A Proposition

[estradling75]

That has always been a strange statement, IMO. Are you saying the LDS aren't Christians--or that you have a different definition of "Christians" than what is portrayed in the Biblical NT?

 

No... what his is saying is that most other Christian don't believe LDS are Christian...  We loudly and clearly protest this..  But that means in the eyes of other Christians the best we can bee seen as is "unorthodox."  We do claim that we are Biblical NT Christians, but it would be quite blind of us to think that other Christian groups agreed with us on this matter.

[dberrie2001]

No... what his is saying is that most other Christian don't believe LDS are Christian...  We loudly and clearly protest this..  But that means in the eyes of other Christians the best we can bee seen as is "unorthodox."  We do claim that we are Biblical NT Christians, but it would be quite blind of us to think that other Christian groups agreed with us on this matter.

 Thanks for that clarification. I have seen LDS differentiate between Christianity and LDS theology on a number of boards--and, for me--- it always brings to bear the question of what exactly that might mean--or how the LDS are defining the term "Christianity".

[estradling75]

 Thanks for that clarification. I have seen LDS differentiate between Christianity and LDS theology on a number of boards--and, for me--- it always brings to bear the question of what exactly that might mean--or how the LDS are defining the term "Christianity".

 

Speaking in general terms it comes down to the Creeds.  Most Christians take the creeds as defining what God and Christ are.  LDS do not believe in the Creeds.  Since for most Christians the creeds are the definition, the LDS rejection of them  leads us to worshiping "another" God.  This as a logical conclusion based on what they accept as truth.  Thus most of Christianity define Christians as a believer in the Creedal definition of God.

 

LDS tend to define Christians as anyone that believes that Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the World and strive to follow him.  Thus the LDS definition of Christians include other Christians,  Other Christians definition of Christians generally exclude the LDS.   

[Guest]

What I have noticed is that historically, they've changed their definition of Christian to carefully carve Mormons and a few others out of that definition.

 

If you asked an average person what the definition of Christian was, he'd answer "One who believes that Christ his Savior".  We'd certainly qualify.  And 150 years ago, other Christians agreed.

 

Today (especially the anti-Mormon) would respond "One who believes that faith in the grace of the Trinity will save him from sin."

 

No, it's not the initial statement.  But eventually that's what they end up hanging their hat on after discussion.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Guest

[dberrie2001]

Speaking in general terms it comes down to the Creeds.  Most Christians take the creeds as defining what God and Christ are.  LDS do not believe in the Creeds.  Since for most Christians the creeds are the definition, the LDS rejection of them  leads us to worshiping "another" God.  This as a logical conclusion based on what they accept as truth.  Thus most of Christianity define Christians as a believer in the Creedal definition of God.

 

LDS tend to define Christians as anyone that believes that Christ is the Son of God and Savior of the World and strive to follow him.  Thus the LDS definition of Christians include other Christians,  Other Christians definition of Christians generally exclude the LDS.   

 

I suppose your reference to "the Creeds" is a specific reference to certain creeds--as the LFS are a people of creedal beliefs also--the articles of faith being one of those creeds.

 

I agree with your post, in the main.

 

The one point of duplicity, for me--is that the faith alone theology does not comport with Biblical NT Christianity.

 

They run on two different tracks.

 

There is also a notorious contradiction to the faith alone theology found in one of their accepted Creeds:

 

Athanasian Creed

 

..."At his coming all people will arise bodily

    and give an accounting of their own deeds.

    Those who have done good will enter eternal life,

    and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith: one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully."

 

Anathema to faith alone theology.

[estradling75]

I suppose your reference to "the Creeds" is a specific reference to certain creeds--as the LFS are a people of creedal beliefs also--the articles of faith being one of those creeds.

 

 

I am going to assume you meant LDS and LFS is as typo.. 

 

And no we are not creedal... the Articles of Faith are not a creed.  Note the Red part you highlighted in the Athanasin Creed.  That restriction on Salvation is a defining characteristic of a Creed.  There is no such restriction on the Articles of Faith.  If you don't believe in the Articles of Faith, no Mormon will tell you that you aren't a Christian or that you can not be saved.  But that is exactly what the Athanasin Creed (and other creeds) does

[dberrie2001]

And no we are not creedal... the Articles of Faith are not a creed.

 

The Articles of Faith meet the definitional parameters of the term "creed"--IE--

Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2:  a set of fundamental beliefs; also :  a guiding principle

 

I don't find anything in our scriptures that prohibit creeds--just not creeds that reflect man-made theology.

[estradling75]

 

The Articles of Faith meet the definitional parameters of the term "creed"--IE--

Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2:  a set of fundamental beliefs; also :  a guiding principle

 

I don't find anything in our scriptures that prohibit creeds--just not creeds that reflect man-made theology.

 

 

 

You are missing the point...  It is not that fact that they meet the definition of Creed it is how they are used.

 

Creeds are used to exclude and separate.  For example This is the catholic faith: one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully." Plain as day.  If you don't believe this creed you are going to hell.  There have been tons and tons of times Mormons have been excluded from being Christian because of the Creeds.  Compare this to The Article of Faith  11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.  Since we are talking about why Mormon's aren't considered Christian the differences in the statements in red are profound.

Edited November 20, 2015 by estradling75

[dberrie2001]

You are missing the point...  It is not that fact that they meet the definition of Creed it is how they are used.

 

Creeds are used to exclude and separate.  For example This is the catholic faith: one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully." Plain as day.  If you don't believe this creed you are going to hell.  There have been tons and tons of times Mormons have been excluded from being Christian because of the Creeds.  Compare this to The Article of Faith  11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.  Since we are talking about why Mormon's aren't considered Christian the differences in the statements in red are profound.

 

I addressed your statement here:

 

And no we are not creedal... the Articles of Faith are not a creed.

 

Again--the Articles of Faith are a creedal statement, if we believe the definition of "creed":

 

Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2:  a set of fundamental beliefs; also :  a guiding principle

 

To be sure--the Articles of Faith fit that definition quite well.

 

Some of the creedal statements found in the Articles of Faith are salvational statements--such as the fourth article of faith:

 

4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:

first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance;

third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;

fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

The Articles of Faith are canonized, in the LDS church. A creedal statement--canonized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

The thing about repentance is that it washes your sins away so your garments as red as blood become as white as snow. Per the apple tree analogy, the repentant girl would be a good apple back at the top of the tree. The "easy" apples are non-repentant, and I think the analogy stands pretty well.

 

Most of the complaints about these sorts of things, imo, tend to be complaints based on either inaccurate understanding or misrepresentation of the principles of the gospel.

 

I agree totally.  And I can't swing a dead cat online without hitting a dozen people who have left the church over understandings specifically springing from this sort of lesson.  Girls who have sinned are less.  Used kleenex.  Licked cupcakes.  Rotten apples.  (Yes, all three analogies have been part of LDS culture - I've heard multiple firsthand accounts over the years.)  I've lost track at how often I've heard this story.  It's heartbreaking.

 

Oh, but it's ok though.  You might be a used kleenex now, but repentance makes it all better!  Still feel like a used kleenex?  Well, maybe you haven't repented hard enough.  There's obviously still something wrong with you.  Right?

 

I wonder - how many people need to leave the church over an innacurate overstanding, before you might be willing to consider the notion that the message delivery method is the problem?

Edited November 20, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[estradling75]

 

I addressed your statement here:

 

 

Again--the Articles of Faith are a creedal statement, if we believe the definition of "creed":

 

Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2:  a set of fundamental beliefs; also :  a guiding principle

 

To be sure--the Articles of Faith fit that definition quite well.

 

Some of the creedal statements found in the Articles of Faith are salvational statements--such as the fourth article of faith:

 

4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:

first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance;

third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;

fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

The Articles of Faith are canonized, in the LDS church. A creedal statement--canonized

 

I acknowledge your repeated use of the the dictionary and I say it is not relevant.  All groups tend to give specialized meanings to words that do not always make it to the dictionary.  Religions do this all the time.  I gave you the specialized meaning it was being used before you when all dictionary on me...  Let me repeat...  "That restriction on Salvation is a defining characteristic of a Creed."

[dberrie2001]

I acknowledge your repeated use of the the dictionary and I say it is not relevant.  All groups tend to give specialized meanings to words that do not always make it to the dictionary.  Religions do this all the time.  I gave you the specialized meaning it was being used before you when all dictionary on me...  Let me repeat...  "That restriction on Salvation is a defining characteristic of a Creed."

 

The term "creed" did make it to the dictionary.

 

The Articles of faith have a defining characteristic on salvational principles and ordinances:

 

4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:

first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance;

third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;

fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

That is a salvational creedal statement--and a canonized one, at that.

 

My point is that the LDS church can't go after creeds, as being deviant from God's norm--they have creedal statements that are canonized. That dog just ain't gonna hunt.

 

One can make up special definitions for terms--but that is more akin to boundary maintenance, IMO, and seems to be a tool used by the faith alone in attacking LDS doctrines.

 

The fact is--the LDS church has creedal statements that are canonized.

 

I find the only conclusion I can make about creeds--if they are man-made creeds, with man-made doctines--then they are false.

 

But to attack the notion of creeds is a double edge sword which cuts both ways.

[LeSellers]

The term "creed" did make it to the dictionary.

 

The Articles of faith have a defining characteristic on salvational principles and ordinances:

…

I acknowledge your repeated use of the the dictionary and I say it is not relevant.

Hey, may I suggest that you're both right?

Yes, the Articles of Faith are a dictionary version of a creed (at least in a very broad way). But they are unlike any other orthodox Christian creed in that they are merely an explanation of belief, not a definition of them nor an us/them statement. Also, the Articles of Faith, unlike any other religious creed (that I know of) does not carry the label. For some reason, that is important to those who accept them.

Nor do we recite them as part of our worship of Jesus Christ, as many others do in theirs.

I often refer to us as non-creedal Christians and most of the rest of Christianity as creedal Christians. I also use "orthodox Christians" and "Trinitarians" to describe them. I trust none of them would find it insulting: I do not mean it that way. ('Course, nowadays, there are a myriad of people whose lives are defined by being insulted, outraged, or offended by the merest of words, acts or colors. Who knows?)

When we speak of creeds among ourselves, we almost always exclude the "Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" because, for us, it fills a very different role. It seems as if estradling is using the term this way, while dberrie insists there is the one way to understand it, and no other. But, hyou are both right.

In my opinion.

Lehi

Edited November 20, 2015 by LeSellers

[estradling75]

 

The term "creed" did make it to the dictionary.

 

The Articles of faith have a defining characteristic on salvational principles and ordinances:

 

4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:

first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance;

third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;

fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

That is a salvational creedal statement--and a canonized one, at that.

 

My point is that the LDS church can't go after creeds, as being deviant from God's norm--they have creedal statements that are canonized. That dog just ain't gonna hunt.

 

One can make up special definitions for terms--but that is more akin to boundary maintenance, IMO, and seems to be a tool used by the faith alone in attacking LDS doctrines.

 

The fact is--the LDS church has creedal statements that are canonized.

 

I find the only conclusion I can make about creeds--if they are man-made creeds, with man-made doctines--then they are false.

 

But to attack the notion of creeds is a double edge sword which cuts both ways.

 

 

Again... I repeat I acknowledge the Word Creed is in the dictionary...  The fact that it is in the dictionary is irrelevant..  

 

To put this another way...  I am not going after the Dictionary definition of Creed...  I am going after how people have applied the creeds and used them to render judgement on the status of the souls of those that disagree with them.

 

The creed of the LDS church (as you claim the Articles of Faith are) does not allow itself to be used that way...  The other creed that has been posted on this thread demand that the faithful who adhere to the creed do exactly that.   And that is a night and day difference between the two that dictionary does not cover when it defines Creeds

Edited November 20, 2015 by estradling75

[Vort]

Yes, the Articles of Faith are a dictionary version of a creed (at least in a very broad way). But they are unlike any other orthodox Christian creed in that they are merely an explanation of belief, not a definition of them nor an us/them statement.

 

In my view, this bolded part is the crux of the explanation. Though many Saints fail to grasp it, the simple fact is that not all explanations offered by Church authorities, including Joseph Smith, are "official" definitions. The so-called Articles of Faith were an attempt to explain, not define, the basics of LDS beliefs.

 

We treat them as a virtual creed, teaching them to our children, for example, and using them as a basis for various beliefs. But in fact, that was never their intent when Joseph Smith wrote them. They are simply an explanation of thirteen or so beliefs that Joseph Smith saw as relevant in the discussion with Mr. Wentworth. They were not intended in any real sense to be a "creed" such as larger Christianity has.

 

Note that the nature of God is not even addressed in the Articles of Faith, beyond the mere fact of the independent existence of the members of the Godhead. No mention of the restoration of Priesthood authority, of God's physicality, of the eternal nature of families, of the absolute necessity of ordinances (beyond the mere mention of baptism), the centrality of repentance and coming unto Christ, etc. And some of what is mentioned -- e.g. Zion being built upon this continent (meaning America) -- is hardly central to our religious beliefs and practices.

 

If we Latter-day Saints treat the Articles of Faith as a creed, then we should repent. They are not a creed, not in the "creedal Christianity" sense.

[dberrie2001]

 It seems as if estradling is using the term this way, while dberrie insists there is the one way to understand it, and no other.

Lehi

 

Hi Lehi--

 

No, I don't feel there is but one way to understand creeds. But I do believe we can't exclude ourselves from having creedal statements, unless we make up specialized definitions.

 

The fact is--the Articles of Faith fits the definition of a creed. That can't be compromised.

 

I make this point because I have seen some LDS try this approach(the low road opinion of creeds)--and then get smacked when the Articles of Faith are presented on the opposite side of the argument--with the definition of "creed"--which fits the Articles of Faith well.

 

I think caution is needed on how we approach that point.

[estradling75]

Hi Lehi--

 

No, I don't feel there is but one way to understand creeds. But I do believe we can't exclude ourselves from having creedal statements, unless we make up specialized definitions.

 

The fact is--the Articles of Faith fits the definition of a creed. That can't be compromised.

 

I make this point because I have seen some LDS try this approach(the low road opinion of creeds)--and then get smacked when the Articles of Faith are presented on the opposite side of the argument--with the definition of "creed"--which fits the Articles of Faith well.

 

I think caution is needed on how we approach that point.

 

And an LDS who is engaging in discussions on Creeds and can't then articulate a reason why the Article of Faith are fundamentally different from other creeds... deserves to get smacked.

[dberrie2001]

If we Latter-day Saints treat the Articles of Faith as a creed, then we should repent. They are not a creed, not in the "creedal Christianity" sense.

 

The Articles of faith are a creedal statement--as to definition. The Articles of Faith fit the definition of "creed" very well.

 

Almost perfectly:

 

Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2:  a set of fundamental beliefs; also :  a guiding principle

 

The Articles of faith are also what we believe to be a Christian statement.

 

So--what is there about the Articles of faith you would not consider to be "creedal Christianity"?

 

One might have personal definitions or ideas that fit outside of that phrase--but it fits the accepted definition set by those who define terms in our society. We might explain why we as individuals look at creeds differently--but not that the LDS do not have creeds--or that they are not Christian statements, IMO.

[Vort]

Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2:  a set of fundamental beliefs; also :  a guiding principle

 

The Articles of faith are also what we believe to be a Christian statement.

 

So--what is there about the Articles of faith you would not consider to be "creedal Christianity"?

 

1. The LDS Articles of Faith were not authored to be the definitive encapsulation of a belief, such as e.g. the Nicene Creed was and is.

2. As I have pointed out, the Articles of Faith cannot reasonably be considered a complete set of fundamental beliefs. At best, they are a scattershot collection of various beliefs, some of which are quite peripheral, and lack many of the basic central tenets of our religion.

 

The Articles of Faith do not fill the same position as the creeds of creedal Christianity. As I wrote, if Latter-day Saints take the Articles of Faith as a creed, they (we) need to repent.

[dberrie2001]

And an LDS who is engaging in discussions on Creeds and can't then articulate a reason why the Article of Faith are fundamentally different from other creeds... deserves to get smacked.

 

IMO--once one makes this statement--there isn't any other alternative but to get smacked:

 

And no we are not creedal... the Articles of Faith are not a creed.

 

The retort is a definition of a creed--which fits the Articles of Faith well.

[estradling75]

 

IMO--once one makes this statement--there isn't any other alternative but to get smacked:

 

 

The retort is a definition of a creed--which fits the Articles of Faith well.

 

 

Reading is fundamental

 

 

I acknowledge your repeated use of the the dictionary and I say it is not relevant.  All groups tend to give specialized meanings to words that do not always make it to the dictionary.  Religions do this all the time.  I gave you the specialized meaning it was being used before you when all dictionary on me...  Let me repeat...  "That restriction on Salvation is a defining characteristic of a Creed."

 

and here again

 

Again... I repeat I acknowledge the Word Creed is in the dictionary...  The fact that it is in the dictionary is irrelevant..  

 

To put this another way...  I am not going after the Dictionary definition of Creed...  I am going after how people have applied the creeds and used them to render judgement on the status of the souls of those that disagree with them.

 

The creed of the LDS church (as you claim the Articles of Faith are) does not allow itself to be used that way...  The other creed that has been posted on this thread demand that the faithful who adhere to the creed do exactly that.   And that is a night and day difference between the two that dictionary does not cover when it defines Creeds

 

I think I have repeatedly explained the fundamental difference between the Articles of Faith and other Creeds and repeatedly explained what the dictionary definition you keep trotting out does not cover what I am talking about..  I am not going to talk about it any more because it is clear you are not listening

[dberrie2001]

1. The LDS Articles of Faith were not authored to be the definitive encapsulation of a belief, such as e.g. the Nicene Creed was and is.

2. As I have pointed out, the Articles of Faith cannot reasonably be considered a complete set of fundamental beliefs. At best, they are a scattershot collection of various beliefs, some of which are quite peripheral, and lack many of the basic central tenets of our religion.

 

The Articles of Faith do not fill the same position as the creeds of creedal Christianity. As I wrote, if Latter-day Saints take the Articles of Faith as a creed, they (we) need to repent.

 

The Articles of Faith, by formal definition--are a creed.

 

Or--do you feel the Articles of Faith don't fit this definition?

 

Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2:  a set of fundamental beliefs; also :  a guiding principle

 

Vort--I'm LDS, and believe the Articles of Faith are a creed. I know they are--I have the formal definiton before me.

 

Why should I repent? How does that change anything? How does that alter the truths found in the Articles of Faith?

 

What doctrine do you have that states if we believe the Articles of Faith fits the definitional parameters of a creed--then we should repent?

[Guest]

A Preposition

 

[Vort]

The Articles of Faith, by formal definition--are a creed.

 

Or--do you feel the Articles of Faith don't fit this definition?

 

Full Definition of CREED--Merriam Webster

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2:  a set of fundamental beliefs; also :  a guiding principle

 

Vort--I'm LDS, and believe the Articles of Faith are a creed. I know they are--I have the formal definiton before me.

 

Why should I repent? How does that change anything? How does that alter the truths found in the Articles of Faith?

 

What doctrine do you have that states if we believe the Articles of Faith fits the definitional parameters of a creed--then we should repent?

 

The (spurious creedal) conversation thus far, translated into physics terms:

 

estradling: Generally, the difference between Group A and Group B is that Group A recognizes the power of the king, and Group B recognizes no such kingly power.

 

dberrie: No, Group B recognizes power, just as much as Group A.

 

estradling: What are you talking about? Group B does not recognize power like Group A does.

 

dberrie: I have a dictionary right here that defines power: "energy expended per unit time". Are you saying that Group B does not recognize energy per unit time?

 

several people: Uh, no, that' is a different definition. That is not how we are using the word "power".

 

dberrie: Hey. Dictionary, folks. Look it up. Meaning's right there.

 

Vort: Yes, but that is not the relevant meaning. We are speaking of political power, not of electrical power.

 

dberrie: Dictionary. Read it and weep.

 

Okay. Whatever. If you want to think you have won the Battle of Reference Materials, congratulations. It does not change the fact that Latter-day Saints are not creedal. We do not accept or live by the Athanasian or Nicene Creeds, which are Trinitarian statements that attempt to define the nature of God and Christ. In general, we do not live by statements of belief, but by the revealed word of God. Or at least, we should not, and if we do, we should repent.

 

The term "creedal Christianity" is well-understood by most who engage in such discussions. The very word "creed" means "belief". If you want to hyperliteralize the term "creed" such that anyone who believes anything, or anyone who writes down any of their beliefs, is "creedal", then you have destroyed the plain meaning of the term.

[Vort]

A Preposition

 

 

I made the same mistake.