LDS Why are Christian creeds considered abominations?

[ChetSinger]

I've read various accounts of the First Vision where Joseph Smith claims that God told him that "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight".

So I'm curious about this: what statements in our creeds are abominable? Would any LDS member like to choose a creed and explain?

 

[Ironhold]

I raised this one up earlier, but here goes -

Athanasian Creed

To begin with, I've met mainline Christians - including several "defenders of the faith" - that did not even know this existed. This does not say good things about the religious environment that these people experience.

From there, we have the Creed itself. One would think that a Creed would be in simple, easy-to-understand language that even a layperson would be able to make sense of. Instead, a person could be forgiven for believing that this was written by bureaucrats instead of theologians. The Creed is astoundingly wordy, such that IIRC it's longer than a few of the shortest chapters in the Bible. A good chunk of this wordiness comes from an effort to try and somehow declare that the church believes in three figures but doesn't qualify for status as a polytheistic faith.

The end result is that what should be a basic statement for believers is more complicated than some legal decisions I've read; by way of comparison, I offer Wales Industries Inc. v. Hasbro-Bradley Inc., which I was asked to translate from legalese by some folks on another website.

 

[BigDaddy4]

I raised this one up earlier, but here goes -

Athanasian Creed

To begin with, I've met mainline Christians - including several "defenders of the faith" - that did not even know this existed. This does not say good things about the religious environment that these people experience.

From there, we have the Creed itself. One would think that a Creed would be in simple, easy-to-understand language that even a layperson would be able to make sense of. Instead, a person could be forgiven for believing that this was written by bureaucrats instead of theologians. The Creed is astoundingly wordy, such that IIRC it's longer than a few of the shortest chapters in the Bible. A good chunk of this wordiness comes from an effort to try and somehow declare that the church believes in three figures but doesn't qualify for status as a polytheistic faith.

The end result is that what should be a basic statement for believers is more complicated than some legal decisions I've read; by way of comparison, I offer Wales Industries Inc. v. Hasbro-Bradley Inc., which I was asked to translate from legalese by some folks on another website.

What specifically about the Creed is an abomination?

 

[Jane_Doe]

I've read various accounts of the First Vision where Joseph Smith claims that God told him that "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight".

So I'm curious about this: what statements in our creeds are abominable? Would any LDS member like to choose a creed and explain?

In general--
1) It is admirable to hold a man-made document (such as the creeds) anywhere near the level of God-breathed scripture.
2) The man-made creeds add things to scripture which are simply not there.
3) The man-made creeds are (sometimes, but far from always) used as whacking sticks to shut out views of God-breathed scripture.
4) The word of God should be our anthem, not words of man.

 

[Ironhold]

What specifically about the Creed is an abomination?

It's abominable in the sense that it's a bureaucratic declaration instead of an honest statement of belief.

 

[drstevej]

It's abominable in the sense that it's a bureaucratic declaration instead of an honest statement of belief.

Kinda like OD2 ???

 

[Ironhold]

Kinda like OD2 ???

OD#2 was written so as to bring the church in compliance with the laws of the land. Everyone understood what was going on, and it was also understood that the church was doing so in response to *another* commandment: the one to obey the law.

 

[drstevej]

OD#2 was written so as to bring the church in compliance with the laws of the land. Everyone understood what was going on, and it was also understood that the church was doing so in response to *another* commandment: the one to obey the law.

That's not what history shows:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

 

[BigDaddy4]

It's abominable in the sense that it's a bureaucratic declaration instead of an honest statement of belief.

So you have no specifics.

Other than your prophet making the bold declaration that God told him that all creeds were an abomination, are there any specific "abominations" the lds has an official position on?

 

[ChetSinger]

So you have no specifics.

Other than your prophet making the bold declaration that God told him that all creeds were an abomination, are there any specific "abominations" the lds has an official position on?

That's what I'm trying to discover. The "all creeds are abominations" statement is a bold one, as "abominations" is a heavily-loaded word.

Here's the Old Roman Creed. I don't think there's anything even incorrect in it, much less abominable:

I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh,
the life everlasting.​

My question is this: what in the world does the LDS believe is abominable about it, if anything?

 

[Jane_Doe]

That's what I'm trying to discover. The "all creeds are abominations" statement is a bold one, as "abominations" is a heavily-loaded word.

Here's the Old Roman Creed. I don't think there's anything even incorrect in it, much less abominable:

I believe in God the Father almighty;
and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh,
the life everlasting.​

My question is this: what in the world does the LDS believe is abominable about it, if anything?

There is nothing wrong with this posted creed. Other creeds are problematic, for reasons I posted in #4.

 

[BigDaddy4]

There is nothing wrong with this posted creed. Other creeds are problematic, for reasons I posted in #4.

What you posted was also general in nature. Are those your opinions, or is there something "official" from your church on any specific creeds?

 

[Padres1969]

I raised this one up earlier, but here goes -

Athanasian Creed

To begin with, I've met mainline Christians - including several "defenders of the faith" - that did not even know this existed. This does not say good things about the religious environment that these people experience.

From there, we have the Creed itself. One would think that a Creed would be in simple, easy-to-understand language that even a layperson would be able to make sense of. Instead, a person could be forgiven for believing that this was written by bureaucrats instead of theologians. The Creed is astoundingly wordy, such that IIRC it's longer than a few of the shortest chapters in the Bible. A good chunk of this wordiness comes from an effort to try and somehow declare that the church believes in three figures but doesn't qualify for status as a polytheistic faith.

The end result is that what should be a basic statement for believers is more complicated than some legal decisions I've read; by way of comparison, I offer Wales Industries Inc. v. Hasbro-Bradley Inc., which I was asked to translate from legalese by some folks on another website.

Well for one, the Athanasian Creed is not held in active use by many mainline faiths. And even for those that do hold to it, it has long been de-ephasized in favor of the older and more direct ecumenical Nicene Creed, and the simpler and also older Apostles Creed. Both for simplicity sake and in part due to the condemnation filled nature and wordiness of the Athanasian Creed. And that's just in the west, the east almost universally has not used the Athanasian Creed.

As for the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, hard to see where anything in the text is hard to understand or isn't in "simple" language. I mean clearly the Nicene Creed is the longer of the two. But there's nothing in there that's hard to understand or that isn't a basic summation of the Biblical scripture.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the
Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy
catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one
baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.

In general--
1) It is admirable to hold a man-made document (such as the creeds) anywhere near the level of God-breathed scripture.
2) The man-made creeds add things to scripture which are simply not there.
3) The man-made creeds are (sometimes, but far from always) used as whacking sticks to shut out views of God-breathed scripture.
4) The word of God should be our anthem, not words of man.

1) No one holds the Apostles or Nicene Creeds to the level of Biblical Scripture. If anything they're a simple summation of the basics of the New Testament Scripture.

2) Not seeing where anything was added to scripture by what is listed in the above Nicene Creed, or the Apostles or Roman Creed listed above.

3) What views from Biblical Scripture are "whacked out" by either of the two primarily used Creeds (or that Roman Creed posted above)? And heck, part of those creeds comes directly from a biblical creed contained in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

4) The Creeds aren't "Anthems" they're simple statements of belief that define what most Christians believe. If anything they're a wonderful ecumenical unifying statement. But they're not an Anthem. If Christians have an Anthem it's the biblical scriptures directly.

 

[Ironhold]

This, however, goes back to the question I asked earlier:

"If the Creeds are not being elevated to the level of Biblical canon, then why is so much wrath reserved for those who reject them even if they hold to everything else Christianity holds to?"

 

[Jane_Doe]

1) No one holds the Apostles or Nicene Creeds to the level of Biblical Scripture. If anything they're a simple summation of the basics of the New Testament Scripture.

Would you accept someone who believe the Bible, but not the Creeds, as a fellow Christian? Or do you use the man-made creeds as your compass?

2) Not seeing where anything was added to scripture by what is listed in the above Nicene Creed, or the Apostles or Roman Creed listed above.

One example among many: the idea that the Father, Son, and Spirit are co-substantail.

3) What views from Biblical Scripture are "whacked out" by either of the two primarily used Creeds (or that Roman Creed posted above)? And heck, part of those creeds comes directly from a biblical creed contained in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

Ironhold address this quite nicely.

4) The Creeds aren't "Anthems" they're simple statements of belief that define what most Christians believe. If anything they're a wonderful ecumenical unifying statement. But they're not an Anthem. If Christians have an Anthem it's the biblical scriptures directly.

Many churches recite and/or memorize creeds. Such is an anthem, and it's not scripture. Scripture should be our bounds, not the words of man.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Creeds are affirmations of the faith. Their entire purpose is to say where we, as the Church, draw our line in the sand.

From this, saying "I reject the Creeds but believe the Scriptures" is an oxymoron, one can't affirm the Scriptures and reject the Creeds. The Bible doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in tandem with the faith of the Church.

But this gets us to a more fundamental issue: There is something very perplexing about simultaneously rejecting the Church and affirming the Church's Scripture. The only Bible that exists is the one which came into existence through the general consensus of the Church catholic (a case could be made that the Jewish Tanakh is the sole exception, though for our purposes we're talking about Christian Bibles not Jewish Bibles). Said Bible cannot be divorced from the faith of the Church through which it came to be, because literally one of the essential criteria for what was acceptable to be read in the churches as part of the Church's worship (i.e. the Bible) was that it did not violate well established catholic Christian teaching. This was one of the chief reasons why the Shepherd of Hermas, ultimately, did not make the cut into the New Testament, there was a growing consensus that the Shepherd advocated an Adoptionist Christology.

If one is truly convinced that the Church catholic, at a very early time and at a very fundamental level fell into error, such that the Creeds and the core faith of the Church catholic no longer represented the authentic apostolic religion, then it also follows that the Church's Scriptures are, at the very least, suspect. What is perplexing is the willingness of certain groups to assert a near or, in fact, total disconnect with the historic catholic Church and said Church's major articles of faith, but still cling to the Scriptures of that Church.

Wouldn't it be far more honest, if one believes in a restoration or reconstruction of ancient apostolic Christianity to, if one is reinventing the wheel anyway, do so in regard also to the Canon? Yet in virtually every instance the modern Protestant Canon, sans "Apocrypha", is accepted as-is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Padres1969]

Would you accept someone who believe the Bible, but not the Creeds, as a fellow Christian? Or do you use the man-made creeds as your compass?

I use them as a compass, as they are a basic summation and statement of Christian faith. But there are those that aren't creedal Christians whom I accept as fellow Christians based on their stated beliefs (which usually align very close to the creeds)

One example among many: the idea that the Father, Son, and Spirit are co-substantail.

And how is that not biblical? I'd direct you to passages like John 10:30, 1 John 5:7, John 1:1, Matthew 28:19, Colossians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 8:6 (That and I'd just point out many churches don't use "consubstantial" in the translation. That line in my church for example is "of one being".)

Ironhold address this quite nicely.

You'll have to point it out. Because I'm not seeing where he's addressed this issue of the creeds supposedly whacking out biblical scripture.

Many churches recite and/or memorize creeds. Such is an anthem, and it's not scripture. Scripture should be our bounds, not the words of man.

As I said, it's nothing but a simple affirmation of basic faith principles taken from scripture and arguably produced by the last ecumenical council that all of Chrisendom was a part of where the Holy Spirit was clearly present. And yes they are recited by some churches, but not by rote, and not even necessarily regularly. The words of the Our Father are just as regularly if not more so spoken.

 

[fatboys]

I use them as a compass, as they are a basic summation and statement of Christian faith. But there are those that aren't creedal Christians whom I accept as fellow Christians based on their stated beliefs (which usually align very close to the creeds)


And how is that not biblical? I'd direct you to passages like John 10:30, 1 John 5:7, John 1:1, Matthew 28:19, Colossians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 8:6 (That and I'd just point out many churches don't use "consubstantial" in the translation. That line in my church for example is "of one being".)


You'll have to point it out. Because I'm not seeing where he's addressed this issue of the creeds supposedly whacking out biblical scripture.

As I said, it's nothing but a simple affirmation of basic faith principles taken from scripture and arguably produced by the last ecumenical council that all of Chrisendom was a part of where the Holy Spirit was clearly present. And yes they are recited by some churches, but not by rote, and not even necessarily regularly. The words of the Our Father are just as regularly if not more so spoken.

Written by a bunch of men

 

[Padres1969]

Written by a bunch of men

Inspired by the Holy Spirit. I mean if you want to get into being written by men the entire bible and your Book of Mormon were written by men too.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Do you view them as God breathed, on par with the Bible?