Why was it revealed to JS that 'all other creeds are an abomination?'

[prisonchaplain]

PC... I've been through all these figuring out too.  It's interesting to come from Trinitarian belief and study LDS Godhead.

 

As far as worship goes - I find that the only way that LDS Godhead works with worship is that we worship a PERSON that is God - (with God being the Unity of Will as opposed to the existence).  Specifically, the Father.  Make sense?

 

But it is neither heno or modal worship when the title GOD (that which is One) that is used by Trinitarians to mean the ousia is used by LDS as that Will that is God.  Because... you can't worship a Will.  You can only worship a Being - or an existence (you know, like a rock or something for those pagan worshippers).

 

Perhaps most believers worship "God."  We worship the Almighty--the Great One.  It is increasingly common to see Jesus worshipped in evangelical churches.  Many of the songs extol the worthiness of the Lamb, the holiness and mightiness of the Messiah, etc.  Most of the lyrics borrow heavily from scripture--especially Revelation and Isaiah. 

 

Some LDS have said the worship Jesus.  I've even seen quotes from current or recent leadership that seem to support doing so.  Yet, perhaps because of the desire for true monotheism, other LDS have said the mainly, or even exclusively, worship the Father.

 

Is your conclusion that LDS worship is basically a worship of the unity of purpose that is the will of God your own, or is there some writings or statements of the church that bolster the idea.  It is interesting.

[SpiritDragon]

We believe that Jesus alone is Jesus.  He, for example, experienced human life, whereas we do not believe the Father or Spirit have (note, I understand that LDS theology may differ on this point--at least for the Father). 

 

Perhaps Jesus baptism is a great scene for this discussion.  All three characters are God.  They are co-eternal and co-equal.  Yet, it is the Son who is baptized.  It is the Father who pronounces his pleasure and blessing.  It is the Spirit who descends upon Jesus.  Each person is distinct and is carrying out a different role in the scene.  Yet, they are the one God.

How can this be?  It's what we see in scripture.  How can a "oneness of purpose" from three beings be considered a single God?  You say that it is--that you believe this oneness of purpose is so strong that it is correct to call your faith monotheistic.  We both have our mysteries, or inexplicables.

 

Thanks for your response. I agree that no matter how you slice it three Gods in one is not how they teach math in school. I just find it fascinating when I've looked into trinitarian belief it often seems to me more similar than different to the Godhead concept. Granted I've come across differences of opinion on what the Trinity is as well as the Godhead, but in general both appear to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. Both claim the three are unique in some way, but still a part of the one true God. The main difference is that trinitarian belief seems opposed to the idea of separate physical entities tied together in one by an unknown means in favour of them being three separate persons while not actually being separate at all by unknown means.

[Guest]

We believe that Jesus alone is Jesus. He, for example, experienced human life, whereas we do not believe the Father or Spirit have (note, I understand that LDS theology may differ on this point--at least for the Father).

The Father having gone through mortality is not doctrinal. The Plan of Salvation - that which includes mortal existence - was made specifically for us. The Father's path of eternal increase has not been revealed.

[prisonchaplain]

Thanks for your response. I agree that no matter how you slice it three Gods in one is not how they teach math in school. I just find it fascinating when I've looked into trinitarian belief it often seems to me more similar than different to the Godhead concept. Granted I've come across differences of opinion on what the Trinity is as well as the Godhead, but in general both appear to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. Both claim the three are unique in some way, but still a part of the one true God. The main difference is that trinitarian belief seems opposed to the idea of separate physical entities tied together in one by an unknown means in favour of them being three separate persons while not actually being separate at all by unknown means.

 

We're very sensitive to the charge that even our Tri-une God is not really one.  I referenced earlier that Jews (and Muslims) reject the Trinity as a monotheistic construct.  Since our faith is rooted in Judaism the criticism hurts.  We know we believe in one God, that the three are one, yet, as you say, it's hard to explain.  Yet, no Christian I know of would ever entertain belief in an actual tri-theism.  So, we ignore the criticism, feeling relatively safe in our long history, our thoughtful theology, and our personal experience of worshipping one God--be that God Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

Along come the LDS, saying that the persons are actual beings, totally separated.  Only their will unites them.  Our insecure monotheism goes into defense mode, and we run away, uttering mean words like "heresy," and insisting that's not us.

 

Poets have written poetically of the Trinity.  Song writers have composed beautiful songs.  Catholics often declare the Trinity a Mystery that is wondrous.  Yet, when the common Christian encounters a Jehovah's Witness, a Oneness Pentecostal, or an LDS missionary--all who question our Trinity, we have a hard time explaining what we know in a way that is simple, practical, and "reasonable."  Yet we treasure our belief.  it is sacred, because it concerns who God is.

 

The difference may seem slight to many LDS (and some trinitarians), but we already feel close to the monotheistic border.  Your doctrine threatens to pull us to a place that we fear is no longer a "one God" worship.  I'm not defining your teaching, but expressing our perceptions.

[Traveler]

We're very sensitive to the charge that even our Tri-une God is not really one.  I referenced earlier that Jews (and Muslims) reject the Trinity as a monotheistic construct.  Since our faith is rooted in Judaism the criticism hurts.  We know we believe in one God, that the three are one, yet, as you say, it's hard to explain.  Yet, no Christian I know of would ever entertain belief in an actual tri-theism.  So, we ignore the criticism, feeling relatively safe in our long history, our thoughtful theology, and our personal experience of worshipping one God--be that God Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

Along come the LDS, saying that the persons are actual beings, totally separated.  Only their will unites them.  Our insecure monotheism goes into defense mode, and we run away, uttering mean words like "heresy," and insisting that's not us.

 

Poets have written poetically of the Trinity.  Song writers have composed beautiful songs.  Catholics often declare the Trinity a Mystery that is wondrous.  Yet, when the common Christian encounters a Jehovah's Witness, a Oneness Pentecostal, or an LDS missionary--all who question our Trinity, we have a hard time explaining what we know in a way that is simple, practical, and "reasonable."  Yet we treasure our belief.  it is sacred, because it concerns who God is.

 

The difference may seem slight to many LDS (and some trinitarians), but we already feel close to the monotheistic border.  Your doctrine threatens to pull us to a place that we fear is no longer a "one God" worship.  I'm not defining your teaching, but expressing our perceptions.

 

I have stated before the biggest problems in understanding G-d is that what the scriptures tell us is under the culture and context of ancient Kingdoms and the reference to G-d as the supreme Suzerain of that kingdom.  Since few of us understand such a Suzerain of a kingdom (none without extensive research) because we are living in such a different political climate and culture in our day and age – therefore it appears to me many believers in scripture just make up notions concerning G-d’s nature based in our own experiences in our own cultures and political climates.   

 

This problem makes the scriptures flawed in presenting truth in our day and age.  We are vested in our laws and politics yet we still have some understanding of proxy or someone having power of attorney.   Since Jesus is the authorized proxy (mediatory) with the Father it does not matter if we offer our tokens of worship to Jesus as the proxy for the Father or if we offer our tokens of worship directly to the Father.  The ancient culture of Kingdom and Suzerain was singular – even though the Suzerain had appointed plural vassals to act in his name as his proxy. 

 

It does not matter how many kings there are in a kingdom – they are all in essence singular under the one supreme Suzerain if they are all appointed by him to act as his proxy vassals.   This notion was lost to Christians in the Great Apostasy and the reason that many follow the flawed doctrine of the Trinity – thinking it inspired of G-d (though Joseph was told by G-d that such doctrine was not inspired but an abomination.)

 

We see this element of plural proxies for a singular Suzerain in many places in scripture – for example at the trail of Christ when the Jews cried out, “We have no king but Cesar”.  Who then was King Herod?  The true answer was that Herod was the king appointed over the Jews as the proxy of Cesar.  Paying one’s obligations to Herod was the same as paying one’s obligations to Cesar.  Jesus therefore is the only mediatory with the Father and is the rightful recipient of our worship of the Father.  In fact the only way that we, who are fallen can worship the Father is by proxy through Jesus; despite the fact that Jesus is king and the Father is king and that there are therefore multiple kings – according to the ancient understanding, which was lost in the Great Apostasy, there is only one supreme Suzerain that can appoint as many kings as he wishes and yet there is still only one king.   And so with this we can understand Isiah and the doctrine of G-d being “L-rd of L-rds and King of Kings)

[spamlds]

I'm sure people have gone round and round bickering about this, but Joseph Smith did indeed teach that God the Father was a mortal man like us at one point in his existence.  This is a doctrine that troubles some LDS members who still hang onto false notions from their former religions.  In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith made these declarations:

 

These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

 

As he continued, Joseph elaborated:

 

What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.

 

Members who are not ready for the meat of the gospel still prefer the milk instead.  They often "excuse" Joseph Smith in making such statements by saying that the King Follett Sermon isn't doctrinal or that it's not scripture.  They'll claim that the people who transcribed the speech made some errors.  The problem with that viewpoint is that Joseph taught the doctrine of plurality of gods more than once.  In Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 312, Section Six, 1843-44, we read another explanation of this principle by the Prophet.  

 

Peter and Stephen testify that they saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Any person that had seen the heavens opened knows that there are three personages in the heavens who hold the keys of power, and one presides over all.  If any man attempts to refute what I am about to say, after I have made it plain, let him beware.

 

The Son Does What the Father Did

 

As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again; so he has a body of His own; each one will be in His own body; and yet the sectarian world believe the body of the Son is identical with the Father's.

 

The King Follett Discourse is a sermon similar in effect to the "Bread of Life" sermon Jesus delivered.  It divided his followers.  The ones who couldn't handle it left him and "walked no more with him" (John 6:61).  The ones who could abide the strong meat of the Savior's demand for commitment remained.  In Joseph's case, a lot of people gave up on him after that.  His enemies were resolved to kill him all the more.  In the history of the latter-day saint movement, you can see there was a division between the saints of the Kirtland period and the Nauvoo period.  The later "Reorganites" were "Kirtland Mormons."  The rejected the revelations and innovations of the Nauvoo period when much new doctrine was revealed.  The strong doctrines of the Nauvoo era divided the saints.  The ones who could bear the strong doctrine had the strength to endure the trials of the martyrdom of Joseph, the evacuation of Nauvoo, Winter Quarters, the months on the Plains, and the hardships of starting over in Utah.  

 

Joseph most definitely taught that God the Father was once a man and served the role as a Savior for his Father's children.  Jesus used the Father as the model for his own mission.

 

It's strong doctrine.  Why do our missionaries not teach it overtly?  It must be learned by the Spirit.  About a month after my baptism, I bought a book that contained the King Follett Sermon in it.  I remember reading it on a Sunday afternoon and feeling like I was glowing from head to toe with the Spirit.  I called up the friend who had baptized me and said, "Let me get this straight.  Am I understanding this correctly?"  He affirmed that I did indeed understand the doctrine and I knew that the Spirit had confirmed it to me.  

 

If anyone has problems accepting this principle, I suggest fasting, praying, and then reading the King Follett Discourse on a Sabbath afternoon after church is over for the day.  I guarantee that it will touch your heart and you'll know Joseph Smith knew far more about the Godhead than any council that ever wrote a creed.

[iguy2314]

^^^ Reading messages like the one above always, always makes me thirst for real sense. From C.S. Lewis, "The Four Loves."

"God is love. Again. "Herein is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us." (John 4, 10). We must not begin with mysticism, with the creature's love for God, or with that wonderful foretastes of the fruition of God vouched for some in their earthly life. We begin at the real beginning, with love as the Divine energy. This primal love is Gift-Love. In God there is no hunger that needs to be filled, only plenteousness that desires to give. The doctrine that God was under no necessity to create is not a piece of dry scholastic speculation. It is essential. Without it we can hardly avoid the conception of what I can only call a "managerial" God, a Being whose function or nature is to "run" the universe, who stands to it as a head-master to a school or a hotelier to a hotel. But to be sovereign of the universe is no great matter to God. In Himself, at home in the "land of the Trinity," he is Soverign of a far greater realm. We must keep always before our eyes that vision of Lady Julian's in which God carried in His hand a little object like a nut, and that nut was "all that is made." God, who needs nothing, loves into existence wholly superfluous creatures in order that He may love and perfect them. He creates the universe, already foreseeing - or should we say "seeing?" there are no tenses in God - the buzzing cloud of flies about the cross, the flayed back pressed against the uneven stake, the nails driven through the mesial nerves, the repeated incipient suffocation as the body droops, the repeated torture of back and arms as it is time after time, for breath's sake, hitched up. If I may dare the biological image, God is a "host" who deliberately creates His own parasites, causes us to be that we may exploit and "take advantage of" Him. Herein is love. This is the diagram of Love Himself, the inventor of all loves."


This will be my last message here. I urge anyone investigating the LDS Church, or Christianity in general, start with C.S. Lewis, one of the finest minds of the 20th century, who believed in the Nicene Creed, who believed in the Trinity and all the foreknowledge and treasured doctrines of early Christianity. Investigate with all your mind the true doctrines of the LDS Church, the history of Joseph Smith and the historical basis for their claims. Read, pray, and truly ask if God could ever abandon his people, if the followers of Christ could fail so easily, or if so much good could come from something deemed so uncharitably "abomination." God doesn't work like that, not in history, not in our lives and not in His Son and the Church he built. God bless fellow pilgrims!

[spamlds]

Farewell Iguy2314.  I would simply like to comment on your approach to finding truth compared to the one taught by our missionaries.  You urge anyone investigating the Church to start with C.S. Lewis.  We urge people to ask of God.  There is no more fundamental teaching that our missionaries present than James 1:5-6.

 

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."

 

When a person seeks religous truth, whether to believe in Christ or not, or whether to accept the precepts of a particular denomination as truth, he needs to go to the source: God.

 

I'm sure Iguy2314 did not intend this, but it'll ultimately be the outcome of his approach.  His approach is to try to find the smartest guy around and then ask him for truth.  The world is full of smart people who all disagree on what the truth is.  Such an approach can only lead to confusion or deception.

 

Joseph Smith, although a real person, represents all of us as a proxy in one sense: he had to find out what was true amidst the "war of words and tumult of opinions" in the world around him.  He, like Iguy2314 and many of the rest of us, inquired of the smartest, educated, and most well-informed people he could find. He read from the Bible and compared the smart guy's answers to it.  Inevitably, he came to the solution that any honest person would come to.  There's no way to know.  The smart guys were all sincere and convinced they were right.  Then he read James 1:5-6.

 

In a modern context, I would paraphrase this passage like this:  If you lack knowledge about spiritual things, don't ask Google.  Don't ask Yahoo Answers.  Don't go to CARM, or MRM, or Ephesians2, or any of the various anti-Mormon ministries out there.  Don't go to the Pope, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, or Jimmy Swaggart.  The professors of religion at the theological seminaries argue among themselves about what the Bible means.  You won't get the answer you seek from them.  Instead, ask of God.

 

Joseph Smith learned firsthand that God answers prayers and grants wisdom to those who ask him for it, in faith, believing that they will receive.  The one caveat to all this is to set aside your pride and promise to follow God's answer when it comes.  Have faith.  Asking doesn't come without a price.  Revealed truth requires you to commit to it once it is given to you.  Clarity comes through personal revelation from God.

 

For any non-LDS visitor that reads this discussion, please ask yourself.  Who would you trust more, C.S. Lewis or God?  We urge every sincere seeker of truth to study the Bible and the Book of Mormon and then to ask of God if it is true.  We ask this confidently knowing that God will never steer you wrong.

 

This will be my last message here. I urge anyone investigating the LDS Church, or Christianity in general, start with C.S. Lewis, one of the finest minds of the 20th century, who believed in the Nicene Creed, who believed in the Trinity and all the foreknowledge and treasured doctrines of early Christianity. Investigate with all your mind the true doctrines of the LDS Church, the history of Joseph Smith and the historical basis for their claims. Read, pray, and truly ask if God could ever abandon his people, if the followers of Christ could fail so easily, or if so much good could come from something deemed so uncharitably "abomination." God doesn't work like that, not in history, not in our lives and not in His Son and the Church he built. God bless fellow pilgrims!

[lonetree]

Creeds are still very powerful elements in some churches. Around here,there are conservative Dutch Reformed churches whose preaching revolves around the creeds (ie Canons Of Dort) as well as Scripture to the extent that one wonders why the creeds aren't  just defined -as- Scripture.

Edited July 4, 2015 by lonetree

[prisonchaplain]

Most churches--even nondenominational ones--have "creeds."  My church calls it the Statement of Fundamental Truths.  Others may call it "What we believe."  For LDS, is it not the Articles of Faith?  While only the LDS one is considered scripture itself, churches have their statements of belief as the teachings around which they unify.  They are "non-negotiable" understandings.  Disagree and it's time to move on (to another church).

 

So, I'd suggest that nearly all churches find creeds to be very powerful elements...it's just a question of which one.  Further, most Christian churches have very similar creeds when it comes to the nature of God and scripture.

[Average Joe]

This may be too much information but I think it bears on the subject if not about creeds specifically.

 

Let’s see what the LDS scriptures say about this.

 

D&C 18:20 - Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil. (June 1829)

 

This scripture makes clear that not all churches are of the devil. However, D&C 18:20 seems to go against what the Book of Mormon says at first glance.

 

1 Nephi 14:10 - And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (The Book of Mormon was published in March 1830)

 

Looking at this verse it would seem that if you weren’t a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints you were a member of the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon was published in March 1830, the Church wasn’t established until April 6^th 1830. Let’s look to the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) again for clarification.

 

D&C 10:52 - And now, behold, according to their [The Nephite’s] faith in their prayers will I bring this part of my gospel [The Book of Mormon] to the knowledge of my people. Behold, I do not bring it to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up.

 

 53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

 

 54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;

 

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

 

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom [church] of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center. (Summer 1828)

 

These scriptures, written almost 2 years before the publishing of the Book of Mormon and establishing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints clearly states that the Book of Mormon isn’t to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up…[not] to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church. So who were these who were “his church”?

 

Here are two examples of the Lord building up "his church":

 

I. In October of 1830, missionaries from the Church visited Rigdon while traveling through northern Ohio. After two weeks of studying about the Church and reading the Book of Mormon, Rigdon announced that he believed the Church was true. In November, he was baptized and ordained an Elder in the Church. More than a hundred members of his congregation also converted. Ultimately, nearly 3,000 Campbellites would join the Mormon Church.

 

II. In the mid-1830s, a group of approximately 600 Primitive Methodists led by Thomas Knighton left the Primitive Methodism movement and established an independent religious organization they called the United Brethren. The church was divided into many small congregations scattered among the Three Counties, with 50 designated preachers for the group. In 1836, the United Brethren built a chapel in Gadfield Elm, near Ledbury.

 

In March 1840, Latter Day Saint missionary and apostle Wilford Woodruff was brought to Hill Farm, Fromes Hill by William Benbow, a recent English convert to Mormonism. Benbow introduced Woodruff to his brother John Benbow, who was a member of the United Brethren. Woodruff received permission to preach to United Brethren congregations, and in the first 30 days he had baptized 45 preachers and 160 members of the United Brethren into the Latter Day Saint church. By December 1840, 300 members of the church had been converted to Mormonism, and ultimately all the members of the United Brethren except one became Latter Day Saints.

 

This is in addition to the many individuals and family of the world’s churches who having received a testimony of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s work in the restoration have come into the fold.

 

The church of the devil remains…”they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil.”

[AnthonyB]

Back to the original question about "creeds being an abonimation", Joseph Smith was mirroring standard Christian Primivitism in what he said, which was much wider then the LDS church. It has to be placed within the context of not how we use creeds today but the usage and results of them to someone living in the 1820's. Churches at that time seemed to be splitting to ever smaller  groups and arguing and bickering over minutae of their ever growing  and precise creeds.

 

Here is Alexander Campbell on creeds, "Human creeds have made more heretics than Christians, more parties than reformations, more martyrs than saints, more wars than peace, more hatred than love, more death than life." (Campbell-Rice Debate, p. 765)

 

Barton Stone "It may be asked again–Have you no creed or confession as a common bond of union? We answer, yes. We have a perfect one, delivered us from heaven and confirmed by Jesus and his Apostles–we mean the New Testament. We have learned from the earliest history of the church to the present time, that the adoption of man-made creeds has been the invariable cause of division and disunion. We have, therefore, rejected all such creeds as bonds of union, and have determined to rest on that alone given by divine authority, being well assured that it will bind together all who live in the spirit of it.

 

Or Thoman Jefferson, "You ask my opinion on the items of doctrine in your catechism. I have never permitted myself to meditate on a specific creed. These formulas have been the bane and ruin of the Christian church, its own fatal invention, which, through so many ages, made of Christendom a slaughter-house, and at this day divides it into casts of inextinguishable hatred to one another." (Cousins, p. 158)

[lonetree]

Back to the original question about "creeds being an abonimation", Joseph Smith was mirroring standard Christian Primivitism in what he said, which was much wider then the LDS church. It has to be placed within the context of not how we use creeds today but the usage and results of them to someone living in the 1820's. Churches at that time seemed to be splitting to ever smaller  groups and arguing and bickering over minutae of their ever growing  and precise creeds.

 

Here is Alexander Campbell on creeds, "Human creeds have made more heretics than Christians, more parties than reformations, more martyrs than saints, more wars than peace, more hatred than love, more death than life." (Campbell-Rice Debate, p. 765)

 

Barton Stone "It may be asked again–Have you no creed or confession as a common bond of union? We answer, yes. We have a perfect one, delivered us from heaven and confirmed by Jesus and his Apostles–we mean the New Testament. We have learned from the earliest history of the church to the present time, that the adoption of man-made creeds has been the invariable cause of division and disunion. We have, therefore, rejected all such creeds as bonds of union, and have determined to rest on that alone given by divine authority, being well assured that it will bind together all who live in the spirit of it.)...

Great point about the christian primitivism context. I'm beginning Alexander Campbell's 'Christian System' at the present time, and find myself affirming much of what I've read. One of the questions nagging me though is  whether Campbell and others were naive to think that men could get along -without- creeds.

Edited July 5, 2015 by lonetree

[AnthonyB]

LDS were strong influenced by Christian Primitivism, it is telling that the frst non LDS to write a review of BoM was Alexander Campbell  and he is the only non LDS person mentioned by name in the King Follett Discourse.

 

As to whether it was naive to think that people that people could get along without creeds, it has been done but not in the US. I will note that many groups are divided in the US that are not divided elsewhere in the world.

[blueskye]

Creeds are still very powerful elements in some churches. Around here,there are conservative Dutch Reformed churches whose preaching revolves around the creeds (ie Canons Of Dort) as well as Scripture to the extent that one wonders why the creeds aren't just defined -as- Scripture.

That is because Christian creeds are viewed as an expression of fundamental doctrinal Truths of our Faith revealed in the Word of God.

For Catholics, Sacred Tradition, of which the creeds are a part, is at the same level, authority and is viewed absolutely as from the same divine source as Sacred Scripture. Reformed churches reject Sacred Tradition and so their view may be only that the creeds express what is divinely revealed in Sacred Scripture.

Edited July 7, 2015 by blueskye