Tsuzuki

The whole spirit of the restored gospel has been anti-creed from the beginning. I think the "whole" spirit includes a little more than anti-creed - but thanks for your input. The Traveler I never said it didn't.

There are a ton of other books I could recommend too, but that one's a good start.This one here is a good intro to chaos magic, and it's a free download. http://www.philhine.org.uk/writings/pdfs/orchaos.pdf Anyway, forget everything you read in your candle magic and love spell books.

The whole spirit of the restored gospel has been anti-creed from the beginning.

Read this book:Postmodern Magic: The Art of Magic in the Information Age, by Patrick Dunn

I understand that to mean that the very nature of creeds are an abomination, because they are so limiting, not that all the beliefs behind the creeds are bad. Part of the intent of the word abomination is directed toward accuracy or purity. Your notion does not really apply. Allow me to give an example: If I were to write a $5,000.00 check against your bank account and you asked your bank to reject the check. In turn I use your response - you cannot reject this check - I can prove that I plan to use 2 cents as Tsuzuki would and has agreed. Does not matter - the check is rejected even if you agree with it in part. The point is that the Nicene Creed claims to be authorized by G-d. In fact if you read the manuscripts written by the creaters at the time concerning the purpose of the Creed you would realize that the creed was intended to replace or override scripture when necessary. In other words the Creed is greater than Scripture. We are not talking about parts - that concept is not relevent. We are talking about the creed and the correct answer is that the LDS reject the notion that the creed is scripture or authorized by G-d. To say otherwise is misleading. The Traveler PS. I find it interesting that those the claim to believe the Nicene Creed contradict the notion that the creed is divine and exclude the text of the creed from the Bible. Perhaps you could give an example of an LDS creed to support your idea that it is specific creeds, and not creeds in general, that we reject.

I do. How long do you have to practice before you get good at it? A long time. Many years, actually. I've been at it for six or seven years and I'm still just beginning. It takes dedication and discipline.

I understand that to mean that the very nature of creeds are an abomination, because they are so limiting, not that all the beliefs behind the creeds are bad.

I do.

No problem.

With this and others like it:<blockquote>"It was the occupation of Jesus Christ and his Apostles to propagate the Gospel of salvation and the principles of eternal life to the world, and it is our duty and calling, as ministers of the same salvation and Gospel, to gather every item of truth and reject every error. Whether a truth be found with professed infidels, or with the Universalists, or the Church of Rome, or the Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various and numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth, it is the business of the Elders of this Church (Jesus, their elder brother, being at their head,) to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation, to the Gospel we preach, to mechanism of every kind, to the sciences, and to philosophy, wherever it may be found in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and bring it to Zion. The people upon this earth have a great many errors, and they have also a great many truths. This statement is not only true of the nations termed civilized--those who profess to worship the true God, but is equally applicable to pagans of all countries, for in their religious rights and ceremonies may be found a great many truths which we will also gather home to Zion. All truth is for the salvation of the children of men--for their benefit and learning--for their furtherance in the principles of divine knowledge; and divine knowledge is any matter of fact--truth; and all truth pertains to divinity."</blockquote><div align="right">- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:283-284</div>

Because I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Did He abandon it, or did His divinity simply become hidden and unmanifest while here on Earth? The latter is closer to LDS theology and scripture.

I'm a latter-day saint who practices chaos magic. Though most people here wouldn't know what that is, so I put 'occultist', which is the larger category of which chaos magic is a subset. I also branch out into other areas, such as Kabbalah, tarot, astrology, and ceremonial magic, but for the most part I use chaos magic ideas and techniques.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_magic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_magic

Maybe it's because I'm here.

I don't reject anything entirely, and neither does LDS theology. All truth, remember? That said, the Nicene Creed does not influence LDS theology either positively or negatively. As I said, it's a non-issue.

The bit about the Father having a physical body is the biggest difference there is. I've found that the people who argue otherwise are usually throwing in obscure doctrines of little importance and unclear meaning. Some also bring in heresies such as modalism or Adam-God. I've found that if you stick to the basics the only major difference between our views of God is the one I mentioned above. (Keep in mind, though, that is only our views of God. Our views of Man, and Man's relation to God are more different.)

I like the first one, but the second includes the idea that the unity can be abandoned, which is not strict LDS doctrine.

We believe in one God in three personages, same as the Catholics. The only difference being that we believe that the Father also has a physical body, whereas the Catholics don't believe that.

I neither reject it nor embrace it to the exclusion of all else. It's very interesting, and it provides a valuable insight into how people view the nature of God, but in all honesty it's a bit of a non-issue. I have no problem reciting it, if that's what you mean, but I'm not going to limit my understanding to it.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Try me.

Libertarians are for small government.

You might want to be more specific. There's a whole lot of "other". Me: Libertarian. I like throwing my vote away, and making the side you don't like win.

Or both. I like the Republican and Democratic parties about the same.

And thus distracted, we Libertarians will mobilize for the advantage.