Fundamental Mormon Claims

[_bcspace]

Don't the Articles of Faith count as a creed?

They might and they certainly look like a creed. However, they are scripture and that is actually the source of creeds and doctrines. The published works of the Church count as such as the Church considers them to be official doctrine.

[_Uncle Dale]

Don't the Articles of Faith count as a creed?

They might and they certainly look like a creed. However, they are scripture...

I was always taught that the "creed" of the Latter Days Saints
are the Standard Works themselves -- and that all human attempts
to present creedal interpretations of those scriptures are
abominations in the sight of our Heavenly Father.

The main problem being, that a "creed" of scriptural extracts and
the precepts of men might possibly be true, but incomplete --
and thus present us with something other than Gospel fulness.

The second problem being, that such a "creed" is a static thing,
which may end up being outdated by continued revelation.

But the most obvious problem with a creed comes when it is
implemented as a bar to the sacrament and to communion with
our Heavenly Father. The Protestant sects of 1830 were notorious
for using their creeds for that precise purpose ---> to keep
certain members (and non-members) away from the sacrament
emblems and from fellowship with worshipers even in their families.

I'd rather say that the Articles of Faith (we RLDS call them the
"Epitome of Faith") stand in place of a creed, but without the
same authority as have the entire body of latter day scripture,
taken as a whole.

UD

[_Daniel Peterson]

I'm fairly comfortable with UD's comments above.

[_Yoda]

Joey asked a question that got caught in the Terrestrial split of this topic. I would like to address it, and have confirmation by Dan and/or UD.

Joey asked if we believed God the Father was the first God, or simply one of many.

My understanding is that we believe that God the Father is the first God, and the he and Jesus developed the plan for us to become Gods and Goddesses. Is this accurate or not?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I would say that there's a division of opinion on that question. Blake Ostler strongly advocates the position that the Father is the first God and the fount of all divinity. I myself am not so sure of that.

Both of us are rather public members in entirely good standing -- which I take to be an indicator that there is no fundamental doctrine on this particular question.

In either case, the Father is the God to whom we pray, and, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, the God regarding whom we have specific revealed information. We have no dealings with any other. And, moreover, the question is rarely if ever discussed. I may have heard it mentioned in a Sunday school class or someplace of that sort, but, if I did, I can't remember it.

To put that last point another way: Blake Ostler has addressed the topic publicly. I really haven't. And I can't think, off hand, of anybody else who has. So far down the priority list is it.

[_Jason Bourne]

I would say that there's a division of opinion on that question. Blake Ostler strongly advocates the position that the Father is the first God and the fount of all divinity. I myself am not so sure of that.

Personally I am in the Ostler camp on this one. It seems to me that think D&C 121 or 124 talks about the Eternal God of all other gods so I hang my hat on that. And Abraham indicates that God was more intelligent than all others even combined and I also read into that that this God was the first. Because he wanted all to have the same opportunity he had he started the ball rolling so to speak. An infinite regression of gods also seems illogical and almost an absurdity to me. But I may just have a small and simple mind.

Both of us are rather public members in entirely good standing -- which I take to be an indicator that there is no fundamental doctrine on this particular question.

That is probably a fine thing.

In either case, the Father is the God to whom we pray, and, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, the God regarding whom we have specific revealed information. We have no dealings with any other. And, moreover, the question is rarely if ever discussed. I may have heard it mentioned in a Sunday school class or someplace of that sort, but, if I did, I can't remember it.



To put that last point another way: Blake Ostler has addressed the topic publicly. I really haven't. And I can't think, off hand, of anybody else who has. So far down the priority list is it.

Didn't Brigham and Orson have some rigorous debates about such things?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Personally I am in the Ostler camp on this one. It seems to me that think D&C 121 or 124 talks about the Eternal God of all other gods so I hang my hat on that. And Abraham indicates that God was more intelligent than all others even combined and I also read into that that this God was the first. Because he wanted all to have the same opportunity he had he started the ball rolling so to speak. An infinite regression of gods also seems illogical and almost an absurdity to me. But I may just have a small and simple mind.

Relative to this sort of subject, we all do.

I do believe in an ultimate fount of divinity. Blake is right, from that angle. Just not sure that I think the Father is it, quite. In a sense.

Which is as far as I'll go on this or any other message board.

Didn't Brigham and Orson have some rigorous debates about such things?

Yes. And I'm inclined to think that they were both right, that they were, in a sense, talking past one another.

But, again, some things I just won't discuss on a message board. So I'll leave it at that.

[_consiglieri]

I think it's possible that he was right. I won't publicly comment on Adam-God to any extent because I don't have a clear bead on it, but I will go so far as to publicly say four things:

1. I cannot reconcile usual understandings of Adam-God with my understanding of Mormon doctrine.

2. I'm pretty sure that usual understandings of Adam-God have misunderstood what Brigham Young was saying. (Perhaps he himself didn't fully understand it.)

3. I have, thus far, been unable to work out a significantly superior understanding. Which is to say that I think I see problems in the usual reading, but can't see a totally satisfactory way of fixing them.

4. That said, and much to my surprise (at least partially because I was absolutely not seeking it), I have received a strong and unmistakable testimony of something, at least, in Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching. I just don't quite understand what it is. I know that something is there, but can't articulate it.

I believe I may have worked out something that might interest you in this regard, Dr. Peterson, and which I have reduced to manuscript form.

Just PM me if you should have any interest and I can send it to you via e-mail.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. It is not Elden Watson's Two-Adam Theory. ;^)

[_bcspace]

They might and they certainly look like a creed. However, they are scripture...

I was always taught that the "creed" of the Latter Days Saints
are the Standard Works themselves --

The term "creed" itself implies doctrine as separate from the source of doctrine.

and that all human attempts to present creedal interpretations of those scriptures are
abominations in the sight of our Heavenly Father.

"Approaching Mormon Doctrine" shows that the Church does not feel this is the case.

The main problem being, that a "creed" of scriptural extracts and
the precepts of men might possibly be true, but incomplete --
and thus present us with something other than Gospel fulness.

IF the First Presidency and the Qo12 determine it, it is the best we have. Scriptures must be interpreted as evidenced by differing doctrines/creeds purported to be from the same source/scripture.

The second problem being, that such a "creed" is a static thing,
which may end up being outdated by continued revelation.

That creed is never static which includes continuing revelation. There is nothing that says a creed or a systematic theology can't change and still be true or consistent.

But the most obvious problem with a creed comes when it is
implemented as a bar to the sacrament and to communion with
our Heavenly Father. The Protestant sects of 1830 were notorious
for using their creeds for that precise purpose ---> to keep
certain members (and non-members) away from the sacrament
emblems and from fellowship with worshipers even in their families.

Merely an interpretation (the issue of partaking the sacrament unworthily is found in the scriptures) which one will have to decide is true or not.

[_Kevin Graham]

That the destiny of the righteous is to receive all that God has, and to be "gods." That God called Joseph Smith to be a prophet, and, through the angel Moroni, revealed the Book of Mormon.

He merely "revealed" the Book of Mormon?

I'm pretty sure that is modern-day apologetic speak, as opposed to the traditional LDS claim that Joseph Smith translated it, and that as "Prophet Seer and Revelator" had the ability to translate ancient documents.

That was the final nail in the coffin for me. Because it is a fundamental and essential truth claim of the LDS Church, and it has since been shown to be false. Joseph Smith could not translate ancient languages, therefore he was a liar. Which makes the mountain of problems for struggling LDS, make much more sense. Once you cross the line of rationality and see the world of problems from the perspective of a non-believer, it all makes sense because Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet of God. There isn't any compelling evidence to believe otherwise, and the apologists know this, which is why they refuse to debate the matter openly.