The Message of the First Vision

Well you have written more here than I can possibly get my mind around or have the time to do so right now, but aren’t the The 13 Articles of Faith somewhat akin to the Westminster Confession? Aren’t Mormon children taught this like the pledge of allegiance. It seems to me I remember I had to memorize them all to graduate from primary, and actually perform the act in front of a considerable group of people in the sacrament meeting room. Maybe Mormons do not recite them every Sunday or whatnot, but do Presbyterians recite the Confession on anything like that basis either? It just seems to me that it is not correct to suggest that the Mormons do not have something similar with the 13 articles staring us in the face. Best, Curt

sure, it would seem so. but it was, after all, a letter to the editor. It is disappointing to see how traditional our church has become with correlation. Maybe it was helpful, maybe it was necessary. but I do not have to sign up for the dogmatic system called correlation. nothing requires ME to recite the confession as part of my worship. I do in the catholic church. there are others as well. not sayin’ its wrong, its just not what I’ve signed up for.

My only problem with your post is that I think McKonckie was a knucklehead who should never have been appointed an apostle. His Mormon Doctrine book has done more to confuse the Saints than anything else they have written (well accept the Journals of Discourse, which they generally do not read, but that is for another day).

Wayfarer,

Not to stir the pot, but what about this credo/confession?:

I believe in God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, and I have a firm testimony of the restored gospel. I sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and I recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. I sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church. I live the law of chastity.There in nothing in my conduct relating to members of my family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church. I do not affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I do not sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual. I no not support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am honest in my dealings with my fellowmen. I am a full-tithe payer. I keep the Word of Wisdom. I have never been divorced. I keep all the covenants that I made in the temple. I wear the authorized garments both day and night. There are no sins or misdeeds in my life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not. I consider myself worthy in every way to enter the temple and participate in temple ordinances.

You have one defect in here. You shouldn’t say you “Believe” in God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, but rather that you have faith in and a testimony of god… And in so doing, you will note that the term ‘believe’ is not in that, therefore it cannot be a ‘creed’, for a ‘creed’, coming from ‘credo’, means ‘I believe’.

I will submit to you that ‘belief’ does not form the basis of the gospel, but rather, faith, repentence, and coming to christ through baptism (symbolic and otherwise), relying on the spirit, and enduring to the end.

stirring it right back to you.

I don’t view the TR questions as doctrines or creeds, but as standards to which one can show commitment worthy to take on some responsibilities in the church.

I like the material on your blog, wayfarer.

Thanks!

Without trying to diminish the First Vision in any way, I think it must be considered it was a “first”. Revelation was received line upon line, so what might have been received by the boy prophet as “no creeds” were correct, might have evolved over time to be more clear as truth can be found in most of those other churches, but some course corrections are needed to expand our knowledge of God. Similar to how it was first thought the Native Americans were descendants of Book of Mormon people, which seems to not be so literally true as previously taught by church leaders.

While it is true that Joseph’s understanding and the knowledge of eternal things grew and morphed during his life, as it were, line upon line; this growth does not adequately address why the the creeds were an abomination. The majority of the creeds are non-controversial, and the ones specific to northern New England: Roman, Apostles, reflect word-for-word Mormon Doctrine. Looking at the Apostles Creed – what is the problem here?

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

and born of the virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, died and was buried.

He descended into hell.

On the third day He rose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven

and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.

From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy Christian church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting.

Virtually all the mainstream Christian churches of Joseph Smith’s day used this version or one very, very close to it. The Catholic Church, probably not really part of Joseph’s upbringing, used a latin version, often including “homoousion” of the Nicene creed. The term “Holy Christian Church” is often said, “Holy Catholic church”, but the meaning is that there is one universal church of Christ, not many.

What of this creed rises to the level of “abomination”? The only deviations to what LDS teach are:

1. LDS teach that Jesus created this earth, under the command of the Father.

2. LDS teach that Jesus descended into the spirit world, but not the ‘prison’/hell version.

Both of these concepts are biblical and ‘close enough’. Again, what rises to the level of “abomination”.

Here are some of Joseph Smith’s words about creeds:

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 shall thou come, and no further;” which I cannot subscribe to.

History of the Church, V6 p57

This statement was made on October 15th, 1843. In this same speech, Joseph prophesied that he would not be killed by his opponents until his work is complete. I think this shows that his contempt for creeds, the perspective given to him in the First Vision 23 years prior, had not changed in the least during his lifetime. And, the singular concern Joseph Smith had with the creeds — that which makes them an abomination — is the idea of a forced ‘credo’/’I believe’, and thus locking down something in dogma: you cannot question this, you cannot go beyond this.

“The prominent points of difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints & sectarian viz: the latter are all circumscribed by some peculiar creed which deprives its members of the right of believing anything not contained in it; whereas the Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principle existing, as they are made manifest from time to time.

Wow, that’s quite a statement.

So here it is: all other Christian churches of the day demanded that a person say “I believe” in the worship service, by citing a creed. The “I believe” stated a number of truth claims, most of which are held sacred by LDS, and contain the literal story of Jesus Christ, including virgin birth and resurrection. Nothing in the church requires us to state “I believe”. To get a temple recommend, you don’t need to state, “I believe in X”, and you aren’t even asked if you “believe in X”. Belief, being static, is a world of difference between faith, implying action, and testimony, implying personal witness to evidence.

I think there has to be three tiers of doctrinal understanding:

Tier 1 is the “Doctrine of Jesus Christ”, which is explicitly defined in D&C 10, 2 NE 31-32, and 3 NE 11, as discussed in another thread.

Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

And now, remember the words of him who is the life and light of the world, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God.

The Doctrine of Jesus Christ does not change. ever. it is simply the first principles of the gospel. It is what we all can agree as being the essentials for salvation.

Tier 2 is “LDS Church Doctrine”, or what is currently taught by the Church. The term ‘doctrine’ is ‘what is taught’. It does not mean ‘ultimate truth’, nor does it mean ‘what we believe’. It is simply the corpus of teachings found in the current official materials of the church, including scripture, and in a temporary time, current handbooks, manuals, and conference addresses.

Every 5-10 years, the Church publishes a new version of the Church Handbook of Instructions. When it does so, it asks bishops to destroy previous handbooks, as well as bulletins and other periodic updates. The Church Handbooks are not ‘what is taught’ but do constitute current policy. It should be clearly noted that the church dictates a set of common instructions — correlated — that also is refreshed from time to time.

LDS Church Doctrine therefore is embodied from current church materials, and all historical comments are irrelevant. “What is taught” in the current time is structured for the needs of the members now. And ‘what is taught’ will change from time to time. Former conference addresses, historical speeches, discussions of commandments to the church, policies as to who has the priesthood and who doesn’t, whether or not polygamy is allowed, whether Adam is god, the nature of god as taught — all these things are part of the body of material called “Church Doctrine”. It’s what we teach now. It is not necessarily “eternal truth”, but rather, inspiration given to leaders.

Paul sees this corpus as “what we know in part and prophesy in part”.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When something more complete comes along, then we set aside that which was in part. What we teach does not have to be literally true, but has a purpose:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Therefore, what we teach is that which is given by inspiration of God for doctrine (‘didache’ = ‘what is taught’), reprove, correction, and instruction. That, to me, sounds like scriptures plus current counsel. ‘Instruction’ sounds like policy.

Tier 3 is “Truth”. There are two types of truth here. One, is the type of truth that can be proven or disproven — things that can be tested using scientifici or historical methods. Joseph Smith felt that all truth should be part of the gospel, including this part.

There is another type of truth that cannot be measured or proven using science. For one thing, the Doctrine of Jesus Christ is a thing taken on faith: “Coming to Christ” is an action based upon trust — it’s faith in its purest form, detached from ‘perfect knowledge’. One cannot scientifically prove or disprove the doctrine of Jesus Christ. it simply is. And this is the only thing one must absolutely accept on faith in the Gospel.

But there is much more ‘truth’ out there that can be accepted on faith. Here is how Alma framed it:

It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

The “portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men” is the Doctrine of Christ, plus current Church Doctrine — what is taught. What Alma is saying is that our understandings can and should go well beyond ‘what is taught’, but we do not impart to others our insights.

For whatever reason, we current teach that God the Father is not growing, changing. Bruce R McConkie said that teaching that god is progressing is heresy. But who is right here? Joseph Smith clearly stated that God was a man like us, progressing. We don’t teach it. We don’t preach it. it isn’t “what is taught”. It doesn’t mean that I have to believe a certain thing.

Joseph Smith clearly taught against polygamy. In the Nauvoo period, Polygamy was not taught, but it was practiced. those who ‘taught’ that the church practiced polygamy were excommunicated as apostates. What is taught is often situational, and in the case of the nauvoo period, the leaders feared that the principle of polygamy was not the type of milk they should be teaching.

Today the church continues to teach that Polygamy is not part of Church Doctrine. That is true. It is not taught, therefore, since ‘doctrine’ is ‘what is taught’, then mortal life polygamy is LDS doctrine. today. This does not stop people from believing that Polygamy is an eternal principle, and no-one will be excommunicated for believing that. People will be excommunicated for teaching it or practicing it. Hence, we are completely free to believe anything we want to believe, but we are under strict command that we shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men.

DB, aren’t you changing the meaning of things? Ray’s a better parser than I am, but you seem to go from “need authority” to “all others are wrong”.

This is where I often find tension among discussions. What is actually said in the First Vision account, and what we all take from it to mean. Then the problem gets compounded trying to know if that has any meaning to different religions in our world today.