What do Mormons have against the Apostles' Creed?

This blog looks at the Apostles' creed, asking why is it so abominable to recite and believe?

A brief history
The apostles' creed is the earliest creed used by the Christian church. It has changed over the years, but is essentially a summary of the Christian faith. It deals with God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It also deals with the church and second coming.

However, its name is misleading. It was not written by the apostles themselves. In fact, they probably knew nothing about it. It comes from the era after the apostles, following 100 AD onwards. There was a legend, which started in the 5th or 6th century AD that the apostles came together before they were about to set off and spread the gospel. Supposedly they each contributed one item to the creed as a basis of what they taught. As the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, though, this story is “absurd.”

Known early on as “the rule of faith”, variations of the creed appear in early works of the Christian church. The writer of the ISBE article states: “We have accounts given us of its contents (besides the Old Roman Form) in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, Origen, etc.; and they show substantial unity with a certain freedom of form in expression.”1 This means that essentially the same information appears but worded differently.

For the actual apostles' creed, there are two forms which we possess today; a shorter version, probably Roman in origin, and a longer form. Below are the two versions.

Shorter

“I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; (the life everlasting).”

Longer

“I believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of Heaven and Earth; and in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; [He descended into hell]; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven; and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy [catholic]2 Church; [the communion of saints]; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; [and the life everlasting]. Amen.”

The shorter form seems to be the oldest, and the longer, or 'received' form is what most know and use today. Philip Schaff, in Volume 2 of History of the Christian Church shows what was added in the sixth or seventh century. These are marked with square brackets [] above.

The creed started off as a baptismal confession and was expanded over time. It was also employed for other uses. In the middle of the second century, a heresy known as Gnosticism threatened Christianity. The confession became used as a 'rule of faith' or 'rule of truth' to test if someone was holding to the true faith or not. (Irenaeus in the mid-first century is an example of its use as a rule of faith. Hippolytus, early third century, is an example of its use as a baptismal confession. See Appendix 1)

However, while it was used to test the faith, it never became greater than Scripture. Scripture was never set aside in favour of the creed alone. If the creed could not be shown to be scriptural then it was worthless. If it did not help guard the true faith of Christianity and allow the true meaning of Scripture to prevail, then it had failed its task.

The contents
Schaff writes about the creed: “It follows the historical order of revelation of the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, beginning with the creation and ending with the resurrection and life eternal. It clusters around Christ as the central article of our faith. It sets forth living facts, not abstract dogmas and speaks in the language of the people, not of the theological school. It confines itself to the fundamental truths, is simple, brief, and yet comprehensive, and admirably adapted for catechetical and liturgical use.”3

Anyone reading the creed can see immediately that its contents are from Scripture. Despite the later additions, there is nothing un-scriptural about the creed. The only dubious phrase is “he descended into hell.” Yet, surely no one could find any problem with this creed as a summary of the Christian faith? Surely as a baptismal confession or 'rule' by which to test false hood, it does its job?

This is why it is so puzzling that it should be classed as an “abomination” by the Mormon church! Do they not believe these things?

Mormonism
In the official first vision account of the Joseph Smith, he writes that he went into the woods to seek from the Lord which sect of Christianity he should join. Two persons appeared, one God the Father, the other his Son, and Jesus spoke to Smith. He was told that all of the sects were wrong, “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight”, and that all the professors of Christianity were corrupt. Therefore, this creed must also be an abomination.

Yet, the question has to be: What is so abominable about this creed? Is it belief in God the Father Almighty? Belief in the resurrection of Christ after three days? Belief that there is an eternal life, with a judgement preceding it? Even the addition of a descent into hades cannot be an abomination in Mormon theology.

It also cannot mean that creeds in themselves are an abomination. The thirteen articles of faith in Mormonism are a creed. Creed comes from the Latin credo and means “I believe”. The thirteen articles each start with “We believe”. Oliver Cowdery also gave a creed in the early Mormon church similar to the thirteen articles.4 Despite the use of “We”, they are definitely creedal statements and fall under the definition of a creed. Every time someone says “I believe” Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God etc., then they are using a type of creed.

Yet, perhaps it isn't an abomination. If it isn't, then why not affirm it? If you do, however, will that then make you corrupt also? Why would God tell Smith that something so fundamentally in line with Scripture is an abomination?

We have to end by echoing Schaff's words in Creeds of Christendom Vol. 1. Although the attacks he writes about were different, the same implication is true. He writes: "The rationalistic opposition to the Apostles' Creed and its use in the churches is therefore an indirect attack upon the New Testament itself. But it will no doubt outlive these assaults, and share in the victory of the Bible over all forms of unbelief." If you don't believe the apostles' creed, then you do have a problem with the New Testament itself.

What is the basic problem with affirming the apostles' creed? What is so abominable? Perhaps a Mormon can shed some light.

Appendix 1:
Irenaeus gives us an example of it employed as a rule of faith. Hippolytus knows it as a baptismal confession. These appear below.

Irenaeus
"This faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race"

Hippolytus
"When the person being baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say: 'Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?' And the person being baptized shall say: 'I believe.' Then holding his hand on his head, he shall baptize him once.

"And then he shall say: 'Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again the third day, alive from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead?'

"And when he says: 'I believe,' he is baptized again. And again he shall say: 'Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and the resurrection of the body?' The person being baptized shall say: 'I believe,' and then he is baptized a third time."

Notes:
1. http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?type=getTopic&topic=Apostles%27+Creed%2C+The&DictList=4

2. This does not refer to the Roman Catholic church but the universal church of Christ

3. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiv.iv.html

4. Messenger and Advocate 1(1), October 1834, p. 2

Jesus takes a back seat

By John Merilatt

Why is it in Mormonism Jesus takes a back seat,

To priesthoods, temples, and milk with no meat.

You pray for truth and hope for good feelings,

And go through rituals for baptisms and sealing.

You place all your faith in a "living prophet".

With no zeal for God and no concern of it.

To remove the cross for the Garden of Gethsemane.

Only to demean the cross and its Grace o'plenty.

You claim that you need to prove you are worthy,

And miss the verses that say your works are filthy.

You claim that you, Jesus, and Satan are brothers,

And say Hitler is saved like all the others.

Why is it in Mormonism Jesus takes a back seat,

To white shirts, nice ties, and hair cuts so neat.

You stand up in meetings and say what you "Know",

Without any understanding and nothing to show.

You claim that Joseph was a prophet, seer, and revelator,

Yet with your Grace he keeps you forever the debtor.

Forgiveness is conditional on your doing "all you can do".

Yet you miss the verses where Christ makes things new.

You pay your tithe, avoid coffee and tea.

Yet only with Jesus is there comfort and glee.

Why is it in Mormonism Jesus takes a back seat.

He isn't even good enough to wash your own feet.

We only want you to realize that with Jesus there's more,

And that when it was finished the veil he did tore.

May God bless you and keep you safe.

From the Depths of Our Souls

By John Merilatt

To our LDS friends and family we bid you a fond hello.

We please ask that you listen as we speak from the depths of our soul.

You claim that you are Christian and although we disagree,

We ask that you read God's Holy Word and not just rely on a wretch like me.

For in God's Holy word he makes it very clear,

That only if you call on the one and only true Jesus will you and he draw near.

For Jesus Christ is God made flesh as it states in John 1.

For God consists of the Father, Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ His Son.

For the blood of Christ paid the price for sin once and for all,

And it is his Grace that saves us as we read in the words of Paul.

We agree with James, that faith without works is dead,

But to place any burden or workload upon your shoulders demeans the blood he shed.

You would rather trust the words of a self proclaimed prophet than trust God's Holy Word.

But if you had read his word to begin with, it's through his blood your salvation is rest assured.

From the depths of our soul we ask you take a look

At the real history and claims of your prophets and the church.

We love you dearly and will do what we can

To show you God's Word and not the words of man.

May God bless you and keep you safe.

They say "Anti-Mormon", we say "Anti-Christian".

If your ever in a conversation with someone who is LDS you will no doubt hear them call you an Anti-Mormon. So what makes one an Anti-Mormon? When your in those conversations I would suggest you ask the person your talking with to define it. Because of this I will be taking a look at some comments made by LDS apologists and show you how they will generalize you in with everyone else.

"On any LDS forum that is open to the general public, individuals who are hostile to the Church will inevitable gather and attack our beliefs. It is the manifest hostility that is apparent that makes them anti-Mormon. It is an obsessive compulsion that drives them to almost continual confrontation with latter-day saints. The qualifying mark of the anti-Mormon is the level of obsession."

"Anyone hostile to the church." Now that is interesting because because I think we need to take a look at the definition of hostile if we are to get an idea of what he is referring to.

hos·tile

 

–adjective

1.

of, pertaining to, or characteristic of an enemy: a hostilenation.

2.

opposed in feeling, action, or character; antagonistic: hostilecriticism.

3.

characterized by antagonism.

4.

not friendly, warm, or generous; not hospitable

–noun

5.

a person or thing that is antagonistic or unfriendly.

6.

Military . an enemy soldier, plane, ship, etc.

O.K. So I wouldn't say that we are their enemy would you? We have nothing against them personally so that would rule out definition number 1. Opposed in feeling is kind of broad so we would need to clarify that first. Because if we are talking about feelings on if the Book of Mormon being true then yes. However I wouldn't say that character is that far off. And what about antagonistic? I will give that one for a select few but not to the extent that they try and use it. So option 2 is possible and I will get to that which falls in with option 3 later. And since I have been labeled Anti-Mormon by them I can tell you number 4 doesn't apply because I am extremely friendly until you give me a reason not to be. Warm is subjective to feelings and we all know about that don't we? My favorite about option 4 is generous and hospitable because I have invited them into my home and fed them so that we could talk (see our meeting with missionaries videos on YouTube). Option 5 we gave pretty much gone over and 6 doesn't apply.

This part makes me laugh. "It is an obsessive compulsion that drives them to almost continual confrontation with latter-day saints. The qualifying mark of the anti-Mormon is the level of obsession." I love my daughters to the point I will go to the ends of the earth to makes sure they have what they need. Is being obsessed a bad thing if it is done out of love and concern? For I know for a fact that all of us in this ministry and all the other ministries we work with don't do what we do because we hate them. We want them to rid themselves of religion and come to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. By no means is this done out of anything but love. So with this in minds we need to ask them what we have personally done that they would consider hostile.

Now this next part I couldn't make up if I tried. He trys to give an analogy to show what it is those of us to try and share the gospel do. Here we go...

"I have a friend who has a fantastic Dodge truck. His father has always owned Dodge trucks. His brother owns a Dodge truck. He is devoted to Dodge trucks. To him, nothing else comes close. Another friend owns a Chevy truck. Sometimes, when the two of them are together, there is some friendly teasing that goes on about trucks, Dodge vs. Chevy. Now, lets suppose that my friend who loves Dodge trucks decides he wants to convince my Chevy-owning friend that he likes the wrong kind of truck. Is he going to succeed? It's possible that, if the Chevy-owner decided to test drive the Dodge, he might find features that he liked. He might like them well enough to "convert." That's an unlikely possibility, knowing these two friends. They each have their strongly held preferences, but the occasional wisecrack or teasing doesn't do any harm. Now let's suppose that the Chevy-truck guy decided he wanted to eliminate Dodge-truck owners altogether. Instead of saying that his preference is for Dodge trucks and recognizing that others might like something different, he sets up a blog or web site and begins to publish his prejudices along with some half-truths and outright lies about Dodge trucks. Instead of promoting Chevy as the best truck, he spends all his time trying to prevent people from buying Dodge. He actually becomes so involved in the anti-Dodge work that the attention he gives his Chevy pickup begins to take its toll and it starts to have some mechanical problems. It chugs and coughs and smokes, but it's still the best to him. Pretty soon, he doesn't even drive his Chevy because his anti-Dodge work takes up all his time. In the process, the attention he brings to the Dodge actually becomes a form of free advertising. His behavior escalates. Before long, he stands out in front of the Dodge dealership with a sign, shouting at the people that they're making the wrong choice. He vandalizes and defaces the Dodge trucks on the lot. He tries getting into confrontations with car shoppers. He eventually, he decides to vandalize the Dodges and make physical threats to scare people away from the Dodge lot."

Now I don't know about you but I highly doubt that the kind of vehicle one drives has an impact on where a person spends eternity. However the manner in which a person decides he will try and get there does so for the sake of argument I will give this to him as funny as it may be. Did you happen to catch this part "Now let's suppose that the Chevy-truck guy decided he wanted to eliminate Dodge-truck owners altogether"? Can you see how he tries to stretch this to make it personal? How many of you want to get rid of them altogether? It is the churches doctrines we oppose and not the people but because you oppose their doctrine you must hate them as individuals as well.

He also makes a comment that we all post half-truths and outright lies. Is this the raisin making fun of a grape? I can't tell you how many times I've been in a conversation with these apologist and try and get a simple answer out of them about something very minimal and they have to dance around the issue rather than give Biblical support for their statements. They want to try and call you a liar before the truth comes out. I believe this is done in hopes that those on the outside may question your motives and discredit you first and any evidence is subjected to prejudice. He also claims that we need to spend our time promoting ours instead of preventing them from buying into theirs. How did Mormonism start again...Oh that's right. All our creeds are an abomination, professors corrupt.... yeah I can see that one, NOT. The issue is that when they are using the same terms as us but with completely different meanings we have to help people understand where Mormonism changes the definition so we can present our side of things. We have to understand the differences first.

I believe I saw you shaking your head at this statement...

"He actually becomes so involved in the anti-Dodge work that the attention he gives his Chevy pickup begins to take its toll and it starts to have some mechanical problems. It chugs and coughs and smokes, but it's still the best to him. Pretty soon, he doesn't even drive his Chevy because his anti-Dodge work takes up all his time."

Does he honestly think that we give up our faith so we can invest more time in tearing down his? At what point is he going too far? We are more than happy to talk with Mormons but how can you have an honest dialog with someone who writes this kind of stuff? By focusing your conversation on the Word of God.

Why is it that these LDS apologists are wanting so badly to silence us? He made a comment that we give the LDS church free advertising. Somehow I highly doubt that. Although there are some who stand out on the streets yelling I don't think it will convince someone who isn't LDS to becomes so. It is his next statement that is the icing on the cake. "He tries getting into confrontations with car shoppers. He eventually, he decides to vandalize the Dodges and make physical threats to scare people away from the Dodge lot." Really? Now I realize that in our small part of the world we don't see much interaction however just because a church is vandalized doesn't mean it was done by anyone who opposes Mormonism. There are countless churches that have been vandalized, burned down, and ridiculed and I have never heard of anyone accusing Mormons. Is this to show the extent to try and make it seem like they are being persecuted?

Now as funny as his little scenario was we need to look at what I feel makes an Anti-Christian. Let me make this very clear from the beginning that not all Mormons fall into this definition. I would say that it is people such as the one who wrote the article in question who fall into it. It is those who are so desperate to defend Mormonism they will label you as they please to make them feel better about themselves. It is those who are so offended by those who disagree with their beliefs they will label you with such hatred to the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Osama Bin Laden. It is those who refuse to allow people to do research on their own without chastising them for not having a pre-disclosed opinion on the churches history, statements, and doctrine before looking at it.

I again want to state that those of us involved in ministry to the LDS are not Anti-Mormon, that would be better classified as Anti-Mormonism. We love the people. So much in fact that we are willing to loose an earthly friendship in order to tell you the truth. Because we are called to be salt and light to the earth. Salt on an open would hurts and light will cause those who have been blind to strain their eyes.

I hope this helps you in your efforts to reach the LDS. Be prepared that if you haven't been labeled Anti-Mormon already you soon will be. Don't let that be a hindrance in you sharing the Gospel. For if we don't share the Gospel then Satan has already won.

Greg's up to his old tricks again

For those of you who have been following us for a while you may or may not remember this. For those of you new to Ephesians 2 please take heed. Several months ago an LDS apologist by the name of Greg West became fascinated with our ministry to the point that he tracked down our old address and published pictures of our place along with other ministries as if the amount of money we make has some sort of impact we can make for the Kingdom of God. Even though he has moved on to bigger and better fish he is still up to his old tricks.

As most of you are probably aware there is a new video series on YouTube called LDS- Video Encyclopedia. Greg caught wind of it thanks to another apologist by the name of Timothy. He then immediately went after the creator of the videos. This is what he posted, minus the websites information...

You'll note that the registration information attempts to stay as anonymous as possible. The address on the site shows up on Google Maps as a business park where there's a Devry University Graduate School, Peak Fitness Company, Internet Capital Group, and a Trigon Technology Group building. It's probably a PO Box in one of those places where you can rent a mailbox. Perhaps it's an employee of a company there or a Devry student.

You'll also notice that the e-mail address of the registrant uses a proxy anonymizer. What does it tell you when a person doesn't want to put their name on their work?

Now I'm not a rocket scientist by any stretch of the means but with people like Greg out there why wouldn't someone want their information kept secret? Should you decide to start up a ministry please remember that Greg may post your information for everyone on the internet to see. However if you wish you can become a part of Ephesians 2 and it will already lead to me, and to that I say "Bring it on, Greg....Bring it on".