While
reading some of the earliest writings of John Thomas, the founder of the
Christadelphian movement, while he was still a member of the Campbellite
movement, wrote the following about the problematic nature of “creeds.” I am
sure some LDS readers will note some of the similarities (and dissimilarities)
between Thomas’ views and that of early Latter-day Saints, including those of
Joseph Smith:
CREEDS THE SOURCE OF INTOLERANCE
To the passion for established Confessions
may be attributed the propensity, so common among “christians,” of calling
harsh names, applying reproachful epithets, and charging their brethren with
heresy and unbelief. It is observable, that they who are the most rigidly
wedded to forms of faith, have usually been the first to commence the out cry
of heresy, and the most relentless in pursuing the unfortunate delinquent. The
reason is obvious;--While they are guided by human forms, why should they not
condemn all persons as infidels, who persist in acknowledging assent to the
Bible only? Was any man ever denounced as a heretic for not believing in the
Bible?—Not one. Martyrs have been tried by creeds, and condemned for denying
creeds. They have not suffered for the constancy of their faith in the
Scriptures. Does not every church employ the term heretic to denote one, who
rejects its assumed articles? Does not that, which makes a heretic in one
church, make a saint in another? Judge every man by the Bible alone, and you
will have no further occasion to torture his conscience and blacken his
character with the hideous terrors of excommunications, anathemas, and cruel
aspersions on the charge of heresy.
I speak not of the original meaning of the
word, but of its popular use, or rather abuse. Every person, charge with
heresy, professes a firm and sincere belief in the Gospel.—Otherwise he would
not be a heretic but an infidel. His accusers call him a heretic, not because
he does not believe in the Bible, but because he cannot believe it as they do.
He is a heretic in the eyes of Calvinists, because, perhaps he does not believe
one of the five points; of Arminians, because he believes them all; of
Baptists, because he sprinkles them; of Presbyterians, because he believes in
bishops; of Churchmen, because he does not believe in them. And so we are all
heretics in one another, and yet the faith and hopes of all professedly centre
in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
It is said, that in accusations of heresy,
the accuser always understands the term to indicate a deficiency of faith in
the Scriptures:--Let this be granted, and the case is not altered. The accused
tells you that he does believe the
Scriptures, and what better authority can be had than his own declaration? May
we not justly consider the enforcement of a charge, under such circumstances,
as the wickedest persecution? Why is he to be branded with an odious epithet
for valuing his faith as dearly as another, who may rashly accuse him of being
a heretic, for maintaining his independence and a clear conscience? Abolish
creeds, obey the Scriptures, respect conscience, and no room will be left for
churches, or individuals, to denounce their brethren as heretics, or to kindle
discord by recrimination and offence. (The
Apostolic Advocate, vol. 2 no. 1 [1 May, 1835]:21, reprinted in The Apostolic Advocate, Vol. I-II 1834-36
[Houston: The Herald Press, 1971])
