Creeds v. Articles of Faith

[TheLutheran]

I come in peace. I felt compelled to preface my question with that statement so it will be clear that I'm not looking for a fight, I apologize in advance if this topic has been hashed and rehashed, and I'm just plain curious. Are we all good so far?

I am interested in learning how the LDS Articles of Faith differ from the creeds that Joseph Smith was told were an abomination.

Thank you, in advance, for your insights.

[L_and_P21]

the best suggestion i can give you is to read them side by side to find the difference. if you are going by the definition of the words, really there is no difference as they are both basic principles to a religious belief. again, if you want to understand why joseph was told they were an abomination, read them side by side.

[VisionOfLehi]

The major difference is that the other creeds are man-made, and the AoF are inspired Articles given by a prophet of God based on the (direct) teachings of Christ Himself.

[Maureen]

Originally Posted by VisionOfLehi

The major difference is that the other creeds are man-made, and the AoF are inspired Articles given by a prophet of God based on the (direct) teachings of Christ Himself.

I think that is a matter of biased opinion. Someone who has a testimony of their faith's creeds would have faith that they are indeed inspired, likewise with someone of the LDS faith.

Articles of faith are formal creeds, or lists of beliefs, sometimes numbered, and often beginning with "We believe...", which attempt to more or less define the fundamental theology of a given religion and/or church. Articles of faith are common in both Christianity and Islam.

A creed is a statement or confession of belief — usually religious belief — or faith often recited as part of a religious service. The word derives from the Latin: credo for I believe and credimus for we believe. It is sometimes called symbol (Greek: σύμβολο[ν]), signifying a "token" by which persons of like beliefs might recognize each other.

IMO, both creeds and articles of faith are very similar in nature - they define a faith's beliefs.

M.

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by TheLutheran

I come in peace. I felt compelled to preface my question with that statement so it will be clear that I'm not looking for a fight, I apologize in advance if this topic has been hashed and rehashed, and I'm just plain curious. Are we all good so far?

I am interested in learning how the LDS Articles of Faith differ from the creeds that Joseph Smith was told were an abomination.

Thank you, in advance, for your insights.

I appreciate the way this question is put, and hope you find value in my answer. I am dissatisfied with the previous answers in this thread, and thus am posting my own response. Odds are, others will in turn be dissatisfied with my post... Ah well.

To me, the difference between a 'creed' and statements of faith is not so much in the substance in the text, as in how these statements are used by the institution. For example, Joseph Smith said that "No man was ever damned for believing too much, but rather was damned for believing to little". He extremely disliked having a 'litmus' test of belief, in terms of who was acceptable in the Church, and who was not.

His specific beef with creeds was that those who did not profess complete agreement to the creeds, were either ostracized or flatly excommunicated for heresy. He NEVER wanted that to happen in the Mormon church.

Some Catholic creeds are arguably compatible with Mormon belief, shocking as that may be to some Mormons. The difference is, no Mormon EVER needs to agree with all the Articles of Faith (or even a 'qualifying subset') to retain their LDS membership. It is not even an issue.

Does that help?


HiJolly

[Moksha]

Because they are our Articles of Faith.

[TheLutheran]

Thank you all so much for your insights. Your replies were very helpful, especially HiJolly.