“If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”*
by Fred W. Anson Personally, and speaking only for myself and no other author in this series, I have a hard time finding a religious system that’s less tethered to reality than Mormonism – that is with the possible exception of its close cousin, Scientology. And over the course of the last few months, we have shown you why.
The Ten Myths that we have analyzed and scrutinized over this series aren’t just interesting trivia points of Mormon Culture, they are foundational to the very religion. Endemic to them all are Latter-day Saint dogmas that must be believed and accepted in order to justify either basic religious distinctives in particular or Mormonism in general. In some cases, as was stated in the introduction to this series, if the myth isn’t true then Mormonism no longer has any justification for existing at all. Let’s consider them again along with their epigraphs one last time, shall we?
Returning to my opening statement, it is with good reason that L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, has been dubbed, “The Joseph Smith of the 20th Century” – the two religious systems share far more similarities than differences.1
A key difference between the two is that Hubbard learned from Smith’s mistakes and chose to disconnect his new religion from any extant religion (other than perhaps Scientism)2 and placed its origins in unknown alien space rather than known human earth history. Thus Hubbard’s truth claims and religious origin story couldn’t be discredited by objective historical and empirical evidence.
Mormon “Plan of Salvation” (circa the 1950s) v. Scientology “Bridge” (circa the 1970s)
Nonetheless, both systems of epistemology, with their basis in confirmation-driven, “Come to the conclusion first and then bend the facts to fit” modus operandi, are nearly identical. While Mormonism relied heavily on extant 19th Century American Restorationism, Scientology was literally derived from L. Ron Hubbard’s original Science Fiction narratives to support its claims.3 Thus Scientology is epistemologically set in the realm of one’s man fiction and nothing more making it a religion that is entirely dependent on that man. And since he is now dead, the system is now completely closed, self-contained, and circular.
On the other hand, the fact that Mormonism can so easily be discredited by hard empirical evidence – including its own documented history from its own archives – is what makes it the reigning king of unreality. Mormons must not only ignore discomforting, and discrediting evidence from objective, disinterested sources, but they must also deny it too in other to remain in the system. The old image of a petulant child plugging his ears with his fingers, closing his eyes, and loudly and endlessly chanting, “La! La! La! La!” comes to mind.
Thus in both systems, one must detach from reality and accept a fantasy that then becomes the unifying principle by which one filters the world. However, Mormonism does Scientology one better by not only adopting this confirmation bias-driven epistemology but actually denying any and all evidence that might pop the Mormon fantasy bubble. For example, one can’t definitively prove that Scientology’s Xenu didn’t bring billions of his people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft 75 million years ago, stack them around volcanoes, and kill them with hydrogen bombs because any evidence to the contrary would have been decimated long ago. It’s not falsifiable.
However, it can easily be proven that Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites with their resulting ancient civilizations of millions and millions of Jewish emigrates were never on the North American continent preaching stock and standard 19th Century Protestant American Restorationism. Take your pick: Scientifically, Linguistically, Historically, and Theologically, The Book of Mormon can easily be deconstructed and debunked thus revoking Joseph Smith’s Prophetic credential and the keystone of Mormonism. Thus Mormonism is easily falsified.
In the end and in both cases, one must literally come to the conclusion first and then bend the facts to fit it. As one former Mormon (a former Bishop to boot) once said so well:
“I have become convinced that each individual Mormon must have his or her own personal epiphany which comes from uncertainty and questioning that arises along the way. Until something triggers the desire to ‘seek’, a member will never ‘find’ the ultimate truth.
If you try to face a believer with the truth, that person invariably rejects the messenger and the message. Something may get through sometimes, but generally, members will not thank you for trying to ‘destroy’ their testimony. The messenger is under the influence of Satan, the message is fraught with lies, and members already ‘know’ and cling to the truth – just as they were taught to. That is called faith.
Brigadier General of the Nauvoo Legion, Joseph Smith (left); Commodore of the Scientology Sea Org, L. Ron Hubbard (right).
The same can’t be said for Judeo-Christianity which not only is tightly knit into human history and empiricism but demands that its adherents stay tethered to both just as the Apostle Paul stated so plainly in his first letter to the Corinthians. It was there that he emphatically asserted that if Christ wasn’t resurrected then Christianity is a fraud and a sham. In other words, in Judeo-Christianity, objective, empirical evidence trumps religious subjectivity and confirmation bias:
“If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.” (1 Corinthians 15:14-19, NKJV)
And this same principle is expounded in the Old Testament by the Preacher of Ecclesiastes who challenged his readers with this admonition:
“It’s best to stay in touch with both sides of an issue. A person who fears God deals responsibly with all of reality, not just a piece of it.” (Ecclesiastes 7:18, The Message)
In summary, the difference between Christianity and Mormonism is that in Mormonism one must deliberately and intentionally ignore and deny reality in order to remain an adherent, while Judeo-Christianity demands that you remain firmly rooted and grounded in reality lest you be “of all men the most pitiable.” Christianity is not only falsifiable, but insists that its adherents, employ logic, reason, and sound evidence in adhering to it.
Still, doubt me? If so, then consider these Bible verses that demonstrate the Judeo-Christian God’s admonition and insistence that His followers rely on both proof and reason:
“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD…” (Isaiah 1:18, KJV)
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21, KJV)
“Unto thee [Jews who were delivered from slavery in Egypt via the Exodus] it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him.” (Deuteronomy 4:35, KJV)
“…he [Christ] shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days…” (Acts 1:3, KJV)
“…the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20, KJV)
“…Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” (John 20:26-27, KJV)
“…many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” (John 20:30-31, KJV)
“…if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8, KJV)
“The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.” (Proverbs 14:15, KJV)
As the late Francis Schaeffer so correctly pointed out, Judeo-Christianity is so tethered to objective, physical time-space historical reality that unless we truly accept that “…Jesus died in the sense that if you had been there that day, you could have rubbed your finger on the cross and got a splinter in it” you’re not really ready to become a Christian yet.4
This isn’t to say that some faith isn’t required in Christianity 5 but as the cited passages demonstrate that faith should be reasoned (belief with some measure of logical or evidential support) rather than blind (faith with no logical or evidential support). Mormonism epistemology is even worse than Blind Faith as it lapses into what theologians have dubbed “Unreasonable Faith” which is faith in spite of evidence to the contrary. Scientology, generally speaking, stops at Blind Faith and goes no further.
“If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1 Corinthians 15:17-19 KJV)
A common question that both Ex-Mormons and Christians often ask True Believing Mormons (aka “TBMs”) is this: “If the truth claims of the Mormons weren’t, in reality, true, would you want to know?” So we, the authors of this series, would simply ask you, our readers that question now. We, who are both a combination of Ex-Mormon and Never-Mormon, responded in the affirmative which is why we aren’t Mormons – it simply does not hold up to scrutiny when analyzed against the commitment to hard reality that the Bible demands of us.
As this is being written, LdS Church’s growth is not only flat and most analysts are of the opinion that it is teetering on verge of decline. Yes, other religions are certainly seeing this type of attrition too but not at the rapid rate of decline that we’re seeing in the LdS Church in particular and Mormonism in general at the moment. It is our opinion, that this hard “reality check” is a big factor in that.
If this were a horse race, it’s over. The stands are empty and harsh reality begins to set in. If you’re Mormon, the horse you bet your life savings on lost by a longshot. All your friends’ tales of a creature that had no equal and could run with the force of a hurricane were mere fabrications. In reality, it didn’t perform anywhere close to that.
Losing a horse race that you bet your whole life on is certainly what it feels like to see that the claims of the LdS church are false. But that’s ultimately not what matters. What matters is what you do with that loss.
Do you clench your fists and try again? Do you bet on the same horse even though you know it can’t win? Do you accuse the system of cheating you out of victory? Do you pretend that you won in order to save face? Do you plug your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and bear your testimony yet again for the umpteenth time?
Or do you change your wager to the winning horse? Everyone in town told you that horse was sickly, and only a fool would cheer for it. But when it was let loose, it stampeded with the strength of a typhoon. You’d never seen such a magnificent creature. It is undeniably a winner. So why wouldn’t you change your allegiance? Something to think about, I suppose.
Perhaps you prefer the words of Paul over mine when it comes to these 10 myths, I know that I do. If so, in closing, maybe these will suffice: “Refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.” (1 Timothy 4:7, KJV).
“…Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” (John 20:26-27, KJV)
NOTES 1 I first explored the similarities between Mormonism and Scientology – including the similarities of their two founders – in detail in my 2018 article, “Mormonism and the Aftermath”. They are true, close cousins in more ways than one.
2 According to Merriam-Webster, Scientism is defined as, “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)” (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism)
3 One need only consider the Xenu narrative of Scientology’s Operating Thetan III training course to see this. From Wikipedia:
“Xenu (/ˈziːnuː/), also called Xemu, is a figure in the Church of Scientology’s secret “Advanced Technology”, a sacred and esoteric teaching. According to the “Technology”, Xenu was the extraterrestrial ruler of a “Galactic Confederacy” who brought billions of his people to Earth (then known as “Teegeeack”) in DC-8-like spacecraft 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them with hydrogen bombs. Official Scientology scriptures hold that the thetans (immortal spirits) of these aliens adhere to humans, causing spiritual harm.
These events are known within Scientology as “Incident II”, and the traumatic memories associated with them as “The Wall of Fire” or “R6 implant”. The narrative of Xenu is part of Scientologist teachings about extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events, collectively described as “space opera” by L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard detailed the story in Operating Thetan level III (OT III) in 1967, warning that the “R6 implant” (past trauma) was “calculated to kill (by pneumonia, etc.) anyone who attempts to solve it”. (“Xenu”, Wikipedia website, retrieved 2023-02-10)
4 Speaking of what he called “Prevangelism” – an explanation of the set of the basic, underlying presuppositions that form the Christian worldview – Schaeffer stressed that we must make sure that the non-Christian that we are speaking to understands that we are asserting objective historical reality in Christianity and not just creating our own subjective guilt relief therapy via religious feelings, opinions, or dogmas:
“…we must make sure that the individual understands that we are talking about real truth, and not about something vaguely religious which seems to work psychologically. We must make sure that he understands that we are talking about real guilt before God, and we are not offering him merely relief for his guilt feelings. We must make sure that he understands that we are talking to him about history, and that the death of Jesus was not just an ideal or a symbol but a fact of time and space. If we are talking to a person who would not understand the term ‘space time history’ we can say: ‘Do you believe that Jesus died in the sense that if you had been there that day, you could have rubbed your finger on the cross and got a splinter in it?’ Until he understands the importance of these things, he is not yet ready to become a Christian.” (Francis A. Schaeffer, “The God Who is There”, p. 139)
5 Christianity can’t for example, prove a talking serpent or talking donkey; the Tower of Babel; a floating axe head; a burning bush; the parting of the Red Sea, or any number of other fantastic claims of the Bible. However, it can easily prove that a literal Jewish people, a literal land of Israel, and a literal city of Jerusalem existed when and where the Bible claims that they did. Thus even the irreligious, secular Israeli Biblical Archaeologist, Eilat Mazar, could confidently say, “I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other,” as she once told the Jerusalem Post. She went on to say, “The Bible is the most important historical source and therefore deserves special attention.” (see John Burger, “Archaeologist known for using Bible as historical text dies”, Aletia, June 1, 2021)
And turning to the New Testament, Christian Scholars can and have produced a mountain of evidence for the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ (such as Gary Habermas’ superb Credo House series on the subject among many, many, many others) in addition to the fact that the places and historical figures in the New Testament are easily verified from historical records external to the Bible.
Thus Judeo-Christianity is, minimally, credible even though not entirely provable. Reasoned Faith is still required in order to become and remain a Christian in addition to any subjective experience. It’s not either/or, it’s both.
* The epigraph quote is from J. Reuben Clark who was a First Presidency Counselor in the David O. McKay administration from 1951-1961. The full quote is as follows: “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” (D. Michael Quinn, “J. Reuben Clark The Church Years”, p 24. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press)
Evangelist Billy Graham speaks at his 1985 Anaheim, California crusade in which a stadium record crowd of 81,000 was set. This brought the total attendance for the 10-day event to more than 545,000, a spokesman said. Participating in the event was a broad cross-section of Christian traditions, denominations, and sects from across Southern California who were united by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
by Fred W. Anson Introduction Mormonism is fueled by faith-promoting stories. No one said this better than Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, “We have in the Church an untapped, almost unknown, treasury of inspiring and faith-promoting stories. They are the best of their kind and there are thousands of them.” (Bruce R. McConkie, “The How and Why of Faith-promoting Stories”, New Era magazine, July 1978). Unfortunately, some of them, as another Mormon Apostle said well, only provide “…a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories?” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Teacher Come from God”, Spring General Conference 1998). This series exposes the following ten “Twinkies”…
10 Myths That Mormonism Tells About Biblical Christianity
Biblical Christianity apostatized.
The Bible has been corrupted.
Biblical Christians believe in cheap grace.
Biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.
The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.
Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.
Biblical Christians have no priesthood.
Biblical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.
Biblical Christians hate Mormons.
Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.
… and replaces them with nourishing truth. Let’s talk about the one that’s bolded, shall we?
In 2008, Evangelist Luis Palau returned to his hometown to lead a major evangelistic campaign in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The effort brought together thousands of churches, tens of thousands of believers, and hundreds of thousands of individuals for the two-day festival in the heart of the city. The event crossed denominations uniting Christians of all flavors for the cause of Christ in Latin America.
The Myth “Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.”
Why It’s a Myth The claim that the various and sundry Biblical Christian denominations believe in different paths to salvation is, stated plainly, a lie. Why? Because the Bible couldn’t be clearer that salvation is by Christ alone, through faith by grace alone, and we are, after all, Biblical Christians, right?
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone boast.” (Ephesians 2:8 NKJV)
“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” (Romans 5:1-2 NKJV)
“But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 2:4-7 NKJV)
Furthermore, the Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith are determined from the Bible based on how they support and validate the common salvation that we all share, regardless of which particular group, denomination, movement, or sect we may be in:
“The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith. They are
1) the Deity of Christ,
2) Salvation by Grace,
3) Resurrection of Christ,
4) the gospel, and
5) monotheism.
These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these five are the ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential.” (Theologian Matt Slick, “Essential Doctrines of Christianity”, CARM website, lightly reformatted for emphasis and clarity)
Everything else – the things that aren’t essential to salvation are, therefore, non-essential, and Christians can and will legitimately disagree and it has absolutely no impact on their legitimacy as Christian brothers or sisters in Christ with whom I can have fellowship today and share eternity in the presence of God tomorrow. A sampling of the non-Essentials is as follows:
Eschatology (how and when the end times will unfold, the rapture, the millennium, the role of Israel today, etc.)
Earth Age (young v. old earth creationism, etc.)
Bible translation preferences (King James v. modern translations, word-for-word v. thought-for-thought, etc.)
Ecclesiology (church government models, the roles of clergy and laity, are Apostles and Prophets for today, etc.)
Soteriological Systems (Arminianism v. Calvinism, etc.)
Demonology (can a Christian have a demon or not, teachings on various kinds of spiritual warfare, etc.)
Sacrament practices (wine v. grape juice, leavened v. unleavened bread, who can administer, etc.)
Modes of baptism (sprinkling v. full immersion, infant baptism, etc.)
Worship styles (liturgical v. contemporary, hymns v. choruses, choirs, drums v. organs, etc.)
The gifts of the Holy Spirit (tongues v. no tongues, cessationism v. continuationism, etc.)
Worship observances (Sabbatarianism v. Sunday worship, observance of special holy days, tithing, etc.)
Food and drink (consumption of alcohol v. abstinence, kosher v. non-kosher food, etc.)
Various do’s and don’ts (tobacco consumption, playing cards, dancing, makeup, “acceptable” dress, movies, etc.)
, etc., etc. This is far from an exhaustive or comprehensive list of Christian non-essentials – it seems endless at times!
A 1996 Promise Keepers “Break Down The Walls” conference in which hundreds of thousands of Christian men from different sects, groups, traditions, and denominations united to praise and exalt Jesus Christ and commit themselves to His gospel.
It is these non-essential doctrines and/or distinctives from which Biblical Christians derive their various and sundry denominations. And just as there are different denominations of money but only one America that shares the common economy that they function in, so there are different denominations of non-essential doctrine but only one Christian Church that they function in. And this is true if we’re talking about 10, 100, 1,000 or 10,000 denominations. Heck make it 10 million denominations, it doesn’t matter, as long as they are faithful and biblical on the Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith, they are legitimately Christian. It is just as a 17th Century Theologian said so well:
In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, liberty; In all things, charity.” (17th century Theologian Rupertus Meldenius)
And as Theologian and Christian Educator, C. Michael Patton in our own day has said so well:
“I am not an ecumenicist, but I don’t think that we should have ill-will or break fellowship with people unnecessarily. I do believe that we have the right and obligation to define what it means to be “Christian.” While I don’t think we should over-define it to the point where our circle of fellowship is so small that it only includes “you and those two,” we need to be careful, as under-defining our faith is just as dangerous as over-defining it. It is very easy to slip into theological maximalism (fundamentalism) or theological minimalism (liberalism). But we are Evangelicals. This means that we are “centrists,” uniting around the most important issues and giving varying degrees of liberty in less important issues. While it is true that because something is non-essential this does not make it negotiable, it is also true that because something is believed strongly does not make it central.” (C. Michael Patton, “Essentials and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell”, Credo House website, June 8, 2011)
How It’s a Myth In support of all this, I would point the reader to the prior installments of this series of articles. The roster of writers and their denominational and soteriological affiliation was as follows:
Michael Flournoy SBC Baptist, Arminian Fred Anson ACM Charismatic, Calvinist Tom Hobson ECO Presbyterian, Calvinist Paul Nurnburg Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, Arminian Matthew Eklund Reformed Baptist, Calvinist Ben Reed Confessional Lutheran, Lutheran Jason Wallace OPC Presbyterian, Calvinist
So there you have it: Seven authors, seven denominations, and three soteriological systems, all holding to different systems of eschatology, worship styles, ecclesiology, and liturgy. Some are young earth Creationists, and some are old earth Creationists. Two are Continuationists, and the rest are Cessationists. Some are Sabbatarian, and some are not. We have different politics, different church clothes standards, different modes of baptism, different sacrament practices, different… whatever, and yet we are all united in the Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith and all sharing a common salvation in Jesus Christ by faith through grace. I could and would join them in worship at their church congregation for worship, and they would, no doubt, join me at mine. And either way, we would be worshiping with fellow Christians with whom we will all share eternity in the presence of God and with each other.
And if we extend this small sampling out we can include millions – no, make that billions – of fellow Christians of every shape, color, and texture all over the world. Every single one of them is just as Christian and just as saved as I am. After all, God doesn’t make one type of anything, so why the heck would He make only one kind of Christian? In the midst of our diversity, there is unity.
Patriarch Pimen, leader of the Russian Orthodox church, listens as American evangelist, Rev. Billy Graham speaks in Moscow’s main cathedral, Sept 21, 1984. The American evangelist was invited to the Soviet Union by the Russian Orthodox Church and the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christians-Baptists (or Baptist Union, which includes other Protestant groups). (AP Photo)
Why It Matters The problems that this myth creates within Mormonism are so widespread and acute that it’s hard to pick where to start and where to end, so I’ll just pick a couple.
First, it’s hypocritical. Mormon Leaders who use this myth as a mallet to bludgeon other churches with are deliberately ignoring the 400+ Mormon denominations that have existed over the 190+ years of Mormon History – which is a rate of fracturing, fragmenting, and splitting that far exceeds what was seen in Christian Church History. Stated plainly, given the current rate of fragmentation Mormon denominationalism will easily surpass Christian denominationalism at some point in the future.1 The publisher of the definitive book on the subject noted well in their product description:
“That so many groups and individuals have been unsatisfied with the more mainstream Mormon churches, yet cling to tenets of the Smith–Rigdon movement, speaks to the strengths of the restoration concept and the naïve view that one denomination can successfully meet all the needs of believers.” (Amazon product description for Steven L. Shields, “Divergent Paths of the Restoration: An Encyclopedia of the Smith–Rigdon Movement”)
Equally hypocritical is the fact that all of those 400+ Mormon Denominations have not accepted or recognized the other groups as legitimate churches since they all claim to be the only true and living church and all others apostate. I think that this is largely due to the impossibility of developing a set of Essential Doctrines for the Latter-Day Saint movement due to the dogma of continuing revelation. Hence, what’s essential for the Brighamite Mormons in Salt Lake City isn’t essential for the Josephite Mormons in Independence, Missouri.
Case in point: The Trinity. The LdS Church (aka “Brighamite”) Mormons condemn the Trinity as Exhibit A for the Great Apostasy, while RLDS/Community of Christ (aka “Josephite”) Mormons have been Trinitarian since their inception. Then there’s the problem of the various and sundry versions of Doctrine & Covenants that the various groups hold to and the fact that some groups are continuing to canonize new revelations and scriptures that none of the other Mormon denominations have or will recognize as legitimate.2 And this is just the beginning of the big ball of Mormon denominational confusion that was unleashed after the death of Joseph Smith.3
Second, this hypocritical myopia generates an odd form of self-righteous elitism in Mormons. And why not, just consider the arrogant condescension on these “lesser” groups that have poured forth like a river from Mormon pulpits:
“But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of Christian Churches … But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance” (Apostle Orson Pratt, “Journal of Discourses”, v. 18, p. 172)
“Religious denominations relied entirely on the dead letter of the Bible for their authority. They closed the heavens against themselves, and their interpretations of scripture without divine guidance led them into division, subdivision, and multiplication of churches, each going its own way blindly and in confusion. The power of the priesthood was lost and the true Church of Jesus Christ ceased to exist on the earth. There had been no prophet, no revelation, or divine instruction from the time of the apostles of old until the Lord again opened the heavens and sent holy messengers to restore that which had been taken away” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Answers to Gospel Questions”, 1:97)
“The Protestant Reformation, which resulted in the establishment of numerous Christian denominations—approximately two hundred and fifty of them existing in America today—bears unimpeachable evidence to the fact that a great apostacy did occur as the Master and the prophets of old had predicted it would. Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Wesley brothers, and the other protestors against the erroneous doctrines which had corrupted Catholicism did not claim divine restoration of the Holy Priesthood nor of the principles and ordinances of the gospel” (Milton R. Hunter, “Conference Reports, April 1946”, p. 143)
But the irony of this smug, eyes wide shut, hypocritical elitism isn’t wasted given the hard reality of Mormon denominationalism that was already spinning out of control as these works were being spoken. For example, at the point that Orson Pratt, delivered the “Restoration of the Gospel…” address in the Fifteenth Ward Meetinghouse in Salt Lake City on Sunday afternoon, March 26, 1876 which was excerpted above, Mormon denominationalism was already over the 30-group mark with only more fracturing, splintering, and denominating to come.4 By the time we get to Joseph Fielding Smith and Milton R. Hunter’s addresses in the mid-twentieth century, we are well into hundreds of Mormon Denominations. All unique, and all denouncing all the others as apostate churches. Stone meet glass house.
45,000 charismatic Christians gathered in Arrowhead Stadium for the 1977 Kansas City Charismatic Renewal Conference. This event brought together a vast cross-section of Protestant and Catholic believers for the cause of Christ who were united by the essential doctrines of the Christian faith despite their differences on some non-essential doctrines which continue to this day. (Photo: People of Praise archives)
Summary and Conclusion Mormonism makes the mistake of assuming that homogeneity equals unity. And while it can be, it can also be symptomatic of unhealthy groupthink and blind conformity. Rather, could it be that unity is best when it’s manifested in the midst of diversity? Which is more interesting: A highly manicured field consisting of only one type of flower or a raw, uncultivated meadow exploding with wildflowers? Personally, I find the wild meadow far more interesting. And apparently, so does God since that seems to be His way over tightly controlled uniformity. Were this not so, He only would have created one type of flower rather than a seemingly endless array of them. And what’s true of flowers is true of people.
Biblical Christians rightly celebrate the diversity of denominations that we enjoy and benefit from. I have been in arenas filled with Christian men of every shape, size, color, and “flavor” at Promise Keeper and other Christian events. My father was a counselor at the 1969 Billy Graham Crusade in Anaheim, California with an Anaheim Stadium filled with a dizzying array of Protestant denominations. I have been to a Catholic funerary mass, more than one Presbyterian wedding, Baptist services, played bass in an Episcopal chapel, heard more than one Baptist fire and brimstone sermon, been through several Lutheran events, and worshipped in so many Charismatic churches of some many flavors that I’ve lost count. Yeah, this kid raised in the Nazarene Church has pretty much seen and done it all. And through it all, I have been united with my brothers and sisters in Christ at every single one of them. Man’s way is unity through homogeneity. God’s way is unity in diversity.
As for me and my house, we’ll do it God’s way. Whose way will you choose?
Independents: 22,000 denominations (2,016 years) Protestants: 9000 denominations (499 years) Marginals: 1600 denominations (duration varies) Orthodox: 781 denominations (963 years) Catholics: 242 denominations (1,799 years) Anglicans: 168 denominations (483 years) (see http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations ; the durations as of the date of this article, February 9, 2016)
So you can see that my claim that the LDS Movement will easily outpace the denominationalism of other churches isn’t an empty claim – the numbers speak for themselves, don’t they?
About the Author Fred W. Anson is the founder and publishing editor of the Beggar’s Bread website, which features a rich potpourri of articles on Christianity with a recurring emphasis on Mormon studies. Fred is also the administrator of several Internet discussion groups and communities, including several Mormon-centric groups, including two Facebook Support Groups for Ex-Mormons (Ex-Mormon Christians, and Ex-Mormon Christians Manhood Quorum). Raised in the Nazarene Church, Fred later became an Atheist but then returned to the Christian faith during the Jesus Movement in 1976. He is currently a member of Saddleback Covenant Church, a non-denominational church, in Mission Viejo, California.
“I bear my testimony that Biblical Christians love Latter-day Saints”
A mainstream, Biblical Christian enjoying a discussion with a Latter-day Saint on the streets of Manti, Utah. (photo credit: Mark Shreve)
by Michael “The Ex-Mormon Apologist” Flournoy
Introduction Mormonism is fueled by faith-promoting stories. No one said this better than Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, “We have in the Church an untapped, almost unknown, treasury of inspiring and faith-promoting stories. They are the best of their kind and there are thousands of them.” (“The How and Why of Faith-promoting Stories”, New Era magazine, July 1978). Unfortunately, some of them, as another Mormon Apostle said well, only provide “…a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories?” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Teacher Come from God”, Spring General Conference 1998). This series exposes the following ten “Twinkies”…
10 Myths That Mormonism Tells About Biblical Christianity
Biblical Christianity apostatized.
The Bible has been corrupted.
Biblical Christians believe in cheap grace.
Biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.
The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.
Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.
Biblical Christians have no priesthood.
Biblical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.
Biblical Christians hate Mormons.
Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.
… and replaces them with nourishing truth. Let’s talk about the one that’s bolded, shall we?
The Myth “Biblical Christians hate Mormons.”
Those in Mormon Studies are often fascinated by the infamous “Mormon Persecution Complex” of which this myth is a byproduct. And it’s not hard to find out where and how this myth came to be; one need look no further than current official and correlated LdS Church manuals. For example please consider Chapter 27 of the official LDS Church curriculum, “Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith” (pp.315–26) entitled, “Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy”:
“From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies, because Satan entered into him… Renegade ‘Mormon’ dissenters are running through the world and spreading various foul and libelous reports against us, thinking thereby to gain the friendship of the world, because they know that we are not of the world, and that the world hates us”
“It is thought by some that our enemies would be satisfied with my destruction; but I tell you that as soon as they have shed my blood they will thirst for the blood of every man in whose heart dwells a single spark of the spirit of the fullness of the Gospel. The opposition of these men is moved by the spirit of the adversary of all righteousness. It is not only to destroy me, but every man and woman who dares believe the doctrines that God hath inspired me to teach to this generation.”
And this “indoctrination” (as it’s often called by Mormon Studies Scholars) isn’t limited to adults; it begins in the lessons that are taught in LdS Church Primary classes. Consider, for example, these instructions for teaching Primary children who are 8-11 years old from the Primary 5: Doctrine and Covenants and Church History (1997) manual in “Lesson 21: Joseph Smith Is Tarred and Feathered,”
“Teach the children about Joseph Smith’s reaction to those who persecuted him, as illustrated by the following historical account. Display the pictures at appropriate times.
Soon after the Church was organized, some of the members began to apostatize, or leave the Church. They quit attending Church meetings, opposed the Prophet, and persecuted the Saints. People apostatized for various reasons. For example, one man left the Church because his horse died while he was traveling to join the Saints in Missouri. Another man apostatized after he saw Joseph Smith playing with children. He thought a prophet should be too serious to play with children. One man saw that his name was misspelled on a Church document and thought that meant Joseph Smith was not inspired by God. Other people left the Church because they did not receive the help they expected with their financial problems. Some members left the Church because they could not forgive other members for actions that had offended them. After leaving the Church, these offended people often became the Church’s worst enemies.”
“The thin-skinned and image-conscious Mormon can display immature, isolationist, and defensive reactions to outsiders, perhaps because there is no substantive debate and no “loyal opposition” within their kingdom. With some, it almost seems that the wilderness is still untamed, the federal ‘polyg’ police are on the prowl, and the Illinois lynch mob is still oiling muskets and preparing to raid Carthage Jail. All too often Saints use the label “anti-Mormon” as a tactic to forestall serious discussion.”
The acceptance of this myth in Mormon culture is pervasive, and one need only say anything that’s less than fully glowing about Mormonism to see it manifested. But does it have any basis in reality – that is the question.
Biblical Christians from around the world gather to worship God and pray for the Latter-day Saints who will be attending that evening’s Manti Miracle pageant. In a few minutes, they will be having street conversations with those Mormons after the last “Amen!” is given. (photo credit: Mark Shreve)
Why It’s a Myth One day while on my mission in California, my companion and I approached two women on the sidewalk. We attempted to share our message with them and learned that they were Evangelical Christians.
“At our church, we pray for you every week,” they told us.
The statement stunned me into silence. I was sure that Protestants hated Latter-day Saints. So why would they pray for us especially when we weren’t around to see it? My mind calculated the possibilities. Could they be doing it to trick us into lowering our guard? In the seclusion of their church, that wasn’t a possibility. It had to be sincere. It had to mean they loved us.
But how could that be? It made no sense. They were always giving us judgmental stares as we walked through their neighborhoods, saying horrible things about our church, and denouncing our faith in God. The way they approached us certainly didn’t feel loving. But praying on our behalf was evidence that I couldn’t deny.
I shrugged this experience off and continued to believe the narrative that Bible-only Christians were the bad guys. I spent a decade after my mission debating them, and in that time, built deep friendships with a few of them. I was surprised to learn that they did in fact love me; they simply didn’t show it the way I was used to.
That love became most apparent when I betrayed the trust of an Evangelical friend who allowed me to moderate his Facebook interfaith debate group. The way many Christians behaved led me to believe that they neither liked nor respected Latter-day Saints. So it didn’t take much urging from my LDS counterparts to convince me to perform a coup and remove the Protestant admins from the forum. My friend reached out asking for it back, and I complied.
What I expected afterward was to be ridiculed and hated which would have poured gasoline on the flames of animosity. To my surprise, however, I was forgiven. Nobody gave me a hard time for what I had done. I was even allowed to remain in the group. I began to wonder if I had misjudged Evangelicals by assigning prejudice where it didn’t exist.
I’ve come to realize over time that Biblical Christians care deeply about Latter-day Saints. If you are LDS, you’re probably skeptical of this. Especially if you’ve had Evangelicals say you’re not Christian, insist on using a nickname instead of the full name of your church, and make mountains out of molehills.
How It’s a Myth There are two reasons Evangelicals behave the way they do when dealing with Latter-day Saints: culture and doctrine.
Say, for example, that an American visited Iran and gave someone a thumbs-up sign. He might have thought he was being friendly, but in Iran, that gesture is the equivalent of showing the middle finger.
Likewise, Biblical Christians and Latter-day Saints have a distinct culture and “love language”. When Latter-day Saints teach people they try to be friendly and search for commonalities. They validate others’ beliefs, even when they disagree with them. Instead of telling someone they’re wrong, Mormon missionaries are likely to say, “Let me give you more truth.” A prospect’s feelings are taken into consideration more than theological accuracy.
Evangelicals, on the other hand, are blunt. When we see something we perceive as false, we confront it head-on. We value accuracy more than someone’s comfort. To behave otherwise, in our opinion, would be lying. By convincing someone of the error of their ways as James 5:19-20 (KJV) directs…
“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.”
…we believe we are following the golden rule and doing what we would want others to do for us. So when a Biblical Christian says your beliefs are false, it’s his odd way of saying, “I love you.”
“Evangelicals … are blunt. When we see something we perceive as false, we confront it head-on. We value accuracy more than someone’s comfort.” An Evangelical Street Preacher preaching in front of the Manti, Utah Temple (photo credit: Mark Shreve)
Why It Matters There is also a disparity of concern between our religions. Latter-day Saints believe individuals will have thousands of years beyond mortality to reach perfection while Biblical Christians believe we only have this life. Because of this, Latter-day Saints are more tolerant of wrong beliefs. Evangelicals can come off a bit desperate in our approach because when we look at someone, we think that a bus could hit them in five minutes and seal their fate for good. It’s like having Jeopardy music playing constantly in the back of our minds, pressuring us to show people the truth before time runs out.
The main reason for our behavior stems from our doctrine. Galatians 1:8 (ESV) says this, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
Accursed. Anathema! Biblically speaking, believing in or teaching a false gospel isn’t something to wink at. It is condemning. Because of that, Evangelicals are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They want to show compassion, but at the same time, they must toe the line of their doctrinal convictions.
Latter-day Saints objectively preach a different gospel than what we see in the Bible: one that requires priesthood ordinances and covenants. Because of that, Evangelicals cannot accept Mormons as Christians and keep their integrity. We view it as dishonest to refer to your church as “the Church of Jesus Christ.”
This is a major sticking point, and it makes it seem like we hate Latter-day Saints. In reality, we love Mormons but reject Mormonism. It can be hard for the LDS to differentiate between themselves and their religion, so refuting their doctrine and practices comes off as a personal attack. But that is not the intention of Biblical Christians at all.
Rick Warren, the pastor at Saddleback Church, had this to say on the subject:
“Our culture has accepted two huge lies: The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.” (Rick Warren, “News & Views 03/02/12”)
I am aware, of course, that not all Biblical Christians behave lovingly towards Latter-day Saints. There are times when we care more about winning arguments than winning souls. This could be a pride issue, as we are all sinners in need of a Savior. But the notion that Christians are gleefully waiting for Mormons to enter hell is utterly false. Any of us who are true Christians would much rather see a Latter-day Saint put their trust in Jesus and avoid God’s wrath. We don’t expect to be looking down from heaven saying, “I told you so.” We want you there with us.
If you believe that a Christian really is behaving in a hateful manner, ask them to pray for you. You may be surprised at how deeply they implore God for your well-being.
Summary and Conclusion Things have come full circle for me since I ran into those Evangelicals on my mission. Now I’m the one praying for Latter-day Saints. I’ve prayed with many of my Christian brothers and sisters on your behalf. I’ve heard them beseech God for Latter-day Saints by name, pleading for your salvation and I’ve felt the sincere passion and desire they have for the LDS.
Christians could be accused of having a backward culture, and of not being very tactful. Someone would be right to call us sinners who are sometimes prideful and selfish. And Evangelicals could do a heck of a lot better at relating to Latter-day Saints by understanding how they think.
In 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (ESV) Paul gives an example of how he removes cultural barriers to teach:
“For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.”
So in the spirit of Paul’s advice, I bear my testimony that Biblical Christians love Latter-day Saints. It is our hope and our prayer that the LDS would be saved by the blood of Christ, so that we may fellowship with them on earth and in heaven as one eternal family in the presence of God.
A Biblical Christian enjoying the moment with a Latter-day Saint outside the Manti Temple prior to the pageant. (photo credit: Mark Shreve)
About Michael “The Ex-Mormon Apologist” Flournoy The Ex-Mormon Apologist was a Born Into The Covenant Mormon. His Mormon heritage dates back to a family member, Jones Flournoy, who sold Joseph Smith land for the Temple Lot temple. He faithfully served a mission in Anaheim, CA. When he returned from his mission he became a published Mormon Apologist. He served several callings faithfully and successfully in his 30+ years in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He still has Mormon friends and family members to this day. And he is still in Mormon Studies despite leaving the LdS Church.
It still slays me and drops me to my knees in humble gratitude: The Great God of the Universe condescended to take on human flesh to die so that I might live. The Giver of Life gave me a life I do not deserve, and took upon Himself a death that He did not deserve for what? Answer: Because He loved me. He always has loved me and He always will love me. This was His great gift to me – and you. What a Friend I’ve found. Merry Christmas, everyone. — Fred W. Anson
What A Friend I’ve Found
What a friend I’ve found
Closer than a brother
I have felt your touch
More intimate than lovers
Jesus, Jesus
Jesus, friend forever
What a hope I’ve found
More faithful than a mother
It would break my heart
To ever lose each other
Jesus, Jesus
Jesus, friend forever
Oh, Jesus, yeah, Jesus
Jesus, friend forever
Oh, Jesus
(Yeah, yeah)
Jesus
(Hallelujah)
Jesus, friend forever
Jesus, Jesus
Jesus, friend forever
Jesus, Jesus
Jesus, friend forever
Jesus, Jesus
Jesus, friend forever
(words and music by by Martin Smith)
“There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you slaves, because a master doesn’t confide in his slaves. Now you are my friends, since I have told you everything the Father told me. You didn’t choose me. I chose you. I appointed you to go and produce lasting fruit, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask for, using my name. This is my command: Love each other.” (New Living Translation)
“If we’re in it for the money, we’re doing a very bad job of it”
A Village Missions Pastor preaches at a small, rural church in Pacific City, Oregon. Village Missions Pastors serve in small, rural communities, that are too small to otherwise have a full-time pastor and/or a church. These churches are supported by donations to Village Missions from other Christians who are outside of their local congregation. Click here to read about Village Missions.
by Jason Wallace Introduction Mormonism is fueled by faith-promoting stories. No one said this better than Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, “We have in the Church an untapped, almost unknown, treasury of inspiring and faith-promoting stories. They are the best of their kind and there are thousands of them.” (“The How and Why of Faith-promoting Stories”, New Era magazine, July 1978). Unfortunately, some of them, as another Mormon Apostle said well, only provide “…a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories?” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Teacher Come from God”, Spring General Conference 1998). This series exposes the following ten “Twinkies”…
10 Myths That Mormonism Tells About Biblical Christianity
Biblical Christianity apostatized.
The Bible has been corrupted.
Biblical Christians believe in cheap grace.
Biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.
The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.
Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.
Biblical Christians have no priesthood.
Biblical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.
Biblical Christians hate Mormons.
Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.
… and replaces them with nourishing truth. Let’s talk about the one that’s bolded, shall we?
The Myth “Biblical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.”
I am a full-time Presbyterian Pastor serving in Utah whose calling, among many other things, includes producing religious studies videos. Last month, I received the following comment on one of our church’s YouTube videos, “When you see a pastor driving a Mercedes or BMW, living in a big house, and making 100’s of thousands of dollars a year, you know something is wrong with that church.” I responded that my car for the previous 14 years was a Hyundai Accent Hatchback with manual transmission and no air conditioning; my 63-year-old home is one of the least expensive in the Salt Lake Valley, and I’m not making nearly as much now as I was 25 years ago at a job that required a lot less work. None of this mattered to the man. No matter how little I was actually paid, he said I was guilty of “priestcraft.” Protestant pastors may no longer be portrayed as one of the “hirelings of Satan” in your temples,1 but I’ve lost count of how many times LDS have told me that I’m in ministry for the money.
Why It’s a Myth There’s a “Catch-22” in answering such claims. If you live comfortably, you supposedly prove the case, but if you’re struggling financially, then that’s supposed to mean God isn’t blessing you since you compare poorly to the LDS bishops who are successful in business and are “clearly blessed by God.” For most, the evidence doesn’t really matter because the verdict has already been reached – – the LDS church is true, and anyone who says differently is ignorant, or evil, or both, especially Christian pastors. Despite having heard these claims so many times, I’ll present some facts in hopes that God will use them to open the eyes of some.
First, let’s consider how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints defines “priestcraft”, which is, “Men preaching and setting themselves up for a light to the world that they may get gain and praise of the world; they do not seek the welfare of Zion (2 Ne. 26:29).” (LDS Church website, Guide to the Scriptures, “Priestcraft”)
And while warnings against “priestcraft” are regularly cited from the Book of Mormon as we have just seen, the other unique Mormon scripture also has much to say about matters of ecclesiastical compensation. In fact, and to that point, the failure to pay local LDS Church clergy is even more ironic given the fact that both the Bible and unique LDS Scripture mandate that they must be paid:
“And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned;
Or they are to receive a just remuneration for all their services, either a stewardship or otherwise, as may be thought best or decided by the counselors and bishop.
And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.” (Doctrine & Covenants 48:71-73)
And elsewhere in Doctrine and Covenants, we find this mandate, “He who is appointed to administer spiritual things, the same is worthy of his hire, even as those who are appointed to a stewardship to administer in temporal things…” (D&C 70:12) which The Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual expounds on:
“In addition to his many responsibilities in the Church, Joseph Smith had a family, and he could not neglect them, although his responsibility was chiefly a spiritual one. Although not completely relieved from responsibility for his temporal needs at that time, the Prophet was told by the Lord to look to the Church for temporal support.” (Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual,‘Section 24, “Declare My Gospel As With The Voice Of a Trump”’)
Furthermore, the Bible is in complete agreement with LDS scripture on this point – clergy should be paid for their service:
“Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?
Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?
Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 9:7-14 ESV)
“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.” (1 Timothy 5:17-18 KJV)
The Rev. Danny Fleming preaches at Big Isaac United Methodist Church in Big Isaac, West Virginia. Sunday, May 20, 2007. Fleming is a part-time pastor who holds a full-time job with the U.S. Army in Clarksburg, West Virginia. He ministers to two churches on some Sundays and three churches on other Sundays. Click here to read his story. (photo credit: Bob Shaw/AP)
Oh, and by the way, it has been suggested by some that the term “double honour” in that passage strongly implies, maximally, “double wages” and, minimally, “generous wages”. So, not only should a church’s paid clergy be paid, according to the Bible, they should be paid well. Yes, it also implies “special respect” but, as the Got Questions website, explains, more than fair compensation is also included in that “honor”:
“Double honor” refers not only to an abundance of respect and obedience from members of the church but also reasonable pay. The Greek word translated “double” in 1 Timothy 5:17 means “two-fold.” And the term for “honor” in the original language includes the notion of a price or compensation. In English, we also connect the word honor with the idea of recompence through the noun honorarium, “a payment for unbilled professional services.” Paul felt that dutiful and diligent shepherds of God’s flock, the church, ought to be honored in two ways: in proper esteem and fair compensation.”
(“What is the meaning of double honor in 1 Timothy 5:17?”, Got Questions website)
And yet, given all this clear and repeated scriptural support for a fairly (perhaps even generously) paid clergy instead we get scathing denunciations of it like this on official LdS Church sources:
“The Book of Mormon warns us about a thing called Priestcraft. Priestcraft is preaching for the sake of getting money and power. The Book of Mormon also extensively describes how the priests, teachers, and even their king, labored with their own hands for their support. Accepting a paycheck for preaching is a disturbing and foreign concept to most Latter Day Saints. There are a number of problems with a paid ministry. A paid priest must answer to both his supervisors and to the local church board, and can’t risk being too unpopular. Otherwise may lose his job. He must do all this while preparing a sermon each Sunday and trying to personally tend a flock of hundreds, maybe thousands, all by himself. Things shouldn’t be done this way.” (Answer to FAQ by “Dan” on Mormon.org an official Lds Church website that has now been archived, retrieved 2016-01-19, the typos that are in the original have been rectified in this citation)
So help us out here Latter-day Saints: Why is it “priestcraft” when non-Mormon clergy has their temporal needs cared for by their church just as the full-time leaders of the LDS Church do and just as the Bible and unique Mormon scripture commands?2 And if Joseph Smith and those “appointed to administer spiritual things are worthy of their hire in the LDS Church – up to and including the now infamous (not to mention generous) “living allowance” of Mormon General Authorities – then, again, why aren’t they engaging in “priestcraft” if and when they obey the clear dictates of Mormon scripture and receive compensation from their church?
Again, and at the risk of redundancy but for the sake of clarity and emphasis, if Mormon cultural dogma on having a paid clergy is true, then exactly how isn’t the LDS Church empowering, emboldening, and enabling the “priestcraft” of its own clergy by compensating them if generous compensation of clergy is the catalyst onto the slippery slope into corruption? Is it not, in fact, just enabling Mormon clergy’s ability to engage in the “preaching and setting themselves up for a light to the world that they may get gain and praise of the world” that Mormons so easily and flippantly accuse other churches of? I mean, after all, aren’t Latter-day Saint Apostles and Prophets, in fact, treated like Rock Stars or conquering Kings whenever they make a personal appearance with congregants being cued to stand for their entrance – and usually to the clergy-exalting sound of “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet” being sung or played to boot? How is all this not a fulfillment of the very warning that the Book of Mormon gives us about “priestcraft”?
The opening of Spring 2022 General Conference with the entire 21,000-person auditorium standing in unison and singing, “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet”
How It’s a Myth Thus as, we see, as with so many criticisms LDS offers of pastors, there’s a double standard in play here. Joseph Smith and other full-time Mormon leaders can receive financial support from the church to provide for their family as commanded in scripture but a pastor who receives financial support to provide for his is supposedly in sin. Yes, we’re constantly reminded that your bishops don’t draw a salary, but their work is part-time. Most are employed elsewhere and draw their salary there. We likewise have people who volunteer part-time for our churches without pay, but we also have pastors who work for the church full-time. Instead of comparing full-time pastors to part-time bishops, how about comparing them to your full-time seminary teachers or to the thousands of others who work for your church full-time and draw salaries? Somehow they’re not in it for the money, but pastors are?
Further, the objection is often offered that pastors make too much money, but the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 2019,3 the average pastor’s salary was only $50,400. Meanwhile, your seminary teachers in the United States are reportedly paid $40,699 to $61,746 per year,4 your Mission Presidents receive total compensation estimated at $110,000 a year,5 and according to the last available information your General Authorities earn at least $120,000.6
Furthermore, while most pastors must rent their residence or struggle to make mortgage payments,16th LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson, died owning not one, not two, but three Utah homes (including more than one upscale property) despite only having one employer his entire life, the LDS Church.7 Finally, and as a matter of fact, at the time of his death, Joseph Smith was one of the wealthiest men in Nauvoo, Illinois.8 So, if we’re in it for the money, we’re doing a very bad job of it compared to Latter-day Saint full-time clergy, aren’t we?
Yes, there are some local church pastors who prostitute their office in the same way that some LDS bishops do. If you believe it unfair to dismiss all your bishops based on the bad actions of a few, then you need to use the same standard in regard to Christian pastors. Stories of Benny Hinn’s mansions and Kenneth Copeland’s jets are often thrown around, but you need to recognize, they’re not mainstream Protestant ministers – they’re unaccountable, self-proclaimed modern para-church prophets who indeed are “Men preaching and setting themselves up for a light to the world that they may get gain and praise of the world”. In fact, it could be said they have far more in common with Joseph Smith than a local church Christian Pastor who lives, strives, and struggles shoulder to shoulder with the congregants that they shepherd and lead – and that very distinction goes to the heart of why we have pastors who are laboring in the midst of and accountable to a local congregation rather than just a bunch of lone ranger, para-church itinerate teachers and preachers flying around in private jets and staying in 5-star hotels who are accountable to no one.9
Why It Matters Christianity is a religion based on a book – – black and white revelations from prophets and apostles who were not only attested by miracles but who presented a consistent gospel over the course of 1-1/2 millennia. We do not believe we can trump that testimony of God with our own experiences. He warns us, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1) That testing isn’t to be based on feelings, because He says our hearts are, “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” (Jeremiah 17:9)
We’re instead instructed to follow the example of the Bereans who, “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11) We don’t judge the Bible by supposed prophets, but supposed prophets by the Bible, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20)
The Apostle Paul said, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16) Earlier in the same epistle, he told Timothy, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Thus the Bible explicitly charges Pastors with studying the Scriptures and ministering them to His people with skill and precision. In order to become a pastor, I needed a college degree and three additional years of seminary education. Our Seminaries are not for high school students. They involve graduate-level studies. We learn Hebrew and Greek to better understand the Scriptures in their original languages and tell a correct translation from an incorrect one. We study textual criticism to answer claims that the Bible has been corrupted. We study theology to see how everything fits together. We study church history to see how the Bible has been interpreted and applied and how it has been challenged. We study pastoral counseling to better be able to minister God’s Word to His people. Christianity is a faith rooted in time and space with objective truth claims. Pastors are expected to be able to refute those who contradict that faith, and provide more than platitudes to, “doubt your doubts.”
The then First President and future LDS Church Prophet Thomas S. Monson’s 2005 advertisement for church-owned Beneficial Insurance. A “stealth” method of compensating Mormon leaders is to put them on the boards of church-owned companies. (click the image to watch the video)
LDS bishops don’t engage in many of these to any depth, because as the Articles of Faith state, the Bible is only believed, “as far as it is translated correctly.” On top of this, as Ezra Taft Benson said,
“The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works. . . Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence. . .” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, February 26, 1980)
Since the living prophet trumps even the standard works, Bible study simply doesn’t get the same careful attention as it does from a pastor, does it?
The church that accuses me of “priestcraft” is the largest landowner in Florida, owning 2% of the state. It owns shopping malls, office towers, and residential skyscrapers.10 It has been revealed to have a single investment fund of $100 billion.11 Each year, it produces enough to fully fund church operations without anyone tithing again.12 Meanwhile, pastors can’t presume to tell people God has called them to specific tasks in the church, so they often end up doing them themselves. Many of the things you have done by professionals are done by the pastor, from plumbing repairs to mowing the church lawn.13
Summary and Conclusion The reason I do this is not for the money, but because of my love for Jesus Christ and His people. I long to see LDS turned from their false prophets and embrace the Jesus of the Bible. If you believe you already are, then engage my arguments, don’t try to assign bad motives to me. It’s a lot easier to demonize someone than answer their arguments, but it’s also dishonest.
Part-time Iowa, Lutheran Pastor Steve Struecker sees to the needs of his congregants when he’s not seeing to the needs of his own crops. Click here to read his story here. (Progressive Farmer image by Jim Patrico)
NOTES 1According to transcripts of the Pre-1990 Temple Endowment ceremony, it included the following scene during the Telestial World portion of the ceremony, in which non-Mormon clergy were mocked and portrayed as being money motivated:
“Telestial Kingdom (Adam and Eve are shown full view for the first time. They are clad in animal skins which cover their bodies to their knees. The lone and dreary world is represented by desert scenery. Adam kneels at his stone altar, spreads his hands to heaven, and piously invokes the Lord.)
NARRATOR: We now go with Adam and Eve into the lone and dreary world. Brethren and sisters, this represents the Telestial kingdom, or the world in which we now live. Adam, on finding himself in the lone and dreary world, built an altar and offered prayer, and these are the words he uttered:
Lucifer in the World ADAM: Oh God, hear the words of my mouth. Oh God, hear the words of my mouth. Oh God, hear the words of my mouth. (As Adam prays, Lucifer approaches from behind out of the shadows.)
LUCIFER: I hear you; what is it you want? (Although Adam has already encountered Lucifer in the Garden of Eden, he fails to recognize him at this appearance.)
ADAM: Who are you?
LUCIFER: I am the God of this world.
ADAM: You, the God of this world?
LUCIFER: Yes, what do you want?
ADAM: I am looking for messengers.
LUCIFER: Oh, you want someone to preach to you. You want religion, do you? I will have preachers here presently. (Lucifer turns his head as a sectarian minister approaches.)
The Preacher LUCIFER: Good Morning sir!
SECTARIAN MINISTER: Good morning! (The preacher turns and looks into the camera.)
SECTARIAN MINISTER: A fine congregation!
LUCIFER: Yes, they are a very good people. They are concerned about religion. Are you a preacher?
SECTARIAN MINISTER: I am.
LUCIFER: Have you been to college and received training for the ministry?
SECTARIAN MINISTER: Certainly! A man cannot preach unless has been trained for the ministry.
LUCIFER: Do you preach the orthodox religion?
SECTARIAN MINISTER: Yes, that is what I preach.
LUCIFER: If you will preach your orthodox religion to these people, and convert them, I will pay you well.
SECTARIAN MINISTER: I will do my best. (Lucifer guides the preacher to Adam and Eve, who stand nearby.)
LUCIFER: Here is a man who desires religion. He is very much exercised, and seems to be sincere. (As Lucifer presents the preacher to Adam and Eve he steps back and observes the ensuing conversation. The preacher is made to sound sincere, although misguided and credulous. Adam appears humble, faithful and immovable in his determination to serve God. He is not swayed by the preacher, and is astounded by the doctrines espoused by the preacher.)
SECTARIAN MINISTER: I understand that you are inquiring after religion.
ADAM: I was calling upon Father.
SECTARIAN MINISTER: I am glad to know that you were calling upon Father. Do you believe in a God who is without body, parts, or passions; who sits on the top of a topless throne; whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere; who fills the universe, and yet is so small that he can dwell in your heart; who is surrounded by myriads of beings who have been saved by grace, not for any act of theirs, but by His good pleasure. Do you believe in such a great Being?
ADAM: I do not. I cannot comprehend such a being.
SECTARIAN MINISTER: That is the beauty of it. Perhaps you do not believe in a devil, and in that great hell, the bottomless pit, where there is a lake of fire and brimstone into which the wicked are cast, and where they are continually burning, but none never consumed?
ADAM: I do not believe in any such place.
SECTARIAN MINISTER: My dear friend, I am sorry for you.
LUCIFER: I am sorry, very very sorry! What is it you want?
ADAM: I am looking for messengers from my Father. (The scene changes to a view of the Celestial Kingdom, where Elohim reigns from a white throne afront tall white pillars. He is radiant as before, and his voice resonates as he speaks with Jehovah, who stands before him.)”
(Jonathan “Thinker of Thoughts” Streeter (transcriber), “Pre-1990 Temple Endowment”, Thoughts on Things and Stuff website, Aug 24, 2016)
2 And, even more interesting, the same scriptural command to have a paid clergy in unique Mormon scripture is also true of modern Mormon Missionaries who must “pay to play” to the tune of thousands of dollars during their mission:
“And again, thus saith the Lord unto you, O ye elders of my church, who have given your names that you might know his will concerning you—
Behold, I say unto you, that it is the duty of the church to assist in supporting the families of those, and also to support the families of those who are called and must needs be sent unto the world to proclaim the gospel unto the world.
Wherefore, I, the Lord, give unto you this commandment, that ye obtain places for your families, inasmuch as your brethren are willing to open their hearts.” (Doctrine & Covenants 75:23-25)
7“Thomas Monson’s Homes (Updated)” Mormon Insider website, April 18, 2013. And what’s even more interesting is that Thomas S. Monson, the same man who owned and maintained these three houses, made in this bold claim in Spring General Conference 2006:
“I answered that the Church is not wealthy but that we follow the ancient biblical principle of tithing, which principle is reemphasized in our modern scripture. I explained also that our Church has no paid ministry…” (Thomas S. Monson, “Our Sacred Priesthood Trust”, Spring General Conference 2006)
The January 2, 2014 letter from the LDS Church to its General Authorities informing them that they are increasing their annual “living allowance” from $116,400 to $120,000. (image source: the Truth & Transparency Foundation)
9 And if a non-Mormon reading this thinks that any of this is exaggerated, we would refer them to Benny Hinn’s nephew, Costi’s book, “God, Greed, and the (Prosperity) Gospel: How Truth Overwhelms a Life Built on Lies” in which he not only exposes these things but provides the biblical path that has lead him to a life of humble, accountable service as the type of a local church pastor that this article reveals and describes and that the bible commands.
This is not to deny that “priestcraft” is a real thing in mainstream Christianity, it is. That said, while we readily and openly acknowledge these abuses, it’s quite another thing to paint non-Mormon clergy with such a broad brush in such a way as to claim that all of them are engaging in it when, in fact, only a few are.
13 And while the focus of this article is on Christian Pastors everything that I have said is even truer of Christian Apologists who don’t have a congregation to pay them a salary and must depend on the kindness of strangers to keep them afloat via donations.
To cite just one case in point, in his book “Lighthouse: Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Despised and Beloved Critics of Mormonism” Ronald V. Huggins details how the Tanners were on the verge of bankruptcy innumerable times and were only able to stay afloat thanks to the kind generosity of friends, family, and people who they didn’t even know via timely donations and gifts. Consider this incident that took place in the early “Modern Microfilm” (it was later renamed “Utah Lighthouse Ministry” when it became a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in the United States) days of the ministry:
“Jerald had given up being a machinist to work full time to build Modern Microfilm. But within two years, it was floundering. The books sold, but there was not enough revenue to keep everything afloat and support a family. The November 1965 issue of the Tanners’ newsletter, the Salt Lake City Messenger, announced a 10 percent discount on their books. The Tanners were candid with their readers: “We hope that by selling these books we will be able to pay off our loans, and, if it is possible, to keep our equipment. … The Lord may call us to some other work, or we may even continue Modern Microfilm Co. on a part time basis.”
They planned to continue the sale through the end of June 1966, but “things have taken a turn for the worse,” Jerald and Sandra announced in July, as they offered a 20 percent discount on everything. They made an appeal for loans to the company at 8 percent interest, suggesting thousand-dollar advances paid off over two years with monthly payments of $48.34. They insisted there was no fear of bankruptcy, but Jerald was working on a new book and was eager to finish it without seeking outside employment. A few readers responded with money, mostly family and friends, and it became a method that the Tanners used into the early 1980s until they became a non-profit organization in 1983.” (Ronald V. Huggins, “Lighthouse: Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Despised and Beloved Critics of Mormonism”, p. 141. Signature Books. Kindle Edition)
This is a recurring theme in the book and one which Sandra Tanner herself validated in the nearly innumerable promotional interviews that she did in the wake of the book’s release. Consider in particular “Unveiling Grace” interview #186 in which she speaks in detail about how the multiple civil lawsuits that the LDS Church initiated against her and her husband risked them keeping their family home should they lose the case or the legal fees become too exorbitant, on more than one occasion.
To cite another case, the very website that you are reading this article on, “Beggar’s Bread”, operates at a net loss each year with the Publishing Editor not asking for donations, never receiving them, and paying for all operating expenses out of his own pocket for over a decade now. So if it’s true that not only Christian Pastors are in it in for the money but Christian Apologists are as well, then we all are clearly inept at this “get rich at the expense of Mormonism” scheme that Latter-day Saints claim that we are engaged in.
About the Author Jason Wallace is the pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church in Magna, Utah which is a Congregation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He is also the former host of “The Ancient Paths” television program, which featured topical guests and lectures on various aspects of Mormon Studies as they relate to Jesus Christ and the Bible. Pastor Wallace is also well known for his religious studies videos and hosted debates which can be found here on The Ancient Paths YouTube channel.
Our authority to act in God’s name comes from His call on our lives
Female Priesthood holders join hands in corporate public prayer at a Women of Faith Conference.
by Benjamin R. Reed and Fred W. Anson Introduction Mormonism is fueled by faith-promoting stories. No one said this better than Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, “We have in the Church an untapped, almost unknown, treasury of inspiring and faith-promoting stories. They are the best of their kind and there are thousands of them.” (“The How and Why of Faith-promoting Stories”, New Era magazine, July 1978). Unfortunately, some of them, as another Mormon Apostle said well, only provide “…a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories?” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Teacher Come from God”, Spring General Conference 1998). This series exposes the following ten “Twinkies”…
10 Myths That Mormonism Tells About Biblical Christianity
Biblical Christianity apostatized.
The Bible has been corrupted.
Biblical Christians believe in cheap grace.
Biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.
The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.
Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.
Biblical Christians have no priesthood.
Biblical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.
Biblical Christians hate Mormons.
Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.
… and replaces them with nourishing truth. Let’s talk about the one that’s bolded, shall we?
The Myth “Biblical Christians have no priesthood.”
One doesn’t have to go any further than the very first investigator lesson in the official LdS Church manual “Preach My Gospel” (which contains both the official training curriculum for all LdS Missionaries and the correlated lessons that they are supposed to teach those who are investigating the LdS Church). In the very first Investigator Lesson starting in the third section, entitled “Heavenly Father Reveals His Gospel in Every Dispensation” the Missionary and the Investigator are informed that:
“When widespread apostasy occurs, God withdraws His priesthood authority to teach and administer the ordinances of the gospel…
After the death of Jesus Christ, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and Church members and killed many of them. With the death of the Apostles, priesthood keys and the presiding priesthood authority were taken from the earth. The Apostles had kept the doctrine of the gospel pure and maintained the order and standard of worthiness for Church members. Without the Apostles, over time the doctrine was corrupted, and unauthorized changes were made in Church organization and priesthood ordinances, such as baptism and conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Without revelation and priesthood authority, people relied on human wisdom to interpret the scriptures and the principles and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ. False ideas were taught as truth. Much of the knowledge of the true character and nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost was lost. Important parts of the doctrine of faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost became distorted or forgotten. The priesthood authority given to Christ’s Apostles was no longer present on the earth. This apostasy eventually led to the emergence of many churches…
Even though many good people believed in Christ and tried to understand and teach His gospel, they did not have the fulness of truth or the priesthood authority to baptize and perform other saving ordinances.” (LdS Church website, “Preach My Gospel”, “Lesson 1: The Message of the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ”; ellipses added for the sake of brevity, retrieved 2022-11-02)
Again, and to reiterate, this is the very first lesson that those investigating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are given. To say that the issue of Priesthood and its accompanying Priesthood Authority is a key distinctive of Latter-day Saint Theology is understating things greatly. Stated plainly it is the key distinctive of modern Mormon Theology – at the very core of their current “Restoration” dogma. If there is any lingering doubt on this point, the same source makes sure that this point is not missed:
“After the appearance of the Father and the Son, other heavenly messengers, or angels, were sent to Joseph Smith and his associate Oliver Cowdery. John the Baptist appeared and conferred upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the Aaronic Priesthood, which includes the authority to perform the ordinance of baptism. Peter, James, and John (three of Christ’s original Apostles) appeared and conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, restoring the same authority given to Christ’s Apostles anciently. With this priesthood authority, Joseph Smith was directed to organize the Church of Jesus Christ again on the earth. Through him, Jesus Christ called twelve Apostles.
The time in which we live is referred to by Bible prophets as the last days, the latter days, or the dispensation of the fulness of times. It is the period of time just before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. It is the final dispensation. This is why the Church is named The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (ibid)
Sounds compelling, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, there’s a problem: It’s not true. It’s a myth.
A diverse group of male Priesthood holders gather together to worship God and hear God’s word at a 1997 Promise Keepers event.
Why It’s a Myth Let’s back up and start at the very beginning, shall we? First, what exactly is meant by the biblical word, “priesthood?” Bible commentator, Wayne Jackson explains:
“A priest, in effect, is a mediator who stands between God and man. He offers sacrifice to God on behalf of man and administers other worship obligations that people feel unworthy to offer personally. The nearest thing to a definition found in the Scriptures is probably Hebrews 5:1.
“For every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.”’
(Wayne Jackson, “Exploring the Concept of Priesthood”)
And 19th Century Christian Scholar William Smith explained how and why a priesthood is required:
“The idea of a priesthood connects itself in all its forms, pure or corrupted, with the consciousness, more or less distinct of sin. Men feel that they have broken a law. The power above them is holier than they are, and they dare not approach it. They crave for the intervention of some one of whom they can think as likely to be more acceptable than themselves. He must offer up their prayers, thanksgivings, sacrifices. He becomes their representative in “things pertaining unto God.” He may become also (though this does not always follow) the representative of God to man. (William Smith, “Smith’s Bible Bible Dictionary”, “Priest”)
In a sense, after the fall, without a priest to mediate between God and man and offer sacrifices there was no forgiveness of sins and thus no reconciliation with God. Thus immediately after the fall of man we see mankind in general offering sacrifices to God (see Genesis 4:2-6) and assuming a priestly role. Another 19th Century Scholar, Matthew George Easton, offers this quick summation and overview of the priesthood in his own well-known Bible dictionary:
“At first every man was his own priest, and presented his own sacrifices before God. Afterwards that office devolved on the head of the family, as in the cases of Noah (Gen. 8:20), Abraham (12:7; 13:4), Isaac (26:25), Jacob (31:54), and Job (Job 1:5).
The name first occurs as applied to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18). Under the Levitical arrangements the office of the priesthood was limited to the tribe of Levi, and to only one family of that tribe, the family of Aaron. Certain laws respecting the qualifications of priests are given in Lev. 21:16-23. There are ordinances also regarding the priests’ dress (Ex. 28:40-43) and the manner of their consecration to the office (29:1-37).
Their duties were manifold (Ex. 27:20, 21; 29:38-44; Lev. 6:12; 10:11; 24:8; Num. 10:1-10; Deut. 17:8-13; 33:10; Mal. 2:7). They represented the people before God, and offered the various sacrifices prescribed in the law…
The whole priestly system of the Jews was typical. It was a shadow of which the body is Christ. The priests all prefigured the great Priest who offered “one sacrifice for sins” “once for all” (Heb. 10:10, 12). There is now no human priesthood. (See Epistle to the Hebrews throughout.)” (Matthew Easton, “Easton’s Bible Bible Dictionary”, “Priest”)
On that last point, Mr. Easton was most likely overreacting to Catholic priesthood dogma, which allows for both a common and ministerial priesthood1 – a distinction that was frequently polemicized in the 19th century by Protestants as much or more as it was dogmatized by Roman Catholics.
His point is biblically correct but also biblically incomplete: The Bible is clear that there is a New Testament priesthood, however, it’s neither the Melchizedek nor the Aaronic priesthood. After all, the Levitical system of sacerdotalism2 that formed the basis for the Aaronic priesthood was fulfilled by Christ’s atonement, and then the Melchizedek priesthood, which again, only contains one member, Jesus Christ.3 Nevertheless, there are priests in what the Apostle Peter refers to as the “Royal Priesthood” in 1 Peter 2:9 (NKJV bolding added for emphasis):
“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.”
And it is this priesthood of kings that the Apostle John refers to in Revelation 1:5-6 and 5:10 (NKJV bolding added for emphasis):
“To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
You [the Lamb of God] were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”
It is also important to look at Christ as the ultimate high priest in providing a final propitiatory sacrifice that only He, being God incarnate, could provide. When the veil was rent into two from the top to bottom, oblations (burnt offerings) and other types of human intervention were simply a moot point – it was literally torn asunder:
“And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:50-51 NIV)
Thus, with the veil now torn, all true believers in Christ and His atoning work could have direct access to divine guidance and holy communion with the Triune God. The Holy of Holies and the Mercy Seat of God Almighty was open to all true believers without restriction through the blood of Christ and their calling was sealed by being baptized into the Royal Priesthood. Christ himself referenced his culminating divine act of love in John 19:30 when in shedding that blood He exclaimed, “It is finished!”
65,000 Priesthood-holding youth people fulfill their priestly calling by offering up the sacrifice of praise to God at a 2020 Passion event at Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta, GA
That’s why, just three years after posting his bombastic 95 Theses, at the Diet of Worms in 1520 reformer Martin Luther alluded to this very fact in a tirade against the Roman Catholic Church’s abuse of sacerdotalism by exacting money from its members via the Papal dogma of Indulgences.4 In his trademark, direct, in-your-face style, Martin Luther very correctly asserted that our calling as royal priests is divine and not a matter of human ordination:
‘As for the unction by a pope or a bishop, tonsure, ordination, consecration, clothes differing from those of laymen–all this may make a hypocrite or an anointed puppet, but never a Christian, or a spiritual man. Thus we are all consecrated as priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: “Ye are a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9); and in the book of Revelation: “and hast made us unto our God, kings and priests.” (Rev. 5:10)’ (Martin Luther, “The Christian Nobility of the German Nation Respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate” (Kindle Locations 108-112), bolding added for emphasis)
And then again, and elsewhere Luther concluded:
“How if they were compelled to admit that we all, so many as have been baptized, are equally priests? We are so in fact, and it is only a ministry which has been entrusted to them, and that with our consent. They would then know that they have no right to exercise command over us, except so far as we voluntarily allow of it. Thus it is said: “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” (1 Pet. 2:9) Thus all we who are Christians are priests.” (Martin Luther, “On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church” (Kindle Locations 1458-1461) Kindle Edition, bolding added for emphasis)
Martin Luther soundly affirmed via scripture that all believers were now priests who could go directly to the Lord for forgiveness and serve Him! So is there a priesthood today? The biblical answer is an emphatic, “Yes!” However, it is significantly different than that of the Old Testament. It now consists of offering the sacrifice of praise and offering of thanksgiving (see Hebrews 13:15) that we bring daily to our God. As British Pastor David H.J. Gay notes well:
“It is in the new covenant that God through Christ has formed his people into a priesthood for the very purpose of satisfying his demand and desire for true spiritual worship from true spiritual worshippers (John 4: 23-24). In Christ, he has established a body of priests who truly worship him in spirit, and offer true spiritual sacrifices… It is we – believers under the new covenant – it is we who are the true people of God, the true Israel, who truly and spiritually worship God! In short, the newest believer approaches God with greater glory than Aaron himself ever did.” (David H.J.Gay, “The Priesthood of All Believers: Slogan or Substance?” (Kindle Locations 2024-2032) Kindle Edition)
One might also ask, so what happens with ecclesiastical offices? Reformed theologian Tim Bertolet explains that they in no way nullify the concept of the priesthood of all believers and in fact are quite complementary:
‘In church history, the priesthood of believers became an important point for Martin Luther in his theology. Often today, one of the common critiques of the priesthood of believers is that makes the Christian individualistic. Writing in his, The Theology of Martin Luther, Paul Althaus argues that for Luther the ‘priesthood of all believers’ emphasizes the congregational life. “The universal priesthood expresses not religious individualism but its exact opposite, the reality of the congregation as a community” (314). Just as Peter says, Christians are being built together as a spiritual house. Believers minister to one another. Althaus says ‘We stand before God, pray for others, intercede with and sacrifice ourselves to God and proclaim the word to one another” (314). Christians are being built together as a spiritual house. Believers minister to one another. Althaus says ‘We stand before God, pray for others, intercede with and sacrifice ourselves to God and proclaim the word to one another” (314).
Another misunderstanding of the priesthood of all believers is that the church should not have ordained offices such as elders and deacons. First, Scripture clearly identifies that the church should have such offices. The priesthood of believers never means that there are not men of God appointed to authoritatively proclaim the Word. Proper understanding of the priesthood of believers does not deny the diversity of spiritual gifts God gives to the body. However, the church as a whole has the right and authority to preach and proclaim God’s Word. Just as Israel as a kingdom of priest was to stand and minister to the nations, so the church proclaims the Word and is to spread the Word (see also Althaus, 315). “Luther recognizes no community which is not a preaching community and no community in which all have not been called to be witnesses. Each one is to care for his brother with the consolation of the word which he needs in trouble” (Althaus, 315-6).’ (Tim Berolet, “Luther’s Theology: The Priesthood of Believers“, “Place for Truth” website retrieved 2022-11-05)
But in the end, probably no one summed up the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, better, succinctly, and beautifully than John Newton in his well-known hymn:
“Blest inhabitants of Zion,
Washed in the Redeemer’s blood!
Jesus, whom their souls rely on,
Makes them kings and priests to God.
’Tis his love his people raises,
Over self to reign as kings,
And as priests, his solemn praises
Each for a thank-offering brings.” — John Newton, “Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken”
All things said and done, it is the fulfilled divine work of Jesus in his tri-fold office as Prophet, Priest, and King of the New Covenant to make salvific works effectual. It is Jesus who is the center of such a Holy Priesthood – the High Priest of the Royal Priesthood of all true believers in Christ.
A diverse group of East Indian Priesthood holders lift up the classic hymn “Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken” like spiritual incense ascending to heaven in 2019 at the 200-year-old St Andrew’s Church (The Kirk) in Chennai, India. (click the above image to listen)
How It’s a Myth At the core of the myth of Latter-day Saint priesthood dogma is the assertion that it is primarily an issue of authority – and that it is an authority that male Mormon priesthood holders alone have to boot. The archived official LDS Church website “Mormon.org” (which was designed for outsiders and investigators) explicitly states:
“The priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name. The same priesthood authority that existed in the original Church established by Jesus Christ exists in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today. The Church is directed and led through this authority.
All male members of the Church who are prepared receive the priesthood in order to help lead the Church and serve Heavenly Father’s children. A man with the priesthood might serve in some of the following ways:
Leading congregations of the Church
Performing the ordinances of the Church, such as baptism
Blessing those who are sick
God expects those who hold this sacred priesthood authority to follow the example of Jesus Christ and serve with love, gentleness, and kindness.” (“What is the priesthood?” Mormon.org website archived copy, bolding added for emphasis)
But such an assertion is only true if that authority in reality truly comes directly from God himself. On this matter, the words of the previously cited Wayne Jackson come right to the point:
“The Mormon priesthood dogma has no authority higher than that of Joseph Smith, Jr., who claims to have “restored” the ancient order of priests on May 15, 1829. The error in this is all too obvious to anyone with a more-than-minimum acquaintance with the New Testament.
First of all, the Melchizedek priesthood was to belong to Christ, and to none other, until the end of time. The writer of Hebrews says concerning Jesus that: “. . . he, because he abides forever, has his priesthood unchangable” (7:24). The key word is “unchangable” (aparabatos), which suggests that the Lord’s priesthood is imperishable. Some suggest that the meaning of the Greek term is simply “permanent, unchangable” (F.W. Danker, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000, p. 97), which, of itself, would eliminate the Mormon idea. But even more to the point is the proposed meaning “non-transferable” (C. Spiqu, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994, 1.143-44). That would specifically deny that it could pass to other persons.
Second, the Aaronic priesthood cannot be operative today because it was an integral part of the law of Moses, which law was abolished by Christ (Eph. 2:15), being, in a manner of speaking, nailed to his cross (Col. 2:14). Moreover, the verb rendered “hath taken away” in this latter passage is a perfect tense form, which argues for the permanent abolition of that law. There is no biblical indication that the law was to be, or ever will be, restored. Too, one could not restore the Aaronic priesthood without “of necessity” resurrecting the entire Mosaic Law (Heb. 7:12).” (ibid, Wayne Jackson, “Exploring the Concept of Priesthood”, bolding added for emphasis)
In other words, there is no legitimate support for LdS Church Priesthood claims – biblically, they’re empty. Therefore, the entire system rests on Joseph Smith’s say-so that he received a divine mandate that somehow overrode biblical authority when he and Oliver Cowdery received first the Aaronic Priesthood from John the Baptist, and then the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James, and John. And as both honest Latter-day Saint scholars and critics have pointed out over the years, Smith’s claims in this regard are problematic to the extreme.5
Priesthood holders wave Taiwanese flags and another blows a shofar during a gathering in Jerusalem. Thousands of evangelical Christians from more than 80 countries descended upon Jerusalem to profess their love for the Jewish state and its people at this event on Sept. 29, 2015.
Despite the historical support for the church’s narrative regarding authority, many of Mormonism’s magisterial leaders have often lashed out at Christian churches for the exercise of Holy Ordinances and Sacraments:
“Presumptuous and blasphemous are they who purport to baptize, bless, marry, or perform other sacraments in the name of the Lord while in fact lacking his specific authorization. And no one can obtain God’s authority from reading the Bible or from just a desire to serve the Lord, no matter how pure his motives.” (Spencer W. Kimball (author), Edward L. Kimball (compiler and editor)) “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball”, p. 494)
We would heartily dispute Mr. Kimball’s poor understanding of the Holy Sacraments and their authority, relating to the concept of “priesthood.” Understood rightly, it is God himself who is the “doer of the verbs.” As Martin Luther contends, they are incumbent on God and not man.
“For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself. Therefore, although it is performed by human hands, it is nevertheless truly God’s own work. From this fact every one may himself readily infer that it is a far higher work than any work performed by a man or a saint. For what work greater than the work of God can we do?
Therefore I exhort again that these two, the water and the Word, by no means be separated from one another and parted. For if the Word is separated from it, the water is the same as that with which the servant cooks, and may indeed be called a bath-keeper’s baptism. But when it is added, as God has ordained, it is a Sacrament, and is called Christ-baptism. Let this be the first part, regarding the essence and dignity of the holy Sacrament.” (Martin Luther, ”Holy Baptism” in Large Catechism)
Why It Matters As we saw in the opening of this article, the claim that a legitimate Christian Priesthood and its subsequent authority don’t exist outside of Mormonism is the myth that the LdS Church deceives both investigators and its own Missionaries with. And it works, because the theology of most modern Christians is either incomplete or is lacking when it comes to biblical Priesthood of the Believer theology. So if this article has seemed like a theology lesson to you so far, you would be right – our goal is to fix both. And as soon as one’s theology gets fixed this myth is easily exposed, it’s not only not hard to see, it’s glaringly wrong.
Simply put, our authority to act in God’s name comes from His call on our lives as the chosen elect of God. Therefore, the so-called “priesthood authority” that He gives came upon us when each and every one of us placed our trust in Christ and received His free gift of eternal life by faith through grace. We are the royal and legitimate priests of God through Christ, His atoning work, His call on our lives, and nothing else.6
On this point, Mormon Researcher, Hal Hougey very correctly points us to how true biblical restoration and Priesthood works, observing:
“In 2 Kings 22 we find Israel in apostasy. One day an apostate priest found the Law of the Lord where it had been lost and forgotten in the temple. It was read to the people and obeyed. Thus, a restoration was brought about. It did not require a visitation by angels to restore authority.
A restoration can be brought about today in the same way by reading and obeying the teachings of Christ and his apostles as taught in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God; when it teaches something we have authority from God to obey it without having to receive authority from angels or men. If you learn you should be honest, do you have to go to some church official for the authority to be honest? Certainly not. Likewise, when the Lord in His word teaches us to be baptized and to baptize others, we have the authority to do so, from the word itself.” (Hal Hougey, “Latter-day Saint: Where do you get your authority?”)
Summary and Conclusion The folks at the Got Questions? website countered this Mormon Myth nicely in summarizing our priesthood as Christians:
“In summary, believers are called “kings and priests” and a “royal priesthood” as a reflection of their privileged status as heirs to the kingdom of the Almighty God and of the Lamb. Because of this privileged closeness with God, no other earthly mediator is necessary. Second, believers are called priests because salvation is not merely “fire insurance,” escape from hell. Rather, believers are called by God to serve Him by offering up spiritual sacrifices, i.e., being a people zealous for good works. As priests of the living God, we are all to give praise to the One who has given us the great gift of His Son’s sacrifice on our behalf, and in response, to share this wonderful grace with others.” (Got Questions? website, “Is the priesthood of all believers biblical?”)
So the next time a Mormon asks you where you get your authority, you can simply say to them, “Through my calling into the Royal Priesthood through the atonement of Jesus Christ by faith through grace alone and nothing more – the Bible tells me so!”
Each and every person who places their trust in Christ is a Priest. If and when this child accepts God’s gift of eternal life, forgiveness, and the persevering grace that will sustain her through Christ’s atonement – even if it is at this very young age – then she too is as much a member of the Royal Priesthood of All Believers as Martin Luther (represented by the statues that she’s admiring in this photograph taken in 2017) is.
NOTES 1 A Roman Catholic quiz app for Catechism Five explains the distinction between the two in this simple and succinct manner:
“Q: What is the difference between the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood?
A: The difference between common priesthood and ministerial priesthood is that common priesthood is the vocation all of God’s disciples are called to (following in Jesus’s footsteps) and ministerial priesthood is when someone has received ordination and can administer the sacraments.” (“Religion Ch 5”, Quizlet website)
Those desiring a more in-depth, comprehensive, and/or official Roman Catholic Church explanation can refer to the following post-Vatican II clarification, which, among other things, agrees with this article’s assertions regarding “common priesthood” as an expression of the Royal Priesthood as it is taught and affirmed in the New Testament:
“Christ the Lord, the High Priest of the new and everlasting covenant, wished to associate with His perfect priesthood and to form in its likeness the people He had bought with His own blood (cf. Heb. 7:20-22, 26-28; 10:14, 21). He therefore granted His Church a share in His priesthood, which consists of the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood. These differ from each other not only in degree but also in essence; yet they are mutually complementary within the communion of the Church.
The common priesthood of the laity, which is also rightly called a royal priesthood (cf. 1 Pt. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:9ff.) since through it the faithful are united as members of the messianic people with their heavenly King, is conferred by the sacrament of Baptism. By this sacrament “the faithful are incorporated into the Church and are empowered to take part in the worship of the Christian religion” in virtue of a permanent sign known as a character; “reborn as children of God they are obliged to profess before men the faith which they have received from God through the Church.” Thus those who are reborn in Baptism “join in the offering of the Eucharist by virtue of their royal priesthood. They likewise exercise that priesthood by receiving the sacraments, by prayer and thanksgiving, by the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity…
These Roman Catholic doctrinal distinctions weren’t as clear in the 19th Century as they are today (thanks largely to Vatican II) and hence were frequently misunderstood by Protestants, like Matthew George Easton, and turned into an Anti-Catholic polemic – as seen in the citation that the authors used from his well-known 1893 Bible Dictionary.
“Sacerdotalism (from Latin sacerdos, priest, literally one who presents sacred offerings, sacer, sacred, and dare, to give) is the belief in some Christian churches that priests are meant to be mediators between God and humankind. The understanding of this mediation has undergone development over time and especially with the advent of modern historical and biblical studies.” (Wikipedia, “Sacerdotalism”)
3 This statement follows the teaching of John Calvin and others that the Melchizedek figure in Genesis 14:18-20 is a Christophany (an Old Testament physical manifestation of Christ). This follows logically when the text is interpreted in light of Hebrews 7:1-3 (NKJV) which says:
“For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.”
Thus since only one human meets (or has ever met) that criteria it’s fair to conclude that the Genesis 14 Melchizedek is in fact, Jesus Christ. This is just one of several valid interpretations. However, it’s clear that at the very least Melchizedek is at least minimally, a type of Christ. As the GotQuestions.org website summarizes well:
“Are Melchizedek and Jesus the same person? A case can be made either way. At the very least, Melchizedek is a type of Christ, prefiguring the Lord’s ministry. But it is also possible that Abraham, after his weary battle, met and gave honor to the Lord Jesus Himself. (“Who was Melchizedek?” GotQuestions.org website)
4 In short, and for those who are unfamiliar with Roman Catholic Doctrine, The Doctrine of Indulgence is a dogma that asserts that a Roman Catholic Church Authority (such as the Pope or another Church-ordained Church Leader) can reduce the amount of punishment that one has to undergo for sins in penance. From Wikipedia:
“In the teaching of the Catholic Church, an indulgence (Latin: indulgentia, from indulgeo, ‘permit’) is “a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes an indulgence as “a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and all of the saints”.” (see “Indulgence”, Wikipedia website)
5 According to the canonized history of Mormonism Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood on May 15, 1829 and the Melchizedek Priesthood shortly thereafter on some unknown date:
“The Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood, with its authority to baptize, on 15 May 1829. The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored next, bringing to earth all the power and authority necessary to organize and direct the Church of Jesus Christ and to perform additional saving priesthood ordinances. While the Prophet and his associate, Oliver, did not record the date that they received the Melchizedek Priesthood, historical records and the testimony of witnesses indicate that it occurred between the day after the Aaronic Priesthood restoration and 28 May 1829. Both the scriptures and the testimony of contemporaries attest that the brethren on whom the Lord had bestowed the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood—the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery—acted in the authority of those keys as they organized the Church on 6 April 1830.”
(Larry C. Porter, “The Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods” official LdS Church website)
However, the historical record discredits these claims as this Mormon Think summary explains:
“Researchers who have closely examined the D&C and primary source accounts found that the official narrative of priesthood restoration contains numerous gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Scholars also raise important questions that expose potential weaknesses in Smith and Cowdery’s story of their miraculous ordinations. For example, if Joseph and Oliver had experienced events as remarkable and life-altering as divine visitations by John the Baptist and three of Christ’s apostles, why would they not tell others? These miraculous ordinations were not publicly revealed or documented until five years after they supposedly occurred. Moreover, if the restoration of the priesthood is a fundamental tenet of the LDS Church, why was this revelation excluded from the Book of Commandments when it was originally published in 1833, only revealed in the revised and re-named Doctrine and Covenants in 1835?”
(“Priesthood Restoration” MormonThink.com website)
The specific problems in the story of the Restoration of the Priesthood:
“Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery failed to testify to the members nor record anything about the appearances of “John the Baptist” and “Peter, James, and John” in any publications prior to 1834 (five years after the events purportedly took place)—nor did they teach that men ordained to offices in the church were receiving “priesthood authority”.
Nobody in or out of the church knows the exact date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and Oliver Cowdery was inconsistent in describing which heavenly being(s) had come to confer that authority.
Joseph Smith and other early members stated that the first conferral of the Melchizedek priesthood happened in June 1831 in Ohio at a conference of Elders, and that Joseph himself was ordained to the high priesthood by church elder Lyman Wight at that time.
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery changed the wording of earlier revelations when they compiled the 1835 D&C [Doctrine & Covenants], adding verses about the appearances of John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John AS IF those appearances were mentioned in the earlier revelations, which they weren’t. The Book of Commandments, which later became the D&C says nothing about these appearances.” (“Priesthood Restoration, Problem Summary” MormonThink.com website)
Lucy Mack Smith, the mother of Joseph Smith, contradicts the official accounts from Mormonism, regarding the “authority to baptize.” Mrs. Smith seems to think it came from the “Urim and Thumim”:
“They immediately went down to the Susquehana River and obeyed the mandate given them through the Urim and Thummim[. A]s they were on the return to the house…..They had now received authority to baptize…and they [then]….went straightway to the water…..” (Palmer, Grant, 2002, “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.” Kindle edition, location 4761)
Early defender of Mormonism David Whitmer also proclaimed:
“I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver as state and believed by some. I regard that as an error, misconception.” (Palmer, Grant, 2002, “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.” Kindle edition, location 4761)
Simply put, if Joseph Smith’s Priesthood Restoration didn’t occur as he claimed, then the Mormon Priesthood is a hollow shell of nothing – it’s an empty claim with no substance to it.
6 Step back to the start of this article and reread the priesthood definitions. In the Bible, the Priesthood is an office, a function, and a duty. And any authority that came with the office was limited strictly to performing those very specific functions and duties. Throughout the biblical narrative “the authority to act in God’s name” came directly from God and His call on your life irrespective of your office, status, or position in life. Anyone who was called was authorized – it was just that simple.
Consider, for example, the man Jesus Christ. It was impossible for Him to have “Priesthood Authority” because he wasn’t a priest. Christ was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi, and was, therefore, immediately disqualified from the Aaronic priesthood. Furthermore, the book of Hebrews is clear that the resurrected Christ became our High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek through His atonement:
“Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies:
“You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” …
Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation.Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” — Hebrew 7:11-17; 9:11-15 (NKJV)
So according to Latter-day Saint priesthood doctrine, Jesus Christ was acting without authority during His ministry and incarnation since He wasn’t a legitimate priesthood holder.
Further, we could also talk about Paul who was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21, Romans 11:1, Philippians 3:5), and the 12 disciples (with the possible exception of Matthew who may have been a Levite) and their lack of priesthood authority. Suffice it to say, according to Latter-day Saint priesthood dogma, none of them had the authority to act in God’s name, lead congregations, perform ordinances such as baptism, bless those who are sick, etc., etc., etc. Yet in stark contrast to that dogma, the Bible is filled from cover to cover with men and women who had the required authority to act in God’s name simply by virtue of the fact that God had called them. For example consider the prophet Isaiah who, like Christ, was also from the tribe of Judah.
“I [Isaiah] heard the voice of the Lord, saying:
“Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?”
Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”
And He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
“Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.” — Isaiah 6:8-10 (NKJV)
Simply put, our authority to act in God’s name comes from His call on our lives as the chosen elect of God. Therefore, the so-called “priesthood authority” that He gives came upon us when each and every one of us placed our trust in Christ and received His free gift of eternal life by faith through grace. We are the royal and legitimate priests of God through Christ, His atoning work, His call on our lives, and nothing else.
‘But you are God’s “chosen generation”, his “royal priesthood”, his “holy nation”, his “peculiar people”—all the old titles of God’s people now belong to you. It is for you now to demonstrate the goodness of him who has called you out of darkness into his amazing light. In the past you were not “a people” at all: now you are the people of God. In the past, you had no experience of his mercy, but now it is intimately yours.’ (1 Peter 2:8b-10 J.B. Phillips)
SUGGESTED RESOURCES: The authors were surprised at the dearth of resources regarding the biblical doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers when we started to research this article. It’s clearly a subject that the modern Christian Church is neglecting. So to save the reader some time and effort, and to preserve the good resources that we found, we offer this bibliography.
Suggested resources on the Priesthood of All Believers: David H.J. Gay, “The Priesthood of All Believers: Slogan or Substance?” This is the most exhaustive treatise on the subject that I found. The author is as ponderous and verbose as a 19th Century preacher but leaves no doubt that his arguments are substantive and fully grounded in scripture. [click here for the Kindle Edition][click here for the FREE audio Edition]
Wikipedia, “Universal Priesthood” This is the one you’ll want if you want the short, cryptic treatment of the subject. An excellent historical overview but that’s about all.
Wayne Jackson, “Exploring the Concept of Priesthood” This is the best short summary of the subject that I’ve found. It’s also useful in that it addresses the issue of how Catholics and Latter-day Saints have corrupted the biblical priesthood system.
Got Questions? website, “Is the priesthood of all believers biblical?” Another good, short primer that limits itself to biblical text. If you’re looking for the short, concise biblical case for the Priesthood of all believers this is the article you’re looking for.
Suggested resources on the LdS Priesthood: While there’s a dearth of good resources on Priesthood on the Christian side, there’s a glut on the Mormon side. Here are some of the better resources among many that I found in preparing this article that didn’t make it into the main article:
About Benjamin R. Reed Mr. Reed is a former Mormon. He is currently Spanish Language Brand Manager at Lee Family Broadcasting in Twin Falls, Idaho. Mr. Reed served an LDS mission to Argentina and later spent 5 years in Mexico where he left Mormonism for Biblical Christianity. While in Mexico, he received a B.A. in Systematic Theology from the multi-denominational Universidad Global de Teología, completing a 200-page treatise on Mormonism vs. Christianity. Mr. Reed briefly studied missiology at MBTS in Kansas City, Missouri before becoming a Lutheran “Evangelical Catholic.” Since 2015, he has been a member of St. Paul’s Lutheran Parish in Jerome, Idaho where he serves as an elder.
About Fred W. Anson Mr. Anson is the founder and publishing editor of the Beggar’s Bread website, which features a rich potpourri of articles on Christianity with a recurring emphasis on Mormon studies. Fred is also the administrator of several Internet discussion groups and communities, including several Mormon-centric groups, including four Facebook Support Groups for Ex-Mormons (Ex-Mormon Christians, Ex-Mormon Christians Manhood Quorum, Mormons in Transition, and From Mormonism to Christianity). Raised in the Nazarene Church, Fred later became an Atheist but then returned to the Christian faith during the Jesus Movement in 1976. He is currently a member of Saddleback Covenant Church, a non-denominational church, in Mission Viejo, California.
If using symbols and scripture is worshiping them
then Mormonism has a beam-in-eye problem
“The Crucifixion”, by Harry Anderson. This is one of two paintings that Mormon Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland referred to in his Fall 2022 General Conference address that, “…serve as backdrops for the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in their sacred weekly temple meetings each Thursday in Salt Lake City,” (see Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lifted Up upon the Cross”). So if symbolic reminders of Christ’s sacrifice like this aren’t a problem when Latter-day Saint leaders use them, then why is it a problem when others do too? (credit: LDS Church Media Library)
by Paul Nurnberg Introduction Mormonism is fueled by faith-promoting stories. No one said this better than Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, “We have in the Church an untapped, almost unknown, treasury of inspiring and faith-promoting stories. They are the best of their kind and there are thousands of them.” (“The How and Why of Faith-promoting Stories”, New Era magazine, July 1978). Unfortunately, some of them, as another Mormon Apostle said well, only provide “…a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories?” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Teacher Come from God”, Spring General Conference 1998). This series exposes the following ten “Twinkies”…
10 Myths That Mormonism Tells About Biblical Christianity
Biblical Christianity apostatized.
The Bible has been corrupted.
Biblical Christians believe in cheap grace.
biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.
The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.
Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.
Biblical Christians have no priesthood.
Biblical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.
Biblical Christians hate Mormons.
Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.
… and replaces them with nourishing truth. Let’s talk about the one that’s bolded, shall we?
Sixth LDS Church president Joseph F. Smith speaking at the pulpit of a funeral service in the Brigham City Tabernacle surrounded by cross symbols in the architecture and floral arrangement. Please note the highlighted floral cross that’s at the center of the proceedings. (credit: Utah State Historical Society Classified Photo Collection)
The Myth “Biblical Christians worship the cross . . .”
In the mid-twentieth century, LDS leaders began suggesting that Biblical Christians worship the cross.1 Prior to that many Latter-day Saints embraced the cross as a symbol of their religion, similar to Protestants and Catholics. In 1957, LDS Prophet and Church President, David O. McKay, responded to a question about a Salt Lake City jewelry store advertising cross necklaces for girls, (see “Mormons and the Cross” by Michael De Groote). Following McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:
This custom of adoring the cross seems to have grown out of the purported vision given to Constantine when it is stated that he saw a cross in the heavens and was told that by it he was to conquer. From that time the use of the cross as an object of reverence grew and, when the rebellion against the Catholic Church commenced, the adoration of the cross continued more or less among the Protestant churches.
To many, like the writer, such a custom is repugnant and contrary to the true worship of our Redeemer. Why should we bow down before a cross or use it as a symbol? Because our Savior died on the cross, the wearing of crosses is to most Latter-day Saints in very poor taste and inconsistent to our worship. [ . . . ] We may be definitely sure that if our Lord had been killed with a dagger or with a sword, it would have been very strange indeed if religious people of this day would have graced such a weapon by wearing it and adoring it because it was by such a means that our Lord was put to death. (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Your Question: The Wearing of the Cross, Answered by Joseph Fielding Smith of the Council of the Twelve,” The Improvement Era, Volume 64, 1961 March (No. 3), bolding added for emphasis)
Latter-day Saints often paraphrase Smith’s statement as a question, “If a member of your family was shot with a gun would you wear it around your neck to remember them?” In 1975, Gordon B. Hinckley stated:
I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian brethren who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ. (Gordon B. Hinckley, “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Gordon B. Hinckley”, “Chapter 8 We Look to Christ”)
Very recently, Jeffrey R. Holland attempted to explain why Latter-day Saints do not use the cross as a symbol of their faith:
As I attempt to explain why we generally do not use the iconography of the cross, I wish to make abundantly clear our deep respect and profound admiration for the faith-filled motives and devoted lives of those who do.
One reason we do not emphasize the cross as a symbol stems from our biblical roots. Because crucifixion was one of the Roman Empire’s most agonizing forms of execution, many early followers of Jesus chose not to highlight that brutal instrument of suffering. The meaning of Christ’s death was certainly central to their faith, but for some 300 years they typically sought to convey their gospel identity through other means.2
By the fourth and fifth centuries, a cross was being introduced as a symbol of generalized Christianity, but ours is not a “generalized Christianity.” Being neither Catholic nor Protestant, we are, rather, a restored church, the restored New Testament Church. Thus, our origins and our authority go back before the time of councils, creeds, and iconography. (Jeffrey R Holland, “Lifted Up upon the Cross” October 2022 General Conference, bolding added for emphasis)
First, in his General Conference address, Elder Holland says, “…the absence of a symbol that was late coming into common use is yet another evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of true Christian beginnings.” Then, he immediately appeals to the cross in the left panel as a symbol of the price that Christ paid for us as evidence of the superiority of his “restored” church stating, “These portrayals serve as constant reminders to us of the price that was paid and the victory that was won by Him whose servants we are,” (see Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lifted Up upon the Cross”, click on the above image to view this portion of his address in context)
“Biblical Christians worship the Bible . . .” The Book of Mormon accuses those who reject it of having a closed-minded devotion to the Bible alone: “And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible” (see 2 Nephi 29:3).
The argument by Latter-day Saints that Biblical Christians engage in bibliolatry is often tied to three positions:
Jeffrey R. Holland laid out the full argument that the bibliolatry charge sets up. Namely, that the Bible is insufficient to answer all of life’s questions. Enter stage left: LDS Scripture.4
The Bible is the word of God. It is always identified first in our canon, our “standard works.” Indeed, it was a divinely ordained encounter with the fifth verse of the first chapter of the book of James that led Joseph Smith to his vision of the Father and the Son, which gave birth to the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in our time. But even then, Joseph knew the Bible alone could not be the answer to all the religious questions he and others like him had. As he said in his own words, the ministers of his community were contending—sometimes angrily—over their doctrines. “Priest [was] contending against priest, and convert [was contending] against convert … in a strife of words and a contest about opinions,” he said. About the only thing these contending religions had in common was, ironically, a belief in the Bible, but, as Joseph wrote, “the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question [regarding which church was true] by an appeal to the Bible.” Clearly the Bible, so frequently described at that time as “common ground,” was nothing of the kind—unfortunately it was a battleground. (Jeffrey R Holland, “My Words . . . Never Cease” April 2008 General Conference, bolding added for emphasis)
Photography of Amelia White Young, Brigham Young’s 51st wife, wearing a cross in 1895. (credit: Utah State Historical Society Classified Photo Collection)
Does the Use of Symbols Necessarily = Idolatry? The main thrust of this LDS polemic is that use of the cross as a Christian symbol is too late to have been part of original Christianity, and is therefore a sign of apostasy. LDS leaders tie its use to the influence of the fourth-century Roman Emperor, Constantine, whom Latter-day Saints believe introduced pagan influences to the Church.
But is the use of the cross as a symbol by Christians in fact late? Much of the argument that the cross as iconography is late is based on archaeological data that shows that the earliest artistic depictions of the crucifixion itself were not made until around 400 years after Christ’s death. But literary data shows that prior to Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, Christians were already using the cross, among others things, as a symbol of their faith. Christian historian and theologian Everett Fergusson notes, “Writings from the early church show how central the cross was to Christian preaching and confession.”5
In his letters, the apostle Paul—the earliest New Testament author—referred eleven times to the cross of Christ as symbolic of the Christian faith. Why does Paul tie persecution of Jesus’ followers to the cross (see Galatians 5:11, 6:12 & 14)—or mention enemies of the cross—if association with the cross of Christ was not an early symbol of the Christian faith?6
Latter-day Saints use various symbols to represent aspects of their belief and practice: the beehive, CTR rings, sunstones, and moonstones—statues of Moroni adorn LDS temples. Are Latter-day Saints worshipping these symbols by their use? Clearly, no. So the claim that Biblical Christians worship the cross is a myth.
Does Having a Defined Canon of Scripture = Bibliolatry? The charge of bibliolatry, or the worship of the Bible, is an attack against those who hold to biblical authority, inerrancy, and supremacy. Those Christians who hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura will hear this charge from Latter-day Saints. As believers in revealed religion, Latter-day Saints and Biblical Christians should share some common ground with regard to the authority of Scripture.
The authority and inerrancy of Scripture derive from its divine Author. R. C. Sproul summed it up nicely:
The authority of the Bible is based on its being the written Word of God, and because the Bible is the Word of God and the God of the Bible is truth and speaks truthfully, authority is linked to inerrancy. If the Bible is the Word of God, and if God is a God of truth, then the Bible must be inerrant [ . . . ]. (R.C. Sproul, “Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine” (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2005), p.121)
Why then do Latter-day Saints attack the authority and inerrancy of the Bible? It is odd!7 By doing so, they cut off the very argument for revealed religion that they adopt when arguing for the authority of Joseph Smith from the Book of Mormon by the oft-repeated axiom “If the Book of Mormon is true, then it follows that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s church.8
Does using a text as the basis for authority amount to worshiping that text? Clearly not, lest the Latter-day Saints be guilty of the very charge they levy against Biblical Christians. This is another myth!
Maybe it is the fact that Biblical Christians affirm the inerrancy of the Bible that rightly brings the charge of bibliolatry. Latter-day Saints believe that an ancient prophet named Moroni wrote the title page of the Book of Mormon, and included this warning, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” (see Title Page to The Book of Mormon). The author attributes any faults in the Book of Mormon to the mistakes of men and also implies perfection in the things of God.
Christians who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible—the divine nature of Scripture—do so on the basis of God’s absolute perfection and ability to convey His Word perfectly. They do not deny the human nature of Scripture. Sproul stated the position well:
The process of inspiration did not make the biblical writers automatons, for their books reveal differences of vocabulary, style, and other matters of variation between one human author and another. But inspiration did overcome any tendency they may have had to error, with the result that the words they wrote were precisely what God, the divine Author, intended us to have. (Ibid. R.C. Sproul, 135)
Is it idolatrous to trust wholeheartedly in the reliability of God’s Word? Isn’t that the equivalent of saying that leaning on God’s own trustworthiness is wrong? Surely not! Yet, another myth.
But what about the supremacy of the Bible? Are Biblical Christians engaging in idolatry when they claim that the Bible is the sole source of God’s Word? Many texts claim to be revelations from God. The Quran of Islam and the Zend-Avesta of Zoroastrianism are two ancient examples. Indeed, the LDS Church is beset by many would-be successors to Joseph Smith’s role as producer of hidden, ancient, scriptural writings.
The Book of Mormon indicates that the plates from which Joseph Smith translated had a sealed portion, and looks forward to a time when that sealed portion would be translated (see 2 Nephi 27). Individuals have stepped forward making conflicting claims to having translated the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon or other additional records.9
The LDS Church has not added the Quran or the Zend-Avesta to its canon. Nor does it accept the writings of other “latter-day translators.” In fact, it has from its very beginning exercised discrimination relative to the authority claims of others claiming revelations within the broader Latter-day Saint Restoration Movement (see for example the incident of Hiram Page’s seer stone recounted in Doctrine and Covenants 28).
By rejecting other would-be additions to the LDS canon of Scripture, and holding that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are the only modern Scriptural sources of official LDS doctrine, are Latter-day Saints worshiping their canon? No. Clearly, the claim that Biblical Christians are idolaters for exercising discernment is a myth.
‘Why then do Latter-day Saints attack the authority and inerrancy of the Bible? It is odd! By doing so, they cut off the very argument for revealed religion that they adopt when arguing for the authority of Joseph Smith from the Book of Mormon by the oft-repeated axiom “If the Book of Mormon is true, then it follows that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s church.’ (Paul Nurnberg)
How It’s a Myth Christians wear the cross as a symbol of their faith in their Lord, Jesus Christ, who hung and died upon it—suffering death for their sins. We worship “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (see 1 Corinthians 2:2 and Revelation 5:11-14). The authority that Biblical Christians ascribe to the Bible is based on the nature and perfection of God. It is not illegitimate to appeal to God’s nature as a presupposition of the reliability of His Word. Having established that, let’s look at some of the Biblical data that supports the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of God’s Word.
When the chief priests and elders confronted Jesus for teaching in the temple and challenged his authority, Jesus told the parables of the two sons and the tenants. When his accusers rightly perceived the action the master of the vineyard would take towards the wicked tenants, Jesus appealed to the authority of the Word of God (see Matthew 21:42).
In John 10, Jesus declared the unity of himself with his Father, claiming that he will give eternal life to his sheep and that no mere human can pluck them out of his hand. He makes his identification with Deity explicit when he states that his Father gave his sheep to him, and his Father is greater than all, and no mere human is able to pluck them out of the Father’s hand. The implication of these claims of Jesus was not lost on those who heard him. When he stated, “I and my Father are one,” they picked up stones to kill him. Their reasoning is conveyed clearly by Matthew, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself, God.”
Jesus then cited Psalm 82 as justification for identifying himself with God, and asked his accusers: “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (see John 10:23-39).
If Scripture is necessarily errant in places because God used human authors to produce it, then we could say that Scripture could be set aside or nullified. But here the Lord Jesus declared that Scripture cannot be set aside or nullified. Jesus reminded those prepared to stone him what Scripture said and reminded them that it cannot be a mistake. As Sproul noted in the above quote, the authority of Scripture is tied to its inerrancy.
In 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Paul wrote to his ministry partner that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” By use of the Greek word theopneustos (lit. “breathed out by God”), Paul highlights the divine nature of Scripture. Paul provided Timothy with the implications of that important fact. Scripture is profitable for doctrine or teaching, for reproof (the Greek word used here implies that by which disputes may be resolved), correction (restoration to an upright state or improvement of life or character), and for instruction in righteousness.
When Biblical Christians affirm the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), they highlight God’s intended role for Scripture in the life and faith of the Church as the sole God-breathed source for doctrine, teaching, correction, and instruction. They affirm the authority of Scripture because its divine Author is perfect and speaks truthfully.
Why It Matters Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “[ . . . ] the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship” (“Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Gordon B. Hinckley”, “Chapter 8 We Look to Christ”.
Latter-day Saints are presented with a never-ending spiral staircase of attempts at obedience, sin, and repentance—followed by more attempts at full obedience. Rinse and Repeat. CTR rings remind them that their church teaches obedience as the means of salvation and exaltation. The hope is that they will eventually reach the top of the staircase and achieve exaltation (see Come Follow Me Insights – Staircase).
Don’t misunderstand what I wrote above. Obedience and sanctification are important to Biblical Christians. But obedience isn’t the means by which we are justified before God (see Romans 4:1-5) Those who believe in Him who justifies the ungodly are saved from the effects of sin and are justified by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. As Paul the Apostle wrote “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God” (see 1 Cor. 1:18). Paul wrote that letter and sent it to the church at Corinth well before Constantine was born. Revering the cross as the symbol of what Christ accomplished on behalf of believers is not idolatry!
The key takeaway I want my LDS readers to think about is this: In accusing Biblical Christians of idolatry for using the cross as a symbol of our faith and bibliolatry for accepting the Bible as the sole source of God’s revealed Word, the aim of LDS leaders is not to engender trust in their people in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross or trust in God’s Word in the Bible. Rather, it is a polemical device aimed at making space for LDS teaching. And LDS teaching about the cross and about the nature of Scripture is unbiblical. It leads people to place their trust in their own efforts to be obedient as the means by which they will be exalted. It leads people to question the reliability of God’s promise of salvation to those who believe on his Son (see John 6:28-29).
Summary and Conclusion The polemic aim of these charges is to try to demonstrate that the LDS Church has a better claim to undefiled worship (no pagan influence) and a better (more complete) canon of Scriptures. These charges are myths that cut both ways. They are misrepresentations of the positions of Biblical Christians. Latter-day Saints should not perpetuate these myths if they wish others to treat their own positions with charity (see Matthew 7:12).
“An inconvenient truth is still truth” (Paul Nurnberg)
NOTES 1 The rejection of the cross by LDS leaders and the argument that its use is representative of apostasy followed a period of doctrinal development in which several influential LDS leaders, B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, and Joseph Fielding Smith, developed a distinctly LDS narrative of a “Great Apostasy” from the Christian faith, necessitating restoration. (see Eric R. Dursteler “Historical Periodization in the LDS Great Apostasy Narrative” in “Standing Apart: Mormon Historical Consciousness and the Concept of Apostasy”). It is interesting to note that this period of narrative building came directly after the LDS cessation of polygamy and during the period when the LDS leaders were working to build a new identity after ceasing what had been Mormonism’s most distinctive doctrine and practice from the 1840’s through the early 1900’s. LDS leaders needed to affirm how they stood apart from broader Christianity without polygamy. During the early decades of the twentieth century, the challenge posed to the authority of LDS Church leadership by an emerging LDS Fundamentalist movement over the cessation of the practice of polygamy necessitated a narrative of apostasy and restoration that was more heavily focused on priesthood authority. That development continues to influence LDS narrative and practice today.
2 This is assumed but not supported by Holland. In his General Conference address, “Lifted Up upon the Cross”, Holland recounted an anecdote in which a graduate school student asked him why Latter-day Saints do not adopt the cross as a symbol of their faith. In responding to the young person’s question, Holland recounts that he read to him passages from the Book of Mormon that touch on the cross. In his spoken remarks, Holland elicited laughter from the crowd in the Conference Center when he said, “I was about to quote the Apostle Paul when I noticed that my friend’s eyes were starting to glaze over.” That is the last time in his spoken address that Holland mentions the apostle Paul. Why? Holland goes on to argue that Latter-day Saints don’t use the cross as a symbol because it represents an admixture of pagan religion into pure Christianity, and argues:
“Being neither Catholic nor Protestant, we are, rather, a restored church, the restored New Testament Church. Thus, our origins and our authority go back before the time of councils, creeds, and iconography. In this sense, the absence of a symbol that was late coming into common use is yet another evidence that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of true Christian beginnings.” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “Lifted Up upon the Cross”, Fall General Conference of the LDS Church)
This argument is ludicrous for several reasons. First, Holland quoted the Book of Mormon to the graduate student and even stated his own belief that Nephi wrote about the cross 600 years before Jesus Christ lived. If the Book of Mormon really were an ancient record that would imply that there is pre-Christian literary evidence of the cross as symbolic of salvation. Citing the Book of Mormon as Holland did undercuts his own argument.
Second, in his spoken remarks, Holland ignores (except for his joke) the literary evidence provided by the letters of the apostle Paul that the cross was understood by the earliest Christian writer as symbolic of their faith in the work of Christ on the cross. Instead, Holland relegates that evidence to a footnote in the transcript of his talk. Why? Again, it doesn’t fit his agenda.
Finally, Holland is just wrong about the use of the cross as a symbol of Christian faith coming only after the time of “councils, creeds, and iconography.” But these facts don’t fit the polemic of painting the LDS Church as restored and pure Christianity and all other Christian sects and denominations as “apostate”. Inconvenient truth is still truth!
3 Although “bibliolatry” is not a term used by LDS leaders, it is one used often by online LDS apologists. The below quote from a Facebook discussion group is representative of Latter-day Saints who accuse Biblical Christians of bibliolatry:
“[Evangelicals] exalt the Bible to the level of bibliolatry: They derive their purported authority from it, they claim it is inerrant and complete, they claim it is the sole source of God’s word (Sola Scriptura). None of these claims is true.” (Anonymized LDS Facebook user in the LDS and Biblical Christians Facebook group, link to source withheld to maintain anonymity of the commenter)
4 In the quote cited, Holland argues that theological disagreements among Christians of Joseph Smith’s day are evidence of the need for a restoration and for new Scripture. Since Joseph Smith kicked it off, there have been at over 500 branches or denominations of the Latter Day Saint Restoration Movement (see Steven L. Shields, “Divergent Paths of the Restoration: An Encyclopedia of the Smith–Rigdon Movement” for an encyclopedic roster and descriptions of these groups) all of which disagree on key aspects of theology, such as the nature of God, locus of priesthood authority, line of succession, the scope, and authority of the Latter Day canon, and even on the nature of the restoration itself.
If one considers Holland’s argument for a brief moment, one realizes that the sword begins turning in on Holland himself. Is another restoration needed? There are some in the Latter Day Saint Restoration Movement who are calling for or claiming to lead just that, hence the constant, non-stop splintering and schisming that has led to over 500 new Latter-Day Saint denominations in just the first 192 years of the movement.
6 In addition to the apostolic era represented by Paul’s letters, other early Christian writings show widespread use of the cross as a Christian symbol. Ignatius (c. 50 AD to c. 98 – 140 AD) wrote in his Epistle to the Ephesians “Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal.” (Philip Schaff, ed. “The Church Fathers. The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection,” London, England: Catholic Way Publishing. 2014. Kindle Edition.).
In the already cited article, Everett Fergusson notes:
Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist writing in the 150s–160s, argued that God had providentially put the shape of the cross in everyday objects, such as the masts of ships, tools like the plough and the axe, and the standards of Roman legions. Christians would often pray standing up with their arms stretched out in the form of a cross. As early as the 200s, Christians were making the sign of the cross with their hands. The cross was so important that pagans charged Christians with worshipping the cross. ( Ibid, Ferguson, “When did the cross supplant the ichthus (fish) as a symbol of the Christian faith?”)
Justin also saw the shape of the cross built into human anatomy formed by the forehead and the nose and related this to Lamentations 4:20 “The breath of our nostrils, the LORD’s anointed, was captured in their pits, of whom we said, ‘Under his shadow, we shall live among the nations.’”
The Epistle of Barnabas dated from internal evidence (16.3-4) after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70 but before the Bar Kokhba revolt in AD 132 argues that baptism and the cross were prefigured in Psalm 1. Of the Psalmist, Barnabas states:
“Mark how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time: then He declares, I will recompense them.” (Ibid, Schaff, ed. “The Church Fathers. The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection,”, bolding added for emphasis)
Tertullian, writing To the Nations (Ad Nationes) in approximately AD 197 juxtaposes the symbols of Roman religion with the wearing of simple unadorned cross necklaces:
“Your victories you celebrate with religious ceremony as deities; and they are the more august in proportion to the joy they bring you. The frames on which you hang up your trophies must be crosses: these are, as it were, the very core of your pageants. Thus, in your victories, the religion of your camp makes even crosses objects of worship; your standards it adores, your standards are the sanction of its oaths; your standards it prefers before Jupiter himself. But all that parade of images, and that display of pure gold, are (as so many) necklaces of the crosses. In like manner also, in the banners and ensigns, which your soldiers guard with no less sacred care, you have the streamers (and) vestments of your crosses. You are ashamed, I suppose, to worship unadorned and simple crosses.” (Ibid, Schaff, ed. “The Church Fathers. The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection”, bolding added for emphasis)
7 Both of the myths covered in this article are perpetuated by Latter-day Saints not because the positions of Biblical Christians are wrong or fallacious. Rather, the arguments are made to make room for LDS positions. The argument against inerrancy is not made because the argument from God’s nature as a speaker only of truth breaks down. Instead, Latter-day Saints argue against inerrancy because the teaching of the Book of Mormon about the Bible does not allow them to adopt the position. If a Latter-day Saint were to affirm the position of inerrancy, they would be contradicting what the Title Page of the Book of Mormon says about the nature of Scripture and inspiration.
9 Just to name a few: Christopher Nemelka has published The Sealed Portion – The Final Testament of Jesus Christ, and claims to have received the Urim and Thummim by which he translated the sealed plates; Mauricio Berger claims that on April 6, 2007, the angel Raphael led him to the summit of a hill and led him to pray, upon doing which, he was visited by the Angel Moroni who gave him the plates, the interpreters, and the sword of Laban—his published The Sealed Book of Mormon claims to be a translation from the Plates of Mormon; Matthew Gill claims that at the age of twelve, he was visited by the angel Moroni and told that he would one day complete a mission like that of Joseph Smith—many years later he claims that the angel Raphael delivered to him many revelations as well as The Chronicles of the Children of Araneck: A Further Testimony of Jesus Christ & A Record of the Early Inhabitants of the British Isles.
About the Author Paul Nurnberg was born and raised in the Salt Lake Valley in Utah. He served a two-year proselytizing mission for the LDS Church in Hungary. After converting to Biblical Christianity, he studied at Cincinnati Christian University. He holds a M.Div. in Biblical Studies and a BBA from Thomas More University where he graduated summa cum laude. He is a member of Lakeside Christian Church in Kentucky, which belongs to the Independent Christian Churches / Churches of Christ, which has roots in the American Restoration Movement. He has enjoyed a long career in the health insurance industry, and since 2019 has produced the podcast, Outer Brightness: From Mormon to Jesus. He has been happily married to his best friend, Angela, for 22 years. They have five children and three dogs.
The Chosen Season 3 Official Trailer. The scene in question starts @1:29.
Concerns About “The Chosen: Season 3 Official Trailer”
by Fred W. Anson Introduction A week ago The Chosen broadcast series posted its official Season 3 trailer. At the one minute, twenty-nine second mark a scene starts in which the actor playing Jesus Christ says, “I am the Law of Moses”. And with those words the Internet, erupted in a hail of words with one side denouncing all or part of The Chosen and its creator/producer/showrunner Dallas Jenkins and the one side defending both.
I find myself in the middle because let’s face it, none of us (including me) have seen the final version of the scene yet and we don’t, therefore, know the full and complete context for this line. Who knows, given the context of the full scene perhaps this line is perfectly fine. However, that said, just taken at face value, it is extremely problematic. This article explains why.
That said, I must add, that fanning the fire has been The Chosen team’s weak canned response to inquiries from myself and others regarding the question which thus far has been as follows:
“Jesus does not say he’s the law of Moses in the Book of Mormon (which Dallas hasn’t read), nor does he use those exact words in Scripture (like most things he says in the show). But either way, Dallas wrote the line for two reasons: one, he thought it was really cool and the kind of thing Jesus could say in response; and two, it’s theologically plausible. He’s the Word, he’s the Creator, he’s the Law.” (see screenshots included elsewhere in this article)
This article is, in fact, an expanded (though more tightly edited and polished) version of my own reply to this less-than-satisfactory explanation. I hope that it helps brings clarity to this situation, as well as an impetus to The Chosen team to rectify this problem before this particular episode airs.
Why This is a Problem Some have suggested that Jesus saying “I am the Law of Moses” isn’t much of a problem at all – a molehill, not a mountain. Here’s why it is, in fact, the latter:
1) It’s not only unbiblical, it’s utterly unbiblical – foreign in word and concept. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say this and neither do the Apostles, the Old Testament Prophets nor the Patriarchs – up to and including Moses Himself in the Torah. This is true both explicitly AND implicitly. It can be found nowhere in the Bible in either word or in concept, it is a teaching that is totally and completely foreign to the Bible.
So why then is Mr. Jenkins putting words in the mouth of The Chosen’s Christ when there is no biblical support or justification for it? It raises some real issues about Dallas Jenkins’ commitment to biblical fidelity, doesn’t it? Does this mean that we can expect to see more “missteps” like this going forward? That is more speculative theology that has utterly no basis in biblical reality?
Time will only tell.
2) Taken to its logical conclusion it teaches another gospel and another Jesus. The Chosen team’s explanation for the line in their canned response to inquiries on it is as follows,
“Dallas wrote the line for two reasons: one, he thought it was really cool and the kind of thing Jesus could say in response; and two, it’s theologically plausible. He’s the Word, he’s the Creator, he’s the Law.”
This flippant, dismissive (one might even say adolescent) justification is fraught with big theological problems. Yes, we readily acknowledge and accept the fact that the Bible does say that Christ is the Word (Greek: “logos” meaning “word,” “reason,” or “plan” according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica), and He is the Creator just as John 1 so clearly states:
John 1 KJV 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
However, again, nowhere does the Bible state that Jesus Christ is the Law of Moses, because, plainly stated, biblically speaking He’s not, never was, and never will be. Rather, both the words of the Bible and Christ Himself are quite clear that He was both under the Mosiac Law and fulfilled the Law of Moses so that He might redeem those who were likewise born under it by living a sinless life and atoning for our sin by redeeming us with through His sacrificial death. This isn’t just some guy on the Internet’s opinion it is precisely and explicitly what the Bible says:
Galatians 4:4-5 KJV “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.”
Luke 24:44 KJV ‘And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.’
Furthermore, theologically, to say that Jesus is the Law of Moses doesn’t just run counter to that, it means that disobeying the Law of Moses in whole or in part is a form of rejecting Christ Himself in part or in whole as well. This is fraught with theological problems and the potential for heresy – such as the intermingling of Mosaic Law and the gospel that Paul so boldly and directly denounced as heresy in the book of Galatians (as well as Romans, Ephesians, and other New Testament books) and that the other Apostles echoed Paul in doing so in their own New Testament books. Or, as Bryan Catherman on the “Salty Believer” website said so well:
‘Now, the Bible does say Jesus is the Word, the revelation of the living God to his creation (John 1:1), but that is by no means the same as suggesting Jesus is the Law. Jesus is not the Law. There is a clear contrast between the Old and the New Covenants. There is a compelling difference between the Law that “came along to multiply the trespass” and the grace reigning “through righteousness, resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 5:20-21).’ (Bryan Catherman, “Jesus Is the Law of Moses? Did The Chosen Get This Right?”)
And Lutheran Theologian Steven Paulson, referring to neither The Chosen nor the Book of Mormon, was even more expansive when he said:
“Luther in his …Galatians Commentary …directly asserts, ‘Christ is not the Law…Christ is not my work.’ Much earlier in this sermon from 1 Timothy, he makes the same assertion, but he also adds in case we are in need of clarification, “The Holy Spirit is not the Law nor vice versa.” God is not the Law nor vice versa.
Therefore, the proper use of the Law consists of not introducing it where it does not belong. To understand this use rightly, you must divide man into two parts and make a sharp distinction between both, namely, the old and the new, as Paul divided them [e.g., Eph. 4:22-24]. Leave the new man completely unentangled by laws; urge the old man ceaselessly with laws and give him no rest from them. Then you have used the Law properly and well. The new man cannot at all be helped by works; he must have something higher, namely, Christ, who is not a law or a work but a gift and present, nothing but grace and mercy of God…” (Steve D. Paulson, “LW 56, 105, 106-107 Sermons III 1 Timothy 1:8-11”)
And, ironically, this “blurring of the lines” that these authors are warning us about is the very false gospel that the Book of Mormon teaches, as Pam Hanvey summarized so nicely in her classic article on the topic:
‘The Book of Mormon claims to be, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” but when it is put to the test, the gospel it embodies is nothing more than a man made concoction of of law mixed with grace; a tainted gospel that is condemned by the Apostle Paul.
In Galatians 5:4 (AKJV) Paul writes, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace.” He reiterates his point in Romans 4:13-14 (KJV), “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect.”’ (Pam Hanvey (writing as “Marie Johnson”), “The Bible v. The Book of Mormon Gospel”)
So the fact that Dallas Jenkins and his staff could or would call this statement from The Chosen’s Jesus “theologically plausible” and “really cool and the kind of thing Jesus could say” is extremely troubling, to say the least.
3) While it’s never taught in the Bible, it is taught in the Book of Mormon The biggest question for many folks, especially those with concerns about Dallas Jenkin’s affiliation with Mormons and the LdS Church, is this: Why is The Chosen’s Christ teaching something that is in The Book of Mormon but not the Bible? Does this subtle shift represent the long-feared syncretism of Biblical Christianity with Mormonism that some of The Chosen’s more brazen critics have been warning would eventually manifest on the screen given Mr. Jenkins’ oft-questioned alliance with Mormons and their church?
Even more concerning is that when I and others have contacted The Chosen team on their Facebook page (see https://www.facebook.com/InsideTheChosen) this is the canned, boilerplate response that we received on this point:
“Jesus does not say he’s the law of Moses in the Book of Mormon (which Dallas hasn’t read)”.
Respectfully, friends, this is the kind of manipulative deflection and obfuscation that preys on the presumed ignorance of the other party that those of us in Mormon Studies see pretty much non-stop from rank-and-file Mormon Apologists. Stated plainly, given the Book of Mormon source (3 Nephi 15:9) in its full and complete context this statement is simply not true. That is “I am the Law of Moses” is indeed exactly what the Book of Mormon Jesus is saying when he says the shortened version “I am the law” in the Book of Mormon. If you doubt me, here is that passage for your consideration:
3 Nephi 15 2 And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.
3 And he said unto them: Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.
4 Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses.
5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end.
6 Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you, shall all be fulfilled.
7 And because I said unto you that old things have passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come.
8 For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me.
9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life.
10 Behold, I have given unto you the commandments; therefore keep my commandments. And this is the law and the prophets, for they truly testified of me.
What’s more, the declaration that Dallas Jenkins hasn’t read the Book of Mormon is relevant how exactly? The fact of the matter is that he is citing from the Book of Mormon – be it intentionally or accidentally. Christians in Mormon Studies who know the Book of Mormon saw the connection immediately and it gave us all pause – a big, long, stunned pause as in, “Did he really, really, really just say that?” And, yes, he did!
So if Dallas Jenkins really, really, really wanted to hand those in Mormon Studies (and this author, for the record, has not been one of them, I have been a public supporter since Season 1) who have been concerned about his cozy relationship with the LdS Church and its members, bullets to snipe at The Chosen with, then it’s Mission Accomplished! Well done, Mr. Jenkins, well done indeed, your most vocal critics are locked, loaded, and ready to go – and they’ll be yelling, “Thanks for the free ammo, bro!” when they go full “Bonnie and Clyde” on y’all.
But let’s back up and get “real” here, are they seriously telling us that the Mormons on The Chosen team, didn’t point all this out to him? Really? Seriously? Please paint me skeptical. Those of us who know and understand how Mormon Culture works, know better and we know that “small” details like quotes from the Book of Mormon in popular media are almost never missed by Latter-day Saints – heck they’ll even eisegete them into things if they need to! This is especially incredulous when you consider the fact that the official 2020 LdS Church Home Ministry manual “Come Follow Me” has a lesson entitled, “September 21–27. 3 Nephi 12–16: “I Am the Law, and the Light” in it which references the 3 Nephi 15:9 passage directly:
So, I call either baloney – or at least, “major fail” – on Mr. Jenkins’ Mormon friends and colleagues. You all win the tallest Dundie in the box, for the biggest fumble of Season 3 so far. So if y’all are wondering who provided that hell storm of live rounds that you’re now seeing coming from the Biblical Christian side of the divide came from, you keep just go look in a mirror and you’ll find the culprit. Self-inflicted wounds are the worst, aren’t they Team Chosen?
4) Regardless of whether or not The Book of Mormon was the source for this line or not, this raises serious questions about the soundness of Dallas Jenkins’ theology in general. Dallas Jenkins claims that his scripts are vetted by a panel of Christians from various traditions and denominations prior to being shot. If that’s true then how in the world did they not catch a rather blatant misstep into an area of theological speculation that is as unbiblical and fraught with problems as this one?
Now if The Chosen Jesus had said to the Pharisee in the scene, “I am here to fulfill the Law of Moses” (or something like that) we wouldn’t be having this conversation because that’s biblical. But he didn’t, he is teaching a false gospel from The Book of Mormon instead, isn’t he? Mr. Jenkins and team, how could you all not see that would be a major problem? Why didn’t you woodcraft this line so that it was biblical rather than a squirming can of worms?
And trust me, I know them well, the Biblical Christians are going to be howling about this if the rest of the scene in the final cut that actually airs, doesn’t remediate this major misstep somehow. It ain’t gonna get better, Team Chosen, it’s gonna get worse! In fact, even I may be withdrawing my long-held support of The Chosen and joining your critics in denouncing it as, minimally, theologically compromised, and, maximally, tainted with Mormon heresies. Team Chosen, I am not going to sit idly by while Dallas Jenkins allows Mormon dogma slowly begin to infect and degrade what to this point has been, at least in my opinion, a biblically sound television series.
So, I highly recommend and would politely and respectfully (but pointedly) suggest that you all fix this before this episode of Season 3 drops. And, no, that doesn’t mean yet another long-winded rambling post-show “rap” from Dallas explaining why “it’s all OK after it, kids!” airs that we all now just roll our eyes at (that tactic has “played”, Mr. Jenkins, please stop – more walk less talk, please!).
That means that it needs to be fixed in post-production before it goes “gold”, like that. No, it’s cheap; no, it’s not easy; but, yes, it’s the right thing to do. And if you do, I can assure you that I will continue to support, and even defend, The Chosen TV series despite the misgivings about Mr. Jenkins’ theology and judgment that I have had for some time despite my great love for the screen product that he has given us.
Again, and to sum it all up, if it’s true that Dallas Jenkins hasn’t read The Book of Mormon then putting these words into the mouth of Jesus raises some real issues about just how theologically sound Dallas Jenkins is and just how much discernment this showrunner who claims to hold to biblical orthodoxy actually possesses. If so, does this “ball drop” mean that we can expect to see more facepalm moments like this going forward? More really, really, really bad theology that has no biblical basis or justification at all, is that what we should expect from The Chosen?
Time will only tell.
Friends, this is a problem. A big problem. And, with all due respect, Mr. Jenkins you need to fix it.
Now.
Screenshot of the trailer at the exact time when the actor playing Christ says, “I am The Law of Moses” (@1:42).
APPENDIX 1: My Direct Message Session With The Chosen Staff on Their Facebook Page Here are the screenshots of my direct message conversation with The Chosen staff on 2022-10-22 for the record – typos and all. Click on the images to zoom them if you are still having trouble reading them. If you’re on a small-screen mobile device (like a phone or tablet) turn it sideways into “landscape” mode as well.
This was The Chosen team’s final response to all my concerns and my reasons for them.
APPENDIX 2: Why the Term “Canned Response” Isn’t Hyperbole For those who may be of the opinion that my use of the term “canned response” was hyperbolic, here’s another example of it from another person on Facebook (name redacted upon request) who received the exact same response from The Chosen team that I did. We are two such examples of this, but others have confirmed that they too received exactly the same response as well.
Another example of The Chosen’s canned DM response whenever queried about this issue via Facebook Messenger.
APPENDIX 3: The Exact Time in the Trailer Where It’s Said At the end of the article is a screenshot of the Season 3 Trailer at the exact timestamp @1:42 where The Chosen Christ says, “I am the Law of Moses”. The quoted text has been added to this screen capture by this author because the YouTube closed caption and subtitling systems weren’t working for this video when it was screen captured on 2002-10-23 at approximately 2:15PM US Pacific time. You can click on the image or the link on the timestamp in the image caption to validate all this.
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse…” (Romans 1:20 NKJV)
by Matthew D. Eklund Introduction Mormonism is fueled by faith-promoting stories. No one said this better than Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, “We have in the Church an untapped, almost unknown, treasury of inspiring and faith-promoting stories. They are the best of their kind and there are thousands of them.” (“The How and Why of Faith-promoting Stories”, New Era magazine, July 1978). Unfortunately, some of them, as another Mormon Apostle said well, only provide “…a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories?” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Teacher Come from God”, Spring General Conference 1998). This series exposes the following ten “Twinkies”…
10 Myths That Mormonism Tells About Biblical Christianity
Biblical Christianity apostatized.
The Bible has been corrupted.
Biblical Christians believe in cheap grace.
Biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.
The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.
Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.
Biblical Christians have no priesthood.
Biblical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.
Biblical Christians hate Mormons.
Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.
… and replaces them with nourishing truth. Let’s talk about the one that’s bolded, shall we?
The Myth “The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.”
Why It’s a Myth Few topics ignite people’s imagination, fear, or indignation as the historic Christian understanding of hell. It has been understood as a place of torment for sinners without mercy or reprieve which endures for all time and eternity. The view of hell from the perspective of the teachings of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (hereafter LDS) differs significantly from that of the historic Christian understanding of hell; they have a temporary hell which is called “Spirit Prison” for those who died over the age of accountability (8 years old) and had not yet accepted the LDS “restored gospel.” and a permanent hell for those who rejected the Plan of Salvation in the pre-mortal council in heaven or for those who commit the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost.1
There are two presumptions involved with this myth that must be addressed:
People, even those who have not heard the gospel, are (or may be) good.
It would be unjust for God to send people to hell who have not heard the gospel.
A logical syllogism2 can be made for these presumptions:
Premise 1: If someone is ignorant of the law, they are not held responsible for breaking that law. Premise 2: If someone is not held responsible for breaking that law, they should not be punished for breaking that law. Conclusion: If someone is ignorant of the law, they should not be punished for breaking that law.
A second related one can be made:
Premise 1: If someone is ignorant of the entirety of the law, they are innocent of breaking any laws. Premise 2: If someone is innocent of breaking any laws, they are good. Conclusion: If someone is ignorant of the entirety of the law, they are good.
Before introducing the Christian understanding of hell, these presumptions should be addressed on a logical and experiential basis. As for the first syllogism, is the first premise true, i.e., if someone is ignorant of the law, are they not to be held responsible for breaking that law? This would mean that an act is only immoral if it is committed with the full knowledge and recognition that it is immoral.
Let’s step back and use the analogy of man-made laws as they relate to God’s law since sin is essentially the breaking of God’s law, “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4, NKJV). If someone were ignorant of either the law or the means to escape the punishment for their crimes against the law, does that automatically make someone innocent when they are found breaking the law? For example, if someone didn’t see a speed limit sign on a stretch of road and significantly exceeded the speed limit, does their oversight render them innocent of breaking the traffic code? No; their ignorance does not make them innocent. A crime is a crime whether one knows what they are doing is a crime or not. Perhaps law enforcement would choose to show mercy and abstain from issuing a ticket or arresting such a person for breaking the law based on those circumstances, but they have every right to enforce the law by punishing the perpetrator accordingly. It would hardly make the law enforcement officer a “monster” for giving a person the ticket.
Let’s examine the second syllogism. It seems reasonable that if one were ignorant of all of the laws that are in force, not just a few of them, such a person would be innocent. Imagine a traveler to a secluded island that had been completely cut off from any outside contact. He is completely unaware of any of the laws that have been enforced on that island. Perhaps the inhabitants of the island would also show mercy to the man if he were to break their laws. But, as with the previous example of someone who broke the speed limit, if the inhabitants of the island chose to enforce their laws, as sovereigns of that island, they would be fully in their rights to enforce those laws if they chose to do so. Even if that were not the case and it would be immoral for them to enforce their laws on a traveler who is ignorant of their culture, expectations, laws, and social norms. So, is that the case for mankind and God’s laws as well? That is what will now be addressed.
“The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.” (Psalm 19, NKJV)
How It’s a Myth Romans is a beautiful and masterful work crafted by the apostle Paul. He starts by explaining that even those who do not believe in God know that there is a God because “what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:19-20, NKJV). What is made known to all men? According to Paul here, all men know of God’s “eternal power” and “Godhead” (sometimes translated as “divine nature” as in the English Standard Version or New American Standard Bible). Now that we know what is revealed to men, how is it revealed to them? Paul says God has revealed these attributes to man: “what may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown it to them” (Romans 1:19, NKJV) and this has been done “since the creation of the world…by the things that are made.” Through creation itself, God reveals his eternal power and divinity. And how does this knowledge affect mankind? We are, as Paul declares, “without excuse” (Romans 1:20, NKJV).
We don’t have a reason to claim we didn’t know at least the existence of God, even if we don’t know much about him. Sure, there are many who claim they either know or strongly believe there is a lack of evidence for such a being, but Scripture witnesses that such people “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18, NKJV). This could be knowingly or unknowingly; when men refuse to acknowledge the existence of God who has made himself known to them in creation, they are rejecting that truth that has been given to all people everywhere. This agrees with the Psalmist who declared, “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.” (Psalm 19:1, NKJV) Heaven is the canvas of God’s masterful art, and in every sunset, every constellation, every strand of DNA, we see the paint strokes from the master Artist.
As if this weren’t enough, Paul continues this topic in chapter 2 of Romans to show that man is not only without excuse as to knowing there is a God, but we are also without excuse to knowing at least some of God’s laws.3 Here, he is criticizing Israelites who boast of having been given God’s laws through Moses and the other prophets in the Torah (law) of the Old Testament. Paul extols the unbelieving nations, the Gentiles, who seek to follow at least some of God’s laws (whether protecting life, respecting ownership of property, or whatever law that may be).
Paul says that “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them” (Romans 2:14-15, NKJV).
Even Gentiles who had never heard of Moses, the Torah, the creation narrative in Genesis, the Messiah, or anything related to the laws given to Israel, do what is right by the dictates of their consciences. Paul says they do this because men show evidence of “the work of the law written in their hearts.” This is the conscience God gave to man in the beginning, and though it is imperfect due to the fall, a portion of that law written on our ancestors’ hearts still exists in the soul of man everywhere (what Latter-day Saints would call the “light of Christ”). One need only consider the universality of The Golden Rule (“…you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” Leviticus 19:18, NKJV) across cultures to see this:4
Ancient Egypt: “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do.” (The Eloquent Peasant” c. 2040–1650 BCE)
Ancient India: “Do not do to others what you know has hurt yourself.” (Kural 316 from “Book of Virtue of the Tirukkuṛa”, c. 1st century BCE to 5th century CE)
Ancient Greece: “Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.” (Thales, c. 624–c. 546 BCE)
Thus, no man anywhere is completely ignorant of all of God’s laws; our consciences prick us at one point or another when we do not do that which is lawful according to the dictates of God’s moral law. The second syllogism then falls apart in premise 1. Thus, Paul can say in chapter 3 of Romans, “there is none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10, NKVJ) and “for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23, NKJV).
“Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God, also the earth with all that is in it.” (Deuteronomy 10:4, NKJV)
Why It Matters Having established that none can claim ignorance of the existence of God and of God’s laws, does this not destroy the first premises of both of the syllogisms I presented above? There is no one who is truly and completely innocent of the knowledge of God and his laws, and so to use this as evidence that God is “a monster who sends good people to hell” is incorrect since it has been sufficiently shown that none are good nor are they ignorant or innocent. That is, how can God be a “monster” for exercising justice against anyone when that person is guilty of breaking the very law that He has woven into His creation?
But why does this matter? This shows us that we are sinful creatures. We cannot hope to stand innocent before God based on our works. We cannot be righteous by what we do in terms of trying to keep God’s law by our own gumption and best efforts. And shaking our fists at God for executing justice against those who deserve punishment won’t fix the problem, either. God is fully just and right to punish those who break his law as he sees fit, and he has declared that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23, NKJV).
However, there is a “but” that follows this statement from Paul. The sentence reads, “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23, NKJV) Thankfully, God has revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and passed down to us through the Christian faith and the Holy Scriptures the ‘good news of the gospel. God has not left all of mankind in this condemned state. He extends his arms open to anyone who will simply turn away from their sins and trust in Christ to rescue them from their sinful state. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) This is the only way to escape eternal death and punishment for our sins against God.
And I pray each one who reads this article will do so, trusting in nothing they can do or offer to God, but that they simply do as Abraham did: “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness” (Romans 4:3, NKJV). He was justified (declared innocent and righteous) because the righteousness of Christ was credited to him “apart from works” (Romans 4:6, NKJV). And this is the only way we can become completely and wholly righteous before God, standing before him at the judgment in the stainless, seamless, glorious righteousness of Jesus given to us.
But this, of course, always leads to the nagging question, “That’s good news for those who have heard of the glorious news of this gift of God and have received eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord, but what about those who haven’t?” Well, first, looking at Christian Church history, this burning question above all else, has driven Christian Missionaries since the ascension of Christ in glory. As Paul says so well elsewhere in Romans:
“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”’ (Romans 10:14-15, NKJV)
“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him,” (Psalm 8:3-4, NKJV)
Second, as Theologian, R.C. Sproul points out:
“The New Testament makes it clear that people will be judged according to the light that they have. All the elements of the Old Testament Law are not known by people living in remote parts of the world. But we read that they do have a law “written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15). They are judged by the law they do not know and are found wanting. No one keeps the ethic he has even if he invents it himself….
Thus if a person in a remote area has never heard of Christ, he will not be punished for that. What he will be punished for is the rejection of the Father of whom he has heard and for the disobedience to the law that is written on his heart. Again, we must remember that people are not rejected for what they haven’t heard but for what they have heard.” (R.C. Sproul, “Objections answered”, ellipses added for the sake of brevity)
Thus, God will be both just and equitable in His final judgment, we have His word on it. The Bible says that it is both, “they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20, NKJV) and, “(… the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves, their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” (Romans 2:15-16, NKJV) and the Bible is also clear that on their own all men will fail at this.
So, now let’s compare what the witness from God as we have seen directly from the pages of the Bible with what Joseph Smith had to say about hell. He says of those deserving of everlasting condemnation, the ‘sons of perdition,’ the following:
“All sins shall be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy… You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance: they make open war like the Devil, and awful is the consequence.”
(Joseph Smith Jr. (Joseph Fielding Smith, compiler), “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, ellipses added for the sake of brevity)
Thus we see that Joseph Smith asserted that the only ones destined for “hell” are those who had a nearly perfect knowledge of not simply the existence of God, but also a nearly perfect knowledge of Christ and his work and of the truthfulness of the work of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
This places those who consider Joseph Smith a true prophet in a dilemma: do they believe the Bible, or do they believe Joseph Smith? Do they choose God’s truth, or do we choose something that sounds more comforting but, in reality, isn’t biblical? If you find yourself in this dilemma I urge you to be reconciled to what the Word of God has to say on the topic and reject the erroneous teachings of Joseph Smith.
Summary and Conclusion
The argument that “God is a monster who sends good people to hell” is typically based on faulty argumentation. It assumes that people are good, innocent, and/or should not be held accountable for breaking God’s laws. Scripture states that, due to the fall of mankind, we are not by nature good, innocent, or guiltless before God if left to ourselves. Neither can we become good by our works according to God’s law because we cannot obey it perfectly. It is only by trusting in God in Jesus Christ, turning away from our sins, and not resting on our own good works to make us righteous before God that we may be declared justified (innocent or righteous) before him.
“God has so clearly, clearly manifested Himself ever since the creation of the world, through everything that is made, that you can never use ignorance as an excuse before God.” (R.C. Sproul, “All Are Without Excuse”)
2 A “syllogism” can be defined as “a process of logic in which two general statements lead to a more particular statement” (see Cambridge Dictionary, see “syllogism”). That definition may not really be that helpful, so I’ll try to offer a simpler one. With a syllogism, two premises are presented which lead to a conclusion. The conclusion is only true if both premises are also true; if one or both premises are not true or are not logically sound, then the conclusion need not necessarily follow. One form of syllogism, the hypothetical syllogism, says that if “A” is true, then “B.” If “B” is true, then “C.” The conclusion is, then, that if “A” is true, then “C” is true. This is the type of syllogism used in this article.
3 Throughout Romans 2 and elsewhere, Paul refers to “law.” It is common in my experience for LDS to point to Paul’s references of “law” as referring only to the law given to Moses on Mt. Sinai (and usually they further limit this to the ceremonial laws, animal sacrifices, other temple sacrifices and ritual cleanliness, etc.).
Thus, in so limiting Paul’s use of “law” to an outdated law, it is understood that God condemns seeking righteousness by laws that are no longer in force while allowing for seeking righteousness by the laws of God employed in the “new and everlasting covenant.” This ultimately results in rejection of justification by grace alone through faith alone as has been taught throughout church history and most clearly made known since the Protestant Reformation.
If their explanation were the case, then they may have a good reason to question why all people everywhere are judged guilty by a law that is no longer in force. Certainly, parts of the law given to Israel no longer apply.
But much does still apply, namely, the moral laws taught in the 10 Commandments. This is evident when Paul, returning to Romans 2, asks those who claim to rest in the law and their law keeping as their righteousness before God, “You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?” (Romans 2:21-23, NKJV). Paul here refers explicitly to the eighth commandment against stealing, the seventh commandment against adultery, and the second commandment against idols. He seems to be indicating these are moral principles that are still in force for Israelites today.
Not only that, this is the same law by which Gentiles “who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law” (Romans 2:14, NKJV) when they are following the dictates of their consciences. There is no evidence to suggest that these Gentiles were spontaneously choosing to circumcise their infant boys, offer animal sacrifices according to Torah law, or any other ceremonial component of the law of Moses. But if that is what Paul meant by “law” throughout Romans, then that is what Paul would be speaking of here. However, the more consistent explanation is that Paul was not using the word “law” to strictly speak of the ceremonial law of Moses; the Gentiles were obeying their consciences in regard to the moral law of God, the law by which all men everywhere will be judged.
Confucianism: “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you” (Analects 15:23)
Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” (Mahabharata 5:1517)
Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful” (Udanavarga 5:18)
About the Author Matthew D. Eklund was born and grew up in northern Utah. He has one sister, one half-brother, and 11 step-siblings. He served as a full-time LDS missionary to France and Belgium as a French-speaking missionary. He returned home and earned several degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Nuclear Engineering at The University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah, and at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York. During his doctoral studies in New York, he resigned from the LDS faith in 2017. He started attending a Reformed Baptist church outside of Albany, New York which holds to the 1677/1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. There in 2019, he was baptized as an Evangelical Protestant Christian and became a member of that congregation of believers. At that church, he met his future wife, Rebekah. They now live in Idaho Falls, Idaho where Matthew is a researcher at Idaho National Laboratory.
Biblical Christians fully acknowledge the one-ness and the three-ness of God
A detail from Andrea del Verrocchio and Leonardo da Vinci, “Battesimo di Cristo (The Baptism of Christ)”, c.1475. Please note how this allegedly “apostate” artist has clearly depicted the three persons of the Trinity as distinct.
by Paul Nurnberg Introduction Mormonism is fueled by faith-promoting stories. No one said this better than Mormon Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie, “We have in the Church an untapped, almost unknown, treasury of inspiring and faith-promoting stories. They are the best of their kind and there are thousands of them.” (“The How and Why of Faith-promoting Stories”, New Era magazine, July 1978). Unfortunately, some of them, as another Mormon Apostle said well, only provide “…a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories?” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “A Teacher Come from God”, Spring General Conference 1998). This series exposes the following ten “Twinkies”…
10 Myths That Mormonism Tells About Biblical Christianity
Biblical Christianity apostatized.
The Bible has been corrupted.
Biblical Christians believe in cheap grace.
Biblical Christians believe Christ prayed to Himself.
The Biblical Christian God is a monster who sends good people to hell just because they never had a chance to hear the gospel.
Biblical Christians worship the cross and the Bible.
Biblical Christians have no priesthood.
Biblical Christian Pastors and Apologists practice Priestcraft – they’re only in it for the money.
Biblical Christians hate Mormons.
Biblical Christianity is divided into 10,000+ sects, all believing in different paths to salvation.
… and replaces them with nourishing truth. Let’s talk about the one that’s bolded, shall we?
This meme illustrates how this myth is typically used in popular culture by Mormons.
The Myth
To illustrate how this myth is typically used by Latter-day Saints, I have included a well-known Mormon meme that pops up on Social Media from time to time. It shows how Latter-day Saints will often use critiques they believe to be silver bullets that debunk the doctrine of the Trinity when, in fact, they are nothing more than contrived strawman arguments. The myth being addressed here isn’t the only one of these, but it’s probably the most common.
So, where do Latter-day Saints get the incorrect idea that Biblical Christians who affirm the doctrine of the Trinity believe that Jesus was praying to himself when he lifted his voice in prayer to the Father?
Gordon B. Hinckley said the following:
“I am aware that Jesus said that they who had seen Him had seen the Father. Could not the same be said by many a son who resembles his parent?
When Jesus prayed to the Father, certainly He was not praying to Himself!
They are distinct beings, but they are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God.” — Gordon B. Hinckley
(“The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” October 1986 General Conference, bolding added for emphasis)
LDS leaders often appeal to Joseph Smith’s First Vision as the reason they teach that the Father and the Son are distinct beings(see, for example, N. Eldon Tanner’s “The Contributions of the Prophet Joseph Smith”).
Some LDS leaders, Smith included, seek to make the case on biblical grounds:
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?” — Joseph Smith, Jr.
(quoted in Joseph Fielding Smith, ed. “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” Section VI, 370, bolding added for emphasis)
More recently, Jeffrey R. Holland attempted to make the case that the Latter-day Saints hold to a more biblical view of the Godhead than Biblical Christians do:
“Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament].”
So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself…
To whom was Jesus pleading so fervently all those years, including in such anguished cries as “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” and “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”? To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings is not to be guilty of polytheism; it is, rather, part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings.” — Jeffrey R. Holland
(“The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent” in October 2007 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, bolding added for emphasis, ellipses added for the sake of brevity)
Why It’s a Myth Biblical Christians agree with Latter-day Saints that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons. On biblical grounds, we disagree that this means they are three Gods. The three-in-one nature of God means that when the incarnate Son prayed to the Father, he was praying to a distinct person. Latter-day Saints fail to acknowledge that the three-ness of God in the doctrine of the Trinity is a true distinction of persons.
Holland wants to give the impression that the LDS view of a Godhead is the doctrine of God taught by Jesus and his apostles. In his attempt, he abused his source, making it look like it concedes more than it does.1 Biblical Christians affirm the doctrine of the Trinity primarily on the basis of the biblical data; not solely because of the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople. It is precisely this point that Harper’s Bible Dictionary makes. Directly following the lone sentence Holland quoted from the concluding paragraph of the Trinity entry, one finds the following qualification:
“Nevertheless, the discussion above and especially the presence of trinitarian formulas in 2 Cor. 13:14 (which is strikingly early) and Matt. 28:19 indicate that the origin of this mode of thought may be found very early in Christian history.” — Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Ph.D.
(“The Trinity” in “Harper’s Bible Dictionary”, Paul J. Achtemeier, ed. Harper & Row. San Francisco, 1985, pp. 1098-1099)
Joseph Smith’s “Sermon in the Grove” that I quoted above was delivered in Nauvoo, Illinois on June 16, 1844, just eleven days before he was killed. Later in the same sermon, he quoted from Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer in John 17, specifically vv. 9 and 11b. Then, after polemically mutilating the doctrine of the Trinity, Smith told his audience that he wanted to read them the text of John 17 for himself. He paraphrased verse 21, claiming that the Greek should be translated “agree” instead of “one.”
The Greek word translated “one” in this verse is from the root heis; the Greek word for the cardinal numeral “one.” In the 345 times that it is used in the Greek New Testament, it never means “agree” as Smith claimed (see Bill Mounce’s Biblical Greek Concordance and Dictionary). Of the seven times the English word “agree” is found in the KJV, it is most often translated from the Greek verb symphōneō (“agree”). Further, Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible does not change heis to “agree” at John 17:21, as Smith attempted to do in his sermon (see John 17:21 in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible)
Smith was not only wrong about the meaning of the Greek in John 17, but also wrong about the implication of that chapter for the doctrine of the Trinity. He didn’t take seriously the myriad biblical passages that declare that God is one.
Pietro Perugino, “The Baptism of Christ”, c.1482. Again, please note how this allegedly “apostate” artist has clearly depicted the three persons of the Trinity as distinct.
Hinckley gave a nod to a biblical passage that should give any Latter-day Saint pause (John 14:9), but he dismissed it too easily, given the ubiquity of New Testament passages declaring that the Father and the Son are one. Benjamin B. Warfield noted the following about the authors of the New Testament:
“[W]e cannot help perceiving with great clearness in the New Testament abundant evidence that its writers felt no incongruity whatever between their doctrine of the Trinity and the Old Testament conception of God. The New Testament writers certainly were not conscious of being “setters forth of strange gods.” To their own apprehension they worshipped and proclaimed just the God of Israel; and they laid no less stress than the Old Testament itself upon His unity (Jn 17:3; 1 Cor 8:4; 1 Tim 2:5). They do not, then, place two new gods by the side of Yahweh, as alike with Him to be served and worshipped; they conceive Yahweh as Himself at once Father, Son and Spirit. In presenting this one Yahweh as Father, Son and Spirit, they do not even betray any lurking feeling that they are making innovations.
[ . . . ]
It is not in a text here and there that the New Testament bears its testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity. The whole book is Trinitarian to the core; all its teaching is built on the assumption of the Trinity; and its allusions to the Trinity are frequent, cursory, easy and confident. It is with a view to the cursoriness of the allusions to it in the New Testament that it has been remarked that “the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much heard as overheard in the statements of Scripture.” It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated as presupposed. The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made.” — B.B. Warfield
(“Trinity” in “The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia”, edited by James Orr, 5:3,012–22. Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915)
Biblical Christians agree with Warfield that the doctrine of the Trinity is incipient in the Old Testament revelation, that it is clarified in the New Testament revelation, and that in “point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine” (Benjamin B. Warfield “Trinity”, ibid).
How It’s a Myth The doctrine of the Trinity declares the clear biblical data that can be summarized in four statements:
There is only one God.
The Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is God.
Jesus Christ, the Son, is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Latter-day Saints who charge that Biblical Christians think Jesus prayed to himself fail to take into account the whole counsel of God (for an accessible overview see “The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity” by Robert Bowman, Jr.). The doctrine of the Trinity maintains both the one-ness and the three-ness of God, as revealed in the biblical record.
The criticism levied by Holland is that the doctrine postdates the New Testament. Specifically, Latter-day Saints argue that the doctrine amounts to the philosophies of men mingled with Scripture. Biblical Christians acknowledge that there are ways of explicating the doctrine of the Trinity that use nonbiblical words, but that the doctrine itself is thoroughly biblical. Warfield states the matter clearly:
“The term “Trinity” is not a Biblical term, and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity lies in Scripture in solution; when it is crystallized from its solvent it does not cease to be Scriptural, but only comes into clearer view. Or, to speak without figure, the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated definition, but in fragmentary allusions; when we assemble the disjecta membra into their organic unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture. We may state the doctrine in technical terms, supplied by philosophical reflection; but the doctrine stated is a genuinely Scriptural doctrine.” — B.B. Warfield
(“Trinity”, Op Cit, bolding added for emphasis)
Biblical Christians fully acknowledge the one-ness and the three-ness of God as described in revelation.
The Doctrine of the Trinity and Mormon Godhead doctrine illustrated graphically.
Why It Matters From my perspective as a former Latter-day Saint, the impulse on the part of Mormons to critique the Trinity is primarily the result of Smith’s innovative teachings – an anti-Trinity, if you will – of his most distinctive doctrines:
Man was also, in the beginning, with God, and in essence “was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (Doctrine and Covenants 93:29).
That humans must learn how to be gods [themselves], and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before [them] [ . . . ] (Joseph Smith, Jr. “King Follett Sermon”)
Smith himself argued the difficulty that his teachings posed when run up against the doctrine of the Trinity:
“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow–three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God–he would be a giant or a monster. — Joseph Smith, Jr.
(quoted in Joseph Fielding Smith, ed. “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” Section VI, 372, bolding added for emphasis)
In this sermon, Smith argued essentially as Holland did. Namely, that Latter-day Saints affirm the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit “are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance [ . . . ]” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent”). The key question here is this: Are the Father, Son, and Spirit unified in any way that is different than how believers are unified? Smith and his successors argue that the unity of both the Godhead and of humanity with the Godhead is solely that of will and purpose — not of substance. Biblical Christians answer in the affirmative that there is a difference between the unity of substance shared by the Godhead, and the unity of will and purpose that Jesus prayed his followers would have — with the Godhead and with each other.
In his great High Priestly Prayer, Jesus prayed, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent (John 17:3 KJV). Ambrose of Milan, one of the greatest theologians of the fourth century compared our unity with the Godhead’s unity:
“No separation, then, is to be made of the Word from God the Father, no separation in power, no separation in wisdom, by reason of the Unity of the Divine Substance. Again, God the Father is in the Son, as we ofttimes find it written, yet [He dwells in the Son] not as sanctifying one who lacks sanctification, nor as filling a void, for the power of God knows no void. Nor, again, is the power of the one increased by the power of the other, for there are not two powers, but one Power; nor does Godhead entertain Godhead, for there are not two Godheads, but one Godhead. We, contrariwise, shall be One in Christ through Power received [from another] and dwelling in us.
The letter [of the unity] is common, but the Substance of God and the substance of man are different. We shall be, the Father and the Son [already] are, one; we shall be one by grace, the Son is so by substance. Again, unity by conjunction is one thing, unity by nature another. Finally, observe what it is that Scripture hath already recorded: “That they may all be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee.”
Mark now that He said not “Thou in us, and we in Thee,” but “Thou in Me, and I in Thee,” to place Himself apart from His creatures. Further He added: “that they also may be in Us,” in order to separate here His dignity and His Father’s from us, that our union in the Father and the Son may appear the issue, not of nature, but of grace, whilst with regard to the unity of the Father and the Son it may be believed that the Son has not received this by grace, but possesses by natural right of His Sonship.” — Ambrose of Milan
(“On the Christian Faith” cited in “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament” IVb John 11-21, Thomas C. Oden, ed. InterVarsity Press, Dowers Grove, IL 2007, pp. 256-57, bolding added for emphasis)
The Book of Mormon states that “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people” (Mosiah 15:1). Biblical Christians can affirm this without qualification. The nature of the Son as fully God is critical to the efficacy of his sacrifice, as is the reverence for and the submission of his human nature to His Father, which he demonstrated in his prayers.
Summary and Conclusion The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Yet, there are not three Gods, but one true God. The Son did not pray to himself, but to His Father.
The Trinity Triangle: “We believe in the Triune God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One God, three Persons” This window uses the Latin Pater, Filius, and Spiritus Sanctus to name the persons in the Trinity. One God and Three Persons is a great mystery of the Church. The window explains that the Persons are not each other, but each is God (Deus).
NOTES 1 Here is what that entry in the 1985 Harper’s Bible Dictionary actually says in its full and complete context:
“Trinity, the, a term denoting the specifically Christian doctrine that God is a unity of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The word itself does not occur in the Bible. It is generally acknowledged that the church father Tertullian (ca. a.d. 145-220) either coined the term or was the first to use it with reference to God. The explicit doctrine was thus formulated in the postbiblical period, although the early stages of its development can be seen in the NT . Attempts to trace the origins still earlier (to the ot literature) cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be understood as retrospective interpretations of this earlier corpus of Scripture in the light of later theological developments.
For the purpose of analysis, three relevant categories of NT texts may be distinguished (although such sharp lines of demarcation should not be attributed to first-century Christianity): first are references to the incarnation, describing a particularly close relationship between Jesus and God. Although a number of passages make clear distinctions between God and Christ and therefore suggest the subordination of the Son to the Father (e.g., Rom. 8:31-34; 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:20-28; 2 Cor. 4:4-6), there are other texts in which the unity of the Father and the Son is stressed (e.g., Matt. 11:27; John 10:30; 14:9-11; 20:28; Col. 2:9; 1 John 5:20). This emphasis on the unity of the Father and the Son may be understood as a first step in the development of trinitarian thought.
Second are passages in which a similarly close relationship between Jesus and the Holy Spirit is depicted. In the ot, the Holy Spirit (i.e., the Spirit of God) is understood to be the agency of God’s power and presence with individuals and communities. In the NT , Jesus is understood to be the recipient of this Spirit in a unique manner (see esp. Luke 3:22, where the Holy Spirit descends in bodily form upon Jesus after his baptism), to be a mediator of the activity of the Spirit (Acts 2:33 and elsewhere), and even to be identified with the Spirit (Rom. 8:26-27, 34; John 14; cf. expressions such as ‘the Spirit of Christ,’ ‘the Spirit of the Lord,’ ‘the Spirit of Jesus,’ and Gal. 4:6, where God sends ‘the Spirit of his Son’). While one cannot use the creedal formulation that the Holy Spirit ‘proceeds from the Father and the Son’ in its later dogmatic sense, in the NT the Holy Spirit comes to represent both the presence and activity of God and the continuing presence of Jesus Christ in the church.
Finally there are passages in which all three persons of the Trinity are mentioned in the same context. The most important of these are the ‘Apostolic Benediction’ of 2 Cor. 13:14 (the earliest trinitarian formula known) and the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19 (perhaps a development from the simpler formula reflected in Acts 2:38; 8:16; and elsewhere; see also 1 Cor. 12:4-6; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 20-21).
The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT . Nevertheless, the discussion above and especially the presence of trinitarian formulas in 2 Cor. 13:14 (which is strikingly early) and Matt. 28:19 indicate that the origin of this mode of thought may be found very early in Christian history.” (Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Ph.D., “The Trinity” in “Harper’s Bible Dictionary”, Paul J. Achtemeier, ed. Harper & Row. San Francisco, 1985, pp. 1098-1099)
About the Author Paul Nurnberg was born and raised in the Salt Lake Valley in Utah. He served a two-year proselytizing mission for the LDS Church in Hungary. After converting to Biblical Christianity, he studied at Cincinnati Christian University. He holds an M.Div. in Biblical Studies and a BBA from Thomas More University where he graduated summa cum laude. He is a member of Lakeside Christian Church in Kentucky, which belongs to the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, which has roots in the American Restoration Movement. He has enjoyed a long career in the health insurance industry, and since 2019 has produced the podcast, “Outer Brightness: From Mormon to Jesus.” He has been happily married to his best friend, Angela, for 22 years. They have five children and three dogs.
Beggar's Bread 