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

[Loose screw]

 

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

 

So, I am going to take this is the reason for the creeds of the day being an abomination.

 

I agree they are limiting and Joseph clearly rejected them for that. But I think there is far more.

 

If we look at in terms of the leaders, how does it effect them?

If we think of the regular members, how does effect them?

How does it effect the environment and  nature of the Church?

How does it effect those outside the Church and other churches?

 

It's all bad.  oh yah, so very bad!  and so easy to get people to create and adopt them.  Hay, it's what I do...

[Loose screw]

 

 

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.

 

Does "continuing revelation"  mean automatic revelation or guaranteed revelation?

Miracles come by the will of God, not the will of man. Revelation is a major miracle. I am uncomfortable when members claim revelation has occurred when those they claim received it don't themselves even claim it or produce it.

[ERayR]

Does "continuing revelation"  mean automatic revelation or guaranteed revelation?

Miracles come by the will of God, not the will of man. Revelation is a major miracle. I am uncomfortable when members claim revelation has occurred when those they claim received it don't themselves even claim it or produce it.

 

1)  No, It does mean things will change and God will guide his Church through the appointed leaders.  Human as they are.

 

2)  You seem to think of revelation as the angel visitation type.  I receive revelation by the still small voice that brings me peace and occasionally an AHA moment.  I also have moments of greater clarity after prayer and meditation.  Those are revelation. I never have received revelation for the Church except the small part I am responsible for and for myself and family.

[Loose screw]

 

 You seem to think of revelation as the angel visitation type.  I receive revelation by the still small voice that brings me peace and occasionally an AHA moment.  I also have moments of greater clarity after prayer and meditation.  Those are revelation. I never have received revelation for the Church except the small part I am responsible for and for myself and family.

 

Joseph taught about growing in revelation, it is not automatic. There are different forms of revelation they are not all as reliable as some. For example the Gift of Tongues is inferior many others. It is unreliable and even with the gift of Interpretation of tongues even then, it can not be taken as doctrine. it is that unreliable. How reliable is the whispering of the spirit? It is even less than the Gift of tongues it is only a quite whisper.

 

When Joseph was enwrapped in the Spirit, transfigured, standing in the presence of God the Father and his Son, Joseph made a major doctrinal mistake, one which he believed and taught for many years. A doctrine he taught was essential for salvation. And he did that completely under the influence of the Spirit. In addition he experienced numerous other divine events yet he remain in error on this critical doctrine which after many year finally was correct by the Lord,   John the revelator while in the spirit, and while seing numerous visions and being instructed by and angle while receiving the book of revelation had to be corrected 3 times by the angle and even then he could get it and only later understanding and he clarify his error in the preface he made to his record before sending it out.

 

Without taking the time for a long post) (I'm too tired tonight) with the many references and dozens of examples of fallibility during experience of divine communicated, let me ask:

 

So how true and accurate are your revelations and your interruptions? How do your prevent your own thoughts, feelings, emotions and beliefs and imperfections from effecting you experience and conclusions? If a person can't even put into clear words, how clear of a message are they getting? Why would you or others believe your less fallible than Joseph or John when you think your receiving your revelations?

[Calm]

"Joseph made a major doctrinal mistake, one which he believed and taught for many years. A doctrine he taught was essential for salvation."

 

Did I miss where you stated what this mistake was before?  I've had company and busy stuff the past couple of days and haven't been reading with my usual care so may have missed it and would really like to know what you believe this was.

[Calm]

" The Articles of Faith as they are now circulated have become a creed"

 

Simply because they've been included in the scriptures?  If so then all statements of beliefs in the scriptures would be considered creeds and would be wrong, but we believe the scriptures to be the word of God given to us through prophets, so fallible but hardly abominations.

 

So what is it that make them a creed?

 

My impression of Joseph's dislike for creeds is they at that time, the ones he was familiar with drew lines around God, defined what he had to be and even more important what he could not be.  I don't see that in the Articles of Faith at all.  They are extremely basic and no one is limited to only believe what they say, they are not the source of doctrine, but a listing of some doctrines that vary a great deal in importance and some are not even salvific from what I understand.  We can go way beyond our understanding of God when it comes to the first few articles and our knowledge of Adam is barely touched upon.

 

So how do they draw lines to keep our revelation from expanding our knowledge?  And I don't remember anywhere we've covenanted to obey or believe them…they are a teaching aid for the most part, in essence a summary of a particular topic of doctrine such as might be found at the beginning of a chapter.

Edited July 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 

 

If we look at in terms of the leaders, how does it effect them?

If we think of the regular members, how does effect them?

How does it effect the environment and  nature of the Church?

How does it effect those outside the Church and other churches?

 

It's all bad.  oh yah, so very bad!  and so easy to get people to create and adopt them.  Hay, it's what I do...

So rather than making vague attacks on the AoF, please demonstrate how each article affect us, affect our environment and the nature of the Church, affect the leaders and affect those outside the Church in significant ways that would result in us being very different and much better off to not have them (you did really mean "affect" and not "effect", they are different words that can at times be used almost the same way but effect means to cause to occur, while the other is influence so you may be saying it caused leaders and environment and the nature of the Church…but it does make more sense when "affect" is used.

[Robert F. Smith]

Or rather, how the creeds were treated and viewed. For example, if there is ever an outcry or view that the AoF can or should never be revised, then it will have fit the definition.

I just find it unfortunate that after 175ish years, and many important developments, our "Good Kind of Creed" hasn't been updated to more clearly reflect the changes that it anticipates and invites.

Yes, David, but how does your excision of the restoration of the Ten Tribes fit into your overall concept of necessary changes?  Are you saying that such a notion is no longer part of LDS doctrine?

[Loose screw]

 

So rather than making vague attacks on the AoF, please demonstrate how each article affect us, affect our environment and the nature of the Church, affect the leaders and affect those outside the Church in significant ways that would result in us being very different and much better off to not have them (you did really mean "affect" and not "effect", they are different words that can at times be used almost the same way but effect means to cause to occur, while the other is influence so you may be saying it caused leaders and environment and the nature of the Church…but it does make more sense when "affect" is used.

 

As I expressed before, the purpose and contents of what Joseph wrote I have no object to, it is when others turned it into a creed, the Article of faith for the Church  that I do.

 

A creed affects the leaders by giving the Church a set of beliefs they must except, teach and require others to do also. The earliest days of the Church members who came into the Church have commented that their personal beliefs did not alter much in the transitions to LDS. They Just added a modern prophet and real authority. They were free to arrive and retain their own belief because the Church had no creed. The unique beliefs of the Church were still to be revealed or were under development and understanding so members were on their own for the most part. Today with a different attitude in the Church leader hold up the ATofF requiring mandatory acceptance by all. Leaders enforce it by denying callings, opportunities and Temple blessings in addition to disciplinary action for the non-compliant who are identified and don't repent.

 

The attitude and environment in the Church changes from one of self agency and liberty with a personal responsibility for what one learns and decides to believe or does not  TO  one of the members ..."being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds ...or by the dominations of one another" (JS)

 

That change in the environment in the Church affects leaders and members in many dynamic ways. It changes the way the Church functions. Instead of teaching and converting by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness and meekness TO an authoritative  mandating one were we are told what are beliefs are and where unrighteous dominion is not just possible, it is inherent in it's fundament structure, operations and attitudes.  Creeds do that.

 

Are there any beliefs/teachings of the Church you do not accept in their entirety? Would you feel safe telling the Stake President about them. I know many who would not. Do you think most of the members fully disclose their personal beliefs after the Church changed.  I would not recommend it. 

 

When did that change start to happen? Even before the death of the Prophet he complained about it and tried to stop it and the "great big Elder" as he called them even turned on him. Once he was gone it was only a matter time and gradually the Church changed from one that was rare in the world, one of liberty and think and believe as one feels TO the authoritative types found in so many other churches were one must believe and do as one is told. I would argue the Church is becoming more and more extreme in that regard.

 

Do you think we have the liberty of thinking and believing as we please (without violating a commandment or covenant God revealed) today?       I obviously don't.     And reading the post in this forum I am not alone.

 

On the 4th of July we celebrate a land created and preserved for freedom -- to only have that individual freedom restricted or taken away or turned over to a ever increasing dominating Church?   

[Calm]

"Today with a different attitude in the Church leader hold up the ATofF requiring mandatory acceptance by all. Leaders enforce it by denying callings, opportunities and Temple blessings in addition to disciplinary action for the non-compliant who are identified and don't repent."

And how do they do that? I haven't been asked by a leader about the Art o F since I left Primary eons ago. 2/3 of them aren't mentioned in the temple recommend interview and definitely they are only connected because they are a summary of doctrine. Don't think they are referred to in the baptismal covenant either.

[ERayR]

As I expressed before, the purpose and contents of what Joseph wrote I have no object to, it is when others turned it into a creed, the Article of faith for the Church  that I do.

 

A creed affects the leaders by giving the Church a set of beliefs they must except, teach and require others to do also. The earliest days of the Church members who came into the Church have commented that their personal beliefs did not alter much in the transitions to LDS. They Just added a modern prophet and real authority. They were free to arrive and retain their own belief because the Church had no creed. The unique beliefs of the Church were still to be revealed or were under development and understanding so members were on their own for the most part. Today with a different attitude in the Church leader hold up the ATofF requiring mandatory acceptance by all. Leaders enforce it by denying callings, opportunities and Temple blessings in addition to disciplinary action for the non-compliant who are identified and don't repent.

 

The attitude and environment in the Church changes from one of self agency and liberty with a personal responsibility for what one learns and decides to believe or does not  TO  one of the members ..."being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds ...or by the dominations of one another" (JS)

 

That change in the environment in the Church affects leaders and members in many dynamic ways. It changes the way the Church functions. Instead of teaching and converting by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness and meekness TO an authoritative  mandating one were we are told what are beliefs are and where unrighteous dominion is not just possible, it is inherent in it's fundament structure, operations and attitudes.  Creeds do that.

 

Are there any beliefs/teachings of the Church you do not accept in their entirety? Would you feel safe telling the Stake President about them. I know many who would not. Do you think most of the members fully disclose their personal beliefs after the Church changed.  I would not recommend it. 

 

When did that change start to happen? Even before the death of the Prophet he complained about it and tried to stop it and the "great big Elder" as he called them even turned on him. Once he was gone it was only a matter time and gradually the Church changed from one that was rare in the world, one of liberty and think and believe as one feels TO the authoritative types found in so many other churches were one must believe and do as one is told. I would argue the Church is becoming more and more extreme in that regard.

 

Do you think we have the liberty of thinking and believing as we please (without violating a commandment or covenant God revealed) today?       I obviously don't.     And reading the post in this forum I am not alone.

 

On the 4th of July we celebrate a land created and preserved for freedom -- to only have that individual freedom restricted or taken away or turned over to a ever increasing dominating Church?   

 

Why do you object to them as a creed?

[Loose screw]

 

Why do you object to them as a creed?

 

As I have stated several time already and in the post you just quoted - because of what a creed inherently does to the Church, it's leader and the members and their rights. Because both the Lord and Joseph condemned them.

[theplains]

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.

 

What new revelatory knowledge and doctrine has the LDS Church introduced since 1978?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[ERayR]

As I have stated several time already and in the post you just quoted - because of what a creed inherently does to the Church, it's leader and the members and their rights. Because both the Lord and Joseph condemned them.

 

I can't see a good fit between your objections and the Articles of Faith.  They outline the very basics and 9 & 11allow for unlimited expansion.

[Loose screw]

 

And how do they do that? I haven't been asked by a leader about the Art o F since I left Primary eons ago. 2/3 of them aren't mentioned in the temple recommend interview and definitely they are only connected because they are a summary of doctrine. Don't think they are referred to in the baptismal covenant either.          

 

It doesn't matter how many are asked about or if any are, they don't even have to ask about to intimidate with them, Just referring to them, just teaching them, publishing them is effective . "The Articles of Faith" pretty absolute. their tittle is dogmatic and enforcing in of it self.

 

You have been indoctrinated with them since primary and expected to believe each of them they don't even ask in many situations, it is so commonly expected. They assume you have been fully conditioned (for you Star Trek fans "you shall be assimilated") your individuality is suppressed like in many man made environments around the world. Should they suspect you don't believe one, some or all of them as the Church mandates you may be asked a whole string of questions to find out why and what else you don't believe and or what you believe in that the Church officially or unofficially does not. If your reconditioning is not effective your presence threaten the peace and intergety of the collective and must be eliminated. But this environment of domination of "being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds ...or by the dominations of one another" takes many forms. Many of them subtle and initially innocent and even helpful in the appearance - but their affects on the agency of man are powerful and wide reaching and an abomination being contrary to the Lord's way.

 

 Let me point out again I have no objection to the contents of any of The Articles of Faith. It is the circumscribing or prohibiting of the beliefs in establishing standards, it is the creeds that creates a atmosphere of control and domination that is abominable and is damaging to individual rights. God give man the right to be an agent unto themselves. Other religions and government have their own versions of this mandating and each has justifications for them.  In the Church a frequent claim is we must be united, how can members be the Lord's people having different beliefs, that causes contentions, you must accept and believe as the brethren teach you, you must have faith, trust in the Lord's Leader's, be united, go along with what the Church tells you to believe. And so like all the good people who have conformed before you prayerfully obey, have faith and humbly submit your stiff neck will to the assimilation process and become a part of united think alike united saints (collective). Sounds innocent, sound good right?  But who is it author?  "he sough to destroy the agency of man" and he knows how to get you.

 

What's wrong with a innocent simple little creed, it helps people understand and believe? The Devil is in the details. Where does it stop, once you start allowing creeds to be established in the Church, it is only a mater of time before they are enforced and individual rights responsibilities and agency suppressed, then condemned, then first gradually, them utterly destroyed. Believe as you are told or else obey the Lord, Obey the Church, obey your local leader, obey, the brethren obey, obey, obey!      Even if the Devil forces you or gets you to believe the word's of the Lord by another path, a thousand or one other path or method than the Lord's, he wins and you are dammed. And thus the Devil leadeth their souls carefully down to hell.   Creed are the devil handiwork not the Lords just ask Joseph, ask the Lord if your not too assimilated yet.   Oh that's right they both have already warned us, as have others.

[Calm]

As soon as someone hits "you've been brainwashed to the point you don't even know you've been brainwashed…." their credibility disappears as far as I am concerned.

 

There is enough exposure to doing things differently for church members, especially now with the internet that I don't buy the 'you were indoctrinated as a child and thereafter are unable to think for yourself' argument.

 

"If your reconditioning is not effective your presence threaten the peace and intergety of the collective and must be eliminated."

 

You are way too fond of the Star Trek analogy and your scenario doesn't match up with the reality of my own experience.  I've lost track, are you LDS, do you attend any meetings, how many wards and how many countries for those wards have you been in?

 

"It is the circumscribing or prohibiting of the beliefs in establishing standards"

 

Which you have failed to demonstrate actually exists…..

 

Out of curiosity, do you believe any beliefs should be required for baptism in the faith or can one be atheist and just want to get the benefits of the social and emotional support…after all a belief in the Father, the Son and the Spirit is a belief, is mentioned in the first AoF and therefore requiring of that belief for baptism must be abominable and the work of the devil by your logic it would seem.

Edited July 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[Loose screw]

Wow, calmoriah you disagree or find fault with so much I wrote and keep twisting the point. But let me try to respond line to each point you raise

 

 

As soon as someone hits "you've been brainwashed to the point you don't even know you've been brainwashed…." their credibility disappears as far as I am concerned.

 

There is enough exposure to doing things differently for church members, especially now with the internet that I don't buy the 'you were indoctrinated as a child and thereafter are unable to think for yourself' argument.

The first line above are your words and not mine, I wouldn't go that far but yes I do believe some members are largely a result of how and what they have been taught. The reason some people call us a cult is because some of our methods have similarities to those used by some cults. They are effective, but should we use them?  Do members recognize the tactics used on them, many do others do not. Are you immune? It was you who mentioned you had been taught the AoF in Primary, did that early experience (before you were really capable enough to come to your own beliefs) have no affect on you. Can you say you would have come to all those beliefs on your own without them being handed to you? What about your right as a child to learn and believe independently? It is one thing to "teach a child in the path they should go" (conduct) in is another thing to force beliefs into children. Why did you need the Articles of Faith forced into your soul as a child?  When did the Lord ever indoctrinate children like that, when did Joseph? Why must the Church?

Should children have rights in the Church? The right to not be force feed. The right to be made to memorize our creed so they will go up to think and believe the way we want them to be. How is that not programing.

 

Your second line is similar and again you go farther that I expressed but yes I do think many members were indoctrinated and handed their beliefs and when asked why do you believe such and such they can't tell you because they don't know those beliefs "I have just heard that all my life and just accepted it to be true"  Having grown up in the Church and served a honorable mission and studying far more than average I am still surprised and continue to discover how influenced my beliefs and attitudes are by the intentional conditioning I experience. The indoctrinating and conditioning of a child does not have to be to the point "that hereafter are unable to think for yourself' for it to be wrong. Sure you and I might be able to think for ourselves now, but yet we are not immune from all it's ramifications.  And what about others who naturally question little or nothing,  who seldom or never think for themselves (and like it that way) hoping to get into heaven sitting on the coattails of their leaders?

 

Maybe I am not explain this well - but when the Church hands us our belief they also take away from us the important work and the personal development that we would otherwise have to exercise to obtain personal beliefs and all they would learn and develop in that journey and quest.

 

 

Out of curiosity, do you believe any beliefs should be required for baptism in the faith

Yes, but far fewer than is required by the Church today. Baptism is for the remission of sins, believing in it, God, his son Jesus the basics of the atonement. That can happen quickly. the requirements are few and simple: Acts 8:35-38

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

 

I don't see the acceptance of any creeds or Articles of Faith having been necessary then.

 

Confirmation on the other hand is only to follow after sufficient time for individual to demonstrate by a godly walk, and time to have the fundamentals and the covenants of confirmation and becoming a member of the Lord's Church expound unto them and have obtain the witness from the spirit that they have  properly repented and are forgiven can they be confirmed and receive the GofHG. 

Today we baptize and confirm together despite the clear instructions from the Lord in the D&C they need to be separate and separated by significant time.

 

 

You are way too fond of the Star Trek analogy and your scenario doesn't match up with the reality of my own experience.  I've lost track, are you LDS, do you attend any meetings, how many wards and how many countries for those wards have you been in?

 

Star Trek - maybe.      Match your reality - didn't know I had to.     I have been around  and seen plenty and have learned by sad experience the nature of almost all men as soon as they get a little authority - as they suppose. The Church has the same tendency.

 

 

...after all a belief in the Father, the Son and the Spirit is a belief, is mentioned in the first AoF and therefore requiring of that belief for baptism must be abominable and the work of the devil by your logic it would seem.

 

Your logic fails here.  It was the Lord who condemned the creeds as abominable yet those creeds speak of Christ and many true things. Yet he condemned then in the extreme. Just because it is in a creed doesn't make IT wrong or abominable. Why would you ask such a question? The Lord didn't reject the trues contained in of the creeds he rejected the creeds themselves and so do I and so did Joseph.

 

Let me point out AGAIN I don't object to the true beliefs in TAofF or of other creeds. That is not the issue - please stick to the issue (creedalism) it is the producing into creeds, the curtailment of essential liberties of the people, the mandating and/or prohibited of beliefs by the Church or other churches that God, Joseph and I object to. I think I am in good company

 

You need to speak about things held sacred by others respectfully.  Do not attribute a religious belief to Satan and do not use insulting words like indoctrinated to refer to believers.

[Stone holm]

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.FWIWKevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA

Exactly how does this fit with modern day boundary maintenance?

[Loose screw]

 

 

As soon as someone hits "you've been brainwashed to the point you don't even know you've been brainwashed…." their credibility disappears as far as I am concerned.

 

That would be exactly what I would expect a brainwashed person to be brainwashed to respond with. Are you sure your not in denial? How could you tell if you were?

 

But we don't have to be brainwashed to have our rights of liberty in the Church eroded or infringed upon, do we?

We can have our belief mandated to us, we can be discouraged and even prohibited from deviating or going beyond that which is given us by a creed, we can submit and conform willingly, reluctantly or even being unaware we are doing it or at the force of a disciplinary council. The most dangerous and effective is creating an atmosphere so that an individual will self correct, self discipline and condition themselves to obey and conform automatically and except without questions or doubt, to accept callings no matter what - conditioning to accept future creeds by creating a seemingly innocent one out of basic beliefs and teaching they are likely already to believe in. And if your accepted one creed why not more. But you mindset has now changed, you are now governed and can be governed by the dictates of Church leader creeds (teaching for doctrine the commandments of men) just like other churches.

 

Creeds effect everything and everyone in multiple ways. Do your leaders encourage you to exercise your personal rights of free thinking and believing in the Church. Have you ever heard your Stake President teach a sermon on your right to have the liberty of thinking and believing as you please? A key part of the restoration but it doesn't even get taught any more, Why - because it is conflicting with attitudes of leaders who prefer creedalism instead of the liberty and agency of the members. Do you think you even have that right?

 

The extremes of "brainwashing" are not necessary, a mere publishing of an "official" article of beliefs is enough to get the ball rolling to the eventually point were the members are un-aware they even have the right to think and believe as they feel - to the point where they will all by themselves actually condemn as a heretic anyone who claims that there should be rights  ---  except the right to obey the Lords appointed leaders and be save or disobey them and be damned. Creeds both create that attitude and are created by that attitude and are inherently a tool of the devil and not the Lord.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree they are limiting and Joseph clearly rejected them for that. But I think there is far more.

 

No there isn't. JS never went were you are going and neither do any church leaders. You are reading more in to what JS said than what is there. BTW, your comments just before this post are boarder line nutty.

[aaron0005]

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.

"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."

 

I think there needs to be clarity on the Father and the Son being co-equal. In what sense are they co-equal, because clearly in another they are not, which would show another area Mormons need to understand and articulate better. The Father is clearly Superior to the Son for reasons I don't think it necessary to get into to point this out.

 

I think part of what is going in the Mormon understanding and emphasis is we are greatly shaped by the atmosphere. We feel all kinds of pressure from Christians (mainly) to not be polytheist, which in one sense we are, though we are not because we only worship one Godhead, though that as well is three gods according to official LDS doctrine.

 

We do emphasize to some extent the Father having a body, but believe it or not that is not as near as controversial as many gods and it has Biblical backing and just makes a lot of sense.

 

We surely seem afraid to speak the truth because we don't want to be labled with unpopular ideas and hurt the growth of the church.

 

I am not against that. It is totally understandable that we would maneuver around the confusing, the hard to understand, the unpopular that can be so distorted by others and emphasize certain doctrines more than others. Not that we would greatly emphasize many gods if it was popular, but we surely would not go to great lengths to deemphasize it.

 

Early Christianity also taught Christ was subordinate to the Father and there was a growing argument that such a stance brought Christ down more than He should have been, so many people did not want to be seen believing that which was true doctrine. People were able to use a true doctrine to make others feel bad and this we see one of the main reasons it was slowly distorted.

 

Could some LDS be falling into a similar trap or am I wrong? Are we afraid to be boxed into a certain corner because Catholics or Protestants attack us over aspects of our doctrine? Do we see how much they place on the Father and Son being equal so we don't want to be left out and defamed?

 

I could be wrong.

 

Aaron

Edited July 8, 2014 by aaron0005