Why was it revealed to JS that 'all other creeds are an abomination?'


iguy2314
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all, I am new here. I am currently investigating the LDS church with the help of some missionaries. This troubled me deeply, as I believe there is truth in all creeds and churches and that God would appreciate anyone trying to worship him as they see it.

 

 

"I was answered that I must join none of ... [the churches], for they were all wrong ...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. He again forbade me to join with any of them."

History 1:19

 

Does the LDS Church actually teach and believe this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its right there in our scriptures....  So yes we believe it...

 

The real question is to you understand what God is saying there? 

 

He says the other churches were wrong...  Note he didn't say evil, or wicked, or sinful...  Just wrong.  You can have some truths but in the areas you don't have truth then you are likely to be wrong.

 

Then he rips the Creeds as abominations.  Do you know what the Creeds are?  Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed

 

Read some of them.  Read how they describe God.  Read how they are required to be accepted if you want to be a member of that faith.  Then remember the scripture that talk about the importance of Knowing God.  Then read what God revealed to Joseph Smith about the nature of God

 

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

 

That simple verse shows just how much the Creeds get wrong on the nature of God.  The Creeds require everyone of that faith to believe what they state thus meaning that they don't Know God. (Kind of abomination don't you think?)

 

Its comes down to the Creeds when you hear people saying that the LDS (aka Mormons) are not Christan or that we follow a 'different' God. 

 

Of course those that believe the Creeds will see it differently.  That is their right.  But for someone looking into the Church it becomes something they should take the time to study and pray about so they can know what God would have them believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the word abomination just rubbed me the wrong way.

 

noun: abomination; plural noun: abominations
a thing that causes disgust or hatred.
"this bill is an abomination to all mankind"
synonyms: atrocity, disgrace, horror, obscenity, outrage, evil, crime, monstrosity, anathema, bane

 

 

And I suppose if you believe in the LDS Church being restored, then the Creeds (Nicene Creed/Apostles Creed?) would have to be false and thus "wrong" about God. But the idea of a Creed in and of itself does not bother me, it doesn't seem inherently bad. To my understanding, they were developed out of the councils to defend against some pretty crazy ideas about God (I.E. Christ not being fully human, but a sort of God-hero, stuff like that)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lord also said in reference to the creeds, "...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.” I think reading it in context is helpful and helps explain why Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph. 

 

I can only imagine that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ being two distinct personages, Glorified and having bodies of flesh and bones would make the creeds and professions of belief by the various Christian sects an abomination describing them as Elder McConkie put it, "... as a three-in-one spirit essence that fills the immensity of space; it teaches that it and they are without body, parts, or passions; it acclaims that it and they are unknown, unknowable, and uncreated, and specifies, in the creeds, that unless we believe all these things we cannot be saved."

 

There purpose was to restore the Gospel and reveal Truth again to an apostate world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all, I am new here. I am currently investigating the LDS church with the help of some missionaries. This troubled me deeply, as I believe there is truth in all creeds and churches and that God would appreciate anyone trying to worship him as they see it.

 

 

"I was answered that I must join none of ... [the churches], for they were all wrong ...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. He again forbade me to join with any of them."

History 1:19

 

Does the LDS Church actually teach and believe this?

 

This is perhaps one of the most misunderstood quotes of Smith. Noticed he said "their creeds" which is different from "All Churches that are not LDS are an abomination in his sight".

 

 

 

“I stated that the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints … are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.”6

 

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes [limits], and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’ [Job 38:11]; which I cannot subscribe to.”7

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng

 

Hinckley:

 

 

 

To these we say in a spirit of love, bring with you all that you have of good and truth which you have received from whatever source, and come and let us see if we may add to it.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/the-marvelous-foundation-of-our-faith?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Then he rips the Creeds as abominations.  Do you know what the Creeds are?  Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed

 

Read some of them.  Read how they describe God.  Read how they are required to be accepted if you want to be a member of that faith.

 

 

Creeds are simply a church's statements of beliefs; something similar would be your own Articles of Faith. An abomination is something that is detestable. How are another Christian faith's beliefs detestable? And I don't know of very many churches that are truly creedal, where they require affirmation of a creed as a condition of membership.

 

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

 

That simple verse shows just how much the Creeds get wrong on the nature of God.  The Creeds require everyone of that faith to believe what they state thus meaning that they don't Know God. (Kind of abomination don't you think?)

 

 

Creeds of a non-LDS church are not going describe a God they do not believe in, an LDS description of God. They will describe God as they understand Him. If you find another faith's beliefs about God detestable then should I remind you of your own 11th Article of Faith.

 

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the problem with creeds are not so much what they say, though this is often a problem, but rather the limits they place on belief. Joseph once explained,“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.” (HC 6:57) Any time we place a limit on what we believe we cut ourselves off from revelation and further light.

The world fears to belive too much about God and his ways. They seek hard to set up limits about who God is and corral people to their way of thinking. As lds we must not do the same. Frankly, I fear that we have set up too many limits ourselves. Certain early doctrine is now rejected by many members. Joseph did not fear a person believing too much if he searched in the light of the spirit, but rather too little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creeds are simply a church's statements of beliefs; something similar would be your own Articles of Faith. An abomination is something that is detestable. How are another Christian faith's beliefs detestable? And I don't know of very many churches that are truly creedal, where they require affirmation of a creed as a condition of membership.

 

 

Creeds of a non-LDS church are not going describe a God they do not believe in, an LDS description of God. They will describe God as they understand Him. If you find another faith's beliefs about God detestable then should I remind you of your own 11th Article of Faith.

 

M.

 

 

I know full well what my responsibility are toward other faiths. I don't need a lecture from you on that subject.

 

But I assume God knows what he is talking about.  So when the scriptures say that eternal life is to Know God and there are several believe systems that say God is a an unknowable mystery (aka the Creeds) I can see why God might consider the Creeds to be an abomination to him if they keep his children(aka us) from eternal life.  (And again we are talking Creeds not Churches)

 

My job isn't to render judgement (that belongs to God).  So while I might think I understand why God said what he said here it not my job to act on that.  My job is to preach the Word of Christ, and be a light on a hill.  Those who hear then have the choice, and that choice is between them and the Lord.

 

The OP has come here asking about it.  Myself and several others have stood as a witness for the claim.  They now have the choice to believe the claim (like many of us do) or disbelieve the claim (Like you and many others do).

 

I have not acted contrary to the 11th article of Faith in so doing.  Instead the OP now has the chance to make a choice about what they believe.  They can believe that the Lord called them abomination or they can believe that the Lord did not.  Once they make that choice the 11th Article of Faith is quite clear that they get to live according to those believes.  Just like I get to, just like you get to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creeds are simply a church's statements of beliefs; something similar would be your own Articles of Faith. An abomination is something that is detestable. How are another Christian faith's beliefs detestable? And I don't know of very many churches that are truly creedal, where they require affirmation of a creed as a condition of membership.

 

 

 

I think the problem lies on the definition of "Creed". Even though I agree that the definition you gave is the most popular and modern one, it seems to me that Smith was talking about creeds that limit progression and define religion. Since Latter-Day Saints believe in continuous Revelation, having a set of creeds that encompasses all truth of our religion (such as the Nicene Creed followed by most Christian denominations) isn't plausible.

 

 

 

...were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein; whereas the Latter-Day Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.

 

You mentioned our Articles of Faith but if you check, there is nothing that states that these articles of Faith couldn't be modified. It goes further and states  in AF #9:

 

 

 

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creeds of a non-LDS church are not going describe a God they do not believe in, an LDS description of God. They will describe God as they understand Him. If you find another faith's beliefs about God detestable then should I remind you of your own 11th Article of Faith.

 

M.

 

There is nothing incompatible with finding another's beliefs detestable and allowing them the privilege to worship how, where, or what they may. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the restoration is true...if Joseph Smith heard from God, and restored truths, such as that the Trinity is convoluted and false, and that most non-Christians will still receive a measure of a heavenly reward (rather than hellfire), then there is a deep sense of wrongness in traditional Christian creeds.

 

I happen to be on the side of those creeds.  Nobody here has treated me as an abomination.  None have been rude to me as I explained my thoughts, asked my questions, etc.  In person this is also true.  In my few interactions with missionaries, and with LDS volunteers in our facilities, there's been only kindness and an eagerness to represent their faith well (not to denigrate others).

 

So, whether Joseph Smith mean to be as harsh as the quote sounds or not, his modern followers have mostly chosen to take the high road in their interfaith interactions.  So, the 'tude of today is one of graciousness.  If we agree on that, we can simply agree that we disagree, and then discuss our beliefs in Christ-like humility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A really good example of a creed would be the Westminister Confession of Faith.  Normally, I try to avoid direct comparisons of one particular denomination's doctrine in a negative way.  We are constantly the targets of such "analysis" by non-Mormons, but in this case, there is a useful point to be made.  

 

The Westminster Confession contains a lot of language on many different points of doctrine which are at odds with revealed religion in general, but this one statement is illustrative of the attitude that makes such creeds an abomination to God.

 

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."

 

Note the very last sentence in that declaration.  Nothing is to be added--ever--to scripture "whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men."  In one breath, they declare any future revelation from God to be invalid.  If God chose to speak again, they are bound by their creed to not listen to God.  In essence, they forbid God to speak.  It is man telling God, "If you speak again, we won't listen to it because it's not in the Bible."

 

That is an example of an "abomination" to which the Lord referred.  It is man telling God that, don't bother to talk again because we're not going to listen.  You gave us the Bible and that's all we're going to believe.  If you didn't think to put it in the Bible to begin with, we're not going to hear of it.

 

The Westminster Confession is the foundation of the "reformed" churches, particularly Presbyterianism.  This creed is filled with such statements that actually try to limit God.  If a person believed the doctrine taught in the creed, he would forever ignore "new revelations of the Spirit."  Compare that to the Bible's teaching that the "...testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10).  The creed would deny individuals the chance to obtain the "testimony of Jesus" because "new revelations of the spirit" are to be rejected outright.

 

The creeds are an outgrowth of the spirit of Phariseeism.  Each of them is an attempt to lock God into a box or a contract of some kind.  It sets limits on what God can demand and what the believer can expect. They get in the way of personal contact with God.

 

Joseph Smith's experience in the First Vision tells us that God is not limited by the creeds.  He defines the terms of our existence--we don't define the terms of his existence.  He is real.  He reveals himself as he sees fit.  He commands and we are to obey.  He is a personal God.  He answers prayers and reveals truth to those who ask in faith.

 

There are those who have tried to compare our 13 Articles of Faith to the sectarian creeds.  A careful reading of the Articles of Faith show that none of them limit God.  They don't limit God's interaction with man.  We believe that God will reveal whatever he will, whenever he wills it, to whomever he chooses to reveal it.  In contrast, all the sectarian creeds draw a line that says, one one side of the line is orthodoxy and on the other is heresy.  The Articles of Faith don't do that.

 

The Athanasian Creed ends with "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved."  That's exclusionary language.  It tells you that you're going to hell if you don't believe every point of it.   The 2nd Council of Constantinople in 533 A.D. had a whole page worth of curses upon those who didn't believe every single point.  You can read that document here.  

 

http://www.creeds.net/ancient/2Constantinople.htm

 

It was this kind of stuff that led to all sorts of atrocities that became prevalent in Christendom of the Middle Ages.  For example, in 891 A.D., Formosus, a conspirator who had been excommunicated for the murder of John, was elected pope.  Five years later, Boniface VI becomes pope despite his being deposed as a deacon for his immoral and lewd conduct. Stephen VII, his succesor, had he body of Formosus disinterred, clothed in papal robes, and tried before a council. The indecent scene ended with cutting off three of the deceased's fingers and the corpse being cast into the Tiber River. Stephen was ultimately deposed and thrown into prison where he was strangled to death.

 

You can read a whole timeline of the Great Apostasy here:  

 

http://spamldsarchive.blogspot.com/2010/05/great-apostasy-timeline.html

 

I could continue to elaborate, but suffice it to say that a study of the creeds by a person knowledgeable with the Bible will turn up numerous conflicts that are the products of men who denied the spirit of prophecy and revelation.  The history of what happened to the Christian Church due to the rejection of contemporary, living prophets and apostles is a sad story of corruption and vice clothed in the garbs of religiosity.  

 

The Lord called the creeds "abominations" because they stood as a centuries-old barrier between people who sought God and those who sought to limit God's ability to communicate with man by threats of violence, trial, hanging, burning at the stake, torture, and death.  The glory of the First Vision swept all that away forever.

 

We know God lives.  We know he speaks today.  We know he can speak to us.  We know he speaks to living prophets.  The Church is connected to the "home office" in heaven once again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spamlds, from my POV, the creeds don't limit God at all, or come in between my relationship with him (I am not LDS).  I can't speak for those who profess the Westminster creed, but for myself and the Catholic Church, we believe that the Apostles were the end of public revelation, not private.  Public revelation simply meaning that Jesus came and taught us everything we needed to know about the Kingdom of God and Salvation. 

 

However, the Church believes that, as Christ promised, the Holy Spirit has guided (and continues to guide) the Church into all Truth.  "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.  But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth."  John 16:12-12.    "The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name-he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you."  John 14:26.  Therefore, we see Scripture as continually teaching us new things, a treasure that can not be exhausted.  As the Church has continued to read Scripture, study it and pray about it, it has continually, throughout the centuries, provided us with new insights into our faith, illuminated by the Holy Spirit. 

 

As for private revelation, that has also continued throughout the centuries since Jesus walked the earth.  God has never ceased to speak with us, however these types of revelations can't introduce a change in Scripture, or reveal something new that everyone must do in order to receive salvation.  Private revelations are answers to prayers, as well as miracles, and warnings.  The Church is very careful with private revelations that are meant to be proclaimed to the public, as they have to be tested first to make sure they are not a deceiving spirit. 

 

I hate to say it, but the "first vision" did not end all corruption and vice clothed in religiosity, or sweep it all away, as you so romantically envision it.  As you mentioned some of the skeletons in the closet of the Catholic Church, they exist in yours as well, however I will refrain from writing any.  It's far too easy for anyone to take a single example out of history and hold it up as as if it is representational of everyone and everything at all times.  We are men, humans who are weak and prone to make mistakes, all the time, but it is not for us to judge others, let alone judge God and how He chose to work through us, weak though we are.  This is why Christ used the parable of the wheat and weeds, he told His angels to not remove the weeds for they may disturb the wheat, therefore let them grow together and at the Second Coming, when Christ comes as the Just Judge, will the weeds and wheat be separated. 

 

I am not interested in starting an argument, just doing my best to explain my POV :) 

God bless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a podcast for Dialogue with Terrly and Fiona Givens and when talking about the creeds being an abomination, Terrly said that it was referring mostly to the Methodist creed that stated that God is impersonal and unpassionate, a belief popular among many Christian denominations. So when Christ said those creeds were an abomination, the abomination is the belief that God does not have passion for His children.

Not sure of the source, but that was Terryl Givens's interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a podcast for Dialogue with Terrly and Fiona Givens and when talking about the creeds being an abomination, Terrly said that it was referring mostly to the Methodist creed that stated that God is impersonal and unpassionate, a belief popular among many Christian denominations. So when Christ said those creeds were an abomination, the abomination is the belief that God does not have passion for His children.

Not sure of the source, but that was Terryl Givens's interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Jesus himself defined eternal life as knowing the one true God and Jesus Christ himself (See John 17:3).  If a creed defines God as something contrary to his true nature, it keeps a person from knowing God, it keeps a person from knowing eternal life as Jesus defined it.  Here are some examples of creed and creed-derived statements that would prevent a believer from knowing the one true God:

 

The Athanasian Creed

 

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

 

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

 

Note the exclusionary language.  It basically begins and ends with the statement that a person who doesn't believe every single part of this confusing statement of faith cannot be saved.  If you, as a Christian, don't agree with one of these points, you are declared to be a heretic.  Let's move to another denomination.

 

From the Southern Baptist Convention web site:

 

[Jesus] was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion. He ascended into heaven and is now exalted at the right hand of God where He is the One Mediator, fully God, fully man, in whose Person is effected the reconciliation between God and man. He will return in power and glory to judge the world and to consummate His redemptive mission. He now dwells in all believers as the living and ever present Lord.

 

For Christians who believe in an "unchanging" God, Jesus sure went through a lot of changes. They tell us he was a Spirit, then he became a man, then died, then rose again with his body, ascended to heaven, and is now exalted on the right hand of himself? He will return bodily to earth with the resurrected body, but he now "dwells in us" as a Spirit? What happened to his body? Where is his resurrected body now? When he comes back as a resurrected being, will he not dwell in us any more? It's a mass of contradictions here.

 

The Methodist Articles of Religion teach that:

 

"There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 

 

"The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men."

 

"Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again his body, with all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day."

 

Ok, where to begin in this jumble of confusion? They have one God without body or parts. Yet this being who had no body or parts suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried. This being with no body or parts then rose from the dead. This being, who has no body "took again his body" and "all things appertaining to the perfection of man's nature" and ascended into heaven with it only to lose it again and be an incorporeal spirit. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that this is utter nonsense. Somebody made this up!

 

The Presbyterian Church USA openly admits there are problems with their creed on its web site:

 

"Early Christians found some of their oral and written traditions puzzling. Was the God of the Old Testament a different God from the God of the New Testament? Did one God have no beginning and another one have his beginning at Bethlehem? Was the God of law separate from the God of grace? Were Divine beings sent from heaven to earth like relay runners, one carrying on after another one finished?

 

"And if Christ is God and if God is non-physical Spirit, does that mean that Christ never really had flesh and blood? Since there is no full discussion of these questions in the Bible, the source of Christian doctrine, varying--indeed, clashing--answers were given to these theological questions. Christians were in a dilemma as to what to believe."

 

Now, I have had Christian believers tell me that they don't care about their creeds--that their faith is in Christ.  The problem is that their churches DO believe in the creeds and take them seriously.  They are the reasons that they exist to begin with.  Every creed was written to try to solve a controversy and only ended up creating new controversies.  Moreover, these are the guidelines that the other sectarian Christian denominations use to point the finger at Mormons and say we are a cult, because we don't fall inside the lines their scholars have drawn up in the creeds. 

 

I don't post these to attack any particular faith.  Goodness knows, Mormons are constantly the targets of doctrinal attacks and criticisms.  I just want to point out that the creeds have meaning to the churches that believe in them, whether or not their members have any faith in them.  The creeds are what the Lord called abominations because they keep people from "knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ" as Jesus said.  This blocks a person from receiving all the blessings God has for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't post these to attack any particular faith.  Goodness knows, Mormons are constantly the targets of doctrinal attacks and criticisms.  I just want to point out that the creeds have meaning to the churches that believe in them, whether or not their members have any faith in them.  The creeds are what the Lord called abominations because they keep people from "knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ" as Jesus said.  This blocks a person from receiving all the blessings God has for them. 

 

Yes, mormons are targets of doctrinal attacks, most churches are.  We (Catholics) don't really use the Athanasian Creed, the Creed which Catholics around the world proclaim in Mass is the Nicene Creed.  The Apostles Creed is also used and is very similar to the Nicene Creed.  In fact most scholars aren't even sure where the Athanasius creed came from and who actually wrote it.  It's attributed to St. Athansius b/c he was a defender of the Trinity, and was opposed to Arianism.  It's a bit wordy, but it makes sense to me :) 

 

It may seem exclusionary to you b/c you see the word "catholic".  Catholic means "universal".  This word represents the Catholic Church, b/c it is a universal faith, the faith that Jesus gave to the Apostles and has spread throughout the world, to every tongue and nation.  Jesus meant for us to be one.  One in faith, not many, diverse and ever-changing.  This creed is expressing that this is the ONE faith given to us by Jesus and those who wish to believe in God, must believe in this one faith and be one with Christ. 

 

You have to keep in mind that at the time this was written, there were no other Christian churches, there were pagan temples, but there were no other Christian churches.  So this creed isn't trying to declare itself the best choice of the Christian churches, or all other "competitor" Christian churches wrong, it was the only one.  If you believed in Jesus Christ, that he suffered, died and was resurrected, you were Catholic.  (You belonged to the one, universal faith in Jesus Christ).  This was most likely written, in such wordy detail, b/c of a heresy. 

 

So, you see this creed in the context of today rather than place it in its historical context when it was originally written and for why it was written.  That's why you see it as "exclusionary".  Neither the Nicene Creed, nor the Apostles Creed are this "exlusionary". 

 

You are confused by the rest of the creeds b/c you don't believe, or understand, the Trinity.  Which is just the way it is.  You don't understand my faith very well, and I don't understand yours.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody understands the Trinity.

 

Not true. Those who accept and believe the Trinity understand it as best they can. I accept and believe the Trinity. I agree with faith4 that the Athanasian Creed is wordy but it explains the Trinity very well. I love reading it.

 

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi all, I am new here. I am currently investigating the LDS church with the help of some missionaries. This troubled me deeply, as I believe there is truth in all creeds and churches and that God would appreciate anyone trying to worship him as they see it.

 

 

"I was answered that I must join none of ... [the churches], for they were all wrong ...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. He again forbade me to join with any of them."

History 1:19

 

Does the LDS Church actually teach and believe this?

 

The one great difference between the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and all other Churches is the same difference between the one true and living G-d and all other G-ds. Just as all other G-ds are an abomination before G-d so are all other churches and their creeds and teachings. G-d would not establish many inspired churches with many differences but men would. G-d is the same yesterday, today and forever. Men have their own ideas and often compete against each other. G-d does not compete with himself. But the churches of man do compete with one another – especially concerning doctrine. G-d does not present himself as one G-d one time and another G-d at another place and time. Just as G-d is one so also is his church one true church. This is despite the fact that many good things have come through other churches – or as LDS believe – have elements copied from the true church of G-d but never-the-less an unauthorized copy is by definition is a counterfeit and by definition a counterfeit G-d or a counterfeit church is an abomination to the true and living G-d – it was so anciently and it is so in these last days before Jesus will return and make all things in the world one with him.

If you discovered some unauthorized person making charges against your bank account (spending your money) – this would be an abomination to you – even if you discovered they were someone you loved and cared about. If you have not authorized them to do what they are doing they are a thief and a liar – regardless of their intent or whatever good they might do with your money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the many responses.

 

I cannot agree with such statements as the one above that "The one great difference between the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and all other Churches is the same difference between the one true and living G-d and all other G-ds."

 

To me, that is beyond arrogant, considering the LDS church is less than two-hundred years old. What about ALL the souls from 100AD to 1800AD? Souls that were striving to know/love/serve God after he sent his only Son to save us? Well, crap, I guess that Church hasn't been restored yet, better luck in the next life? That's kinda BS.

 

I also think it's arrogant to think God could NOT use the Creeds for us to understand him, or even to explain the "unexplainable" parts about him. If God is truly transcendant, how could we possibly know 100% about him? For something/Someone so unbelievably higher than us, there MUST be planes/aspects about him that we simply cannot comprehand in this lifetime. The Trinity represents that for me. I don't find the Creeds stifiling, I find them pretty necessary - as necessary as an atlas or Google Maps is for finding our way spiritually/thealogically. Yeah, they're pretty boring, and for someone who has never seen a map before, they must look stifiling or even unnesccessary. But a map of a beautiful highland is not trying to describe the beauty/awesomeness of it, it's trying to help you navigate through it. Those are the Creeds for me.

 

Also, after investigating the historical inaccuracies and the plain data that goes against Isralites ever stepping foot here, much less making any sort of impact, as well as going against everything I learned in Latin American studies, I cannot conclude that the Church established by Christ was ever "restored". Just by the numbers, I don't think 15 million Mormons have the stranglehold on truth and definitely not on service and serving the poor. There has to be something greater and I will continue searching.

 

Thank you for all the help/considerations and opinions, I wish you all health and happiness and God's blessings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi iguy, I am LDS.

 

Thank you all for the many responses.

 

I cannot agree with such statements as the one above that "The one great difference between the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and all other Churches is the same difference between the one true and living G-d and all other G-ds."

 

I agree with you here.

 

 

 

What about ALL the souls from 100AD to 1800AD? Souls that were striving to know/love/serve God after he sent his only Son to save us? Well, crap, I guess that Church hasn't been restored yet, better luck in the next life? That's kinda BS.

 

What about ALL the souls from Adam and Eve to 32AD?  Are they out of luck as well?  Of course not.  The date of the completion of the Atonement as well as the Restoration of Priesthood Authority in the Latter-Days in relation to one's birthday have no bearing on one's salvation.

 

In the LDS faith, we believe that Baptism and its accompanying covenant is a required ordinance for all mankind - from Adam all the way to the end of mortal time.  For those who die without having made the covenant of Baptism under the proper authority, they may still have the opportunity in the life after death.  We perform baptisms for those who have died in the Temples.  These baptisms are performed by proxy - where a living person is baptized in place of one who has died.  The baptism and its accompanying covenant is of no effect until the person who has died accepts and makes the covenant in the afterlife.

 

 

 

 

I also think it's arrogant to think God could NOT use the Creeds for us to understand him, or even to explain the "unexplainable" parts about him. If God is truly transcendant, how could we possibly know 100% about him? For something/Someone so unbelievably higher than us, there MUST be planes/aspects about him that we simply cannot comprehand in this lifetime. The Trinity represents that for me. I don't find the Creeds stifiling, I find them pretty necessary - as necessary as an atlas or Google Maps is for finding our way spiritually/thealogically. Yeah, they're pretty boring, and for someone who has never seen a map before, they must look stifiling or even unnesccessary. But a map of a beautiful highland is not trying to describe the beauty/awesomeness of it, it's trying to help you navigate through it. Those are the Creeds for me.

 

We do not think that God could not use the creeds for us to understand Him and His Kingdom.  We simply believe that God restored a truth that was lost when the Creeds were established and handed that truth to Joseph Smith.  The Creeds established God as a Triune God - that which makes them one is a physical substance.  The restored truth renders the Triune description of God as false and establishes the truth that what makes the 3 persons in God One is not their physical substance but the Perfect Unity of their Agency.  This one simple concept has magnificent implications and affects/corrects several understanding of scriptures - for example, John 17:21 among others.

 

Of course, if you deposit your faith on the teaching that God is triune, then you will love the Creeds.  But if you open yourself to the possibility that God is not triune, then the Creeds become questionable.  And if you deposit your faith on the teaching that God is not triune, then the Creeds become wrong.  Just like nobody can prove that God is triune, nobody can prove that God is not... it's all a matter of faith.

 

 

Also, after investigating the historical inaccuracies and the plain data that goes against Isralites ever stepping foot here, much less making any sort of impact, as well as going against everything I learned in Latin American studies, I cannot conclude that the Church established by Christ was ever "restored". Just by the numbers, I don't think 15 million Mormons have the stranglehold on truth and definitely not on service and serving the poor. There has to be something greater and I will continue searching.

 

Numbers don't mean anything.  If it does, then Islam is the true Church.

 

And if we are going to base FAITH on plain data then you won't find any religion worth pursuing... Good luck proving that Jesus is the Son of God using plain data.  Heck, good luck proving that Noah fit all the animals in the ark and that the world got flooded using plain data.  Man... forget that... good luck trying to fit archeological data with Genesis.

 

 

 

Thank you for all the help/considerations and opinions, I wish you all health and happiness and God's blessings!

 

Thank you also for giving us the opportunity to answer your questions.  May God's peace be with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the many responses.

 

I cannot agree with such statements as the one above that "The one great difference between the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and all other Churches is the same difference between the one true and living G-d and all other G-ds."

 

To me, that is beyond arrogant, considering the LDS church is less than two-hundred years old. What about ALL the souls from 100AD to 1800AD? Souls that were striving to know/love/serve God after he sent his only Son to save us? Well, crap, I guess that Church hasn't been restored yet, better luck in the next life? That's kinda BS.

 

I also think it's arrogant to think God could NOT use the Creeds for us to understand him, or even to explain the "unexplainable" parts about him. If God is truly transcendant, how could we possibly know 100% about him? For something/Someone so unbelievably higher than us, there MUST be planes/aspects about him that we simply cannot comprehand in this lifetime. The Trinity represents that for me. I don't find the Creeds stifiling, I find them pretty necessary - as necessary as an atlas or Google Maps is for finding our way spiritually/thealogically. Yeah, they're pretty boring, and for someone who has never seen a map before, they must look stifiling or even unnesccessary. But a map of a beautiful highland is not trying to describe the beauty/awesomeness of it, it's trying to help you navigate through it. Those are the Creeds for me.

 

Also, after investigating the historical inaccuracies and the plain data that goes against Isralites ever stepping foot here, much less making any sort of impact, as well as going against everything I learned in Latin American studies, I cannot conclude that the Church established by Christ was ever "restored". Just by the numbers, I don't think 15 million Mormons have the stranglehold on truth and definitely not on service and serving the poor. There has to be something greater and I will continue searching.

 

Thank you for all the help/considerations and opinions, I wish you all health and happiness and God's blessings!

 

What about the minions that lived on the American continent from the onset of humanity until 1492?  What about the vast populations of Asia prior to any word of Christianity reaching the villages and hamlets of the interior of that continent?  What about Charlemagne that took the Christian creeds of his day as reason to take his armies through northern Europe murdering men, women and children that did not believe the creeds you now defend.  He killed more souls than the dredged black plague.   What about the fact that not one Christian society (until 1649) ever attempted to pass a law that made the killing or taking of property from someone that did not “believe” the popular creeds of that society?  And then exempt or allow the murdering of anyone that did not believe the Trinity creed?  It was not until 1829 – just one year before the restoration of the LDS Church that a law was finally passed in any Christian society a law to  prevent the sentence of death for individuals living in that society just for not  believing in the Trinity.

 

Many say that the Constitution of the United States granted religious freedom while this country took property and lives of the Native Americans.  When Christianity came to the Americas there were about 40 million Native Americans.  Today there are less than 4 million.  I do not know what you believe to be an abomination if such things do not apply.

 

The reality is that none of this actually matters or alters the love G-d has for all his children.  Christ came into the world – not to condemn mankind but to save mankind.  His plan is to save everyone that at the great judgment day that repent of their sins and plead and beg for mercy.  He will save the minions that lived on the American continent from the onset of humanity until 1492 that repent of their sins and plead and beg for mercy.  Christ will save the vast populations of Asia that lived prior to any word of Christianity reaching the villages and hamlets of the interior of that continent.

 

This may seem arrogant to you that such doctrine and ideas are proclaimed by so few and only since 1830.   My personal quest for understanding has taken me a very different direction and down a rather different path that may seem arrogant to you and if that is your reason to find a different path – I do not condemn your choice – unless you intend to harm those that do not agree with you.  If you do that – I will be your adversary and defend them – even though I may disagree with their logic more so than I do yours.  I believe it their right to believe whatever religious ideas please them as long as they do not intend to harm others.

 

If you find a better path – come back and share how you found something believed by so many and still missed by me.  If I could find something better I would change my path in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the minions that lived on the American continent from the onset of humanity until 1492? What about the vast populations of Asia prior to any word of Christianity reaching the villages and hamlets of the interior of that continent?

 

Is this also a part of LDS theology? Considering human beings, made in the image of God, "minions?" Every myth, every crazy sacrificial and every polytheistic religion was false, but Man has ALWAYS been yearning for God in humanity's infancy. Read the Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton. My own studies in the Aztecs and Toltecs, as bloody as their sacrifices were, show that they were acting for noble ends - sustaining the universe and the cosmos. Of course they needed Christ - that was the whole point of him starting a Church, to spread the Gospel and start a new covenant with ALL of humanity.

 

I don't think Asia or India or the Middle East having a different religion than Christianity affects any aspect of Christianity being true and established by Christ's Apostles. All the great religions are yearning for God, for the Creator and have incredible beauty and truth to them. Daoism and following the life of the Tao is finding a way to follow Christ, if not explicitly than practically.

 

 

 

 

What about Charlemagne that took the Christian creeds of his day as reason to take his armies through northern Europe murdering men, women and children that did not believe the creeds you now defend.  He killed more souls than the dredged black plague.   What about the fact that not one Christian society (until 1649) ever attempted to pass a law that made the killing or taking of property from someone that did not “believe” the popular creeds of that society?  And then exempt or allow the murdering of anyone that did not believe the Trinity creed?  It was not until 1829 – just one year before the restoration of the LDS Church that a law was finally passed in any Christian society a law to  prevent the sentence of death for individuals living in that society just for not  believing in the Trinity.

 

 

I don't think any Catholic is actively trying to defend sins, or how embedded the Church was with the State. But did these things ever go into doctrine? History remembers the bad things that have happened for sure. The Catholic Church has not covered up the actions of any king, dictator, pope or bishop, or made them saints or prophets. It's quite easy to pull out greed, murder, avarice, corruption and anything you'd like in the span of 2000 years. Men fail. Kingsdoms fall. Colonialism sucked. But none of these things ever affected the doctrine, the day to day spirtuality of people trying to follow Christ. For every corrupt priest, how many were faithful? Are you so sure that the whole thing had fallen?

 

If you want to look at the actual doctrine, Thomas Aquinas propounded a powerful but limited doctrine of freedom of conscience. Based upon the incompatibility of belief and coercion affirmed by the young Augustine, Thomas contended that all human beings, Christian or not, had a moral obligation to follow even an erroneous conscience. This principle applied to everyone never previously exposed to the Christian message, such as Muslims and pagans.

 

Also, I'm not sure why you're bringing up secular laws to disparage or defend Christianity or some kind of "Trinity inquisition." If you just wikipedia the actual Inquisition, you'll see that Rome/the Vatican denounced Spain's actions before they even began. The king of Spain shut out the Pope and began persecuting people anyway.

 

Many say that the Constitution of the United States granted religious freedom while this country took property and lives of the Native Americans.  When Christianity came to the Americas there were about 40 million Native Americans.  Today there are less than 4 million.  I do not know what you believe to be an abomination if such things do not apply.

 

 

Are these the same 40 million you called "minions?" Disease played a huge part of this. As a Mexican-American, I know full well the story of the Conquest, of Colombus enslaving and putting chains and lead balls around men's necks, of the indigenous losing their land to greedy colonizers, the racial-caste system and the extraction of South America's wealth into the coffers of Europe and the God Bless America's utter dependence on casting men as beasts of Burden.

 

How does this affect the doctrines of Christianity? This only showed that men failed to live their faith - are we not completely guilty of the same thing in our time? Our countries actions are horrendous TODAY (drones, the 1980's in South America, Hiroshima) and yet we don't attack Christ or the Apostles or the structures of the Church because of this (at least in my circles we don't.) When the world goes to pot, it shows that we need the Catholic Church and its teachings even more.

 

But I also know that the Church declared the indigenous had souls and were human beings, hundreds of years before it became mainstreamed and protected by law. I believe that Our Lady of Guadalupe was a blessing to Mexico and all of Americas, that the Gospel was inculcated into my ancestor's cultures, having appeared on the feast of their indigenous Easter. The soul of Latin America is Catholic and that will never change.

 

The reality is that none of this actually matters or alters the love G-d has for all his children.  Christ came into the world – not to condemn mankind but to save mankind.  His plan is to save everyone that at the great judgment day that repent of their sins and plead and beg for mercy.  He will save the minions that lived on the American continent from the onset of humanity until 1492 that repent of their sins and plead and beg for mercy.  Christ will save the vast populations of Asia that lived prior to any word of Christianity reaching the villages and hamlets of the interior of that continent.

 

This may seem arrogant to you that such doctrine and ideas are proclaimed by so few and only since 1830.   My personal quest for understanding has taken me a very different direction and down a rather different path that may seem arrogant to you and if that is your reason to find a different path – I do not condemn your choice – unless you intend to harm those that do not agree with you.  If you do that – I will be your adversary and defend them – even though I may disagree with their logic more so than I do yours.  I believe it their right to believe whatever religious ideas please them as long as they do not intend to harm others.

 

If you find a better path – come back and share how you found something believed by so many and still missed by me.  If I could find something better I would change my path in a heartbeat.

 

Thanks for the kind words, and I hope that all faiths can promote and act in God's love for humanity, through his Son and the Holy Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this also a part of LDS theology? Considering human beings, made in the image of God, "minions?" Every myth, every crazy sacrificial and every polytheistic religion was false, but Man has ALWAYS been yearning for God in humanity's infancy. Read the Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton. My own studies in the Aztecs and Toltecs, as bloody as their sacrifices were, show that they were acting for noble ends - sustaining the universe and the cosmos. There's a Toltec king that wrote about this yearning for God. The indigenous believed in many gods, yes, but there was something behind these gods, these spirits, a higher reality. And their king said to this invisible deity- ‘I cannot see your face. You are the most high, the only God of the Cosmos, but you are so far away from me, so far away. I want to ‘sing your flowers’. Of course they needed Christ - that was the whole point of him starting a Church, to spread the Gospel and start a new covenant with ALL of humanity.

 

I don't think Asia or India or the Middle East having a different religion than Christianity affects any aspect of Christianity being true and established by Christ's Apostles. All the great religions are yearning for God, for the Creator and have incredible beauty and truth to them. Daoism and following the life of the Tao is finding a way to follow Christ, if not explicitly than practically.

 

<snip>

 

One of those truths restored in these Latter-Days is the teaching of Pre-Mortal Existence.  That is the human spirit is Eternal (just like energy and matter are Eternal).  Therefore, we existed prior to our being born on earth.  In Pre-Mortal Life, we were presented with the Plan of Salvation (Mortal Existence necessary for progression - you can read up on it here if you like) and Jesus Christ was chosen to be our Mediator, Lucifer rebelled, and some of the spirits, through their own free will, followed Lucifer while the others , through their own free will, followed Christ.  Under the direction of the Father, Christ then created the earth and those spirits who followed Christ were given mortal bodies.  Therefore, every single human being who ever lived on this planet has exercised their free will to follow Christ.  They are then born with the Light of Christ.  Yep... That includes Hitler and Stalin and the Unabomber... all chose to follow Christ before they were born on Earth and accepted their mortal path for their spirits to progress to the next life.

 

So, when Traveler (who is LDS) refers to some folks as minions, he wasn't LITERALLY calling them minions.  It's just an artistic linguistic expression (or whatever you call it - English is not my first language) to contrast them with the "chosen people who were born in the land of Christians".

 

Also, another one of those truths that were restored in these Latter-days is post-mortal life.  The LDS do not believe that you go to the fires of hell to suffer eternal torment if you're not Christian when you die.  Well, actually, it rather depends on what you consider as hell - I, myself, consider it hell if I die and never get to see my husband and children ever again.  In any case, the LDS give a big distinction between Salvation and Exaltation.  Even if you die non-Christian, you can still attain Salvation.  As a matter of fact, the only way you can forfeit your Salvation is if you have COMPLETE knowledge of Christ and then you choose not to accept His Atonement.  So, we can't tell you for sure if Hitler does not qualify for salvation... because we don't know if he has complete knowledge of Christ when he did all those atrocious things.  Now, as far as exaltation - all those who gained Salvation may attain one of the 3 degrees of "heaven" - Telestial, Terrestial, or Celestial Life.  Telestial is the least joy, Celstial is living with God.  But, even with Telestial Life - it is still infinitely better than Mortal Life...

 

So, as far as LDS and how they look at all peoples all over the world and all over existence - I would say that out of all the Christian faiths, their beliefs are the ones who have the most charitable view of heaven for all people.  And the LDS believe that truth is not only found in the LDS faith.  Truth is found everywhere.  This is so important that it is codified in the LDS Articles of Faith as follows:

 

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.

 

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

 

 

 

 

And finally... if you are posting here to challenge the LDS beliefs, then I think you're on the wrong forum.  There are other forums that are more open to that type of discussion.  This forum is for you to learn about what the LDS believe and for the LDS to learn what non-LDS people believe.  This is not the forum for "my religion is better than your religion" topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share