Who says Jesus appeared to J. Smith? Why we have J. Smith’s word for it so it is true. All the other creeds and churches are an abomination. How do we know it? Why we have J. Smith’s word for it so it is true. Whoever first came up with such circular mind numbing argumentation should be institutionalized. They must have assumed everyone they were preaching to had had a lobotomy.

This whole defence of Mormonism by Mormonism boils down to “You can fool some of the people all the time and that’s enough to make a decent living.

Good point, Sonoben

Nielson writes, “But Jesus’ condemnation of Christendom was instead rooted in their creeds: “all their creeds were an abomination in [God’s] sight…” he stated. (JS-H 1:19)

Allowing for the possibility that the word “creed” might just be a general term meaning “what a church teaches” it should not surprise us that the more common interpretation is that Jesus was rejecting the literal creeds of Christendom, those pillars of belief hammered out in ecumenical councils.”

Nielson is obviously aware that the most reasonable understanding of “creeds” here is a system of beliefs given that Smith would not have been particularly concerned with the historical development of conciliar creeds in the thoroughly Protestant milieu of the Burnt-Over District. Moreover, Nielson is obviously aware that some of the groups that Smith was acquainted with did not consider themselves to be creedal in nature, most notably Baptist churches, given that members of this movement traditionally affirmed that their churches had no creed but the Bible, although these groups did create statements of beliefs to clarify their theological positions.

Nielson continues his satire by stating, “Starting with the famous Nicaea council in 325 A.D., there were approximately 21 ecumenical councils that produced the creeds of Christendom over the course of 1640 years.” This statement is obviously rather meaningless given that ecumenical councils have done much more than produced conciliar creeds. One need only think of the Lateran Councils, or Trent, or Vatican I and II.

He continues, “Mormons have traditionally understood God’s denunciation of the creeds to be that they contain doctrinal falsehoods. While this is undoubtedly true, I question if this alone could account for God’s concern with the creeds.”

Nielson continues his ruse by questioning whether Mormons should understand their tradition’s condemnation of creeds as being due to doctrinal falsehood, when it is obvious that this is the source of the tradition’s opposition to other denominations’ systems of beliefs.

Nielson then begins a discussion of the Nicean Creed by suggesting that the only doctrinal difference between it and Mormon beliefs concerns the nature of the relationship between God and Christ. Nielson is obviously kidding when he states this, given that the opening statement of the creed, “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible,” from which Mormon theology came to depart fundamentally with the introduction of the notion of the existence of a multiplicity of gods and goddesses. Nielson is without doubt thoroughly aware that the Christological debates of the early Christian church were fundamentally about how to understand what was perceived as the distinct nature of Jesus Christ within a context of monotheism. One approach, exemplified by Arianism, stressed the uniqueness and oneness of God the Father. Another view, which ultimately emerged as the dominant orthodox position, stressed the oneness and unity of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. As an example of this type of thinking, the creed of Gregory states:

“And in this Trinity [I] confess that there is one Deity, one power, one essence.”

Nielson then concludes his parody by including a litany of historically inaccurate statements about early Christian thought that are based on a reading of early church history through the perspective of modern Mormon belief, a common tendency among unsophisticated LDS apologists:

“Perhaps more concerning, the creeds solidified a disturbing trend away from salvation by sanctification through faith-driven obedience and repentance towards an view of salvation based on what beliefs one mentally held in one’s mind.

As merely one possible way to understand scripture, the Creeds of Christendom are non-offensive and perhaps even helpful. But once empowered with assumed Divine authority they become, for Mormons at least, a concerning possible basis for the disappearance of the original teachings of Christ.”

This is quite a tour-de-force on Nielson’s part. He has really captured the provincial mindset of the object of his satire.

1. The decision-making process in defining theology is remarkably similar between our church and the early Christian church. A bunch of human beings, some more inspired than others, gather to discuss and decide on matters of eternal significance. If you look at the doctrinal statements made in this dispensation, they are all done by consensus vote of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. There is nothing controversial which prophetic fiat summarily overrules. Likewise, unity was the main consideration in the early Church as well. The main difference is that current LDS leaders are not co-ruling a theocratic state, as early Christian bishops found themselves doing after the collapse of Roman institutions. If they were, they would have to take that into account in their decision-making. Most LDS folks I know object not to decisions by committee, that is actually accepted Church practice, but to the fact that church and state mixed intolerably to produce the Nicene Creed.

2. Joseph Smith entered the grove believing that the creeds of the various churches were an abomination in the sight of God. It was not a new insight, but a powerful confirmation of his disillusioning experiences at Methodist camp meetings and Presbyterian services. His father believed this and held aloof from organized religion as a result, holding universalist leanings. Reading The History of Joseph Smith by his mother and other sources show that Joseph was concerned with uniting his family religiously when he decided to make the choice of a church the matter of prayer. He didn’t know his Arius from his Athanasius. He knew that the salvation of his family was his first priority, and took it upon himself to be the agent of inspiration in this regard.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

“Are we as Mormons at a turning point right now where we feel the need, are pressured really, to come up with a definitive set of beliefs that separate Mormons from Non-Mormons through correlation?”

We don’t need to feel any pressure at all. We already have our set of beliefs defined for us. Joseph Smith took care of that when he penned the 13 articles of faith. I don’t think that any council could come up with a more inspired, concise set of beliefs.

Yes, they would. That’s exactly what I was addressing with this comment:

“A common defense of the creeds is that they obtain their authority by merely summarizing scripture. This charge lead Stephen E. Robinson to ask if they could please just point out which scriptures they were summarizing and let him affirm belief in the un-summarized version instead. (How Wide the Divide?, p. 133) More than a mere summary, the teachings of the creeds of Christendom are, even today, the primary basis for excluding Mormons from being Christians.”

There is more I could say here, but this should suffice to make the point. Our Christian friends (non-Catholic at least) want to have it both ways. They want to say there is no authority but the Bible but also don’t want to allow for an alternate, but valid, biblical interpretations that fit all the biblical data — such as Mormons have, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or, well, everybody else.

I can’t say that I blame them. It would be mighty ineffective to simply define their unique interpretations of the Bible, such as the Trinity doctrine, or creation from nothing, as “our best guesses.” (And in my opinion, if you only have the bible, pretty good guesses.)

But if they don’t assert those beliefs as authoritative and binding, that would mean that a group like the Mormons would have to be accepted *while* the Mormons made truth claims that to some degree exclude everyone else. Why not just be a Mormon and make sure you are covered both ways? What could it hurt?

So while I do not blame our Christian friends for becoming creedal — it was necessary for their survival — I also see no logical way for their beliefs to end up being anything but an extension to the bible that they treated as authoritative and equal to the bible. It’s a conundrum that I do not believe could ever be adequately explained.

1. It’s not the words, but the interpretation: I agree with Bruce that the “being of one substance with the Father” is the difficult phrase. It leads me to two questions,”Was it translated from the original correctly?” I don’t know what language the Nicene creed was written (Greek?) but does the english reflect the intended meaning of the authors. The second question follows: ” Is that what the authors meant to say? An amplification of that term “one substance” might have helped. In other words, if they would have said, “One substance with the Father, the same as we are,” we’d have zero problem and much of the arguing would be over.

2. Committee was not the way to make doctrine: In the absence of any Priesthood authority, this method for deciding on doctrine is clearly unbiblical. I can’t recall a time when a committee was organized to make doctrine on behalf of God. So that is problem right there. In the LDS Church, the sole decider of doctrine is the Prophet. He may and does seek counsel from others but he is the only authorized person to declare doctrine for the Church. Now, having said that, the Church must accept new doctrine by common consent, but is that the same as having a committee decide? I don’t think so.

I also like the last point made by Doc, that having a “cast in concrete” creed does not give God the opportunity to expand the believers knowledge if everything must always be measure, not against scripture, but the creed. On the other hand, would our other Christian friends say that they live by “God’s Word” and not by the creeds?

Another possiblity I see, and this is relative to Blake Ostler’s point, The Nicene creed functioned to streamline Christianity into the State Church. Could the political intent be part of the corruption of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Every major religion before our time has been established by the sword. In that sense, Mormonism is rather different. It was created, propagated and is thriving in a atmosphere of religious freedom and committment to pluralism. Concepts like agency and choice and accountability are central to us.

Are the creeds abominable because they take away our right to discover truth for ourselves and still belong to God’s Church?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-01-22-evangelicals-usat_x.htm

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/arianism.html

I’ve started reading it and it is very interesting.

That post is saying exactly what I am getting at.

I’ll have more to say later. But Blake has nailed it.

http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/09/why-are-creeds-an-abomination/

Excellent research. Do you, by any chance, have links to those creeds?

You are driving at the same thing I am, I think, but perhaps more directly.

kodos,
I loved that link. It’s good to see I’m covering ground all ready somewhat covered. It stood to reason someone else had noticed that the Nicene creed was harmless in content. Actually I personally find the Nicene creed to be quiet beautiful. I find the whole Trinitarian doctrine to be quiet beautiful. It only becomes ugly when it’s elevated to the level of scripture.