LDS Why are Christian creeds considered abominations?

Cite ANYONE on CF (who is a Christian) advocating this. Otherwise, it is a cheap shot and goading in that it takes unnamed incidents and takes a swipe at Christians.

Ironhold said:

Either way, we have "Good Christians" who say that we all need to be put to the sword simply for being LDS.

...even after we point out how much we have in common theologically. If anything, pointing out the points of commonality just makes people even more upset.

Click to expand...

Well for some it may be the issue of Mormonism being Christian like, or emulating Christianity (I mean not only is Mormonism on it's face similar to traditional Christianity, Mormons do profess to be Christian). And as such it's in a somewhat deceiving position when presented to non-believers I would presume is their argument. I mean yes there are some similarities theologically, but there are some pretty BIG differences as well you have have to admit.

That said, I've never heard anyone suggest anything about "putting Mormons to the sword". I've heard some uncharitable things about Mormons personally, but that mainly has to do with a great aunt who converted to Mormonism and eventually alienated the rest of the extended family (and some of her own kids) as a result of being a pretty hardcore devout Mormon. Typically though the only things I hear about Mormons are that they're nice people whose beliefs might be a tad odd to a mainline Christian.

Jane_Doe said:

Point of clarification: what do you see as the difference between not professing the creeds, and not believing the creeds beliefs?

Click to expand...

I would imagine that would be pretty self explainatory. The former may not actively profess the creeds, but their actual beliefs would line up with the creeds almost exactly if they did profess them. Belief in the trinity, etc...

Those that don't would fit in the latter category such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses who deny these beliefs.

Padres1969 said:

I would imagine that would be pretty self explainatory. The former may not actively profess the creeds, but their actual beliefs would line up with the creeds almost exactly if they did profess them. Belief in the trinity, etc...

Click to expand...

So essentially someone has to agree with these extra-Biblical documents, whether or not they verbally say that they done being irrelevant?

From the Mormon creed:

1. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
   
   Yes, that's an abomination.
   
   Now this one sounds good...until they explain who they think Jesus is:
   1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
      ref
      
      

Jane_Doe said:

So essentially someone has to agree with these extra-Biblical documents, whether or not they verbally say that they done being irrelevant?

Click to expand...

That's the point though, while they're not from the bible verbatim, what they contain is clearly biblical. So while some Christian churches may not profess them directly, they do so indirectly through the bible itself.

fatboys said:

I have as well and do you think that I or any one else would want to mesons record of idiots who want is dead? He is not making it up. Just because you would do such a thing there are many others who would and claim they love Jesus.

Click to expand...

You might want to correct that, otherwise you are making an unfounded accusation at Dr. Steve. I would hope that you meant he would not do such a thing.

BigDaddy4 said:

You might want to correct that, otherwise you are making an unfounded accusation at Dr. Steve. I would hope that you meant he would not do such a thing.

Click to expand...

I think he meant...

Just because you would not do such a thing there are many others who would and claim they love Jesus.

Click to expand...

.... and left out a word.

I do think this is an unfounded generalization. Some people have an extra finger but that does not make it the norm.

Padres1969 said:

That's the point though, while they're not from the bible, what they contain is clearly biblical. So while some Christian churches may not profess them directly, they do so indirectly through the bible itself.

Click to expand...

Could there be legitimate interpretations of God's Word that are not found in man-written creeds? After all, most (if not all) of the creeds were written as the result some controversy.

Here’s the actual quote;

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Some anti Mormons have tried to say Joseph was saying all professors/ministers were corrupt but there is another meaning;

Dic; 4. somebody professing belief: somebody who professes a religious or other belief

Many different faiths even today require a profession of belief in certain creeds before they can be accepted into the denomination. I think the intent was the idea one must profess a creed. Those professors were corrupt.

Even right here on these forms one must profess a belief in the Nicene Creed before they are considered Christian thus saved. Which is odd because it ends with “We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” and many Evangelicals reject the that notion.

The Athanasian creed starts and ends this ways;

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship ….(A,B and C about God)…..This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.”

Jesus never said you have to believe A, B, and C about God but that we need to have faith enough in him to repent, call on him for forgiveness and be baptized in his name. Then he added that we need to be a “good and faithful servant”.

What really set me back and caused me to reject the Trinity was this line.

“The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible…..As also there are not three incomprehensibles,…”

The first passage which came to mind was

“And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” John 1:5

And

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John 17

*And then this line;

“neither confounding the persons, ….

Meaning we understand them to be two separate beings

..nor dividing the substance”

But we don’t divide them into two separate beings…..????

It’s ridiculous!

drstevej said:

Document or retract.

Click to expand...

Would if I could actually return to the boards in question.

One's dead, and some of the others forced me out because they didn't want to have a Mormon in their midst.

Padres1969 said:

That's the point though, while they're not from the bible, what they contain is clearly biblical. So while some Christian churches may not profess them directly, they do so indirectly through the bible itself.

Click to expand...

Problem is, we've encountered individual creeds - like the Athanasean Creed - where people we've spoken with *cannot* point to the Bible as its origin.

Ironhold said:

Problem is, we've encountered individual creeds - like the Athanasean Creed - where people we've spoken with *cannot* point to the Bible as its origin.

Click to expand...

Can't speak to the Athanasean Creed, but it also isn't one of the two typically held creeds in common use, the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Both of which are wholly biblical.

drstevej said:

I think he meant...


.... and left out a word.

I do think this is an unfounded generalization. Some people have an extra finger but that does not make it the norm.

Click to expand...

I agree, and was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that he left out a word. But they are his words and his responsibility to correct them if he so chooses.

I've seen many unfounded generalizations lately from the lds. Put to the sword, Jack Chick references, babies condemed to hell...

withwonderingawe said:

Here’s the actual quote;

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Some anti Mormons have tried to say Joseph was saying all professors/ministers were corrupt but there is another meaning

Dic; 4. somebody professing belief: somebody who professes a religious or other belief

Many different faiths even today require a profession of belief in certain creeds before they can be accepted into the denomination. I think the intent was the idea one must profess a creed. Those professors were corrupt.

Click to expand...

Then post the specific creeds that these specific "corrupt" professors were teaching that were an abominiation in your mysterious personage's sight.

Ironhold said:

Problem is, we've encountered individual creeds - like the Athanasean Creed - where people we've spoken with *cannot* point to the Bible as its origin.

Click to expand...

No, the problem is you are trying to use a little known, little used creed to prove your wide open, unsubstantiated generalizations. You are a self-proclaimed stickler for evidence and citations, yet you fail to do so yourself. Some people may call that hypocritical.

Padres1969 said:

Can't speak to the Athanasean Creed, but it also isn't one of the two typically held creeds in common use, the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Both of which are wholly biblical.

Click to expand...

Apostles' Creed
* I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

There is a problem with that statement

“ 1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds”

The creed should be more specific, Yes it was God the Father El who planned and command the creation of heaven and earth but it was the Son who carried it out.

In Isa 45 Yahweh the Lord of Host says; I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

But he stops short of taking all of the glory.

“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God/Elohim himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.”

*who was conceived by the Holy Spirit

Mmmm.... Luke seems to be the one that actually interviewed Mary and he says;

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

The Highest would have to be God the Father, Jesus is begotten of God the Father.

Other than those two points I can agree with it.


Nicene Creed

*I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

Again the same problem as with the Apostles Creed, it needs to be more specific, which it does later. I would also change the word invisible to unseen.

*And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds;

Agree completely depending on how one defines and the begetting.

*God of God, Light of Light,

Should read God of gods, Light of lights

*very God of very God;

His God anointed him God above his fellows, it that’s what it means???

*begotten, not made,

Yes in that the idea of something from nothing is not true, nothing is “made” from nothing. Jesus always existed, God the Father organized the spirit body to house Yahweh/Jesus’ eternal light or intelligence.

*being of one substance with the Father,

If you’re talking about the light within him okay, even his begotten body of the flesh carried the Father’s substance because it was begotten by him. But I doubt we are on the same page here.

*Then there is this line “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins” which I agree with whole heartedly but I was under the impression most Evangelicals don’t agree with. They believe the remission of sins occurs the moment one believes? So what do you think about that line?

BigDaddy4 said:

Then post the specific creeds that these specific "corrupt" professors were teaching that were an abominiation in your mysterious personage's sight.

Click to expand...

I believe I did mention several points from the Athanasian creed in the very post you are quoting from, did you not read all the way through?

withwonderingawe said:

I believe I did mention several points from the Athanasian creed in the very post you are quoting from, did you not read all the way through?

Click to expand...

I did read your post. However, like most of your claims, you have provided no evidence that it was this creed, or any other specific creed, that those specific professors were teaching that made them corrupt. Until you can make that link, you are just making an unsubstantiated assumption.

BigDaddy4 said:

I did read your post. However, like most of your claims, you have provided no evidence that it was this creed, or any other specific creed, that those specific professors were teaching that made them corrupt. Until you can make that link, you are just making an unsubstantiated assumption.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is, it says "all their creeds" and the forced profession of those Christian Creeds in general.