In a recent volume by RoseAnn Benson where she compares and contrasts the Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith and their Restortionist movements, among other things, we find the following comparison between Alexander Campbell’s negative attitude towards creeds and those of Joseph Smith, which one found informative. On Alexander Campbell, we read:
Creedalism. This term meant the doctrinal territory staked out by sectarians, the beliefs to which members must subscribe. Both Alexander and his father were put off by the splintering of Christianity and had no desire to start yet one more denomination, recognizing the need to return to the original standard of God, “free from all mixture of human opinion and inventions of men.”
. . .
In his 1809 Declaration and Address, Thomas Campbell made the following clarification regarding his opposition to creeds and confessions:
Although we may appear to our brethren to oppose them, yet this is to be understood only in so far as they oppose the unity of the Church, by containing sentiments not expressly revealed in the word of God; or, by the way of using them, become the instruments of a human or implicit faith, or oppress the weak of God’s heritage. Here they are liable to none of those objections, we have nothing against them. It is the abuse and not the lawful use of such compilations that we oppose.
. . .
Campbell appealed to logic, reason, and the scriptures in several articles to show that creeds were simply absurd. (1) If one argues that confessions of faith or human creeds are plainer or easier to understand than the prophets of God, then “men are either wiser or more or more benevolent than God.” Instead, Campbell suggested that the “abstract and metaphysical dogmas of the best creeds not extant, are the most difficult of apprehension and comprehension.” (2) Creeds act as dividers rather than unifiers of the Christian church. If the apostolic church was united without creeds, they are not necessary or helpful to Christian unity. (3) Since creeds are composed of human speculation on the revelations of God, they necessarily include the imperfections and limitations of man’s uninspired intellect and can never be placed on the same level as scripture. Thus, to suppose that unity and unanimity of agreement could occur under creeds “is in every way as irrational as to make a uniformity of features, of color, of height and weight, a bond of union.” (4) The number of items in the creeds—for example, the 33 chapters of the Presbyterian Confession with 171 dogmas—“is not amongst the last of their absurdities.” (5) In the business of our salvation we can depend only on pure truth. Thus by depending on the scriptures rather than on creed, we protect ourselves from false ideas. If God’s word is sufficient to save humankind, then creeds are not necessary. (6) We could better spend our time reading directly from the scriptures. Since creeds are uninspired human devices unauthorized by heaven, a more efficient use of time for those who wish to come to Christ would be to read directly from the prophets of God Campbell contended that “the Bible is of itself as plain and intelligible as it can be made, and its pretended darkness a mere clerical fiction.” Further, he pointed out that reeds created by Synods must be fallible because their authors were fallible—and “it would be strange if man could explain the will of God more intelligently or benevolently than God himself had done it.” (7) Perhaps Campbell’s most piercing argument was his citation of Jesus’s intercessory prayer. He pointed out that the words of the Apostles regarding Christ are the basis of unity among the disciples of Christ. “The will of heaven . . . is that all who believe on the Messiah through the testimony of the apostles may be one; consequently, they do not will that those who believe on him through the Westminster divines shall be one.” Thus, any attempt to unite Christians by creed is “an attempt to overrule the will of heaven.” (RoseAnn Benson, Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith: 19th-Century Restorationists [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 2017], 78, 79-80)
On Joseph Smith’s attitude towards creeds, and how they were similar and dissimilar to those of Alexander Campbell, Benson wrote:
-Isms and Creeds. Like Campbell, Smith uniformly rejected the five points of Calvinism. Regarding the doctrines of election and predestination, Smith insisted, “Unconditional election of individuals to eternal life was not taught by the Apostles.” Nevertheless, Smith clarified that “God did elect or predestinate, that all those who would be saved, should be saved in Christ Jesus, and through obedience to the gospel; but he passes over no man’s sins, but visits them with correction, and if his children will not repent of their sins He will discard them.”
Smith was a vehement opponent of creeds but for reasons different from Campbell’s. In the 1838 official record of his 1820 First Vision, Smith declared that in response to his question “which of all the sects was right,” he was told among other things that the creeds of Christendom “were an abomination in his sight.” In other words, truth had been replaced by the false reasoning and philosophies of the early Christian Fathers, regardless of how well-meaning their efforts were, with which God was greatly displeased. Smith considered his First Vision a completely authoritative source coming from God himself. Creeds set limits on God and his ability to reveal additional light and knowledge. In other words, Smith believed the scriptures were very important, but not sufficient.
In a statement about the confessions of the different denominations, Smith explained his own resistance to them: “They all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to though all of them have some truths but I want to come up into the presence of God & learn all things but the creeds set up stakes, & say, hitherto shalt thou come, & no further—which I cannot subscribe to.” . . . In response to the frequently asked question “Wherein do you differ from other sects?” Smith responded once with this statement, “We believe the Bible, and all other sects profess to believe their interpretations of the Bible, and their creeds.” (Ibid., 106-7)
As noted, the issue of Biblical sufficiency was a key area of contrast, not just between Joseph Smith’s Restorationist movement and Campbell’s, but between LDS and all groups within the broad “Protestant” spectrum.
For a book-length treatment of this issue, Sola Scriptura, see:
Robert S. Boylan, Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura (2017). An online version can be found here.