among membership but neither they or Joseph intended or circulate their lists as a creed or anything binding on the church or it's members. The Articles of Faith as they are now circulated have become a creed but without Joseph's consent and if we consider his other teachings on the subject I think he would have been very opposed to it or any other creed in the Church.

 

That may be but as the Church was organized(by Joseph Smith) as one of continuing revelation I am not at all sure that Joseph's consent is a prerequisite to it becoming the creed of the Church.