The Apostle's Creed

[Dr. Sandwich]

I know LDS say they don't believe the creeds.. But why not? I always assumed it was because of the trinity, but the Apostles and Nicene seem to be harmonious with the godhead idea. So what's the problem?

I figured I'd go through them. Apostle's creed is the shortest ans we'll work up from here

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy christian church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

[Tribunal]

Wouldn't the Articles of Faith be a creed?

[Dr. Sandwich]

Wouldn't the Articles of Faith be a creed?

I have no idea. Can't anything you give credence to be a creed? can CCR be a creed?

But I mean the ecumenical creeds of the early church.

[TOmNossor]

I would suggest there are a few problems with the Apostleâ??s Creed.

The first is that it is not canonized scripture. It is a conglomeration of ideas that I believe are true and source from scripture, but LDS and non-LDS would not suggest that God inspired the author of the Apostleâ??s Creed (assuming that modern views on the origin of the creed are closer to truth than more faith-promoting views). I think we LDS should acknowledge that the Articles of Faith are generally a creed.

Second, this from Joseph Smith I think is interesting:

â??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, â??Hitherto shalt thou come, and no furtherâ??; which I cannot subscribe to.â?

Finally, I would suggest that historically Creeds have been used to separate apart those who claimed to be Christians. The Apostleâ??s Creed is probably the poorest example of this. But the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Chalcedon Creed, and â?¦ were clearly established to define who was in Christâ??s church and who was outside of Christâ??s church. I believe that unity in Christ as conceived by LDS (and as some evidence would suggest as conceived in the very early church) is a product of orthopraxy not orthodoxy. So overtures to orthodoxy that schism the church are generally problematic.

The above are my general thoughts on the reason God (as LDS believe) claimed that â??their creeds are an abomination.â? I do not think it possible that the beliefs espoused by â??their creedsâ? were universally an abomination.

Charity, TOm

[Hannah Rebekah]

Numbers four and five say:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

What is your explanation of what was Christ doing when he descended into hell for those three days before he rose again from the dead? I have read accounts of what the Church Fathers have said about this but I would like to know your take on it.

[kantgomo]

The Apostle's Creed seems inconsistent with Mormonism to me.

[TOmNossor]

Wouldn't the Articles of Faith be a creed?

I think LDS should acknowledge that the AoF are generally a creed. They are canonized scripture so we believe they do have inspiration as their source. Also, while not perfect, I think the CoJCoLDS has done better not dividing based on doctrinal issues defined in some creedal orthodoxy.

Charity, TOm

[Tsuzuki]

I have no problem with the Apostle's creed.

[Tsuzuki]

The Apostle's Creed seems inconsistent with Mormonism to me.

How so?

[Dr. Sandwich]

I would suggest there are a few problems with the Apostleâ??s Creed.

The first is that it is not canonized scripture. It is a conglomeration of ideas that I believe are true and source from scripture, but LDS and non-LDS would not suggest that God inspired the author of the Apostleâ??s Creed (assuming that modern views on the origin of the creed are closer to truth than more faith-promoting views). I think we LDS should acknowledge that the Articles of Faith are generally a creed.

So it's not true by necessity, but do you happen to agree or disagree with it?

Second, this from Joseph Smith I think is interesting:

â??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, â??Hitherto shalt thou come, and no furtherâ??; which I cannot subscribe to.â?

See.. I have to say Joseph Smith is wrong about that. I don't know how to get around it. even the fact that there is more than one ecumenical creed is inconsistant with the idea that creeds can be limiting. The nicene says more than the apostle's, then to hold the nicene doesn't one have to go further than the apostle's?

I suppose you could interpret joseph as meaning that about each doctrine a creed speaks it speaks to the full extent of it. But i don't see how that is really true either. Mentioing that christ suffered unter Pilate for instance doesn't presume to encapsulate all of christ's suffering...

Finally, I would suggest that historically Creeds have been used to separate apart those who claimed to be Christians. The Apostleâ??s Creed is probably the poorest example of this. But the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Chalcedon Creed, and â?¦ were clearly established to define who was in Christâ??s church and who was outside of Christâ??s church. I believe that unity in Christ as conceived by LDS (and as some evidence would suggest as conceived in the very early church) is a product of orthopraxy not orthodoxy. So overtures to orthodoxy that schism the church are generally problematic.

The above are my general thoughts on the reason God (as LDS believe) claimed that â??their creeds are an abomination.â? I do not think it possible that the beliefs espoused by â??their creedsâ? were universally an abomination.

Charity, TOm

Well you are right that they set apart those that claim to be Christian, but you are wrong that they schism the church. The tern "ecumenical" means that all the churches in the world were invited to weigh in on the council. Usually councils were called to make a decision about a particular heresy. The Council of Nicea for instance was called about Arianism. and everybody in the church was able to agree that Arianism was not Christian.

The decisions that schism the church are not done ecumenically like the discision made recently by the episcopal church to ordain homosexuals, causing a number of other Christian groups to splinter off into things like "american anglicans"

[Dr. Sandwich]

Numbers four and five say:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

What is your explanation of what was Christ doing when he descended into hell for those three days before he rose again from the dead? I have read accounts of what the Church Fathers have said about this but I would like to know your take on it.

Peter said that he was preaching to the spirits in prison

[noel00]

There is an interesting on Speakingoffaith.org on the Creeds. Jaroslav Pelikan has written a book on the various creeds. It was an excellant program. I feel when reciting the creed in Sunday Service at one with millions of Christians now and in past centuries.

[ed2276]

I know LDS say they don't believe the creeds.. But why not? I always assumed it was because of the trinity, but the Apostles and Nicene seem to be harmonious with the godhead idea. So what's the problem?

I figured I'd go through them. Apostle's creed is the shortest ans we'll work up from here

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy christian church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

I think that I would have a problem with #3, as to how Christ was conceived.

#4 is questiionable for me, depending on what is meant by "hell".

#9 I question as to what is meant by "holy christian church".

While most of the creed sounds like something I could stand behind, the question of whether I could embrace the creed as a whole hangs on the specifics of what each declaration means.

[Dr. Sandwich]

I think that I would have a problem with #3, as to how Christ was conceived.

Lds Don't believe Christ was conceived by the holy spirit?

Luke 1:35...

#4 is questiionable for me, depending on what is meant by "hell".

Sometimes the word used is "hades" or in more liberal translations "the grave" which is bizarre since those translations would only be appropriate if the creed was written in greek like the bible. but it was written in latin and the word is "infernos" which means hell, the fiery brimstoney one.

#9 I question as to what is meant by "holy christian church".

Depends who you ask.

The catholics say it's the Roman Catholic Church,

the Orthodox say it's the true apostolic church that wrote the creeds which they say is them.

and most other Christians say it's the universal organization of all Christians everywhere throughout all time

the latin word is "catholicam" which means "universal" and is where the catholics got their name

While most of the creed sounds like something I could stand behind, the question of whether I could embrace the creed as a whole hangs on the specifics of what each declaration means.

well now that i've defined them what do you think?

[ed2276]

Lds Don't believe Christ was conceived by the holy spirit?

I haven't heard any official declaration about just how the conception was brought about. There has been speculation about it. There has been accusation about it (Mormons believe God had actual physical sex with Mary). But, I don't know of anything as to the actual details of how it occurred in LDS doctrine.

The scripture you quote isn't as definitive as it might seem:

Luke 1:35...The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

This says that the Holy Ghost would come upon her, not that it was the Holy Ghost that caused the conception. It says that it would be the power of the Highest...that is most High God, the Father...that would overshadow her. The role of the Holy Ghost coming on her might have just been an indwelling of the Spirit such that she could be translated to endure the presence of the Father, by whose power she conceived.

Matthew has this though :

Matthew 1: 18

[Dr. Sandwich]

I haven't heard any official declaration about just how the conception was brought about. There has been speculation about it. There has been accusation about it (Mormons believe God had actual physical sex with Mary). But, I don't know of anything as to the actual details of how it occurred in LDS doctrine.

The scripture you quote isn't as definitive as it might seem:

This says that the Holy Ghost would come upon her, not that it was the Holy Ghost that caused the conception. It says that it would be the power of the Highest...that is most High God, the Father...that would overshadow her. The role of the Holy Ghost coming on her might have just been an indwelling of the Spirit such that she could be translated to endure the presence of the Father, by whose power she conceived.

The holy spirit isn't as high as the father?

Jesus gets called highest doesn't he?

Isn't anyone who's a god highest?

Yeah, see that is what I mean. Peter says Christ went to the spirit prison. What is the word he uses? The way Peter describes it there is no suffering going on of the fire and brimstone kind, but it is more of a holding cell where the spirits of the disobedient were awaiting release after the Lord preached to them. Isaiah also seemed to speak of them as captives awaiting their coming liberty. So, it seems to me it can't be that endless, firey type of hell.

Interestingly, despite this being an ecumenical creed, there is just a little bit of disagreement about this line of it. While nobody outright denies that this part is true, the Methodists omit this line and the Anglicans change to to "He descended to the dead"

Well, given what my definition of the true christian church is, I don't think I could embrace this part of the creed as it is intended.

Hold up. you believe that there is a true church on earth which is Christ's church. it seems to me that you are closer to the original intent than even I am! (I'm protestant...ish)

I think I could embrace most of it: Christ conceived of God, however that happened, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered, died, rose again at the third day; descended to preach to the spirits in prison, though not the firey hell; ascended to heaven and is enthroned there with the Father; will judge all; the Holy Ghost; resurrection of the body; forgiveness of sins; life everlasting.

There's no partial credit given here it's like a true false question. Is it, as a whole, heretical or orthodox?

[Tsuzuki]

Dr. Sandwich, Mormons are just obstinate. They'll find issue with any creed, even if they agree with every part of it, as this video illustrates.

[Darth_Bill]

The holy spirit isn't as high as the father?

Jesus gets called highest doesn't he?

Isn't anyone who's a god highest?

New around here?

Mormons are a little bit subordinationalists...if that is a word. And no, anyone who is a god isn't necessarily the highest or the "One True God". Volumes have been written about that in this forum and in other books, and i won't repeat them here.

I don't like the creeds because they are "creeds". I have been in primary for the past several years and I'm really, really glad we don't teach our kids to parrot the Articles of Faith anymore. I think they were starting to be used as a creed and we seem to be getting away from that again.

They'll find issue with any creed, even if they agree with every part of it, as this video illustrates.

Well, it is what isn't said that is the real bone in the throat. On the surface, the Nicean Creed isn't too objectionable...until you get into the meaning and the underlying controversy. Ostler spent a whole book going into why it is philosophically wrong to adhere to the creed.

[Hannah Rebekah]

New around here?

Mormons are a little bit subordinationalists...if that is a word. And no, anyone who is a god isn't necessarily the highest or the "One True God". Volumes have been written about that in this forum and in other books, and i won't repeat them here.

I don't like the creeds because they are "creeds". I have been in primary for the past several years and I'm really, really glad we don't teach our kids to parrot the Articles of Faith anymore. I think they were starting to be used as a creed and we seem to be getting away from that again.

Well, it is what isn't said that is the real bone in the throat. On the surface, the Nicean Creed isn't too objectionable...until you get into the meaning and the underlying controversy. Ostler spent a whole book going into why it is philosophically wrong to adhere to the creed.

So what is the name of Ostler's book?

[TOmNossor]

So it's not true by necessity, but do you happen to agree or disagree with it?

It is definitely not true of necessity. The Apostleâ??s Creed was likely not a product of the Apostles. It has not been â??accepted by common consentâ? by the authority of the CoJCoLDS as true. So it is not â??true by necessityâ? or even as close to â??true by necessityâ? as other aspects of the CoJCoLDS.

I personally have no problem with any of the statements. I can even embrace the Nicene Creed as long as the understanding of Homoousian is as it was by the majority of the council not as it was 80+ years later.

Concerning #3

LDS believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father. They believe that the Sonship of Christ is true of Christ incarnate as well as Christ pre-incarnate. LDS do not believe that the Holy Ghost is identical to God the Father (nor do non-LDS Christians, but LDS Christians often believe that this is the view of non-LDS Christians OR that non-LDS Christians are too close to this view). So #3 will elicit concern.

See.. I have to say Joseph Smith is wrong about that. I don't know how to get around it. even the fact that there is more than one ecumenical creed is inconsistant with the idea that creeds can be limiting. The nicene says more than the apostle's, then to hold the nicene doesn't one have to go further than the apostle's?

The purpose of creeds is to define orthodoxy once and for all. While there is certainly post council â??coming to gripsâ? with the creeds, the purpose is to draw a line in the sand. The view embraced by Arius was declared non-Christian by Nicea. The intent was that no longer could Christians claim that Christ was â??mere creatureâ? and be Christian. Christ was of the same substance with God.

For 60 years after that there were debates and advances/retreats along this line, but the stake was a starting point. Full blown Arianism was generally outside of Christianity. Over time the view called semi-Arianism became not part of Christianity. The words of St. Justin Martyr written long before Nicea would not be written / embraced by canonized Saint after 400AD. A stake had been driven in that defined orthodoxy and Justinâ??s words would no longer be kosher.

Now, you may believe that such a stake is/was a good thing, but I do not believe that you can deny that such a stake was the intent of the Council of Nicea. I personally believe that early councils did a fair job defining Christianity from the point of their â??foundational slip.â? The foundational slip IMO is the embracing of Creation ex Nihilo.

So future EC can define beyond the previous council, but there IRREFORMABLE character means that if a Prophet standing in the presence of God recognizes truth in conflict with the EC, they cannot teach it (or they have been deceived or â?¦). I would say that Christ is not dual natured such that He is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity and homoousian with humans in His humanity but rather the God-man incarnate who possesses one nature. I would suggest that the Council of Chalcedon claims no direct public revelation from God. If revelation from God comes and demonstrates that Chalcedonâ??s dual natured Christology was not a good understanding of the God-man Christ, there is no turning back. The stake is set and no revelation from God can change it, theoretically.

Well you are right that they set apart those that claim to be Christian, but you are wrong that they schism the church. The tern "ecumenical" means that all the churches in the world were invited to weigh in on the council. Usually councils were called to make a decision about a particular heresy. The Council of Nicea for instance was called about Arianism. and everybody in the church was able to agree that Arianism was not Christian.

The decisions that schism the church are not done ecumenically like the discision made recently by the episcopal church to ordain homosexuals, causing a number of other Christian groups to splinter off into things like "american anglicans"

Arius and I two Bishops refused to sign the creedal declaration of Nicea. They were excommunicated by the church and expelled from society by the state (which was intertwined with the church). For 60 years there was debate and violence. The state/church alternatively expelled Arius and Arians and Athanasius and Athanasians.

Again, you may believe such definitions are important, but they did divide what was once a single group of believers. Later councils turned on far more technical stuff. Did Christ posses one nature or two natures? One will or two wills? Oriental Christians exist today refusing to assent to the technicalities of such definitions. Few folks in the pew have any idea why they are not Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic, but they are not. There is no question that historically creeds have been used in a way that has schism-ed the church.

Also, while your example of the Episcopal Church may seem accurate, ECs do not necessarily reflect the â??will of the people.â? And even to the extent that they represent the will of the majority of people or more likely the majority (often almost but not usually completely unanimous will) of Bishops, they still often result in the minority splitting.

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

So what is the name of Ostler's book?

Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God

Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of God

and

Exploring Mormon Thought: Of God and Gods

They are excellent IMO. I suspect Darth Bill was mostly talking about the first one.

www.blakeostler.com has more.

Charity, TOm

[soren]

I would suggest there are a few problems with the Apostle’s Creed.

The first is that it is not canonized scripture. It is a conglomeration of ideas that I believe are true and source from scripture, but LDS and non-LDS would not suggest that God inspired the author of the Apostle’s Creed (assuming that modern views on the origin of the creed are closer to truth than more faith-promoting views). I think we LDS should acknowledge that the Articles of Faith are generally a creed.

There are formulas that express the LDS Church's doctrine of the Godhead that would be subject to this same criticism. The most significant is the statement that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are "one in purpose." I doubt any Mormon could claim to be orthodox without subscribing to this statement, although it has no more basis, even in LDS Scripture, than homoousios.

In any case, this objection could not be applied strongly to the Apostle's Creed, which is entirely composed of Biblcal language expressing key events in summary form.

Second, this from Joseph Smith I think is interesting:

“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.”

This is an abysmal criticism of creeds, which construes them as the exact opposite of what they are. A creed is fundamentally a baptismal confession. They summarize a minimal norm for faith that can be easily learned by a person who prepared for baptism. That's it. That is all that a creed is. Because of this, however, creeds prove useful in other spheres: because doctrinal orthodoxy is a reasonable standard for admission to baptism, the baptismal creed is in turn a measure of orthodoxy throughout a Christian's life which began at baptism.

Contra Smith's assertion, the stakes of the creed are "Hiterto must thou come before thou canst go farther."

Finally, I would suggest that historically Creeds have been used to separate apart those who claimed to be Christians. The Apostle’s Creed is probably the poorest example of this. But the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Chalcedon Creed, and … were clearly established to define who was in Christ’s church and who was outside of Christ’s church. I believe that unity in Christ as conceived by LDS (and as some evidence would suggest as conceived in the very early church) is a product of orthopraxy not orthodoxy. So overtures to orthodoxy that schism the church are generally problematic.

The above are my general thoughts on the reason God (as LDS believe) claimed that “their creeds are an abomination.” I do not think it possible that the beliefs espoused by “their creeds” were universally an abomination.

Charity, TOm

If showed up at an LDS Church asking for baptism while openly denying that the members of the Godhead were one in purpose (homotelesphoros) do you you think they'd let me in?

[TOmNossor]

Hello Soren,

There are formulas that express the LDS Church's doctrine of the Godhead that would be subject to this same criticism. The most significant is the statement that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are "one in purpose." I doubt any Mormon could claim to be orthodox without subscribing to this statement, although it has no more basis, even in LDS Scripture, than homoousios.

I do not think that the â??onenessâ? of God is authoritatively defined in LDS theology. In our recent conference â??oneness in purposeâ? was a starting point, but not the sum total of oneness as described by Elder Holland.

I also believe that the calls for the apostles/disciples to be one â??as I and my Father are oneâ? very much points to a â??oneness of purpose.â? IMO â??oneness of purpose if far more scriptural than â??oneness of ousia.â?

Joseph Smithâ??s Mormonism was built less on orthodoxy than even todayâ??s Mormonism. A man was brought before Joseph Smith for teaching some doctrine so ridiculous Joseph Smith laughed at it, but he did not reprimand him (or so the story goes).

I have known a former Bishop who held modalist oneness beliefs. I have witnessed folks who I think are far too tritheistic in their beliefs. There are problems with such things and I will mention them a little shortly, but there are benefits too.

In any case, this objection could not be applied strongly to the Apostle's Creed, which is entirely composed of Biblcal language expressing key events in summary form.

Generally this is true. As a LDS, we believe that God told Joseph Smith â??their creeds are an abomination.â? We do not know what that means necessarily. I think much of it is the schisms, contention, and even violence that has resulted as creedal definitions are added to inspired scripture. See my previous post for more on this.

This is an abysmal criticism of creeds, which construes them as the exact opposite of what they are. A creed is fundamentally a baptismal confession. They summarize a minimal norm for faith that can be easily learned by a person who prepared for baptism. That's it. That is all that a creed is. Because of this, however, creeds prove useful in other spheres: because doctrinal orthodoxy is a reasonable standard for admission to baptism, the baptismal creed is in turn a measure of orthodoxy throughout a Christian's life which began at baptism.

The Chalcedon Creed to my knowledge was not a â??baptismal confession.â? I do not believe that creeds are merely â??baptismal confessionsâ? they were much more. Thousands of Oriental Christians are not EO or Catholic because of disagreements defined in creeds.

If showed up at an LDS Church asking for baptism while openly denying that the members of the Godhead were one in purpose (homotelesphoros) do you you think they'd let me in?

Yes and no. If you are othropraxic in that you sustain Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson as prophets of God, I think there is much that can be believed under this umbrella. How you could declare that God the Father and God the Son were in conflict of purpose and still accept ancient and modern LDS scripture as well as the leaders of the church as authorities, I do not know. Thus your question is likely merely academic.

Still, I personally believe that oneness of Godâ??s church is orthopraxic. So if you sustain in action the leaders of the church and believe weird things, I think that you are in communion with Christâ??s body. However, there is IMO importance in protecting those who might be weaker in their commitment to Christ and His authorized servants. Thus, I personally would not merely laugh at your â??open denials.â? I would counsel you regarding the difficulties present in such a belief. If you were already a member and I could not persuade you by love and persistence that your belief in Godhead contention was flawed, I would instruct you not to teach such things openly. As a non-member seeking baptism, I would seek guidance from God (as did the missionaries who told me I could not be baptized when I initially sought baptism). I am not sure if I would recommend you for baptism, but it would be mostly because I would struggle to believe that you actually sustained the leaders of the church if you hold such a belief.

I think my intervening post to Dr. Sandwich contains much about controversies and schisms that is the most clear read of the historical record. I think this is a good part of Godâ??s reason for declaring â??their creeds are an abomination.â? A simple baptismal symbol (like the AoF or the Apostleâ??s Creed) is not the problem.

Charity, TOm

[Darth_Bill]

>I doubt any Mormon could claim to be orthodox without subscribing to this statement, although it has no more basis, even in LDS Scripture, than homoousios.

I think the prayer in the garden showed a little about how the wills worked. I'm not sure if you want to show to what degree they are one in purpose. I think it is fairly well established.

>If showed up at an LDS Church asking for baptism while openly denying that the members of the Godhead were one in purpose (homotelesphoros) do you you think they'd let me in?

You might have to come up with an example. I don't know if the "one in purpose" is a baptismal interview question.

[emeliza]

I personally have no real problems with The Apostle's Creed, however there are different versions of it. The one you wrote was not the one I said as a Presbyterian and they know say something a little big different. Again they also change The Lord's Prayer a bit now and again (trespassers to sins to debtors).

Anyway the part of the holy christian church might get a few people because LDS might look at that differently. I think the part of 'hell' would be fine as we believe that to mean the Spirit world. Sometimes the part about the Holy Ghost might be confusing as we believe that Heavenly Father is the father of Christ and the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Father are different beings.

But overall I like the Apostle's Creed and have no problem saying it when visiting other denominations. It is simple and beautiful.