Question about LDS and creeds

[ChetSinger]

I've learned a lot about the LDS on this board, and occasionally an LDS-related question pops into my head.

Here's one I've been wondering about. In the First Vision, God reportedly tells Joseph Smith that all the existing creeds are abominations.

That message presumably includes the Nicene Creed, which is the test for orthodoxy here on CF. So my question is this: has LDS literature identified what is "abominable" in the Nicene Creed?

This is an honest question, not a trick one.

 

[ChetSinger]

Thanks. Can you point me to any LDS literature on the subject?

 

[Ironhold]

Thanks. Can you point me to any LDS literature on the subject?

FAQ on the LDS concept of the Godhead with numerous follow-up links to scriptures, official statements, and other resources.

How's this for a start?

 

[ChetSinger]

FAQ on the LDS concept of the Godhead with numerous follow-up links to scriptures, official statements, and other resources.

How's this for a start?

Yes, that worked. It was terse, but an expanded article written by Dallin Oaks was specific enough for me. Thanks.

 

[Ironhold]

Yes, that worked. It was terse, but an expanded article written by Dallin Oaks was specific enough for me. Thanks.

Something that people seem not to realize is how much the church has embraced the digital age.

Between the main church site and fellow website Mormon.org, one can readily find such Q&A and FAQ sections. The main website goes further by including the canon of scripture online as well as all current Sunday School manuals and archives of the official church magazines going back to 1971 (at least, as these older issues can be digitized; there are, regrettably, some gaps while they do so).

 

[Ran77]

I've learned a lot about the LDS on this board, and occasionally an LDS-related question pops into my head.

Here's one I've been wondering about. In the First Vision, God reportedly tells Joseph Smith that all the existing creeds are abominations.

That message presumably includes the Nicene Creed, which is the test for orthodoxy here on CF. So my question is this: has LDS literature identified what is "abominable" in the Nicene Creed?

This is an honest question, not a trick one.

I'm not sure there is a clear statement from Joseph Smith as to which specific practices or beliefs are meant by that statement. My understanding is that it is a declaration of manmade doctrines that have been introduced to the Gospel. The Nicene Creed came significantly after the fact and looks to me more like religion by committee rather than revelation from a prophet of God.

Off the top of my head, the concept of the Trinity is most likely to be what you are asking about. The doctrine of the Trinity is one that has been clarified by the various churches rather than something that is clearly stated in the Bible. As such, by LDS standards, it is a doctrine of men.

 

[Moodshadow]

The doctrine of the Trinity is one that has been clarified by the various churches rather than something that is clearly stated in the Bible. As such, by LDS standards, it is a doctrine of men.

...as is, by Christian standards, the doctrine of the LDS Godhead, a product of the very fertile imagination of the self-appointed "prophet, seer, and revelator," Joseph Smith.

 

[RevelationTestament]

...as is, by Christian standards, the doctrine of the LDS Godhead, a product of the very fertile imagination of the self-appointed "prophet, seer, and revelator," Joseph Smith.

As is the the Nicene Creed could be claimed as the fertile imagination of men or even the adversary since it is not in the scriptures...perhaps this is why God called it "an abomination" to Joseph Smith.

 

[ChetSinger]

As is the the Nicene Creed could be claimed as the fertile imagination of men or even the adversary since it is not in the scriptures...perhaps this is why God called it "an abomination" to Joseph Smith.

Yes, I'm learning that's the LDS teaching on the subject.

And that's one of the reasons I discount Joseph Smith. I don't think he was aware that 2nd temple Judaism did indeed have an orthodox Godhead. It was declared heretical by the rabbis in the 2nd century AD (after Christians applied that belief to Jesus) but was widespread and orthodox prior to that.

For example, see the book Two Powers in Heaven, by Jewish scholar Alan Segal.

The belief that YHWH could be a spirit enthroned in heaven while simultaneously appearing on earth, sometimes as a man, was an orthodox Jewish belief.

 

[RevelationTestament]

I've learned a lot about the LDS on this board, and occasionally an LDS-related question pops into my head.

Here's one I've been wondering about. In the First Vision, God reportedly tells Joseph Smith that all the existing creeds are abominations.

That message presumably includes the Nicene Creed, which is the test for orthodoxy here on CF. So my question is this: has LDS literature identified what is "abominable" in the Nicene Creed?

This is an honest question, not a trick one.

I don't believe there has been an official proclamation of what is "abominable" but over the course of his time as prophet of the church, Joseph Smith received several revelations which differ from most people's concept of the Godhead, and cannot really be reconciled with the creeds. In addition to the Bible Joseph Smith received a revelation telling us the Father has a body...presumably like Jesus. This comports with my current understanding of the Bible and God's name of YHWH or "behold the hand, behold the nail."

Below is my understanding of the scriptures of the Bible vs the creeds. If your screen is not in the standard resolution, it may not look too good or be too readable.

..................................................Bible vs Roman Creeds/Trinitarianism

Invites men to come freely (godly love)...................................Use of fear, compulsion, & persecution (adversary)
Bible - Covenant with God, Isaiah 61:6-8.........................................Roman Creeds - words from where?
"man shall live by every word of God" Luke 4:4.................... promulgated under the maximum priest of Roman gods
Rome is the Beast of Daniel 7:19-20 ................................(pontifex = builder of the way/roads) Pontifex Maximus office
and Rev 13, Rev 17 Woman on beast ...............................of Constantine and later Bishop of Rome (Roman Church)
Mystery, Babylon 1 Peter 5:13, Rev 17:5................................Babylon was beast of Dan 7:4 and head of image Dan 2

Apostles and Christians had no .................................................................. none 33 A.D - 325 A.D.
creeds for 3 centuries and were persecuted .............................approx 325 Nicea 1st Creed -required by Roman law ............................................................................................to be read in churches - persecution stops

Elohim - a plural Hebrew noun ex. Family .....................Deity(Latin) - a singular "god" idea/word from Rome & Greece
Gen 1:26 "And Eloheim said let US..............................................Rome is beast of Dan 7:19-20, Dan 2 kingdom of iron
make man in OUR image." (includes Father & Son).........................Greece is beast of Dan 7:6, Dan 2 kingdom of brass
God created the world through Jesus Christ Eph 3:9......................Persia is beast of Dan 7:5, Dan 2 kingdom of silver
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Babylon is beast of Dan 7:4, Dan 2 head of gold

Godhead Acts 17:29 KJV, Col 2:9, Ps 82:1..........................Trinity - coined by Tertullian who also said the Son had a ........................................................................................beginning - sorry Trins
https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng.......................... ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian

"The Father and I are one"
Father - Most High(El Elyon) - Psalms 47:2-3, Psalms 110:1, Acts 7:55...................Father "co-equal, one substance, ............................................................. .........................................................one being" the Almighty

Son - Holy One of Israel - Isaiah 54:5 KJV, Acts 13:35....................Son "co-equal, co-substantial, one being"
Son of the Most High, servant - Isaiah 42:1, 6, 8, .................................... Son of the Almighty God
"Enough Breast" (El Shaddai) - Rev 1:8, 4:8, Jn 8:58, Gen 17:1 ...................per Apostles Creed and others
"The Father is greater than I."
"Who hath seen me, hath seen the Father."
"Whatsoever the Father doeth the Son doeth likewise." "I am the way." Jn 14:6
Inheritor - now on right hand, but will sit in Father's stead & be called Father .......... immutable - Son forever ................................................................................................Platonic/Aristotlian(Greece again) concept
Isaiah 9:6, "inheritor of my mountains" Isaiah 65:9; Heb 1:4.......................but already "co-equal"; denies ...........................................................................................................inheritance; enemy to Christ
Under the Hebraic law, the firstborn or begotten inherited all his father had.

only begotten .................................................. ........................325 creed - "begotten before all worlds"
Heb 7:28 Oath of the Father - .........................................................under Bishop of Rome as Pontifex maximus
"Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." ............................... became "eternally begotten"

John 15:16 Pray/ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ .......................... Pray to Son or Mary

Holy Ghost ...................................................................................... Holy Ghost - not declared
Matt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, ...... co-substantial in Nicean Creed - oops!
it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, .............Constantinople 381 A.D.- ................................................................................................declared as co-equal & one substance
it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come............... with the Son ...............................................................................................................(blasphemy against HG?)

Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Descended upon Jesus in form of dove in River Jordan ...............sprinkle sinless infants with "holy water" salted ...............................................................................................like in pagan roman holy water

Prophets/Apostles/Bishops, etc.....................................vicarius filii dei (666) in Donation of Constantine until ruled ........................................................................................a fake (fallible?)
. . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . .tiaras destroyed by Napoleon
Jesus: "call no man Father" Matt 23:9....................................."pope" from popa or literally daddy, father; "holy father"
John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: .............. dark ages, inquisitions, crusades against "heretics"
for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. ...........who made claim to Jesus' name
"You shall know them by their fruits" Matt 7:15-16

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.......Truth suppression, fabrications John 8:44
Gen 3:3,22.......................................................................................Gen 3:1,4,5
Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution[restoration] of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Josh 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, ... but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
"The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints." Ephesians 1:18.
AMEN

Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

The Matt 28:20 Church




Copyright RevelationTestament.net - license granted for one copy, no reproduction

 

[RevelationTestament]

Yes, I'm learning that's the LDS teaching on the subject.

And that's one of the reasons I discount Joseph Smith. I don't think he was aware that 2nd temple Judaism did indeed have an orthodox Godhead. It was declared heretical by the rabbis in the 2nd century AD (after Christians applied that belief to Jesus) but was widespread and orthodox prior to that.

For example, see the book Two Powers in Heaven, by Jewish scholar Alan Segal.

The belief that YHWH could be a spirit enthroned in heaven while simultaneously appearing on earth, sometimes as a man, was an orthodox Jewish belief.

That may or may not be the case, but nevertheless, that does not comport with trinitarian doctrine, but seems more like oneness thinking.
The Bible describes Jesus as a person with a separate will, and a separate spirit from the Father which He subjected unto the Father's will. All the orthodox Jews or even unorthodox Jews I have encountered believe the Father to be the only YHWH, and that it is blasphemy for a man to be YHWH. So I strongly doubt this theory that Orthodox Jews at one time believed YHWH could be a man. Indeed, that is why they crucified Jesus. Exactly because they believed that was blasphemy!! When they are confronted with passages which tell us the branch will be called YHWH or that all Jerusalem will be called YHWH, they do not accept its plain meaning but they wrest the scriptures, like the Orthodox do when they are told the Hebrews were elohim - even when Jesus insists the law cannot be broken.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A few posts have been removed in a mini thread clean up. Please remember the Board Rules when posting. If you feel a post is in violation report it and do not reply to it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[ChetSinger]

...All the orthodox Jews or even unorthodox Jews I have encountered believe the Father to be the only YHWH, and that it is blasphemy for a man to be YHWH. So I strongly doubt this theory that Orthodox Jews at one time believed YHWH could be a man...

Well, during the 2nd temple period the "two powers in heaven" belief was both widespread and orthodox, and became the foundation of Christianity when it was applied to Jesus of Nazareth. The rabbis declared it heretical in the 2nd century AD, after Christianity appropriated it and began spreading throughout the Roman Empire.

Dr. Segal's book demonstrates this, using rabbinical writings of the period.

Interestingly, one of the verses the rabbis used to support the belief was this one: "YHWH is a man of war; YHWH is his name." - Ex 15:3. Another was the "Son of Man" passage in Daniel, the very one that got Jesus condemned when he applied it to himself. Why did it get him condemned? Because his listeners knew he was claiming deity: the Son of Man was believed to be an example of the divine "second power in heaven". Jesus brought his own trial to a sudden end by claiming to be the physical incarnation of YHWH. To his skeptical listeners, who knew he grew up in Galilee under Jewish parents, of course he appeared to be blaspheming.

Further information can be found at Two Powers in Heaven, run by Hebrew scholar Michael Heiser. Check out the bibliography which identifies numerous supporting scholarly books and articles.

Yes, there is a genuine Jewish basis for orthodox Christianity. But you have to look at Judaism as it existed in Jesus' time. I don't believe Joseph Smith ever did. How could he? He had no training in 2nd temple rabbinical writings.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, during the 2nd temple period the "two powers in heaven" belief was both widespread and orthodox, and became the foundation of Christianity when it was applied to Jesus of Nazareth. The rabbis declared it heretical in the 2nd century AD, after Christianity appropriated it and began spreading throughout the Roman Empire.

Dr. Segal's book demonstrates this, using rabbinical writings of the period.

Interestingly, one of the verses the rabbis used to support the belief was this one: "YHWH is a man of war; YHWH is his name." - Ex 15:3. Another was the "Son of Man" passage in Daniel, the very one that got Jesus condemned when he applied it to himself. Why did it get him condemned? Because his listeners knew he was claiming deity: the Son of Man was believed to be an example of the divine "second power in heaven". Jesus brought his own trial to a sudden end by claiming to be the physical incarnation of YHWH. To his skeptical listeners, who knew he grew up in Galilee under Jewish parents, of course he appeared to be blaspheming.

Further information can be found at Two Powers in Heaven, run by Hebrew scholar Michael Heiser. Check out the bibliography which identifies numerous supporting scholarly books and articles.

Yes, there is a genuine Jewish basis for orthodox Christianity. But you have to look at Judaism as it existed in Jesus' time. I don't believe Joseph Smith ever did. How could he? He had no training in 2nd temple rabbinical writings.

That certainly did not hinder him from claiming to have "restored" the Church to its first-century purity as a result of divine revelation. If God knew about Judaism as it existed in Jesus' time don't you think He would have revealed that to His Prophet, Seer, and Revelator?

 

[RevelationTestament]

That certainly did not hinder him from claiming to have "restored" the Church to its first-century purity as a result of divine revelation. If God knew about Judaism as it existed in Jesus' time don't you think He would have revealed that to His Prophet, Seer, and Revelator?

Then why not just reveal everything to Adam and get it over with already? Why teach precept upon precept, here a little and there a little? Why send Jesus as a messenger of the covenant?

 

[RevelationTestament]

Well, during the 2nd temple period the "two powers in heaven" belief was both widespread and orthodox, and became the foundation of Christianity when it was applied to Jesus of Nazareth. The rabbis declared it heretical in the 2nd century AD, after Christianity appropriated it and began spreading throughout the Roman Empire.

Dr. Segal's book demonstrates this, using rabbinical writings of the period.

Interestingly, one of the verses the rabbis used to support the belief was this one: "YHWH is a man of war; YHWH is his name." - Ex 15:3. Another was the "Son of Man" passage in Daniel, the very one that got Jesus condemned when he applied it to himself. Why did it get him condemned? Because his listeners knew he was claiming deity: the Son of Man was believed to be an example of the divine "second power in heaven".

If what you are claiming is what the Jews actually believed then why did they persecute Jesus - if they believed there could be a second power in heaven? Your claim doesn't make sense and in fact is contrary to what the NT reveals they believed. They did not believe a man could be God. Yet, the Ps calls this man Elohim according to Hebrews 1:9.

 

[ChetSinger]

If what you are claiming is what the Jews actually believed then why did they persecute Jesus - if they believed there could be a second power in heaven? Your claim doesn't make sense and in fact is contrary to what the NT reveals they believed. They did not believe a man could be God. Yet, the Ps calls this man Elohim according to Hebrews 1:9.

It makes perfect sense because his Jewish listeners knew that he didn't just appear out of nowhere as a grown man, as YHWH sometimes did in the OT. Rather, he was born to a Jewish mother and grew up as a child in Galilee. How could he possibly be the Son of Man described in Daniel?

Try re-reading Jesus' trial in the synoptic Gospels: Mt 26:59-66, Mark 14:55-64, and Luke 22:66-71. You'll see that Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man in Daniel ended the trial with a conviction of blasphemy. It's because the Son of Man was an example of the divine Second Power, and Jesus was believed to be merely a Jewish man of known origin and common social standing.

As an aside, one of the divine-indicating attributes of the Son of Man in Daniel is that he's a cloud-walker. In the Canaanite divine assemblies, only gods walked on the clouds.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Then why not just reveal everything to Adam and get it over with already? Why teach precept upon precept, here a little and there a little? Why send Jesus as a messenger of the covenant?

Why not, indeed?

 

[RevelationTestament]

It makes perfect sense because his Jewish listeners knew that he didn't just appear out of nowhere as a grown man, as YHWH sometimes did in the OT. Rather, he was born to a Jewish mother and grew up as a child in Galilee. How could he possibly be the Son of Man described in Daniel?

Try re-reading Jesus' trial in the synoptic Gospels: Mt 26:59-66, Mark 14:55-64, and Luke 22:66-71. You'll see that Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man in Daniel ended the trial with a conviction of blasphemy. It's because the Son of Man was an example of the divine Second Power, and Jesus was believed to be merely a Jewish man of known origin and common social standing.

As an aside, one of the divine-indicating attributes of the Son of Man in Daniel is that he's a cloud-walker. In the Canaanite divine assemblies, only gods walked on the clouds.

I don't agree at all. Prophets were referred to as "son of man" as well throughout the OT. Further, I see no claim that Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man in Daniel. Daniel was apparently referred to as the son of man in Dan 8:17. Daniel also speaks of one like the Son of Man.
Jesus was not convicted for being the Son of Man, but for claiming to be the Son of God.
Matt 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: [Christ did not deny it. This was the "blasphemy"] nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

 

[Ironhold]

Why not, indeed?

Would you try to teach Accounting 101 to a kindergartner?

Or would you need to teach them addition and subtraction first?