In this episode, host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Joanna Brooks, John Dehlin, and Brian Johnston use Brooks’ column as a springboard for their own dive into many aspects of Mormonism, including both the light and shadow sides of its rigor, demands, and messages (and the ways these messages are communicated), and what contributions any of these have to those who are unsure about staying LDS or others who are seeking ways to engage with the church and fellow members in enjoyable and spiritually healthy ways even though they may be less literalistic or in some other ways  “out of the box” in some of their views.

In C.S. Lewis’ final Narnia book The Last Battle, there is a powerful scene of an encounter between the Christ-symbolizing lion Aslan and Emeth, a noble-minded worshipper of the false Calormene demon-god Tash:

“[The Lion] touched my forehead…and said, Son, thou art welcome.  But I said, Alas Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.  He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.  Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true…that thou and Tash are one?  The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false.  Not because he and I aer one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him.  For he and I are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him.  Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him.  And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.”

Needless to say, a certain type of Christian evangelical is appalled by this.  I read an essay (by someone who evidently has reading-comprehension problems) arguing that by Lewis’s logic, Osama bin Laden’s diligence in pursuit of what he understands to be his religious duty must be credited as salvific worship of Christ.

And there is a danger, in seeking to be courteous to people who believe fundamentally different things from our own faith, to drift into seeming to say that there is no absolute truth — that all religious traditions are equally valid, that all religious roads lead to God, and the like.  And in fact, the varieties of religious experience are often used by folk-postmodernists to argue there is no absolute truth — that all truths are simply fronts for cultural biases, interests, or power relations.  However — although there is more of a common core of shared moral truth, across many diverse cultures, than often gets acknowledged – the truth claims of different religious traditions are often mutually exclusive.  In the case of Christianity and Islam, for example, Jesus Christ was either a prophet, or the incarnate God.  He can’t be both.  So the only way that “all religious teachings can be equally valid” is for none of them to be valid.  They obtain whatever fiction of validity they have, only from what they are given by their adherents.  Asking, like Joseph Smith, “Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together?”  (JS-H 1:10), the vernacular relativist concludes the answer must be “all wrong together.”  Otherwise, we’d have to privilege one faith claim above another — and in a pluralist society, we certainly can’t have that.  Wouldn’t be courteous.

But it does not follow, from the fact that finding the absolute truth is so difficult that different people, exercising the best of their imperfect judgment, reach different conclusions, that there is no absolute truth.  It is possible that, among all the “contests of these parties of religionists,” somebody is actually right — or more right than others.  Christians give the assent of faith to the proposition that Christ “is the way, the Truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father except by [Him].”  (John 14:6.)  We are committed to believing that there is one absolute Truth, and that it includes the basic fact that the salvation of humanity rests on Christ crucified.

How can faith in an exclusive Truth be reconciled with religious pluralism, not to mention God’s justice, in a world where the accidents of birth are probably the greatest factor that determines what religion a person practices?

I think C.S. Lewis was on to something with his parable of Emeth — whose name is Hebrew for “Truth.”  I think of Matthew 26:32-46, where the sheep are divided from from the goats.  The scripture seems to indicate that at least some of the sheep are surprised at being sheep:  “Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee?  or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?  Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?  And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

The Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, who was one of the major influences in the restatement of Catholic doctrine at the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, articulated a concept he called “Anonymous Christianity”:

“Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity — Let us say, a Buddhist monk — who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity.”

The Catholic Church subsequently adopted the substance of Rahner’s thinking.  The Church’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium provides,

“Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

The present Catechism now provides,

“Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

The declaration Dominus Iesus (criticized by some religious liberals for, evidently, not abandoning altogether the Catholic Church’s proclamation that it is the one true church), stated,

“Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, “does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors”. Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain.”

Mormonism, of course, may have anticipated this doctrine (or a version of it) with the doctrine of proxy ordinance work for the dead.  Although there has been controversy on the point, many LDS authorities suggest that even those who have had the gospel presented to them in this life, but rejected it for good-faith reasons, may obtain to salvation.

Some consider the doctrine of “Anonymous Christianity” to be condescending:  Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists, goes this argument, don’t want to be saved as “anonymous” or honorary Christians; they should insist on being saved qua Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists.  In my view, “Anonymous Christianity” is as far as a revealed religion can possibly go and remain anything like itself.

However, “Anonymous Christianity” has a potentially startling flip side:  Just as a noble-minded Muslim, who follows the truly holy aspects of his religion, may have his inherently holy actions counted as worship of Christ, isn’t it also at least conceivably possible that I — by practicing the noble truths contained in my Mormon variety of Christianity — could be an “anonymous Buddhist?”  We tend to view even entertaining the possibility that the things to which we give the assent of faith may not be in every respect exactly as we understand them as a kind of infidelity, but is it really so?  To have effective faith in something, do we really have to know it with every fiber of our being, or say that we do?

My faith is in Christ, exercised within the framework of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I have reason to believe — or, more precisely, I choose to believe that certain experiences, whose actual import I may not be able to know with certainty, give me reason to believe — that God is pleased that I exercise faith in this way.  It may be that this is because the Gospel, as it it has been made known to me, is 100% true, to the exclusion of all contrary traditions — or it may be because my faith contains enough of the true God’s truth to suffice.

• Growing out “forelocks” as Hasidic Jews do.
• Eschewing technology as the Amish do.
• 7th Day Adventists considering Saturday as the Sabbath.
• Celibacy among priests and nuns of the Catholic faith.
• Jews not eating shellfish or pork.
• Muslim women wearing the hajib or burka.
• Scientology – where do I start? (not technically a religion, but you get the point)

It’s easy to distinguish the “bizarre” from the “true” when considering other faiths because we tend to think that the things we have in common are “true” but the ones we don’t are “bizarre” and can be dismissed.  The same holds true when Mormonism is viewed from someone on the outside, unfamiliar with our practices.  Consider how the following things look to outsiders:  Word of Wisdom, garments, fasting monthly, paying 10% in tithing, the temple, not seeing R-rated movies, polygamy, and Sabbath day observance.  Which  of these are “true” and which are “bizarre”?

Generally, a practice is justified using one of the following means:

• There is an underlying principle that drives the practice. This can be tricky, though, and different people may accept different underlying principles.  Consider the following possible justifications for the Word of Wisdom:
  • A health code.  Tobacco has been shown to be unhealthy, so one could say that the Word of Wisdom is a health code.  However, alcohol, tea and coffee have not been shown to be unhealthy (users of these substances don’t have significantly shorter life spans, for example), so it could be difficult to convince outsiders that this is a “true” principle on the grounds of being a heavenly health code.  Also, the WoW does not outlaw some more clearcut unhealthy practices like eating too much fatty fried foods.
  • Addiction Avoidance.  The principle could be that there should be moderation in all things and because some people become addicted to these substances, this is how to preserve one’s ability to choose.  But because this is not true of all people, it’s kind of a shotgun principle that results in abstinence for all that only benefits a few.
  • Spiritual enlightenment.  As RSR pointed out, JS’s view of the WoW was that it would foster spiritual enlightenment.  Of course, since it was not widely adopted until much later, this calls the practice into question.
• Secret or revealed knowledge.  One justification for unique practices is that it’s touted as “secret” or “restored” or “revealed” knowledge.  The “we don’t know” defense might fall into this category if the assumption is that the practice was revealed, but God’s ways are too mysterious for our limited human understanding.  In the latter case, the “defense” of the practice is really just an assertion and may sound illogical to outsiders not prone to believe in revelation.
• Symbolic meaning.  Some justifications for unique practices are that they have a symbolic meaning intended to teach adherents through allegory.  Sometimes this is used in conjunction with a “revelation” defense to bolster a difficult to explain justification.  While no one would dispute that circumcision has a “symbolic” purpose, early adult convert Christians were naturally reluctant to adopt this Jewish symbolic practice, which created a big division in the early Christian church.
• Proof.  There is generally an underlying assumption that the unique element is ultimately “provable,” or at least so adherents believe.  IOW, adherents would believe that ultimately the “truth” of the practice will be revealed, either in this life (born out by science, for example) or the one to come (when God says, “Yep, that was my idea!”).

OTOH, a practice might also serve a purpose to create sociological benefit by defining the community or making “a peculiar people.”  If these elements are more “bizarre” or unique to create boundaries between groups and not necessarily based in truth, they may exist primarily for sociological reasons:

• To identify who is in and who is out of the group.
• To control the weak members of the organization and keep them in line.  This makes the group more easily identifiable for admirable traits and aids missionary efforts.
• To discourage intermarriage outside the group.
• To provide an Abrahamic test of faith to new adherents and to foster loyalty through arbitrary requirements.

The tricky thing is that it’s not always cut & dried whether a unique practice is based in truth or is just there to reinforce group boundaries.  Here are some possible classifications for unique practices.

1. Justifiable / truth-based.  There is a clear, easily explained justification for the practice that is based in true, verifiable events.
   • Rule of thumb:  If you explain the practice, you find your logic convincing.
2. Partially justifiable / principle-linked.  There is a justification or a link to a principle that can be used to explain the practice, but it is not self-evident and probably sounds a little weird to outsiders.  Others might consider the justification unconvincing or weak.
   • Ergo:  You find the logic of the practice partly convincing, but partly weak.  You have to make up what is lacking in logic in faith or suspension of disbelief or only accept the practice partially.
3. Bizarre / unjustifiable / faith-based.  There’s really no justification or explanation that makes any kind of logical sense to non-adherents or non-believers.  Trying to explain the practice leaves one tongue-tied and feeling a bit silly.

• IOW:  You neither have a convincing explanation for the practice, nor do you buy the ones you’ve heard.  You may suspect the practice primarily exists for sociological reasons, to make us a “peculiar” people.

Of course the other difficulty is that someone may have what they feel is a good explanation for a practice, but another adherent may not buy it or believe it or may find it weak, so there’s a good deal of subjectivity.  And subjectivity means it’s a perfect time for a poll!  For each of the below unique Mormon practices, please choose whether you think it is True, Partially Justifiable or merely Bizarre.  Be honest!  (I apologize in advance if my descriptions of what might constitute a true, partially justifiable or bizarre reason don’t work for you individually – as I said, lots of subjectivity involved here!)

[poll id="128"]

[poll id="129"]

[poll id="130"]

[poll id="131"]

[poll id="132"]

[poll id="133"]

[poll id="134"]

[poll id="135"]

[poll id="137"]

[poll id="138"]

So, what do you think are some of the difficult to justify practices, from your perspective?  Are there some I didn’t include here?  Do you see value in this kind of boundary definition or do you think all religious practices should have logical justification or be discarded?  Does your lack of justification for an individual practice make you less committed to the practice?  Does it impact your religious devotion overall?  Were you surprised by some of your answers?  Discuss.

I admit that I believe in God, but for the purposes of this post I want to suspend that belief.  The reason being that I want to compare it with believing in Santa Claus who I know is not real.

The article argues that although some people are against teaching our children something that is false, there is some evidence to suggest that it might serve some important functions.  Believing in Santa helps to teach the importance of reciprocity in relationships, it assists in the development of imagination and helps children cope with stressful situations.  But are these reasons sufficient to teach your child about God even if you knew it was wrong, and more importantly maintain it.

But is such belief a form of abuse, as Richard Dawkins argues.  When asked about the sexual abuse of the young by religious leaders, Dawkins replied that ‘horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up catholic [or in any other faith - my note] in the first place’ [2].  Dawkins also believes that God should be given up at the same time as Santa Claus.

I would be horrified if someone believed in Santa past the age of 16, but I am not sure I could go so far as to say it is a form of child abuse.  I have a friend with a bright child who ‘figured out’ that Santa was not real and to prove it he set up a video camera watching the tree over Christmas Eve.  Knowing what was happening, the father arranged for a member of the Ward to dress up as Santa and bring the presents around.  Now, I personally do not agree with this, but I am not sure it is abusive.  If this continues then I would fear socially for the child, but the same could be said about believing in God.

So is believing in God a form of child abuse, assuming God is not real?

Notes

1. Gail Vines, The Santa Delusion: Is it harmless fantasy or cruel deception? in New Scientist, 22/29 December 2007, pp. 36-7

2. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion [London: Bantam Press, 2006] p. 356.

1. probably Elder Oaks or Elder Holland will be, or will have been,president by then.
2. I hope, by that time, the Lord will have seen fit to call one or two non-caucasians to the 12.
3. Some sermons in conference will be given in a non-English language, with simultaneous translation available for English speakers.
4. The Church will have, in some way, formally disavowed teachings on the curse of Cain/Ham and any teaching that the practice of withholding priesthood/temple on the basis of lineage/race had its origins before the Restoration.
5. There will be a continued outreach to the GLBT community. While the Church will not recognize or perform same sex marriages, it may well permit GLBT individuals in a committed monogamous union to retain their formal membership, but not attend the temple or exercise the priesthood (sort of like the Church’s current position on those who have undergone”elective” transsexual surgery and who join the Church or who are rebaptized).
6. Some sort of initiative will address the problem of excluding nonmember parents from weddings of their children when those weddings take place in the temple. My guess is that the automatic one year wait rule will be softened to accommodate those faithful members who wish their parents to witness the “for time” portion of the ceremony.
7. Women will be invited to offer open and/or closing prayers in general conference. A woman will be appointed as president of at least one of the Church universities.
8. The teaching and practice of women being permitted to join with their husbands in blessing their sick children will again officially become permitted and/or encouraged.
9. The weekly priesthood executive committee will be expanded to include the RS president and YW president. Presidents of auxiliaries will be referred to as “President”.
10. Another attempt at simplifying Church programs will occur. The three hour block may be reduced to two and one-half hours. It is possible that priesthood/relief society and Sunday School will be held on alternate Sundays.
11. Small Church post-secondary colleges may be established in Mexico, Brazil, the Philipines, and Chile. The tithing subsidy for tuition at the BYU campuses in the U.S. might be reduced to provide a similar subsidy to students at the non-U.S. campuses. Alternatively, the BYU campuses might be spun off entirely, in the same way the Church hospitals were. They would remain LDS in focus, but without the tithing subsidy. Or, if that does not occur, then greater equality of US and nonUs members might be attained by a greater subsidy to PEF out of tithing, in the same manner the Church universities are subsidized.
12. Small temples will continue to be built throughout the world, perhaps reaching 200 or 250 temples.
13. Missionaries will be permitted to teach in China and in many parts of the Middle East. The Church will strengthen its ties to Islamic countries and representatives. For the first time since the Church was established in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world, there will be a serious and significant increase in conversions in that country.
14. The birthrate of LDS in the US will increase slightly, but not return to baby boom levels. Divorce rates will stabilize or drop somewhat.
15. As the baby boom retires, the number of senior missionaries will increase significantly, however, the relative proportion of members serving missions will remain steady. If Church membership of record increases to 20 million (about 50%), then the number of full the full time missionaries serving at that time will also increase about 50% (to 80,000 or 90,000).
16. The Church will once again begin making occasional disclosures of its finances.
17. Retention levels will continue a slow increase. Addiction recovery programs meetings (including pornography addiction support groups) will be part of this growth in retention, helping new converts (or lapsed members) address pernicious addictions in a safe, supportive environment, to return to complete spiritual health.
18. There will continue to be a strengthened emphasis on the Book of Mormon, and its teachings of gospel fundamentals such as God’s grace, free moral agency, redemption, and forgiveness. Further discouragement of the use of guilt as a motivator, and greater use of support and positive encouragement.
19. The Proclamation on the Family may become section 132, and the current section 132 will either be removed entirely (like the Lectures on Faith) or will be added as an historical footnote (like the footnote at the end of Joseph Smith-History).

So, these are my predictions for the church in the next 20 years.  What are your predictions?  Which of my predictions do you think unlikely?  Which do you think will happen?  Discuss.

The word gender is constantly in flux in the English language.  Here are some examples of the different meanings associated with the word “gender,” and how they might fit with the Proclamation on the Family:

• Gender is popularly used to denote biology (e.g. male or female sex).  This could be what is meant, that we were male & female blobs of intelligence who became male & female spirit children who became male & female citizens of planet Earth.  That we always were and will be male & female.
• Gender can refer to sexual identity:  ”an individual’s self-conception as being male or female, as distinguished from actual biological sex.”  This could be what is meant by the PoF, especially noteworthy since it specifically mentions the role of gender in identity.
  • Following this interpretation, there are related issues for the multi- (hermaphrodite) or trans-gendered because the church’s stance is generally against gender reassignment (transgendered individuals can be baptized, but not receive the priesthood, and individuals should not be baptized if their transgender operation is planned.  This stance does not specifically address hermaphroditic gender determination).
  • Additionally, some cultures embrace a third gender identity:  individuals who run counter to gender stereotypes (e.g. the Two-Spirit people of Native American tribes), a non-sexual gender (e.g. eunuchs or hijiras), or individuals who are “beyond gay and straight” (e.g. the Muxe of Oaxaca, MX).
• “Gender…is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons…of the masculine or feminine g[ender], meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder” – Henry Watson Fowler.  Hey, I had to throw it out there, but that’s one of the earliest meanings of the word, and it does still mean that.  It’s just irrelevant to the PoF.  Or is it?  Grammatical gender assignment in languages is often different from language to language and doesn’t follow social gender constructs in all cases.  It is frequently arbitrary.  Kind of like social norms.
• “Among the reasons that working scientists have given me for choosing gender rather than sex in biological contexts are desires to signal sympathy with feminist goals, to use a more academic term, or to avoid the connotation of copulation.”  – David Haig in 2004, The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex.  Was the word “gender” used merely because the word “sex” might be misconstrued to refer to copulation?  Maybe so. Imagine the mischief of anti-Mormons talking about “eternal copulation.”  Oh, wait, they already do.
• Gender refers to sexual stereotypes that are socially constructed.  This is the interpretation of the PoF that seems most commonly held, although it’s problematic in light of the cultural origin of most gender roles.  Some sexual stereotypes seem conflated with biology (women’s bodies literally “nurture” babies in utero and potentially through nursing), while others vary greatly from culture to culture (e.g. men in kilts, Rosie the Riveter, female warrior societies, SAHDs).  If the characteristics are cultural constructions how can they reflect eternal purpose?  Coincidentally?
  • The term gender role was coined in 1955 by sexologist John Money, (prompting the question “What the heck is a sexologist?”). He said: “The term gender role is used to signify all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It includes, but is not restricted to, sexuality in the sense of eroticism.”
  • Elements of such a role include clothing (except as I recall I was born nekkid), speech patterns (swearing like a sailor?), movement (walking swishily?), occupations (what about SAHDs and female soldiers?), and other factors not limited to biological sex.  Clearly, nothing on this list is eternal.
  • Possible gender characteristics referred to in the PoF include:  By divine design, fathers are to preside (in some wards, this means ”fall asleep on the stand between talks“) over their families in love and righteousness (so, not like Pinochet) and are responsible to provide the necessities of life (like clean diapers and formula?) and protection for their families (clearly, this means killing spiders). Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children (nutritious take-out and microwave meals, for example). In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation (lots of caveats here, including the wide open “other circumstances”).
• From dictionary.com, we find a “Usage Note”:  Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter,” but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories.  According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.   So, I suppose the answer is:  “Your guess is as good as mine.”  Speaking of which . . .

So, what do you think is meant by the Proclamation on the Family?

[poll id="47"]

I did it using predict logic, tons of examples, and examples from real life conversations with creedal Christians. So that means no one will read it.

It would seem that being precise with your language makes it difficult to read and comprehend. (A fact all programmers know.) Sometimes it’s easier to just use an example, which is less precise but more understandable. So here is an example that covers everything I said in my last post via an analogy.

God is Red, God is Blue

Pretend, for a moment, that the Bible teaches two things. One is that God is red and the other is that God is blue. It’s not hard to see the analogy here to the Trinity doctrine, but I’ll let you come up with it yourself.

Is this a contradiction? Not in and off itself. Paradoxical? Certainly. But there are multiple ways to resolve this seeming contradiction. God can be both red and blue.

But when I try to sincerely have dialog with creedal Trinitarians I get the feeling that they just have a collection of words, called a creed, that they “believe” but have no underlying meaning to those words, with one notable exception: when I try to apply my own meaning to those words. Then, and only then, do the words in the creed take on sudden meaning, just long enough to deny me. Then they go back to having no meaning again. It’s very fluid and frustrating when you are trying to discuss beliefs.

A Typical Conversation with a Creedal Trinitarian

So a typical conversation with a Creedal Trinitarian seems to go like this to me:

Creedal Trinitarian: God is red. God is blue. That’s what the Bible says.

Me: I agree. That is what the Bible says. And I believe that God is red and God is blue.

Creedal Trinitarian: No, you don’t believe that. You don’t even believe the Bible. You believe Joseph Smith. We have different sources of truth, so we aren’t the same and we have no common ground — mutually accepted sources of truth — that we can use as a basis for dialog. I believe the Bible, you believe Joseph.

Me: Yes, I do accept the revelations of Joseph Smith as true, just like I accept the Bible, in fact.

Creedal Trinitarian: But the revelations of Joseph Smith contradict the Bible.

Me: Not to me they don’t. What I mean is, I interpret the Bible AND the teachings of Joseph Smith in ways you aren’t familiar with. I will grant that how you choose to interpret Joseph Smith’s revelations contradict how you choose to interpret the Bible. But the way I interpret Joseph Smith’s revelations and the Bible they do not contradict. Besides, isn’t believing God is red and God is blue “contradictory” in the way you believe it?

Creedal Trinitarian: That’s what the Bible teaches. So I know it’s true.

Me: I know, I already said that. I have said I believe it myself. But what does “God is red” and “God is blue” mean to you. For example, couldn’t it mean that God is half red and half blue. Like he has different parts or aspects of different color?

Creedal Trinitarian: No! The Bible doesn’t say God is half red, it says God is red. It doesn’t say God is half blue, it says God is blue.

Me: Do you understanding it figuratively? I mean do you believe God is red and God is blue means he’s courageous and true, maybe?

Creedal Trinitarian: It doesn’t say God is courageous and true, though He is that too. But it says God is red and God is blue. And that is what it means.

Me: Okay, so you believe all aspects of “God” are red and all are blue and it’s not figurative to you in any way? In what sense do you undertstand those concepts then?

Creedal Trinitarian: I mean I believe the Bible: God is red, God is blue.

Me: Do you mean that God is purple? Purple is both fully red and fully blue. That would be logical.

Creedal Trinitarian: No! The Bible does not say God is purple! The Bible says God is red and God is blue. Red is not purple. Blue is not purple.

Me: Yes, but Purple is both fully red and fully blue.

Creedal Trinitarians: I already said the Bible doesn’t say that. So that is not what I believe.

Me: Okay, maybe God is red all over and blue all over, like dithering. So it appears purple at a distance, but if you look closely he really is, all over red and blue, just not at the same location at the same time.

Creedal Trinitarisn: No! The Bible does not say God is dithered blue and red. That would mean God isn’t fully red and isn’t fully blue.

Me: Do you believe God is like two shades of clear glass layered on each other? One red and one blue? That would make him both red and blue in a sense, right?

Creedal Trinitarian: The Bible does not say God is layered blue on top of red, or vice versa. That would make him black to the eye, and God is certainly not black. That would be blaspheme. The Bible says that God is red and God is blue so that is incorrect doctrine.

Me: But couldn’t those words in the Bible have meant that…

Creedal Trinitarian: No! They mean what they say and they say what they mean. You are so desperately seeking a simple answer that you are falling into heresy. By the way, speaking of contradictions, Joseph Smith taught that God was green! See, right there, Joseph Smith and the Bible contradict each other! You have to admit you accept Joseph while I accept Jesus.

Me: But to me that means God is white.

Creedal Trinitarians: What?!

Me: Yes, under light color theory, red, blue, and green make white light. If you crank up the red fully, the blue fully, and the green fully, you get white. God is white because God is fully red, fully blue, and fully green. Or in other words, God is all colors. See, Joseph Smith didn’t contradict the Bible. And by the way, there was nothing “simple” about that answer. In fact, it’s more complex then what you’ve been advocating. I’ve never claimed God was simple to comprehend, only that He isn’t contradictory.

Creedal Trinitarian: No! God is not green nor white, the Bible denies that possibility.

Me: But the Bible doesn’t say he isn’t green, so it doesn’t deny the possibility. I’m affirming God is red and God is blue, just like the Bible says. I’m simply adding that He is also green and thus He is white.

Creedal Trinitarian: Yes the Bible does deny that God is green. It says God is red and God is blue. Clearly red is not green and blue is not green. Red and blue aren’t white either. We’re talking school child logic here.

Me: But the way you are using those words, red isn’t blue and blue isn’t red either! So it’s a contradiction, not school child logic.

Creedal Trinitarian: I realize it seems contradictory to an unbeliever like yourself, but to me it’s a paradox.

Me: In what sense is it a paradox to you? Normally we call something a paradox when we apply meaning to it that makes it non-contradictory, even though at first it seemed contradictory. “The first shall be last and the last shall be first” is a paradox because we are equivocating the meaning of the words mid sentence for effect.

Creedal Trinitarian: So we are agreed, it’s a paradox.

Me: Yes, I believe it’s a paradox – to me! But the way you are using it, it’s a contradiction.

Creedal Trinitarian: No, it’s not. It’s a paradox. Besides, God can make a contradiction true anyhow. God can do anything.

Me: But if God can make a contradiction true, then why do you see Joseph Smith’s new revelation that God is green as problematic? God can be green in the same sense that you accept God as red and as blue. Thus logically you can’t deny the possibly that God is green (or white) just because the Bible says He is red and blue.

Creedal Trinitarian: No, God is not green. The Bible is very clear on this point. It says God is red and God is blue. Red is not green and neither is blue. White is not green and white is not blue.

Me: I feel like we’re getting no where fast.

Creedal Trinitarian: You are an unbeliever. If you believed in the Bible and accepted it as true over Joseph Smith or your own need to make up simple answers then you’d understand.

Me: I think you have no meaning in your head as to what it means when you say God is red or God is blue except when you need it to deny me. Then it takes on meaning just long enough to exclude me.

Creedal Trinitarian: I just believe what the Bible says.

Me: I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I don’t believe you believe what the Bible says. I think you believe the creedal interpretation of what the Bible is saying.

Creedal Trinitarian: They are the same. One just summarizes the other.

Me: How can you say that? How can you sincerely look at me after this conversation, where I just gave multiple other ways to interpret the Bible’s sayings validly and then, with a straight face, tell me that creeds just summarizes and don’t interpret the Bible?

Creedal Trinitarian: It’s that you believe Joseph Smith. That is why you can’t understand. Satan has blinded you to the truth.

Me: This conversation isn’t really progressing is it?

Creedal Trinitarian: No, it’s not. I think we should agree to disagree.

Me: Okay. *Sigh* Yet another failed attempt to get anywhere with understanding this creedal doctrine.

Creedal Trinitarian: It’s scriptural, not “creedal”. Just read and accept the Bible and you’ll understand.

Conclusion

I want to make it very clear that I am not trying to be disrespectful of creedal Trinitarian beliefs. I think they are quite sincere in their desire to believe the Bible. But the above conversation is a true and realistic example of all my conversations with creedal Trinitarians, at least as far as I’m currently able to process what they are saying.

While I can’t rule out the possibility that I have missed some point that is required for my comprehension, or possibly I am blinded to it by my personal biases, after years of such conversations I am no longer convinced such a point exists. So likewise I must not rule out the possibility that I am correct: that the creedal Trinity doctrine has no meaning even to creedal Trinitarians except when used to judge other people’s beliefs as being “non-Christian.” The end result of this, if I am correct, is that they use the creeds in contradictory ways just like the sample conversation above.

The Trinity doctrine itself doesn’t have to be a contradiction – indeed, I grow more convinced all the time that the Trinity doctrine, at it’s root, is what I believe. What I should have said is that creedal Christians honestly seem to me to be making a choice to interpret or use the Trinity doctrine in a contradictory way.

This, in and of itself, wouldn’t be much of a problem if it weren’t for the fact that creedal Christians have also decided to use that contradiction as a basis for judging others salvation, and have done so for millenia.

I am now going to explain in detail what I mean. This is going to be boring, so I highly recommend that you don’t read this post and skip it altogether unless you like logic or have a strong desire to understand the Trinity doctrines problematic intricacies. Still, I write this an issue it as a challenge to creedal Christians to evaluate what I am saying and either help me understand their beliefs better or consider the possiblity that they believe some contradictions.

The Trinity Doctrine Defined

For the sake of argument, we’re going to take the Athanasius Creed as our “definition” of  “The Trinity Doctrine.” This is a postulate for the sake of argument. Yes, you could argue that the Trinity doctrine is true but the Athanasius creed is false. (An argument I often make myself.) But for this argument, we’re assuming they are one and the same for our purposes.

You can find the text of the Athanasius creed here.

The key to understanding the contradiction in how creedal Christians interpret the Athanasius creed is in “verse” 4: “Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance [Essence].”

A common way creedal Christians explain this passage is to say that God is three “persons” but one “being.” [1]

Now it’s important to understand that the word “person” here does not mean “person” in any dictionary definition sense of that word. So what does it mean? After attempting to study this out, so far, I have never found an answer to that question. All I have found, so far, are explanations that the word “person” doesn’t mean “person” in any “modern philosophical usage.” [2]

However, creedal Christiand believe that because the members of the Trinity/Godhead are different “person” they are distinctly different from each other. Mormon and non-Mormon Christians seem to be in agreement on this point.

However, this doesn’t mean that they are three Gods; for that would be, to a creedal Christian, polytheism. [3] Thus we are told in verse 15 and 16:

So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.

And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.

Now this statement is not problematic by itself. In fact, it’s doctrine Mormon’s share with their creedal Christian neighbors. We believe the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. But we also believe in one God and often speak in such terms. Contradiction? Not yet. For we aren’t sure yet what the words actually mean.

If, for example, we think of “God” as meaning “divinity” then this simply means “So the Father is Divine: the Son is Divine: and the Holy Ghost is Divine. And yet there are not three separate and distinct divinities with separate wills, but only one.”

Even the most Tritheistic of Mormons will agree with how I just reworded verse 15 and 16. Yet it’s completely consistent with verse 15 and 16. So we do not “disagree” with that part of the Athanasius Creed, per se.

Now let’s look at verses 5 and 24:

For there is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers: one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.

Is this problematic or contradictory? No, it’s not. This also is something Mormons can agree with, even in our most Tritheistic forms.

What Do We Disagree with in the Athanasius Creed?

Now this is where things get tricky. Is there anything in the Athanasius creed Mormons “disagree” with? No cheating by using how Creedal Christians “interpret” this creed. You are only allowed to look at the words themselves for this exercise. There are only two thing I can find that we directly disagree with in the Athanasius creed. The first is the pronouncement of damnation for not accepting it. (See verse 1, 28, and 44.)

The second is the ban on referring to more than one God in a numerical sense in verse 20:

So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.

Granted, Mormons would probably not choose to word many things the way the creeds do, but there is nothing else there, at least in the words themselves, that can’t be adequately reconciled to our beliefs. [4] Does that mean Mormons and Creedal Christians believe the same things? Not on your life!

How Do We Differ?

At issue here is the fact that you can’t, or shouldn’t, just take a bunch of words and logically say “I believe that” but have no interpretation for those words. This is something I often perceive creedal Christians as doing. They are quick to explain how the words of the Athanasius creed don’t mean what Mormons believe, but not at all anxious to explain what the words do mean, even just for themselves. [5]

One common way to interpret verse 5 and 24 (as quoted above) is to say that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, etc. Okay, sounds good to me.

Another common way to look at the Athanasius creedal view of the Trinity is to say that the Son is 100% God, the Father is 100% God, the Holy Ghost is 100% God. If I understand “God” a meaning “divine nature” then I’m fine with that too. But at this point, things break down. Because, I’m always told by creedal Trinitarians, that by “God” they do not mean “Divinity.” “God” is not a characteristic that you can have, it’s something you are. It’s a form of identity.

But what do they mean? Do they, for example, mean that “God” is a statement of identity in the same way that I might say “Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same being?”

If this is what they mean, then let’s work out the logic for it. We are asserting:

1. The Father (identity) is God (identity)
2. The Son (identity) is God (identity)
3. The Father (identity) is not the Son (identity)
4. The Son (identity) is not the Father (identity)

Assuming all those statements are about identity, do we have a logical contradiction? Absolutely. I have included the proof – and this is an actual logical proof – in the footnotes. [6] Put simply, the idea that the Athanasius doctrine of Trinity is talking about “God” as an identity is a logical contradiction. Period.

No Answer is Good Enough

I do not believe there is an inherent contradiction in the Trinity doctrine. As far as I can tell, I completely agree with the Trinity doctrine as described in the Athanasius creed minus the two points I mentioned.

But merely agreeing with the words seems to not be enough. Apparently the words in the creed do take on meaning in one case: when needed to deny someone else’s sincere attempt to make sense of the Trinity doctrine.

What I’d really like to see is for creedal Christians to take their explanations of their denials of my beliefs and hold themselves to it logically. Let’s consider some examples of what I am saying.

Example 1: Splitting the Substance

Of course it’s easy enough to say: “We aren’t talking about identity. We’re saying that there are two aspects, person and being. There are three persons that are God, but only one being. My proof above is then problematic because it assumes that given a “being” is God that being is the Father and also the Son. But in fact it’s only one person in that “being” that is the Father.

Okay, fair enough. That is a logical argument and it forces me to redo my proof now that I have that further explanation. But here is the problem, this is really the same saying “God” does not identify the person, but only the group. Mormons would have no issue with this formula because we often think of God as being the whole Godhead (a group identity). But creedal Christians find this idea repugnant because it means that the persons are only 1/3 of “God.” So this formula is supposedly rejected by the Athanasius creed because it says the Father is God and the Son is God, not that they are 1/3 of God.

In other words, they specifically treat “God” as a unique identity when denying the Mormon concept of Godhead, but then later treat it like it isn’t a unique identity when denying their Trinity doctrine is a contradiction.

Example 2: Tritheism

Another way I’ve seen the potential contradiction in the Athanasius creed resolved is to admit that there are in fact three persons that are all fully God and that numerically you could understand that as meaning there are three Gods, but that we shouldn’t talk of it that way because people will confuse the concept with Tritheism. Or, in other words, they are admitting that there is both one God in one sense of the word “God” but three “Gods” in another sense. Richard Swinburne seems to have suggested something similar to this approach,though it’s generally considered unacceptable by Trinitiarians.

I have been told, many times, by creedal Trinitarians that this is impossible because it’s the same as saying there is three Gods and thus it’s polytheism. In other words, when denying this approach, the creedal belief in one God becomes a unique identity and we aren’t allowed to consider the possiblity of “God” having multiple meanings. So the creedal statement that there is only one God takes on meaning here long enough to deny this possiblity.

Example 3: Modalism

Another way I’ve seen this addressed is by admitting that the Father is in fact the Son, at least in some sense. But of course this is now the same as the heresy of modalism because the Father is the Son and vice versa. They are the same “person” if you will. Again, the creedal statement that the Father and the Son aren’t the same person suddenly takes on meaning long enough to deny this possiblity.

Incomprehensibility vs. Contradiction

Another common approach to this problem I’ve seen with Creedal Christians is to say “well, I’m not saying it’s comprehensible.” I often get examples of other incomprehensibles, for example, light being both a wave and a particle. “The universe is not comprehensible, so why would God be?” I am told.

But what does the word “comprehensible” mean in this context? If I say that light is both a wave and a particle, I would agree that I can’t really “comprehend” that in the sense that I can’t, in my mind, picture what as “wavicle” looks like. But I can easily “comprehend” that a “wavicle” is something that sometimes has properties of a wave and sometimes a particle. I can easily state the mathematics behind it. I can use the math to make predictions.

This objection is a dodge. It equates “contradiction” to “incomprehensible” inappropriately. I am not asking creedal Christians to give me a set of statements that I can picture in my head (I.e. “comprehend”) I’m asking them to give me a set of statements that they themselves are willing to accept the logical conclusions of.

Will God Make a Contradiction True?

Another common thing I hear from Creedal Christians is God can make a contradiction true.

Now I have no way of knowing if God can or can’t make a contradiction true. But I do know that God says he wouldn’t because making a contraction true is the same as lying. For example, God could declare that you are saved if you believe in Jesus Christ and then send you to hell for it because you are both saved and not saved.

Accepting that God would make a contradiction, for all intents and purposes, scrubs God off the slate (to paraphrase Lewis) for the sake of having any discussion about Him at all.

Oh, and if you are going to accept that contradiction, why not accept an equivalent one: that God is both one God and three Gods. If you can accept that, you now need to accept that Mormons are fully Trinitarians. In fact, you’ll have to accept that Jehovah’s Witnesses are too because Jesus is both fully God and not fully God. There is no longer a basis for rejecting anyone as having truth or not having truth because the very concept of “truth” starts with the assumption that we are not allowing contradictions.

Use of Jargon

I have seen some creedal Christians try to get around their contradictory use of the Trinity doctrine through use of Jargon. By multiplying words, we might be able to eventually hide the fact that we’re avoiding answering the question of what the Trinity doctrine really means. Take a close look at the quote in footnote 1. I believe this is such a case.

Conclusions

I hope I’ve clarified the problem as I see it, as well as my real frustrations with trying to make sense of creedal Christian’s beliefs. There are many ways to take the Trinity doctrine and make sense of it, yet all of those ways are considered unacceptable to creedal Christians. Thus the net result is that they seem to believe a group of words that have no meaning even to them.

Notes:
[1] As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, this is just a word game in many ways. To anyone not already accepting the creeds as the authoritative revealed word of God, the words “person” and “being” would mean the same thing. And, of course, the Bible doesn’t use those words. “Person” and “Being” are non-scriptural and purely creedal. See also footnote 3 for further explanation of how “person” and “being” are not used in any common sense of those words.

[2] Consider this “explanation” of the word “person” given on the same web page as the Athanasius creed:

In modern philosophical usage the term person means a separate and distinct rational individual. But the tri-personality of God is not a numerical or essential trinity of three beings (like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), for this would be tritheism; nor is it, on the other hand, merely a threefold aspect and mode of manifestation, in the Sabellian or Swedenborgian sense; but it is a real, objective, and eternal, though ineffable, distinction in the one Divine being, with a corresponding threefold revelation of this being in the works of creation, redemption, and sanctification. Hence the distinction between the immanent, intrinsic (or ontological) trinity and the extrinsic or economical) trinity; in other words, between the trinity of essence and the trinity of manifestation.

Can someone tell me what any of this actually means? It really comes across to me like a very wordy denial that the word “person” as used in the creeds actually mean “person” at all. It tells us what it doesn’t mean, not what it does mean.

It is sayings like this that make me wish I had a trusted but very educated creedal Christian to ask questions of but could trust he/she wouldn’t get mad if I keep asking penetrating questions and not accept unexplained creedal statements as answers.

[3] Again, this seems to me to be a word game. To a full monotheist, like a Jew or Muslim, three persons that are all fully God is three Gods and thus polytheism.

Let’s put this another way: if it’s okay to redefine monotheism from “one God” to “one God that is found 100% in three distinctly different persons” (Trinity formula) then why isn’t it okay to redefine monotheism to “one God that is a Godhead made up of three persons that are all also fully God.” (LDS formula) Again, this seems like a word game to me.

[4] I know I’ll get push back on this. Mormons are so strongly trained to reject creeds, that the idea that it’s possible to interpret them as Mormon doctrine is more or less anathema for us. Furthermore, there are a lot of questionable things stated in the Athanasius creed that many Mormons (often even myself) would prefer to not interpret as pro-Mormon. For example:

“So that in all things, as aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshiped.”

But McConkie said we worship only the Father, right? No, actually, McConkie allowed for worshiping them as a single unit. See the details here. So this statement, while abnormal for Mormons is not inconsistent with even McConkie’s own highly tri-theistic teachings. For this statement to have been at odds with our teachings it would have had to have said “we worship the Son by addressing prayers in His name.”

A few others. Verse 9:
“The Father incomprehensible [unlimited]: the Son incomprehensible [unlimited]: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible [unlimited, or infinite].”
 
Mormons don’t like to think of God as “incomprehensible” and we often used this as a dividing point between ourselves and creedal Christians. However, even the most die hard Mormons in this regard will ultimately relent and admit that there are, at least currently to us mortals, things that are incomprehensible about God. I think our general concern with this verse is that it seems to be referring to the Trinity doctrine itself as incomprehensible. And since we don’t agree with the traditional interpretation of Trinity, this is a self reference that we do reject. But the words themselves, we don’t reject.

Verse 8:
“The Father uncreate [uncreated]: the Son uncreate [uncreated]: and the Holy Ghost uncreate [uncreated].”

Do we think of the Son as uncreated? Isn’t he “begotten” and thus created? Or do we think of all intelligence as uncreated and thus the Son is uncreated? It entirely depends on how you choose to interpret this verse. But clearly Mormons could choose to legitimately agree with the words.
 
Verse 33:
“[the Son] Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.”
 
Do Mormons agree with this? Well, we do in fact see Jesus as equal to the father in terms of this “divinity” (I.e. “Godhood”) but inferior in terms of His “Glory.” Close fit to be sure. If I assume “manhood” is a reference to his “Sonship” then I have no problems with how this verse is worded. Of course, traditionally Christians interpret this verse to mean that Jesus is in every way equal to the Father accept when He was a man. And clearly Mormons would disagree with this.

But let’s not get too worried about whether or not Mormons agree with the Athanasius creed or not. That isn’t my point. My point is that the words in the Athanasius creed can’t be separated from their traditional interpretation. This is key to understanding why the doctrine of Trinity is a contradiction in how creedal Christians use it. 

[5] See footnote 1 for further explanation about this.

[6] Here is the proof in predicate logic. This will avoid misunderstandings of what I am saying. Please note, I know very little about predicate logic out side of one class ages ago, so feel free to check me and critique. That’s sort of the point of going through this much trouble — to be sure I’m being precise in what I am saying so that I can be understood.

F =  Father, G = God, S = Son
To display “identity” I’m going to use “if and only if” as my logical statement.

Assumptions:
F ↔ G (I.e. If and only if the Father, then God. Or in other words, the Father is uniquely identified as God)
S ↔ G (I.e. If and only if the Son, then God. Or in other words, the Son is uniquely identified as God)
¬ (F ↔ S) (I.e. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father)

Derivations:
¬ [(F → S) ∧ (S → F)]
¬ [(F → S) ∧ (S → F)] ⊢ (¬(F → S) ∨ ¬(S → F))
¬(F → S) ∨ ¬(S → F)
[(F → G) ∧ (G → F)]
[(F ∧ G) ∨ (¬G ∧ ¬F)]
[(S → G) ∧ (G → S)]
[(S ∧ G) ∨ (¬G ∧ ¬S)]
S → G
G → F
[(S → G) ∧ (G → F)] ⊢ (S → F)
[(F → G) ∧ (G → S)] ⊢ (F → S)
¬(F → S) ∨ ¬(S → F)
(S → F)
(F → S)
(F ↔ S)

In plain English, we just concluded that the Father is the Son, which is a contradiction to one of our assumptions.

Of course you don’t need all this. It should be intuitively obvious that, as wikipedia puts it: “[The Trinity Doctrine] appears to imply that identity is not transitive—’for the Father is identical with God, the Son is identical with God, and the Father is not identical with the Son.’”

What is Knowledge?

“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft.”  (1839)

(Note the singular use of the word “truth.”)  How does an open canon (ongoing revelation) enable members of the church to accept all truth as it is revealed regardless of the superstition, bigotry, ignorance or priestcraft of the day?  How does ignorance, bigotry, superstition and priestcraft still creep in?  What can individual members do to embrace truth and eschew superstition, priestcraft, bigotry and ignorance?

“Knowledge is necessary to life and godliness. Woe unto you priests and divines who preach that knowledge is not necessary unto life and salvation. Take away Apostles, etc., take away knowledge, and you will find yourselves worthy of the damnation of hell. Knowledge is revelation. Hear, all ye brethren, this grand key: knowledge is the power of God unto salvation.”  (1843)

Joseph Smith takes his definition of “knowledge” for granted.  He seems to use it to mean revelation, not facts, scientific evidence or information.  How does this definition alter our view of the role of knowledge in our salvation?

How to Gain Knowledge

The lesson gives examples of how to gain knowledge, all of which are based on learning from those who know more, not through scientific experimentation or scholarly research.  Even revelation can be viewed as gaining knowledge from a Person (God) who knows more than we do.

How can we seek out the best teachers?

What Are the Obstacles to Gaining Knowledge?

The lesson outlines several obstacles to gaining knowledge (or one might say obstacles to revelation):  Word of Wisdom violations, creeds, and doubt and darkness.

Word of Wisdom.  When the School of Prophets was convened for 4 months of study, the Word of Wisdom was given to the members of the school so their minds would be clear and open to “knowledge.”  (Not as a temperance movement or a cultural marker of obedience as it is used today).  How does considering this original view of the Word of Wisdom change your perception of it?

Creeds.  JS specifically felt that other religions’ adherence to creeds was an obstacle to “knowledge” (remember that he used the word knowledge synonymously with revelation).

“I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.”  (1843)

“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’; which I cannot subscribe to.”  (1843)

“I say to all those who are disposed to set up stakes for the Almighty, You will come short of the glory of God. To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions.”  (1843)

How do creeds limit our ability to receive revelation or accept changes to our current thinking and interpretations?

How do creeds compare with the efforts to correlate church materials (rather than remaining completely open to multiple interpretations and speculations)?

There are times when this total open-mindedness seemed to cause Joseph problems (e.g. Kinderhook, etc.).  Are there ways in which this complete open-mindedness can cause current members problems (e.g. speculation, wishful thinking, foolish notions)?  How can we avoid that?

Doubt and Darkness.  When we listen to teachers who do not have more (spiritual) knowledge than we do, or we allow doubt to overcome belief, we stop gaining additional (spiritual) knowledge.

“Knowledge does away with darkness, suspense and doubt; for these cannot exist where knowledge is. In knowledge there is power. God has more power than all other beings, because He has greater knowledge; and hence He knows how to subject all other beings to Him. He has power over all.”  (1843)

“When men open their lips against [the truth] they do not injure me, but injure themselves.  When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.”  (1844)

“As far as we degenerate from God, we descend to the devil and lose knowledge, and without knowledge we cannot be saved, and while our hearts are filled with evil, and we are studying evil, there is no room in our hearts for good, or studying good. Is not God good? Then you be good; if He is faithful, then you be faithful. Add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, and seek for every good thing.  A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge, for if he does not get knowledge, he will be brought into captivity by some evil power in the other world, as evil spirits will have more knowledge, and consequently more power than many men who are on the earth. Hence it needs revelation to assist us, and give us knowledge of the things of God.”  (1842)

How do we sometimes let doubt create distance between us and additional spiritual knowledge?  How does listening to bad (spiritual) teaching cause us to lose (spiritual) knowledge?

Does pursuit of knowledge (facts, information) sometimes lead to loss of knowledge (spiritual knowledge, revelation, closeness to God)?  How can we avoid that while still embracing learning?

So, this is a pretty good lesson, IMO.  What do you think of some of the questions it poses?  Discuss.

I had an interesting experience recently. I was engaged in an ongoing discussion with a Protestant friend on the internet. I described my beliefs about God and “the Trinity” and she described hers. I went to great lengths to explain exactly what I believed. At the end of it all, she said “I think it’s only fair to mention though that your belief in the Trinity and my belief in the Trinity are a close as you can get without them being the same.” My Mormon instincts wanted to shout “No they aren’t!” But after time to think about it, I’m now convinced that she’s right. [2]

It helps to understand that the actual doctrine of Trinity can be summarized as “one God in three persons.” This might shock some Mormons that think the Trinity doctrine is “one God that takes three forms.” No, sorry, that doctrine is actually called “Modalism.”

“But wait!” someone might cry, I’ve been told by an orthodox Christian while on my mission that God is like water: He can take the form of a liquid, solid, or ice! Well, it would seem that the doctrine of Trinity, as taught by Catholic and Protestant Churches, is difficult to understand and so many Christians finally just settle into Modalism in an attempt to wrap their heads around it. But orthodox Christians aren’t supposed to be describing God in this way because it’s a misunderstanding of what their Churches teach. [3]

So armed with a more correct understanding of what the doctrine of Trinity is, I want to pose a question: Why do we Mormons run from the term “Trinity,” even going so far as to use a replacement word: “Godhead.” [4] Don’t Mormons believe in one God? Don’t Mormons believe in three persons in this God? Of course we do.

I assume the reason we dislike the word “Trinity” is because it carries with it connotations of the Athanasius Creed and substance theology (i.e. the Nicean Creed). Of course we should reject these Creedal extensions to the doctrine of Trinity, but I think it’s wrong for us to assume that “the Trinity” itself equates to them.

What is it we reject about the Athanasius Creed and substance theology? The biggest issue is that they have been elevated to being the same as or above scripture. But Mormons have issues with some of their content as well.

In the case of the Athanasius creed, the offending point seems to be “And yet they are not three Gods: but one God” complete with anathema curse if you ever claim otherwise, in any sense. [5] Our issue here is that this is a verifiably logical contradiction. [6] The Athanasius creed is more or less Mormon doctrine up until it insists that there is a damning ban on referring to the Trinity as numerically three Gods, even in a sense. [7]

In the case of the Nicene creed our rejection seems over the idea that the Trinity is “one of substance.” I sometimes feel this is like requiring everyone to believe “God is Abracadabra” or they are damned. I have no idea what it means, nor does the person damning me for not believing it. I can’t realistically claim that I do or don’t believe in it, but I feel that a loving God would never require such a profession of me.

But does Mormon rejection of the Athanasius formula and the Nicene Creed equate to a rejection of “the doctrine of Trinity?” Consider this Wikipedia article on “Social Trinity.” Do you see anything in Social Trinitarianism, at least a Wikipedia defines it, that Mormons object to? If Mormons were Social Trinitarians, wouldn’t we still be Trinitarians?

Now let’s do a quick exercise. I think many Mormons believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses are closer to Mormon theology on the nature of God than orthodox-Christians. But look over this list and compare:

Orthodox-Christians:

1. Believe in one God
2. Believe in three persons that make up that one God
3. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons
4. Believe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one
5. Believe Jesus is fully Divine and fully God.
6. Believe Jesus was also fully a man.
7. Affirm to creedal formulas that reject as damning any wording that involves there being numerically three Gods.
8. Affirm to creedal formulas that claim the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are “one in substance” though they don’t define what that means.

Jehovah’s Witnesses:

1. Believe in a greater God, Jehovah (the Father), and a sub god, Michael the Archangel or Jesus.
2. Jesus is not fully divine. That is to say, Jesus is not God.
3. When they say Jesus “is divine” they mean it more in the sense that a being created by God to be holy, like an angel, might be said to be “divine.”
4. Jesus and the Father are separate persons
5. The Holy Ghost is not a person at all, just the power of God

Looking over this list, I see a lot more in common between Mormon theology and orthodox Christianity than I do with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Should we, as Mormons, avoid the word “Trinity” or “Trinitarian” when describing our beliefs? Or do we have as much right to it because of our belief in a Tri-Unity God? Perhaps we should claim these terms as our own but with our own unique twist whereby we reject the Athanasius creed and substance theology as a way as understanding that Tri-unity better? Or should we just avoid the term all together?

Similar thoughts on the Bloggernacle:

http://millennialstar.org/2008/02/27/trinitarian-mormons-orson-pratt/

http://www.libertypages.com/cgw/2008/03/07/problems-with-mormons-and-the-trinity/

Notes: 

[1] I exaggerate

[2] Lest some of you think I didn’t really fully explain the Mormon view of the Trinity, our discuss included: 1) An argument over the meaning of every “Trinity” verse in the Bible, 2) a discussion about how Mormons believe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not only three separate persons, but they are physically separate and the Father is even embodied just like Jesus is, 3) an explanation that Mormons are comfortable with calling the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost “one God” in a certain sense and “three Gods” in a different sense, 4) a thorough review of what the Apostolic/Early Christian Fathers taught about the doctrine of Trinity, 5) a discussion about divine investiture, though I didn’t call it by that name.

Interestingly, our main point of disagreement was over whether or not Jesus could, in some sense (a lesser sense), be considered as the same person as the Father. In other words our main disagreement was over a slightly modalistic and non-Trinitarian twist that she personally held, not with the actual doctrine of Trinity.

[3] In fact, Modalism is a condemned heresy by every major Christian denomination. Just as some Mormons don’t understand all Mormon doctrine, we need to cut other Christians some slack over not understanding all of their doctrines. However, I find irony in the fact that such modalistic Christians often condemned my views of the Trinity as making me a non-Christian when in reality my views are closer to what their Churches teach than what they believe.

[4] “Godhead” is really just a word that means “divine nature.” “The Divine Nature” to a Mormon is the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, thus the connection.

[5] There are other points we could quibble over, such as “The Father incomprehensible” or “three Persons are coeternal, and coequal.” But I would argue that if understood in a certain way, Mormons could agree with such statements.

[6] If God is made up of three persons, each divine, than in a logical sense they are each a God and thus numerically we have three Gods, even if you choose not to normally speak of it that way. As was shown in this post, this is provable logic. If there is some other way to think of these words such that it’s not a contradiction, the burden is on the orthodox-Christian to explain himself better prior to using such a statement as a way of defining others as non-Christians or as anathema.

[7] Owen and Mosser, two Evangelical Christian scholars, argue about the orthodox view of the doctrine of Trinity: “We agree that a number of the church fathers developed theories to explain the oneness and threeness of the members of the Godhead that were unorthodox. However, these various theories were insufficient for very good reasons, the main one being that they simply did not incorporate all the relevant biblical data, just as we do not think the Latter-day Saint view does.” (link) But of course there would always be an infinite number of contradictory ways to incorporate a set of data. What they miss is that there could never be a compelling case to emphasize one contradictory explanation over another. So how could they possibly know substance theology or the contradictory Athanasius formula better represent the truth than the Mormon view that they feel contradicts the Biblical data? At worst, Mormons are as bad off as they already are.

What informed (semi-informed?) outsiders want to know is what our specific teachings are on all the juicy subjects they’ve heard through the anti-Mormon grapevine:

• Was Mary really a virgin?
• Did God once live on another planet and live a sinful life?
• Do Mormons secretly worship other gods?
• Do Mormons want to take over the world?
• Do men in the LDS Church get to decide if their wives are resurrected or not?
• Why were African Americans banned from the priesthood?

I can’t say that I blame them. Thanks to our Evangelical neighbors, a half-true version (and by this I mean “a lie”) of many of our “doctrines” has long since leaked out. Worse yet, every juicy statement made by our 19th century leaders has been carefully combed through for any bombs and all have been dropped.

Do Mormons Even Have Doctrine?

I think part of the problem is the way we misuse the word “doctrine.”

“Doctrine” actually means “what a religion teaches.” Any false teaching in our past are still a “doctrine” of ours in this sense. But as members of the Church, we don’t use the word “doctrine” that way. Somewhat protectively, we transmuted “doctrine” to mean “that which we teach which is true and will not change.” We muddy the waters further by branding “true things that change” as “policy.” But here is the rub, if “doctrine” can only mean “that which is true that cannot change” then in fact Mormons have no “doctrine” at all except for the uninterrupted statements in scripture.

Revelatory Truths vs. Doctrine

I would like to propose a different way of thinking. Recently a poster on Times and Seasons asked: “We can’t have ‘truths’ and ‘doctrines’ be separate things. Or can we?”

In fact, we can! It works like this to me:

It starts with the underlying profound truths taught in the scriptures or other revelations. We have a hard time comprehending these truths because we are so much less than God and He had to condescend to even get the basics into our heads. We believe the truth, but naturally have to form the idea about that truth into our minds as something concrete that we can wrap our minds around.

That concrete version of the truth is what gets taught (often with several competing variants) and that is our “doctrine.” Because the “doctrine” is really just an approximation of the truth, there is nothing wrong with refining or changing it later so long as the underlying truth is maintained.

This idea is not new. Nor is it mine.

Want Proof?

Despite the misuse of the word “doctrine” here, this official LDS Church statement is getting at this idea:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. (link)

Think this is a modern interpretation? Guess again. Here is the same idea from B.H. Roberts back in 1907:

And yet these gentlemen [who wrote an anti-Mormon new article]… make ten long quotations from a repudiated work, and one quotation only from a work that is accepted as standard in the Church, viz., the Doctrine and Covenants! For a long time the Church has announced over and over again that her standard works in which the word of God is to be found, and for which alone she stands, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. All else is commentary, and of a secondary character as to its authority, containing much that is good, much that illustrates the doctrines of the Church, and yet liable to have error in it for which the Church does not stand. (Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Volume 2, p. 296)

100 years not good enough for you? Well how about this statement from Brigham Young back in 1855! (and please forgive the racist view of Native Americans and try to understand the point he was making instead):

I am so far from believing that any government upon this earth has constitutions and laws that are perfect, that I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness.[sic] The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling [sic], sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities, as we have to do with these benighted Lamanites; it would be of no benefit to talk to them as I am now speaking to you. Before you can enter into conversation with them and give them your ideas, you are under the necessity of condescending to their low estate, so far as communication is concerned, in order to exalt them. (link)

Still not convinced? Well consider this explanation from Elder John Smith on behalf of the Church in 1835 concerning the difference between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants: “[he] bore record that the revelations in [the Doctrine and Covenants] were true, and that the lectures judicially were written and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine.” (History of the Church, Vol 2, 176.)

Perhaps this is what Joseph Smith meant when he said, “Why be so certain that you comprehend the things of God, when all things with you are so uncertain.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 320)

Creedless in Action

Let’s give an actual application of scriptural truth vs. doctrine using some of the questions above.

If I am a 19th century Mormon who only knows about Newtonian physics, believes the universe is infinite, and believes D&C 132:20 that God will exalt us by making us gods, I would naturally envision that truth as an infinite universe proportioned amongst all previously exalted beings with a future world or two being my future charge if I am exalted. If God was once a man, I could only envision such a thing as happening a long time in the past on some world far from here. To me God being “Eternal” would simply mean that he has been God for so long that I can’t imagine it otherwise. [1]

As a 21st century Mormon familiar with post-Newtonian physics, the big bang, and the finite nature of space and time, I naturally envision this same truth as God creating the universe via a the big bang and the universe being His alone. Other exalted beings would create their own universes that I know nothing about. And if exalted myself, I imagine I’ll create universes too, not just a world or two. If God was once a man, I envision this happening in a different space and time in a different universe, thus making God — for all intents and purposes — Eternal to us for there was never a time He wasn’t God. (Yes, this is how big bang physics work; it creates time as well as space. I know we can’t comprehend it.)

Explanations of the priesthood-ban follow this pattern. In a 19th century world where the superiority of the caucasian race and darwinism between the races were considered scientifically proven, a question on everyone’s mind was “why would God create an inferior race?” [2] Pre-existence explanations were the only sensible conclusions. It would be natural to see the priesthood-ban in this light.

But in a modern world where eugenics has been eradicated and science has proven there are no inferior races, just inferior circumstances [3], there is no longer a need to answer why God would make an inferior race. So naturally we see the priesthood-ban more as a protection of well-meaning racists beliefs of a Church body not ready for the whole truth yet.

Now consider how a 19th century Mormon might differ from a 21st century Mormon on their interpretation of these truths: God having a body, the literal Sonship of Christ, and the virgin birth?

If I’m a 19th century Mormon that is actively practicing polygamy and recently learned to reject the Catholic and Protestant notion that sexuality is for weaker believers that can’t put God first, I would be very likely to envision those truths as being a literal marriage between God and Mary and possibly even an appropriate sexual act between them for the birth of Jesus. I would have to make the word “virgin” figurative here, but this is no worse than figurative interpretations of the earth as having four corners (Rev 7:1) [4]

But as a 21st century Mormon familiar with such modern wonders as in vitro fertilization, I am not likely to envision these truths as being sexual in nature but rather as a miracle similar to the wonders of modern science.

Who is right? It doesn’t matter; these are things unrevealed. This is the natural process by which we wrap our minds around an scriptural truth that may not yet be comprehendible by us. The truth is probably none of these. But these “doctrines” allows us to conceptualize the scriptural truths.

Conclusion

So in answer to the question: “What is Mormon Doctrine?” It is the profound truths of the scriptures mixed with an infinite and changing body of traditions allowing us to envision such truths.

Footnotes

[1] In defense of this point of view, which I don’t even share, it should be noted that the literal interpretation of the word “Eternal” in the Old Testament means “time out of mind.” See Strong’s 5769. See also Strong’s 6924 which approximately means “ancient.” In the New Testament the word “Eternal” comes from the Strong’s 166 and 165 which mean “an age.” I have no idea if this is significant or not. But in any case, the Bible literally leaves open the possiblity of Eternity not being forever. This might just be a language issue.

[2] For more information on this topic, I would highly recommend Jennifer Burn’s excellent American History podcast available through U.C. Berekley. Professor Burns brings to light the wide spread belief during the 19th century of the darwinian struggle between races and even, to a lesser degree, eugenics. Amongst other things, this belief was used to justify sterilizing a retarded white woman to remove her from the gene pool and protect the white race. Such beliefs were considered scientifically proven and the great scientific minds of the time supported it. So widespread were these beliefs that even people dedicating their lives to help the African American’s still considered them an inferior race. Even the best of them were racist by today’s standards.

[3] The studies used to disprove that African Americans had a genetic mental inferiority were done by studying Afrian American’s raised by caucasian parents. This group performed exactly the same as other caucasian children. This indicated overwhelming evidence that any statistical difference detected up to that point was in fact environmental in nature only.

[4] Contrary to anti-Mormon smears, I’ve never actually found a definitive quote from 19th century Mormons leaders confirming a belief in a sexual act between a sealed Mary and God. Brigham Young is usually quoted here, but he never confirms this belief. It’s possible he was hinting at it, however. I am here only postulating that some did believe this, though I do not know for certain. My point is only that such a belief, from their point of view, would certainly be natural. It does not strike me as offensive even though I personally don’t believe it.

In my last post I explained why I believe the creeds of Christendom were an abomination in God’s sight. To summarize: I believe the content of the creeds are, for the most part, harmless. The real problem with the creeds is that they are used as a litmus test of one’s allegiance to Christ. Thus the creeds are treated as equivalent to revelation/scripture and are used as a basis for determining other people’s salvation.

In this post I will discuss what I see as one of Mormonism’s greatest strengths: our non-creedal nature, or attempts to be so in any case.

Now depending on how you choose to personally define the word “creed” the LDS Church does have creeds, after a fashion. The word “creed” can mean simply “what a religion believes.” In this sense, Mormons have a “creed” because we have a body of beliefs. Surely this is not what I meant.

A “creed” might be viewed as being anything written down that summarizes beliefs. Mormons have that too: the Articles of Faith. And modernly we have the young women recite the young woman’s theme in creed-like fashion.

If one wants to call these “creeds,” fine, they are creeds. But they aren’t the problematic type I was describing in my previous post. Why? In the case of the Articles of Faith our prophets, through revelation, intentionally canonized it and made it scripture. No, “wink wink, nudge nudge,” going on here. If it acts like scripture, its scripture and we took the pains to get God’s approval before making it normative.

The young women’s theme is non-problematic because it does merely summarize scripture and also because it’s not used to cut off people who believe differently from those reciting it. Well, accept for the young men, of course. Would anyone really want to argue that “We are daughters of our Heavenly Father, who loves us, and we love Him” is anything but a straight up scriptural pronouncement? (See, for example Acts 17:29.)

Some might define First Presidency statements as “creeds.” But just like the Articles of Faith, Mormons do not hide the fact that we see these as being extensions to scripture. Mormon First Presidency statements are the equivalent to the council of the Apostles held at Antioch as described in Acts 15. The Apostles and Prophets came together to seek guidance of the Lord and in the end added to scripture to resolve the situation. The church leader’s ”decree,” and this is translated from the greek term dogma which is the same word as the legal and binding decrees Roman made, was sent to the Churches with expectation that they would be obeyed. But this wasn’t an interpretation of scripture – it was new scripture. Mormons claim the same authority here.

When I say Mormonism is “non-creedal” what I mean is that we strive to only believe that which is actually in the revelations from God and refuse to take a permanent definitive stance on anything else.

The problem with my definition is, well, that the LDS Church hasn’t always qualify. We “strive” for this, but sometimes fail.

But consider this quote from Joseph Smith: “It is the constitutional disposition of mankind to set up stakes and set bounds to the works and ways of the Almighty.” (The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 320) The need to form a “creed” – a non-scriptural but authoritative statement of belief by which to command  what everyone should believe – is so deeply embedded into human nature that it’s amazing that a creedless Church could exist at all! Much of the discussion I see on the Bloggernacle is really moaning that the Church won’t give out definitive answers on some subject or other.

Despite our problems, be they very real, the Mormons Church does strive to avoid creed-making to fill in the blank where the Lord hasn’t spoken. And we are getting better at this with time.

When Brigham Young decided to advance his now infamous Adam-God doctrine, Orson Pratt had no problem advancing his Brigham-Young-doesn’t-know-what-he’s-talking-about doctrine. Pratt was never excommunicated for teaching against Brigham Young’s pet doctrine.

When Joseph F. Smith and B.H. Roberts nearly came to blows (I’m only partially kidding) over the existence of death before the fall and pre-Adamites, the first Presidency resolved the breech by… get this… declaring there was no official doctrine on the subject. Can you imagine the Nicene Council coming up with this innovative answer?

When William and Ralph Chamberlain, in 1909, decided to teach at Brigham Young University that evolution was inline with LDS beliefs, though they were asked to leave BYU or stop teaching this, Leonard Arrington summarized their situation as follows: “the trauma could have been worse; there were no books banned, no excommunications or schisms. No official church position was taken with regard to evolution or higher criticism. In a church magazine… President Joseph F. Smith wrote that the decision had only been not to discuss evolution in church schools.” (The Mormon Experience, p. 260) While it may have felt like the Spanish Inquisition at the time, the Spanish Inquisition it was not!

A bit closer to home is this post on Delbert Stapley’s letter to George Romney to discourage his activity in the civil rights movement. The maximum “heat” Romney takes over his “dissent” is a rather friendly letter that was sent “not in… official church capacity” and that affirmed the “right of [his] position if it represents [his] true belief and feelings.” Of course Stapley’s views were also at odds with several contemporary church leaders, including then President David O. McKay who actively sought to end the priesthood-ban. (See Adventures of a Church Historian, chapter 11)

The LDS Church was founded on the idea of doing away with creeds. This consists of new revelation to remove debate on some subjects (Calvinism anyone?) and open acceptance of differing opinions where God hasn’t spoken. While human nature is to fill in the blanks with creeds, God’s will is apparently that we do not. The LDS Church gets at least a passing grade historically for staying creedless and modernly is finally arriving to the full understanding of this very important doctrine.

And why are they wrong? I suppose Jesus could have mentioned any number of reasons for considering no Church His own. The loss of priesthood authority comes immediately to mind. The loss of the Gift and powers of the Holy Ghost is another contender.

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. 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. The Catholic Church accepts all 21 while Protestants differ on which they accept; usually limiting their accept to the first 7.

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.

For example, the original Nicene Creed (which actually comes in several variants) reads:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

There isn’t much here to be concerned about. All the hubaloo in the LDS Church is over a single phrase: “being of one substance with the Father” which seems like it might contradict D&C 130:22: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also.”

Since the term “of one substance” is not really defined, I can’t be certain if I agree or disagree with it, though I’ve been told by many an Evangelical Christian that the Mormon view of the Trinity does not qualify as “being of one substance” in their own minds.

There are a few phrases that I have no idea what they mean, such as “very God of very God” but I can’t say I disagree with something that has no meaning to me. As a Mormon, I can truthfully say I have no problem with the content of the Nicene Creed except, perhaps, for the one phrase.

This begs the question: Did Jesus really come all the way from heaven to a boy prophet just to condemn all of the Church’s of Christendom over one phrase?

The content of the creeds, even at their worst, seem innocuous to me. Does it really matter if Jesus had two natures – divine and man – or not? Does it really matter if Christians defined the Father and the Son as being “of one substance” instead of “of one purpose”?

If the Nicene Creed helps Christians understand the Divinity of Christ, I say “Good on them! Believe as you wish!” At least they have a working interpretation of the idea that Jesus was real, our savior, and truly divine, right?

In a church where we value non-definition and allow a multitude of interpretations, it seems a bit odd for God to suddenly condemn what was undoubtedly a Biblically valid interpretation of God’s nature. (And by that, I mean it doesn’t directly contradict scripture, though it can’t be found there in full either.)

In this post, I will argue that God wasn’t offended at the content of the creeds, but at their existence as authoritative litmus tests of one’s allegiance to Christ. The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect the thoughts of anyone else in the LDS Church. However, this theory serves as the basis for future topics I will blog on.

I do not intend this post as an attack on any other faith. I have huge respect for Catholic and Protestant religions that adhere to the Creeds of Christendom. But it would be difficult to explain my own personal beliefs without explaining where I have honest concerns with some beliefs of other religions.

The Nicene Creed was one of the outcomes of the Nicaea council held in 325 A.D. The reason this council was called was to “resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father.” (link) Though this was the top item on the agenda, the council also resolved a number of other issues including officially deciding on the date of Easter.

Emperor Constantine had called the council because of a growing division in the Church over the teachings of Arius. As Wikipedia states, “The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria… Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation. A third group… tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.”

Initially the Nicene council had several bishops supporting Arius, who was essentially on trial during the council and wasn’t a direct participant in the discussion. However, a reading his writings lead most of the bishops present to denounce Arius’ teachings as blasphemous. “To most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and a danger to the salvation of souls.” (link)

Arius’ teachings were considered a danger to salvation because Arius believed Jesus was a creation of the Father and thus, in their minds, less divine than the Father. If Jesus was less divine, they reasoned, then He was incapable of saving anyone.

The famous Saint Athanasius attended the Nicene Council as a representative for the Alexandrian group. “Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, was among these assistants. Athanasius eventually spent most of his life battling against Arianism.” (link)

Both Arian and Alexandrian camps could quote scripture to back up their views. Arian was fond of John 14:28: “the Father is greater than I” while Athanasius liked to emphasize verses like John 10:30: “The Father and I are one.” (link) The scriptures were insufficient to resolve the conflict and both views were valid possible interpretations of the Bible, in that sense.

With Arius now on the outs with most of the Bishops, the Alexandrian camp pushed for a creed that would forever banish Arius and his doctrines from the Church. To this end, they favored the phrase “of one substance” to be included in the creed. If this phrase were included in an authoritative document then, they believed, Arius’ doctrines would be provably false and the Arian doctrine would fail.

The middle camp, concerned over the unscriptural phrase “of one substance,” instead pushed for the phrase “of similar substance;” a phrase that I suspect most Mormons would be more comfortable with or even embrace.

But this wasn’t to be. “Of similar substance” would not be strong enough to banish the now nearly universally disliked Arius. Wouldn’t that phrase allow Arius to claim he was in alignment with the very creed they were producing?

With this counter suggestion failing, the Alexandrian camp won out and the creed included the phrase “of one substance.” After decades of back and forth, eventually this view became deeply ingrained into the consciousness of Christendom. Today ”of one substance” is a significant doctrinal teaching of nearly all modern Christian Churches that have their roots in Catholicism.

With this issue now decided, Arius was banishes and his writings were ordered to be burned. Later on, Arius died a violent death that many scholars believe was a murder via poisoning by the Alexandrian party. (link)

Imbued now with the same or greater authority than scripture itself, the Nicene creed became the basis for whether one was considered a true believer. To be worthy of Christ, one had to swear allegiance to the creed. Failure to do so resulted in deportment or possibly death.

It strains credulity to imagine an perfectly loving God that would damn an Arian to hell just because he or she had failed to imagine Jesus being “divine enough” to past muster. I no more believe that Arius’ false views of God would damn him than I believe Athanasius’ false views would damn Athanasius. I no more believe this whole conflict mattered to salvation than I believe celebrating Easter on the wrong day matters to salvation. Ironically, it was the Alexandrians that were imagining a less divine God – one that fell short of God’s actual attributes of godliness: love and mercy in this case.

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.

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.