Do Mormons Reject The Nicene Creed?

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

As do I.

Are not the Articles of Faith a COJCLDS creed?

Yes, I believe they are... based on what I'm referring to when I use the word "creed".

[Jason]

I believe that the LDS church can agree with the Nicene Creed 100% depending on your interpretation. Since we can make the claim that Mormonism is in essence semi-Arian, and that at least two bishops who worked on the Creed (Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesaria) were semi-Arians, then I suppose you can get away with accepting the creed based on your own interpretation of the text.

:)

For those who want to review, here is the Nicene-Constantinople Creed (minus the filioque) commonly recited:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, who suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; who shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son = the filioque], who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And I believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Which part of that violates LDS theology?

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

<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.

What are you thinking of when you use the word "creed"?

If I missed it, please repeat what you said or direct me to it...

... if you'd care to let me know what you believe.

[Tsuzuki]

What are you thinking of when you use the word "creed"?

If I missed it, please repeat what you said or direct me to it...

... if you'd care to let me know what you believe.

I like to use Joseph Smith's definition, as I've illustrated above.

[Ray]

I don't see where Joseph Smith defined the word "creed".

Would you quote it, or him, again for me, please?

Thank you. :)

The fact that me and Ray are in disagreement just adds more weight to my position.

I just caught this, btw.

I didn't know you were funny, Tsuzuki.

Yes you are... you're a very funny guy. :)

[Tsuzuki]

I don't see where Joseph Smith defined the word "creed".

Would you quote it, or him, again for me, please?

Thank you. :)

"...creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein..."

"...creeds set up stakes, and say, 'Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;'..."

<div class='quotemain'>

The fact that me and Ray are in disagreement just adds more weight to my position.

I just caught this, btw.

I didn't know you were funny, Tsuzuki.

Yes you are... you're a very funny guy. :)

Well, it does. Since we don't have creeds, we can disagree all we want and still both be equally LDS. Ain't it great?

[Ray]

Ray: I don't see where Joseph Smith defined the word "creed". Would you quote it, or him, again for me, please? Thank you. :)

Tsuzuki: "...creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein..."

"...creeds set up stakes, and say, 'Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;'..."

Thank you for that clarification.

I agree that my beliefs are not limited by a creed, but I still use creeds to express my beliefs.

A creed, by definition, is a statement of beliefs, but no statement really limits my beliefs.

And in fact, I’m reminded by Article of Faith #9…

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

And now I am reminded by Article of Faith #13…

If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

… and neither of those really limits my beliefs.

Tsuzuki: The fact that me and Ray are in disagreement just adds more weight to my position.

Ray: I just caught this, btw. I didn't know you were funny, Tsuzuki. Yes you are... a very funny guy. :)

Tsuzuki: Well, it does. Since we don't have creeds, we can disagree all we want and still both be equally LDS. Ain't it great?

If you look at it that way, I guess. But that's not the way I look at it.

My desire is to become "at one" with God, and I hope that is your desire to.

If it is, our disagreements show that we are not "one"... with each other... as well as not "one" with God.

Or in other words, I, personally, would rather see us agree, than not agree, on any and all good things.

:)

[Tsuzuki]

… and neither of those really limits my beliefs.

One of the reasons why the Articles of Faith are not a creed.

If you look at it that way, I guess. But that's not the way I look at it.

My desire is to become "at one" with God, and I hope that is your desire to.

If it is, our disagreements show that we are not "one"... with each other... as well as not "one" with God.

Or in other words, I, personally, would rather see us agree, than not agree, on any and all good things.

:)

Our oneness with God and with each other is based on our hearts, not our ideas.

You need to understand that for a long time, wars were fought and people were oppressed because their creeds were a little bit different. This still goes on even now in some parts of the world. Ever hear of the word "heretic"? That's you and me. Ever wonder why some refuse to admit that we are Christian? It's because their creeds do not allow our inclusion. The Gnostics, Arians, and Cathars suffered the same fate. Creeds are serious business. People kill over them.

[Ray]

I can see that you are adding something to the word "creed" that I do not add... to me it is simply a word that refers to a statement of beliefs.

From one perspective I can hear you... I don't care what you believe... I love... and will love.. you anyway.

But it would also be nice if we could be "one"... or agree... on ideas... as God is one... as God is.

Your creeds... or your statements of belief... simply tell me more about who you are.

:)

[Tsuzuki]

Your creeds... or your statements of belief... simply tell me more about who you are.

Not really. I'm a paradigm pirate, I can change my statements of belief (creeds) at the drop of a hat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_piracy

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Your creeds... or your statements of belief... simply tell me more about who you are.

Not really. I'm a paradigm pirate, I can change my statements of belief (creeds) at the drop of a hat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_piracy

See. Told ya. Now I know more about who you really are.

:)

[Tsuzuki]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Your creeds... or your statements of belief... simply tell me more about who you are.

Not really. I'm a paradigm pirate, I can change my statements of belief (creeds) at the drop of a hat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_piracy

See. Told ya. Now I know more about who you really are.

:)

That's not who I am.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Your creeds... or your statements of belief... simply tell me more about who you are.

Not really. I'm a paradigm pirate, I can change my statements of belief (creeds) at the drop of a hat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_piracy

See. Told ya. Now I know more about who you really are.

:)

That's not who I am.

Heh, of course it's not. It's just a tiny little bit about who you are.

You're the total of what you are now, what you've ever been before, and all that you will be in the future.

Not a sum total, necessarily. But you're who you are, who you were, and who you'll be.

... even if you disagree with me.

But I'm not trying to classify you by the little bit that I know.

By what you say, and do, you reveal yourself.

:)

[Clamatowas]

Hello I am new too these forms, and as I was reading over this forum only one thing came Burning into my mind. I herd the argument that the creed was created in about 130 AD or something close to that date. And its because of the date that it was created that many relegous leaders have accepted it, and use it. Well for this I ask everyone who has read the Book Of Mormon to keep in mind the Gadianton Robbers, Who said that they had found records that they where correct in there actions against the other nations. And they new they where true because of there ancient date. I cannot remember the scripture but it was in an episle written to the Nephites. I know that it may seem like an extreme comparison. But if you study history you will see that really its not.

[Traveler]

Hello I am new too these forms, and as I was reading over this forum only one thing came Burning into my mind. I herd the argument that the creed was created in about 130 AD or something close to that date. And its because of the date that it was created that many relegous leaders have accepted it, and use it. Well for this I ask everyone who has read the Book Of Mormon to keep in mind the Gadianton Robbers, Who said that they had found records that they where correct in there actions against the other nations. And they new they where true because of there ancient date. I cannot remember the scripture but it was in an episle written to the Nephites. I know that it may seem like an extreme comparison. But if you study history you will see that really its not.

The Creed in question was first introduced in 325 AD. The creaters of the creed recorded that one reason for the creed is that the scriptures were not sufficent in providing enough correct information. Along with the creed there were some 100 articals defining the church and it opperation. It is interesting to me that little or nothing is ever said about the 100 articles. Most Christians do not even know of their existance of what they contain.

The Traveler

[Clamatowas]

The Creed in question was first introduced in 325 AD. The creaters of the creed recorded that one reason for the creed is that the scriptures were not sufficent in providing enough correct information. Along with the creed there were some 100 articals defining the church and it opperation. It is interesting to me that little or nothing is ever said about the 100 articles. Most Christians do not even know of their existance of what they contain.

The Traveler

Thank you for helping me with the correct date, I told you I was not sure when it was first introduced.

[prisonchaplain]

The Creed in question was first introduced in 325 AD. The creaters of the creed recorded that one reason for the creed is that the scriptures were not sufficent in providing enough correct information. Along with the creed there were some 100 articals defining the church and it opperation. It is interesting to me that little or nothing is ever said about the 100 articles. Most Christians do not even know of their existance of what they contain. The Traveler

1. The Creed served much as a "position paper" would today--clarifying the Church's position through an official topical Bible lesson. The Scriptures would have been "insufficient" in themselves because there is no single passage of Scripture that addresses God's nature in a comprehensive fashion. Additionally, heresies had arisen, and the Church chose to draw a doctrinal line in the sand.

2. The 100 Articles apparently did not retain the relevance that the portion of the Creed relating to the Trinity did.

[Ray]

1. The Creed served much as a "position paper" would today--clarifying the Church's position through an official topical Bible lesson. The Scriptures would have been "insufficient" in themselves because there is no single passage of Scripture that addresses God's nature in a comprehensive fashion. Additionally, heresies had arisen, and the Church chose to draw a doctrinal line in the sand.

... and that doctrinal line is used by all other Christian churches... excluding our (LDS) church, of course.

2. The 100 Articles apparently did not retain the relevance that the portion of the Creed relating to the Trinity did.

Heh, apparently not. :)

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

The Creed in question was first introduced in 325 AD. The creaters of the creed recorded that one reason for the creed is that the scriptures were not sufficent in providing enough correct information. Along with the creed there were some 100 articals defining the church and it opperation. It is interesting to me that little or nothing is ever said about the 100 articles. Most Christians do not even know of their existance of what they contain. The Traveler

1. The Creed served much as a "position paper" would today--clarifying the Church's position through an official topical Bible lesson. The Scriptures would have been "insufficient" in themselves because there is no single passage of Scripture that addresses God's nature in a comprehensive fashion. Additionally, heresies had arisen, and the Church chose to draw a doctrinal line in the sand.

2. The 100 Articles apparently did not retain the relevance that the portion of the Creed relating to the Trinity did.

PC: Good to hear from you - I hope all is well with you or at least is as it should be. There use to be an internet site on the Nicene Creed but alas it is no more. Anyway the sight had the entire manuscript of the Council so all could read in the words of the council and exactly what they intended in the Creed so no one would have to speculate. I should have purchased a publication for my personal library but I did not.

I personally found the 100 Articles quite interesting and believe some to still be relevant - such as not ordaining the mentally ill to the priesthood (however mental illness is determined). From what I read the Creed served more than a position paper and defined heresy, excommunication and execution. I believe it was this definition of heresy that justified the attack (by Rome) on the library of Alexandria and the execution of the head librarian and his daughter. Just as a side note the daughter was dragged through the streets of Alexandria naked and then skinned alive with sea shells. It does appear to me that the relevance of the Nicene Creed as well as the 100 articles has changed somewhat since then. So far no one has sought my life over opposing the creed – hopefully this is a good thing.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, I think my signature quote from Lord Acton is most appropriate to the excess you describe. Yet, on a relational level, the desire to be right and oppose wrong sometimes becomes corrupted. We're so hateful in our communication of the love of God, that the intent of the message gets lost.

So, here's my quote for the day: You can be so right that you're wrong.

[Ray]

Heh, how can anyone be so right they are wrong?

Or, how can they be right if they're wrong?

It sounds kinda catchy, and may work for a song.

But it never will be right to be wrong. :)

[Jason]

There use to be an internet site on the Nicene Creed but alas it is no more. Anyway the sight had the entire manuscript of the Council so all could read in the words of the council and exactly what they intended in the Creed so no one would have to speculate.

This may prove interesting for you:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea1.txt

[prisonchaplain]

Heh, how can anyone be so right they are wrong?

Yes. If you're so intent on your understanding of God that you are hateful and ugly in your approach to others who beg to differ, then you would be "so right you're wrong."

Or, how can they be right if they're wrong?

Right content, wrong delivery.

It sounds kinda catchy, and may work for a song.

"How can it be so wrong when it feels so right?" I think that's already been done.

But it never will be right to be wrong. :)

BTW, you just gave ammunition to all those who have ministries that "contend for the truth." Too bad some of them violate the "so right you're wrong" principle.

[Ray]

If you're so intent on your understanding of God that you are hateful and ugly in your approach to others who beg to differ, then you would be "so right you're wrong."

Wrong. It isn't right to be hateful and ugly... no matter what you are telling someone else.

If you have right information and use that in the wrong way, then you are wrong to use it that way.

Right content, wrong delivery.

Exactly. Something right that is mixed with something wrong.

I think abominable sums that up, quite nicely.

BTW, you just gave ammunition to all those who have ministries that "contend for the truth."

By sharing what I believe, and know, is right?

They can use what is right and apply it in the wrong way, but by doing that they are doing what is wrong.

Too bad some of them violate the "so right you're wrong" principle.

I think I know what principle you are referring to, but I think it's wrong to use those words to describe it.

It is totally impossible to be so right you are wrong. It's never right to use right for wrong.

[prisonchaplain]

Ray, how can you basically agree with everything I said, and then say that my contention is an impossiblity? You walked through my post, commented line by line, more or less affirmed my observations, and then concluded that ...