A Proposition

[Guest]

Ha! That's what I get for skimming long threads.

[Guest]

I made the same mistake.

 

So THAT's what that was about.

 

<palm to forehead>

[dberrie2001]

Okay. Whatever. If you want to think you have won the Battle of Reference Materials, congratulations

 

Why does it have to be termed a "battle"?

 

Why not an exchange of ideas? Something to ponder? A difference of views?

 

Battles aren't much fun. An exchange of ideas can be--even if one disagrees with the poster.

[Vort]

Why does it have to be termed a "battle"?

 

Why not an exchange of ideas? Something to ponder? A difference of views?

 

Battles aren't much fun. An exchange of ideas can be--even if one disagrees with the poster.

 

I agree. But when the other party simply fails to comprehend what you're saying, that is no exchange of ideas.

[dberrie2001]

I agree. But when the other party simply fails to comprehend what you're saying, that is no exchange of ideas.

 

Hi Vort--no offense intended. I just like an exchange of ideas, and try and stay focused.

 

Please don't interpret my focus on a particular point as a failure to understand all points included in the post. I just did not address them, but instead--remained with the same subject in view, IE--the the Articles of Faith are not creedal--or that one needs to repent if they believe the Articles of Faith are creedal.(surmised)

 

Your explanations of why you believe the Articles of Faith is a different animal, as to the creedal reference-- was not touched. That does not mean it was not important to you, or that what you stated in those explanations are not true. It just was not my primary concern.

 

Rather, I was amazed that someone would argue that the Articles of Faith are not creedal in nature. They are. The Articles of Faith are creedal--by definition. They fit perfectly with that definition.

 

The reason I jumped on that-- I just finished on a site where an LDS tried to argue the point against creeds--the faith alone poster cited the Articles of Faith--and cited the definition of "creed".

 

It fit. And if the shoe fits--then wear it, is the old adage. The LDS poster had nowhere to go. They backed up--and tried to restart, but the attempt fell short, at that point. There was a certain loss of credibility.

 

An attempt to explain how we interpret the "creeds" differently would have worked fine. But an attack on creeds--when the LDS have what can be defined as a "creed"--is less than a viable approach, IMO.

 

I have enjoyed your intelligent posts--but don't be too hard on me--I would like to believe we play on the same team--even if we don't swing at the ball in the same way.

 

I would like to challenge the LDS in some of their posts--not to start an argument--but to gain an understanding that this is the internet age--and our statements need to be pure and precise. Cyberspace don't forget.

Edited November 20, 2015 by dberrie2001

[LeSellers]

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.

There is no one who loves words more than I do. I love English words most, but French and Italian words, too.

I use the dictionary as a tool as much as anyone, too. As, as I said, you are right: the definition of "creed" is exactly what you've posted.

But the connotation of "creed", especially in this context, needs almost to be capitalized. It's the group of creeds that most Christians accept as the definition of their faith. Outside that group, we have The Articles of Faith. It may very well be a creed in the generic sense, but it is not a Creed. It is not one of the seven that make up the world of The Creeds.

As far as I can tell, they are:

The Old Roman Creed

The Apostles' Creed

The Nicene Creed

The Chalcedonian Creed

The Athanasian Creed (Quicumque vult)

The Tridentine Creed

The Maasai Creed

The Credo of the People of God

 

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 know of very, very few people who use the label "creed" to describe the Articles of Faith. I've been in the apologetics "business" for a very long time, and even antis don't bring up this argument more than once in every couple of years. I know of only one Latter-day Saint who does.

So, we can agree that the Articles of Faith do meet the strict criteria of the dictionary when it comes to "creed". We should also be able to accept that they do not belong to the set of "The Creeds".

Lehi

Edited November 20, 2015 by LeSellers

[dberrie2001]

There is no one who loves words more than I do. I love English words most, but French and Italian words, too.

I use the dictionary as a tool as much as anyone, too. As, as I said, you are right: the definition of "creed" is exactly what you've posted.

But the connotation of "creed", especially in this context, needs almost to be capitalized. It's the group of creeds that most Christians accept as the definition of their faith. Outside that group, we have The Articles of Faith. It may very well be a creed in the generic sense, but it is not a Creed.

Lehi

 Helloooo Lehi--

 

It could be approached in that manner--but whether one punches in "creed" with small case--or caps--the definition comes out the same.

 

The fact that the LDS have canonized the Articles of Faith somewhat complicates the problem further, when taking your approach. It would be difficult to divide the importance the faith alone place on their creeds--and ours, as the Articles of Faith, at that injunction, is not only a creed--it is a canonized creed.

 

For me--that is a capital Creed. That fact renders it more than just a generic creed--IMO.

[The Folk Prophet]

So, we can agree that the Articles of Faith do meet the strict criteria of the dictionary when it comes to "creed".

 

Can we? The Articles of Faith are part of canonized scripture. So unless we cherry-pick any beliefs in the scripture and call them a creed too, I'm not sure it works. By the same token, "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins." is a creed.

[Guest]

Well, that's a good point.  Is all scripture considered "creed"?

[LeSellers]

For me--that is a capital Creed. That fact renders it more than just a generic creed--IMO.

So now we have two categories of "Creed": the seven creeds of orthodoxy and the canonized Creed of the Latter-day Saints.

It's obvious that, to me, "Creed" includes the seven, and not the one.

Lehi

[dberrie2001]

So now we have two categories of "Creed": the seven creeds of orthodoxy and the canonized Creed of the Latter-day Saints.

It's obvious that, to me, "Creed" includes the seven, and not the one.

Lehi

 

Well--one thing for sure--nobody can argue it's obvious to you. Maybe others also.

[Guest Godless]

[Guest]

 

[dberrie2001]

Can we? The Articles of Faith are part of canonized scripture.

 

For me--canonization only indicates the level of importance we place on that creed, not whether it can qualify as a creed.

 

A creed is usually considered a brief and condensed profession of belief:

 

Full Definition of CREED

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

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

 

The Book of Mormon, or the Bible, would possibly be too protracted to fit that definition.

 

The Articles of faith fit that definition perfectly, IMO.

[LeSellers]

Well--one thing for sure--nobody can argue it's obvious to you. Maybe others also.

In his three-volume work, Creeds of Christendom, Phillip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., vol 1, ch 1, “on [sic] Creeds in General”, says:

In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved by the progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. The Bible is of God; the Confession is man's answer to God's word.

Note 10: For this reason a creed ought to use language different from that of the Bible. A string of Scripture passages would be no creed at all, as little as it would be a prayer or a hymn. A creed is, as it were, a doctrinal poem written under the inspiration of divine truth. This may be said at least of the œcumenical creeds.

Confessions, in due subordination to the Bible, are of great value and use. They are summaries of the doctrines of the Bible, aids to its sound understanding, bonds of union among their professors, public standards and guards against false doctrine and practice.

I submit that this is a better definition of “creed” than that found in the dictionary.

If this is the case, the Articles of Faith do not meet the criteria of a creed. They are not “relatively correct”, they are not different from scripture: they are scripture. They are not summaries of the doctrine of the scriptures, they are part of the canon. They may not be improved by progressive knowledge, they include the very expansion a creed requires from the outside (see Art 9).

Lehi

Edited November 21, 2015 by LeSellers

[The Folk Prophet]

 

For me

 

 

Well...there you go.

[dberrie2001]

In his three-volume work, Creeds of Christendom, Phillip Schaff, D.D., LL.D., vol 1, ch 1, “on [sic] Creeds in General”, says:

I submit that this is a better definition of “creed” than that found in the dictionary.

If this is the case, the Articles of Faith do not meet the criteria of a creed. They are not “relatively correct”, they are not different from scripture: they are scripture. They are not summaries of the doctrine of the scriptures, they are part of the canon. They may not be improved by progressive knowledge, they include the very expansion a creed requires from the outside (see Art 9).

Lehi

 

For some reason--you ignore the standard definition--and seek for some evidence to purport your view.

 

Full Definition of CREED

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

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

 

That's fine--but the fact is--the Articles of Faith fit the standard definition of the term "creed" very well. I'm not sure why some LDS fight against that obvious fact.

[LeSellers]

For some reason--you ignore the standard definition--and seek for some evidence to purport your view.

…

That's fine--but the fact is--the Articles of Faith fit the standard definition of the term "creed" very well. I'm not sure why some LDS fight against that obvious fact.

You're wrong. I do not "ignore the standard definition". As to seeking evidence to support my view, I plead guilty.

The "standard" definition you cite is insufficient. Here's another standard definition:

 

creed

noun

1. any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.

2. any system or codification of belief or of opinion.

3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.

4. the creed, Apostles' Creed.

Of the four definitions, only the third supports your contention (which, btw, I agree with in general). The first two are too general to make your case. The fourth specifies what we have been saying, i.e., that the creeds form a subset of the general definition. And it is this definition that most people think of when they hear the word "creed".

Please know that I understand you PoV. I simply do not accept it. In general conversation, the more restrictive definition is what is most useful. In more academic venues, yours is better. There are relatively few theologians in the world. The audience here is less educated in this matter.

Yes, there are some antis (and a few others) who use the word in its more general sense, one that includes the Articles of Faith. Saints should know this. But to insist that we ignore the reality that "creed" means, to most people, most of the time, the class I've labeled the "Creeds", is to fly in the face of reality.

Lehi

Edited November 21, 2015 by LeSellers

[dberrie2001]

You're wrong. I do not "ignore the standard definition". As to seeking evidence to support my view, I plead guilty.

The "standard" definition you cite is insufficient. Here's another standard definition:

 

 

creed

noun

1. any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination.

2. any system or codification of belief or of opinion.

3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.

4. the creed, Apostles' Creed.

 

Of the four definitions, only the third supports your contention (which, btw, I agree with in general). The first two are too general to make your case. The fourth specifies what we have been saying, i.e., that the creeds form a subset of the general definition. And it is this definition that most people think of when they hear the word "creed".

Please know that I understand you PoV. I simply do not accept it. In general conversation, the more restrictive definition is what is most useful. In more academic venues, yours is better. There are relatively few theologians in the world. The audience here is less educated in this matter.

Lehi

 

 I wouldn't consider the standard dictionary definition of the term "creed" particularly articulated for the educated.

 

Full Definition of CREED

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

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

[LeSellers]

Full Definition of CREED

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

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

How did this get to be the "full definition of creed"?

I found a different dictionary, and it has another definition, one that's more detailed. How did yours become the official definition and the one I found get labled substandard?

Lehi

[Guest]

Full Definition of CREED

1:  a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

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

 

 

How many times have you posted this? Do you know what people say the definition of insanity is?

 

Or perhaps you think we're not paying attention?  We are.

Do you think we didn't read it?  We did.

Do you think we didn't understand it?  We did.  It would take a pretty arrogant mind to think no one else has the intelligence to read it, go through this discussion, and still not understand what you are saying.

 

But your adherence to these specific definitions to the exclusion of any others is almost religious.  Dogmatic even.

[dberrie2001]

How did this get to be the "full definition of creed"?

I found a different dictionary, and it has another definition, one that's more detailed. How did yours become the official definition and the one I found get labled substandard?

Lehi

 

As to the "full definition of creed--It was just part of the copy and paste job. I don't believe it means a coverage of all the various definitions 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

 

I don't find anything in your alternative offer that excludes the Articles of Faith from being a creed.

 

In a definition--if one can fit the Articles of Faith into any of the components of the definition of "creed"--then it can qualify under the defined term.(in your submission--the Articles of Faith can qualify under the term "creed")

 

Lehi--where do you find me as labeling your submission as "substandard"? Could you give us a cite on that one?

[dberrie2001]

How many times have you posted this? Do you know what people say the definition of insanity is?

 

Or perhaps you think we're not paying attention?  We are.

Do you think we didn't read it?  We did.

Do you think we didn't understand it?  We did.  It would take a pretty arrogant mind to think no one else has the intelligence to read it, go through this discussion, and still not understand what you are saying.

 

But your adherence to these specific definitions to the exclusion of any others is almost religious.  Dogmatic even.

 

And, to be fair--the adherence to the "others", while ignoring the specific definitions.

 

I believe both sides of that line has legitimacy. But not to the point of the broad brush claim the Articles of faith are not a creed.

[Guest]

I believe both sides of that line has legitimacy. 

 

There it is.

 

Responses have been made to your definitions -- expressions of understanding.  You had yet to give such.  

 

But you finally did.  So, thank you.

[LeSellers]

I believe both sides of that line has legitimacy. But not to the point of the broad brush claim the Articles of faith are not a creed.

Well, if we modify the phrase "the Articles of Faith are not a classic creed", would that satisfy you?

Lehi