Fred Anson, a self-proclaimed "scholar" on Mormon Studies has written a new article on his blog:
The Abominable Creed of Doctrine and Covenants
As with many of his other pieces (see Did Brigham Young claim the Three Witnesses Doubted their Experience with the Angel Moroni? for an example of his shoddy research skills), this is not the first time, and sadly, will probably not be the last time, Anson embarrasses himself.
As with many of his other pieces (see Did Brigham Young claim the Three Witnesses Doubted their Experience with the Angel Moroni? for an example of his shoddy research skills), this is not the first time, and sadly, will probably not be the last time, Anson embarrasses himself.
In brief, the argument from Anson is that, as the language of the Nicene Creed from 325 and D&C 20 have parallel language and concepts, therefore LDS do have a creed, ergo, they are inconsistent in their denunciation of creeds.
Firstly, let quote from Joseph Smith on why he denounced the creeds of the churches of his time:
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.” Joseph Smith, Discourse to Saints, October 1843; DHC 6:57.
The Prophet Joseph Smith also stated the following:
..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…
Joseph Smith, January 1843, History of the Church, 5:215; from “History of the Church” (manuscript), book D-1, p. 1433, Church Archives.
Secondly, many of the parallel concepts Anson highlights between D&C 20 and the Nicene Creed are concepts which LDS do not believe were perverted, at least fully, by the Great Apostasy. One such doctrine (which he rejects) is that of baptismal regeneration, affirmed by both LDS theology, Nicea (“I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins”), and, of course, the biblical authors. See, for instance:
Interestingly, Anson does reproduce the portion of the Nicene Creed that affirms baptismal regeneration but did not highlight that, notwithstanding there being a parallel in D& 20:37, 72. Perhaps he did not want to admit that baptismal regeneration had the unanimous consent of the patristic-era authors. To be fair, there are other Protestant apologists with more honesty on this issue. Reformed Baptist apologist, William Webster, admitted the following about baptismal regeneration in a work critical of Roman Catholicism (Latter-day Saints, as well as Eastern Orthodox, most Lutherans [historical and modern] and many Anglicans, among other groups, hold to this doctrine, too):
The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers . . . From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit." (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995], 95-96
Thirdly, just because one agrees with much of a creed, book, or any other work does not mean that one is inconsistent in denouncing it as heretical due to erroneous assumptions underlying the language (e.g., the assumption that “creation” means creation ex nihilo; reading into “only-begotten” a Christology of “eternal generation,” etc) as well as areas of a creed that are full-blown heresy. For instance, take something both Anson and I would reject as heretical—the New World Translation of the Bible. It would be easy for me to draw parallels between the NWT and Anson’s Reformed theology (e.g., belief that Jesus had a unique mission in the economy of God; affirmation of a supernaturalistic worldview; historicity off the Fall, virginal conception and birth, death and resurrection of Jesus, etc). However, with his parallels between D&C 20 and the Nicene Creed, such would be disingenuous—many of the shared beliefs are, theologically, different—JWs and Anson would affirm Jesus’ resurrection, but for the former, it was a “spiritual” (read: spirit-only) resurrection while Anson would (correctly) affirm that Jesus’ resurrection was physical, too. Furthermore, many concepts in the NWT (often deviations from the underlying Greek) are, from both an LDS and Reformed perspective, perverse (e.g., the forced affirmation of Arianism in John 1 and Col 1).
The same applies for LDS and Nicene Christology. To see how Nicea and later councils and theological formulations perverted the Gospel, see, for instance, my discussion of LDS/Biblical Christology:
Fourthly, I notice that, while the Athanasian Creed was mentioned by LDS authors he quoted, he did not reproduce any portions thereof, and for good reason: Anson must know the nonsensical nature of that particular creed attributed (incorrectly) to Athanasius; instead, Anson wisely chose to draw from the creed of Nicene which is more reasonable from a logical perspective, notwithstanding the blog teaching elsewhere that this creed is an excellent elucidation of the Trinity. However, to see why, let me just quote portions from the Athanasian Creed to see the inanity thereof (click here for a full version):
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.
Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.
In other words,
The Father is "x"
The Son is "x"
The Spirit is "x"
The Father, Son, and Spirit are not numerically identical to one another (as in Modalism)
There is only one "x"
Little wonder that even modern Trinitarians admit that the Trinity is utterly illogical, resulting in Brian Leftow's "Modes without Modalism" nonsense to salvage belief in the doctrine.
With respect to the statement in the Athanasian Creed that states that "just as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge each person separately both God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to speak of three Gods or Lord," Dale Tuggy wrote the following:
This explanation falls short, though. It seems that the subject has been changed from how we are to think to how we are to speak. each of the three must be called "God" and "Lord," and the Christian is not to say "three Gods" or "three Lords." But why these rules, if indeed each of the three "is God" and they truly are three? This famous creed leaves us wondering.
Imagine meeting a new neighbor who introduces you to the two women at his side.
“Hi neighbor!” This is my wife Alice. We’ve been married for exactly five years.”
“Pleased to meet you.”
“And this is my wife Betty,” he says, pointing to the other women. “We’ve been married exactly three years.”
“I’m pleased to meet you and your two wives,” you reply. “I’ve never met anyone who was married to two women.”
“Oh no, neighbor, we don’t say ‘two wives’ or ‘two women.’ In truth, I’m married to just one women; I have just one wife. True, Alice is one person, and Betty is another; but we “neither confuse the persons nor divide the wifehood.”
This exchange would leave you confused (not to mention uncomfortable). You can see that Alice and Betty are two different beings, and their husband has told you of their different beings, and their husband has told you of their different wedding dates. But you’ve been told that they’re a single wife, even though each alone is a wife and you’ve been told not to say “two wives” or “two women” about them. You might wonder if this man has some idiosyncratic way of counting wives! (Dale Tuggy, What is the Trinity? Thinking About the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [2017], 9-10)
As with his other articles and “arguments” against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (e.g., Is it problematic to cite Joseph Fitzmyer?), Anson has produced another sub-par article against Latter-day Saint Scripture and theology, his self-professed status as a “scholar” notwithstanding.
Further Reading
Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (3 vols)
R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-81
Lewis Ayres, Nicea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology
Ramsay MacMullen, Voting about God in Early Church Councils