Do Mormons Reject The Nicene Creed?

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. Do Mormons reject the Nicene Creed? If so, what parts of the Nicene Creed do you reject?

[CrimsonKairos]

I reject all of it. I mean I didn't even get an invitation to vote on it. Ecumenical, shmecumenical...

[Tsuzuki]

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.

[Serg]

I once did a paper on the Creed, refuting point by point each error of thought. Though at least 3 or 4 points(premises) are true, others derive from fundamental reasonings mingled with tradition , de facto, I reject it entirely. We all do, at least mormon theology holds nothing in common with that creed.

[Dr T]

Hello Serg,

Will you please send me a PM with that paper?

Thank you,

Dr. T

[Tsuzuki]

I once did a paper on the Creed, refuting point by point each error of thought. Though at least 3 or 4 points(premises) are true, others derive from fundamental reasonings mingled with tradition , de facto, I reject it entirely. We all do, at least mormon theology holds nothing in common with that creed.

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.

[Traveler]

Hi everyone. Do Mormons reject the Nicene Creed? If so, what parts of the Nicene Creed do you reject?

According to the Scriptures of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith -- History; I quote the following from verse 19 in answer to Joseph's question of which church he should join: "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight:"

I am quite sure that this assessment includes the Nicene Creed.

The Traveler

[darrel]

Hello all

Just new to the forum.

I would like to add my thoughts on this topic. I feel the Nicene Creed has influenced all Christian churches.

The Nicene Creed is the Document generated by the Council of Nicea which Emporor Constintine organized in about 320 Ad. Many factions had proported Christs teachings and the purpose of the council was to sort through all the various creeds to determine which would be acceptable to the State Chruch Constintine wanted to establish. The Pomp and Theology established in the Constintine Church reflected many pagan traditions mingled with the flair of the Royal Church. The final result was not a full true account of the Gospel As taught by Christ. Many points of doctrine were changed to align with the creed and wishes of the Emporer. The Bible we have today is the result of those changes. 27 books are referenced which cannot be found in the Christian bible. Is it any wonder there is such confusion today among the over 300 Christian denominations in the world today.

While many truths are found in the Bible (as far as it is translated correctly) it is confusing to many seekers of truth. Thus the Bible needs additional witnesses in order to bring the full Gospel of Jesus to the world.

[Tsuzuki]

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight:"

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.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight:"

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.

[Tsuzuki]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight:"

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.

[Traveler]

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.

There are no official or unofficial creeds sustained by the general assembly of the LDS. This does not purport that that creeds cannot be supported as revelation from G-d just that as of now, none of the creeds (and other things) issued since the loss of apostolic authority to Christian believers is considered to be done with authority. In other words - we do not recognize the authority of the council of Nice to write checks against the account or treasures of G-d. (See Matthew 7:22).

The third commandment is: "Thou shalt not take the name of the L-rd thy G-d in vain." Do you not understand that issuing (or accepting) something in the name of G-d that he has not authorized is in violation of this commandment?

The Traveler

[Tsuzuki]

There are no official or unofficial creeds sustained by the general assembly of the LDS. This does not purport that that creeds cannot be supported as revelation from G-d just that as of now, none of the creeds (and other things) issued since the loss of apostolic authority to Christian believers is considered to be done with authority.

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

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

There are no official or unofficial creeds sustained by the general assembly of the LDS. This does not purport that that creeds cannot be supported as revelation from G-d just that as of now, none of the creeds (and other things) issued since the loss of apostolic authority to Christian believers is considered to be done with authority.

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

[Tsuzuki]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

There are no official or unofficial creeds sustained by the general assembly of the LDS. This does not purport that that creeds cannot be supported as revelation from G-d just that as of now, none of the creeds (and other things) issued since the loss of apostolic authority to Christian believers is considered to be done with authority.

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.

[Ray]

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

Slight of hand, eh, Tsuzuki?

The whole spirit of the restored gospel has not... and should not be... "anti" anything.

The restored gospel has been... and will continue to be... the good news... not the bad... of all things.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

There are no official or unofficial creeds sustained by the general assembly of the LDS. This does not purport that that creeds cannot be supported as revelation from G-d just that as of now, none of the creeds (and other things) issued since the loss of apostolic authority to Christian believers is considered to be done with authority.

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

I would argue that Statements of Faith/Articles of Faith/"What We Believe" etc., are all similar to creeds. This outsider has understood that the restored gospel was meant to restore true creed and to cast aside those that proved incomplete and insufficient, and sometimes just wrong. No?

[Ray]

I would argue that Statements of Faith/Articles of Faith/"What We Believe" etc., are all similar to creeds. This outsider has understood that the restored gospel was meant to restore true creed and to cast aside those that proved incomplete and insufficient, and sometimes just wrong. No?

Yes. I mean, right. I mean, yes, creeds are simply beliefs.

And the restored gospel isn't any "anti" message, but the "good news" of all truth... I do believe. :)

[Tsuzuki]

In response to Ray and prisonchaplain:

"Sunday morning, January 1, 1843.--The speaker of the House of Representatives called on me to say we might have the hall for preaching this day. Had a pleasant interview with Mr. Butterfield, Judge Douglas, Senator Gillespie, and others. In reply to Mr. Butterfield, 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 have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time."

<div align="right">- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 5, chapter 12</div>

"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, and say, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;" which I cannot subscribe to."<div align="right">- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, chapter 3</div>

[Ray]

I use the word “creed” to refer to a statement of belief, faith, dogma, or doctrine, and… if it bursts your bubble, I'm sorry, but… we (LDS) have many, many, many, many creeds.

Of course, you can disagree, but that’s a non-issue… or at least it is so to me.

You can think what you want… you can say what you want… your creeds simply don’t affect me… unless we’re both “one” in our creeds, of course, and then you will see what I see.

:)

[Tsuzuki]

I think I'll side with Joseph Smith on this issue.

[Ray]

Me too... I believe I know what he meant. :)

[Tsuzuki]

As do I.

[prisonchaplain]

As do I.

Are not the Articles of Faith a COJCLDS creed?

[Tsuzuki]

<div class='quotemain'>

As do I.

Are not the Articles of Faith a COJCLDS creed?

Not as such, no. They are canon, and as such are binding on church doctrine, but they are not the same thing as a creed. Members aren't required to hinge their beliefs on them. They are more a reflection of what we already believe as a whole.

However, I think they might fit Ray's definition of a creed. You'll have to ask him.

Edit: And of course you can use anything as a creed, even things that weren't designed for it, but that is hardly universal. The fact that me and Ray are in disagreement just adds more weight to my position.