“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.
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.
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.
Neither the Bible nor Christian Church History support Restorationist Great Apostasy claims
The interior of St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Church, in Palayur, India. This East Indian church building has serviced Christian worshipers continuously since, it is claimed, it was established in 52AD by Christ’s Apostle Thomas.
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.” (“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 No one said it better than Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith:
“Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” — Joseph Smith, Jr.
(quoted in B.H. Roberts, “History of the Church” 1:XL)
And modern Latter-day Saint scholars have echoed Joseph Smith’s words nearly word-for-word:
“It is the apostasy of early Christianity which creates the very need for the [Mormon] faith. If there had not been an apostasy, there would have been no need for a restoration.” — Kent P. Jackson, Mormon Scholar and BYU Professor
(“‘Watch and Remember’: The New Testament and the Great Apostasy,” in “By Study and Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh Nibley on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday”, ed. J. M. Lundquist and S. D. Ricks (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1990), p.81)
The interior of St. Thomas Kottakavu Church in Kochi, India. This is another East Indian church that was founded by the Apostle Thomas and has been in continuous use since.
Why It’s a Myth I actually agree with misters Smith and Jackson, they are 100% correct on every point here. The problem is that when Restorationist Great Apostasy claims1 are scrutinized against objective Christian Church history no complete apostasy ever took place. As the Early Church Father Irenaeus explained in 180 AD:
“It is possible, then, for everyone to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors [down] to our own times; men who neither taught anything like these heretics rave about.” (Against Heresies Book III, ch.3, p.1)
“The Mormon Church simply has no convincing answer to the ocean of the biblical and historical evidence of which this is just a drop. All of it contradicts the complete apostasy theory. Yet there’s another problem with the theory: the problem of silence. There’s no evidence of any outcry from the first or second-century “Mormons” denouncing the introduction of “Catholic heresies.”
Mormons might respond that, since Catholics gained the upper hand in the struggle for control of the true Church, they simply expunged any trace of the Mormons—a comforting but inviable argument. We have records of many controversies that raged in the early days of the Church (we know in great detail what turmoil the early Church passed through as it fought off various threats to its existence), and there just is no evidence—none at all—that Mormonism existed prior to the 1830s.
It’s unreasonable to assume the Catholic Church would allow the survival of copious records chronicling the history, teachings, and proponents of dozens of other heresies, but would entirely destroy only the records of early Mormonism.
If Mormons want their claim of a complete apostasy as to be taken seriously, they must evince biblical and historical evidence supporting it. So far they’ve come up empty-handed. Honest investigators will see the unavoidable truth: The Mormon “great apostasy” doctrine is a myth. There never has been—nor will there ever be—a complete apostasy. Jesus Christ promised that his Church, established on the solid rock of Peter, will remain forever. We have his Word on it.” (Patrick Madrid, “In Search of ‘The Great Apostasy’”, EWTN website)
Both Roman Catholics and Protestants affirm that the Christian Church has always, regardless of which side of the Reformation one is on, that true Christianity has always been beholden to the Bible and the teachings of the Apostles as their plumb line and standard for life and faith. From Jesus Christ until today this has been the case. And we haven’t even brought in the Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodox, and other non-Western Christian traditions that are in complete agreement with us despite being untouched by either Roman Catholicism or Protestantism.
In short, while Christian Church shows Christianity has gone, and will no doubt, continue to go through cycles of error and even corruption, reform has always followed in its wake. However, there has never, I repeat never, been a period of time in which “the common salvation… the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (see Jude 1:3 KJV) was ever missing from the planet or that a complete apostasy from the original Apostolic Christian faith established by Christ Himself existed as Mormonism claims. As our Roman Catholic source said so well, “The Mormon ‘great apostasy’ doctrine is a myth.”
How It’s a Myth A further problem is that the proof texts used by the LdS Church to support Great Apostasy claims fall short of a complete, universal, apostasy themselves. I am specifically referring to passages like these:3
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” — 1 Timothy 4:1-3 KJV
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” — 2 Timothy 3:1-7 KJV
“That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” — 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3 KJV
But as Latter-day Scholar and BYU Professor, Charles Harell has noted well:
“On careful examination, none of the New Testament passages referring to heresies within the church or persecution from without seems to predict a wholesale departure from the faith; all seem to assume that there would be faithful saints who remain on the earth until Christ comes” (Charles R. Harrell, “This is my Doctrine’: The Development of Mormon Theology,” p. 34)
To validate, Professor Harrell’s point, consider how in each of these passages it’s not just assumed but explicitly states that apostasy would only touch some members of the Christian faith not all (“some shall depart from the faith”; “this sort are they”; “Let no man deceive you by any means”). Furthermore, consider the biblical passages that Restorationists conveniently ignore when they are cherry-picking the bible to support their Great Apostasy case:4
“I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” — Matthew 16:18b KJV
“Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” — Hebrews 12:28-29 KJV
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” — Matthew 28:18-20 KJV
Could Christ have been any clearer: The Church that He was establishing could not be shaken nor would the gates of hell prevail against it. Why? Answer: Because He would be with us always to the end of the age. Therefore, to suggest that there was a complete, universal apostasy as Mormon leaders have in light of the words of Jesus is to suggest that He was lying in the above passages, isn’t it?
Coptic Christians worship at The Monastery of Saint Simon (also known as the Cave Church) located in the Mokattam Mountain in southeastern Cairo, Egypt. The Coptic Egyptian Church is traditionally believed to be founded by St Mark around AD 42.
Why It Matters In reality, the only way that Mormon Great Apostasy dogma works is if one first makes modern Mormonism the standard for what constitutes, “True Christianity” and then compares everything else against it. And guess what, using that confirmation bias driven, “come to the conclusion first and then bend the facts to fit it” methodology everything really is apostate, it would be amazing if it weren’t so blatantly fallacious, wouldn’t it? And in fact, this isn’t the way that all Restorationist churches claim that all other churches but theirs are apostate?
However, when one uses both the Bible and Christian Church History as the objective standard then this methodology fails because Mormonism (past or present) simply can’t be found anywhere in the body of historical evidence that we have for the primitive Christian church. This is just as I noted in another article:
“The hard fact of the matter is this: No trace of the unique distinctives that Mormonism declares as “restored” can be found in Church History prior to the advent of Joseph Smith. Further, those distinctives contradict what we find in recorded Early Church History up to and including the Didache.” (Fred W. Anson, “The Didache v. Mormonism”, Beggar’s Bread website, July 5, 2020)
Thus ironically, the very type of apostasy that Latter-day Saints accuse others of is exactly what they have fallen into, just as some of their favorite proof-texts for their claimed Great Apostasy state:
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” — Acts 20:29-30 KJV
“That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” — 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3 KJV
Summary and Conclusion Simply stated Christian Church History doesn’t support Restorationist Great Apostasy claims. Plainly stated, the LdS Church doesn’t just lie about its own history, it lies about the history of other churches as well. There never was the type of complete, universal apostasy of the Christian Church that Restorationism teaches, and if the words of Christ are true, there never will be.5
“I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:18b KJV) [photo: A National Geographic photo of the Darvaza “Gates of Hell” gas crater]
ENDNOTES 1 I’m using the term “Restorationist” rather than Latter-day Saint throughout this article because this Great Apostasy dogma didn’t originate with Joseph Smith, it was already in place thanks to the Stone-Campbell restorationist movement which congealed during the Cane Ridge Revival in 1801 at Cane Ridge Kentucky. Joseph simply “borrowed” a doctrine that had already been in place before he was even born on December 23, 1805, as the neutral source, Wikipedia, explains:
“The ideal of restoring a “primitive” form of Christianity grew in popularity in the US after the American Revolution. This desire to restore a purer form of Christianity played a role in the development of many groups during this period, known as the Second Great Awakening. These included the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Baptists and Shakers.
The Restoration Movement began during, and was greatly influenced by, this second Awakening. While the Campbells resisted what they saw as the spiritual manipulation of the camp meetings, the Southern phase of the Awakening “was an important matrix of Barton Stone’s reform movement” and shaped the evangelistic techniques used by both Stone and the Campbells.
James O’Kelly was an early advocate of seeking unity through a return to New Testament Christianity. In 1792, dissatisfied with the role of bishops in the Methodist Episcopal Church, he separated from that body. O’Kelly’s movement, centering in Virginia and North Carolina, was originally called Republican Methodists. In 1794 they adopted the name Christian Church.
During the same period, Elias Smith of Vermont and Abner Jones of New Hampshire led a movement espousing views similar to those of O’Kelly. They believed that members could, by looking to scripture alone, simply be Christians without being bound to human traditions and the denominations brought by immigrants from Europe.” (“Restoration Movement”, Wikipedia)
And for those of you unfamiliar with the Cane Ridge Revival, here’s a primer from Wikipedia:
“The Cane Ridge Revival was a large camp meeting that was held in Cane Ridge, Kentucky, from August 6 to August 12 or 13, 1801. It has been described as the “[l]argest and most famous camp meeting of the Second Great Awakening.” This camp meeting was arguably the pioneering event in the history of frontier camp meetings in America.”
(“Cane Ridge Revival”, Wikipedia)
Finally, for those who would like to do a deep dive into the American Restorationist Movement that was already in place prior to the advent of Joseph Smith and Mormonism, I would recommend Church History magazine, Issue 106, “The Stone-Campbell Movement”. The reader can read this issue online and/or download an Adobe Acrobat edition of this issue by clicking here.
Meanwhile in the Membership Class of another non-LDS Restorationist group down the street from the Mormon Chapel…
2 Yes, you read that right, to drive my point home I, a Protestant, and a Reformed Protestant at that, am citing from the very folks that Latter-day Saint love to hate the most, that great “Church of the Devil” (at least according to Mormon, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, that is): The Roman Catholic Church. Here are Mr. Madrid’s Roman Catholic credentials:
“Patrick Madrid has been a Catholic apologist since 1987. He hosts The Patrick Madrid Show on Relevant Radio weekdays 9-noon ET, discussing current events, modern culture, apologetics, and a variety of “God topics.” Madrid does not have guests or conduct interviews on his show, but instead, engages listeners with personal commentary and interacts extensively with callers. He has conducted thousands of apologetics seminars in English and Spanish at parishes, conferences, and universities across the United States, as well as throughout Europe, Canada, in Latin America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel. Since 1990, he has been a regular presenter at the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s “Defending the Faith” summer apologetics conferences[4] and has been a guest lecturer in theology at Christendom College in their “Major Speakers” program. Madrid has engaged in at least a dozen formal public debates with Protestant, Mormon, and other non-Catholic spokesmen.” (“Patrick Madrid”, Wikipedia)
3 For the sake of brevity, these Latter-day Saint Great Apostasy proof texts are just a sampling. For a comprehensive roster of proof texts, I would refer the reader to Mormon Research Ministry’s excellent online compilation here: https://www.mrm.org/great-apostasy
4 Again, for the sake of brevity, these proof texts refuting Great Apostasy teachings are just a sample. For a comprehensive roster of yet more refuting proof texts along with some superb analysis of both the LdS proof texts and the texts that refute them, I would refer the reader to Mormon Research Ministry’s excellent online compilation here: https://www.mrm.org/great-apostasy
5 One need go no further than how LdS Church leaders lie about what happened at the first Council of Nicea in 325AD to see this:
“The collision between the speculative world of Greek philosophy and the simple, literal faith and practice of the earliest Christians produced sharp contentions that threatened to widen political divisions in the fragmenting Roman empire. This led Emperor Constantine to convene the first churchwide council in a.d. 325. The action of this council of Nicaea remains the most important single event after the death of the Apostles in formulating the modern Christian concept of deity. The Nicene Creed erased the idea of the separate being of Father and Son by defining God the Son as being of “one substance with the Father.”
Other councils followed, and from their decisions and the writings of churchmen and philosophers there came a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine in which the orthodox Christians of that day lost the fulness of truth about the nature of God and the Godhead. The consequences persist in the various creeds of Christianity, which declare a Godhead of only one being and which describe that single being or God as “incomprehensible” and “without body, parts, or passions.” One of the distinguishing features of the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is its rejection of all of these postbiblical creeds (see Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991; Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, 4 vols., New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1992, s.v. “Apostasy,” “doctrine,” “God the Father,” and “Godhead”).
In the process of what we call the Apostasy, the tangible, personal God described in the Old and New Testaments was replaced by the abstract, incomprehensible deity defined by compromise with the speculative principles of Greek philosophy. The received language of the Bible remained, but the so-called “hidden meanings” of scriptural words were now explained in the vocabulary of a philosophy alien to their origins. In the language of that philosophy, God the Father ceased to be a Father in any but an allegorical sense. He ceased to exist as a comprehensible and compassionate being. And the separate identity of his Only Begotten Son was swallowed up in a philosophical abstraction that attempted to define a common substance and an incomprehensible relationship.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration”)
Now, since, the LdS Church has repeatedly and consistently taught that Apostasy came out of the 325AD Council of Nicea via the corrupting influence of the Doctrine of the Trinity, then consider this:
Why was the doctrine of the Trinity never discussed at the Council of Nicea?
In addition, if Christ’s Church turned away from what the LdS Church teaches about God at Nicaea, then why there was no denunciation or defense of the following Mormon doctrines at the Council of Nicaea:
God was once a man.
God is now an exalted, deified man.
Jesus Christ is the spiritual son of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
Jesus Christ, Lucifer, and all other human beings are the spiritual children of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
The Godhead consists of three gods – in other words, “God” is Tri-Theistic, not Monotheistic.
Heavenly Father had intercourse with Mary in order to produce the incarnated Jesus.
These issues were simply never discussed at all. The one and one theological issue, according to the author, John Anthony McGuckin, in his article: “The Road to Nicaea” (see Church History magazine, Issue 85, “Council of Nicaea: Debating Jesus’ Divinity”) was how Jesus Christ could be both divine and human. That was it. Period.
Even the agnostic, skeptic Bart Ehrman validates all this in his writing:
“Constantine did call the Council of Nicea, and one of the issues involved Jesus’ divinity. But this was not a council that met to decide whether or not Jesus was divine…. Quite the contrary: everyone at the Council—in fact, just about every Christian everywhere—already agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God. The question being debated was how to understand Jesus’ divinity in light of the circumstance that he was also human. Moreover, how could both Jesus and God be God if there is only one God? Those were the issues that were addressed at Nicea, not whether or not Jesus was divine. And there certainly was no vote to determine Jesus’ divinity: this was already a matter of common knowledge among Christians, and had been from the early years of the religion.” (Bart Ehrman, “Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine”, 14-15)
So as you can the LdS Church doesn’t just lie about its own history, it lies about the history of other churches as well. If you doubt me just read up on what really happened at the First Council of Nicea to see this.
An icon of the Bishops of the First Council of Nicaea with Constantine (in the crown).
RECOMMENDED RESOURCES The following resources are recommended for exposing the Restorationist Great Apostasy myth. Yes, Christian Church History is messy, there is just no question about that. However, no, there never has been – and if the Bible is true, will be – the type of complete, universal apostasy that Mormon leaders claim justified the advent of Mormon Restorationism. Furthermore, these resources will show that mainstream Christianity, unlike Mormonism, doesn’t lie about its own history – warts and all, it’s all there to be seen, read, and openly discussed.
Church History Magazine Subscriptions to the Christian History Institute’s quarterly journal “Church History” are done on a donation basis. For every issue, they do a deep dive into a chosen issue. I read every single issue cover-to-cover, and I suspect that you will too. Christian Church History is just fascinating stuff. Click here to subscribe.
For those who would like a deep dive into the deep dive not only do they give additional resources to consider in every issue, but you can also download Adobe Acrobat editions of all their back issues going all the way back to their very first issue by clicking here.
Church History in Plain Language, Fifth Edition Kindle Edition by Bruce L. Shelley Shelley’s book has been the textbook of choice for Christian Colleges for General Christian History Survey courses across denominations and traditions for decades. There’s a reason for that, it’s fair, it’s objective, and it’s a good read, Shelley is just a great writer.
Church History Boot Camp Michael Patton and Tim Kimberley For those who prefer a real-time lecture format, this Credo House course is an overview of Church history in four parts. This course gives people a much-needed introduction to the entire history of the Christian church, looking at the major events and turning points that have brought us to where we are today.
The History of Christianity: From the Disciples to the Dawn of the Reformation Luke Timothy Johnson, Ph.D. Professor, Emory University In this Great Courses course, Professor Luke Timothy Johnson of Emory University follows the dramatic trajectory of Christianity from its beginnings as a “cult of Jesus” to its rise as a fervent religious movement; from its emergence as an unstoppable force within the Roman Empire to its critical role as an imperial religion; from its remarkable growth, amid divisive disputes and rivalries, to the ultimate schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism; and from its spread throughout the Western world to its flowering as a culture that shaped Europe for 800 years.
The History of Christianity II: From the Reformation to the Modern Megachurch Molly Worthen, Ph.D. Professor, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill This Great Courses course features Professor Molly Worthen who is a marvelous storyteller that brings individuals to life as she shares broader points in the story. For example, in a lecture on the Cold War, she considers how Pope John Paul II’s moral courage helped bring about the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. In another lecture, she shares the story of Rebecca, an American slave whose story offers a representative glimpse of religion among people whose stories have largely gone untold.
Whether it’s Mormons in the American West, Catholics in Latin America, or a Nigerian megachurch, this course examines the actors and ideas that have made Christianity a global religion—and offers a clearer perspective on our own time and place. Professor Worthen introduces you to scientists and theologians, revolutionaries and social justice crusaders, intellectuals, and ordinary people living out the great drama of Christian history. From Martin Luther’s 95 Theses to Latin American liberation theology, The History of Christianity II is a magisterial course, and a great resource for students of history and religion, as well as philosophy, literature, culture, and life.
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.
How Does Joseph Smith Fare Against the Biblical Tests for a False Prophet?
MissJo, “Joseph Smith Rendered in the Style of a Medieval Religious Icon”
by Fred W. Anson The Bible has four (4) tests for determining if a claimed prophet really is one or not. They are as follows:
Deu 13:1-11
Seducing God’s people into following a god other than the one that they’ve known:
Deu 18:18-22
Giving predictions of the future in order to deceive God’s people into following another god that fail to come to pass:
Mat 7:15-20
Living a life that doesn’t produce good fruit:
1 John 4:1-3
Denying that God eternal was incarnated as Jesus Christ:
Let’s see how Joseph Smith fares against these biblical criteria, shall we?
TEST 1: Seducing God’s people into following a God other than the one that they’ve known
Deuteronomy 13:1-4(KJV)
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
EVIDENCE AGAINST JOSEPH SMITH
Smith explicitly taught another God in the King Follett Discourse – he even bragged about doing so.
“I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know Him, and to be familiar with Him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority.
I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.
God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.” (“The King Follett Sermon”, Ensign, April 1971)
TEST 2: Giving predictions of the future that fail to come to pass
Deuteronomy 18:18-22 (KJV)
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
EVIDENCE AGAINST JOSEPH SMITH
Joseph Smith made several failed predictions for the future, but probably the most damning of Smith’s failed prophecies is the prophecy that the Centerpoint temple would be built in Missouri within Smith’s Generation:
“Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house . . .
Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed,” (Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5, 31)
As Theologian and Christian Apologist, Matt Slick observes:
The Mormons were driven out of Jackson County in 1833. They were not gathered there in accordance with this prophecy dealing with building the temple.
The prophecy clearly states that the generation present when the prophecy was given would not pass away until the temple was built at the western boundaries of the state of Missouri which is in Independence.
An aerial photograph of the Temple Lot in Independence, Missouri where Joseph Smith and the Saints failed to build a temple in the generation of 1832.
TEST 3: Living a life that doesn’t produce good fruit
Matthew 7:15-20 (KJV) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
EVIDENCE AGAINST JOSEPH SMITH
So many to pick from here but I think that this one, from an official LdS Church source, shall suffice:
“Careful estimates put the number between 30 and 40 [polygamous wives of Joseph Smith]. See Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 2:272–73.”
“Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married.” (LdS Church, “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo”; official church website, retrieved 2016-01-02)
And let’s be clear, he married them and he had sex with them:
Sexuality in Joseph Smith’s Plural Marriages
Joseph Smith’s first wife, Emma, allegedly told the wife of Apostle George A. Smith, Lucy, that Joseph Smith’s plural wives were “celestial” only, that he had no earthly marital relations with them. “They were only sealed for eternity they were not to live with him and have children.” Lucy later wrote that when she told this to her husband:
He related to me the circumstance of his calling on Joseph late one evening and he was just taking a wash and Joseph told him that one of his wives had just been confined and Emma was the Midwife and he had been assisting her. He [George A. Smith] told me [Lucy Smith] this to prove to me that the women were married for time [as well as for eternity], as Emma had told me that Joseph never taught any such thing.
Because Reorganized Latter Day Saints claimed that Joseph Smith was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Smith’s wives) affirmed repeatedly that he had physical sexual relations with them—despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American culture which ordinarily would have prevented any mention of sexuality.
For instance, Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith’s plural wives: “I know he had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names.” Melissa Lott Willes testified that she had been Smith’s wife “in very deed.” Emily Partridge Young said she “roomed” with Joseph the night following her marriage to him, and said that she had “carnal intercourse” with him.
Other early witnesses also affirmed this. Benjamin Johnson wrote “On the 15th of May … the Prophet again Came and at my hosue [house] ocupied the Same Room & Bed with my Sister that the month previous he had ocupied with the Daughter of the Later Bishop Partridge as his wife.” According to Joseph Bates Noble, Smith told him he had spent a night with Louisa Beaman.
When Angus Cannon, a Salt Lake City stake president, visited Joseph Smith III in 1905, the RLDS president asked rhetorically if these women were his father’s wives, then “how was it that there was no issue from them.” Cannon replied:
All I knew was that which Lucy Walker herself contends. They were so nervous and lived in such constant fear that they could not conceive. He made light of my reply. He said, “I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her death.” I in turn said, “Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, ‘I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.’”
Cannon then mentioned that Sylvia Sessions Lyon, a plural wife of Smith, had had a child by him, Josephine Lyon Fisher. Josephine left an affidavit stating that her mother, Sylvia, when on her deathbed, told her that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. In addition, posterity (i.e., sexuality) was an important theological element in Smith’s Abrahamic-promise justification for polygamy.” (Todd Compton, “In Sacred Loneliness”)
The Wives of Joseph Smith (click to view full image)
Test 4: Denying that God eternal was incarnated as Jesus Christ
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Of the four tests, this test, in the case of Joseph Smith, is the most interesting because a case can be made for it either way. On one, hand if taken purely at face value, Joseph Smith really did affirm and confess that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”. In fact, the Book of Mormon hammers this point home over and over and over again.
However, on the other hand, when you consider the historical context of this passage the nuance that John was also saying that Jesus Christ was, is, and always will be God eternal who has come in the flesh some problems emerge.
The first stop in considering this nuance can easily be found in John’s other writings for example:
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.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
1 John 1(KJV)
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
So it’s very clear that the Apostle John believed and affirmed that Jesus Christ was indeed God eternal, a spiritual being, who was now tabernacled in human flesh: Fully God and fully man. This is just as another Apostle, Paul, described:
Philippians 2(KJV)
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
This is what the Apostles taught. What John was writing against in this passage was the encroaching heresy of the Gnostics, which the NIV, Essentials Study Bible explains was as follows:
• 1Jn 4:2 •
As Christianity spread across the Mediterranean, it came into contact with other religions. Greeks and Romans tried to absorb the faith into their own philosophies, just as some Jews had initially done. Intellectual centers of the Mediterranean raised questions about Jesus: Who was he? If he was God, how could he die? And a popular new cult called Gnosticism (from the Greek word for knowledge, gnosis) gained ground in an attempt to explain these things. The cult thrived, especially among the intellectual elite.
Could God Have a Body?
Gnostics balked at the Christian concept of God becoming human. Because they believed a physical body was intrinsically evil, they denied that a pure God could take on a body. Some dealt with the problem by claiming that Jesus was never a real human being, but a phantom, a temporary appearance of God who only looked human. Others proposed that God had descended on Jesus at his baptism, but left him before his death.
The apostle John debated in person with Gnostics of his day, and he had Gnostic thinking in mind when he wrote this letter. The very first sentence expressly states that the author has seen, heard and touched Jesus— implying that he could not have been a phantom or pure spirit.
Throughout the letter, and especially in 1 John 4: 2–3, the author lambastes those who deny that Jesus came in the flesh. (“NIV, Essentials Study Bible”, Kindle Locations 123283-123308, Zondervan. Kindle Edition)
So, again, the controversy in John’s day, wasn’t Christ’s divine nature as spirit – the Gnostics had no problem with that – the problem was His human nature as a material, corporeal Being. Again, the issue wasn’t, “Is Jesus Christ, a divine spirit?”, the issue was, “Is Jesus Christ, a material human being?” To the latter, the Gnostics, said, “No!” Hence John’s words.
Ary Scheffer, “The Temptation of Christ” (1854)
THE CASES BOTH FOR AND AGAINST JOSEPH SMITH This is the exact opposite of the question of 19th Century higher criticism (and I might add today) which was, “Was the human Jesus a divine spirit – that is God?” The Higher Critics said, “No!” Joseph Smith’s answer was, “Well, yes, but not the way that you think, he was, in reality, an Exalted Man, just like Heavenly Father – and they both have human bodies just like yours and mine.”
This explains why Joseph Smith in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible changes the Apostle John’s words so they read like this:
John 1(JST) 1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.
4 In him was the gospel, and the gospel was the life, and the life was the light of men;
5 And the light shineth in the world, and the world perceiveth it not.
Can you see what Joseph Smith did there? He changed Jesus Christ from God Eternal to just a man who brought the gospel. All of a sudden “the Word” is no longer, God Eternal incarnated in Jesus Christ, but rather “the word” – the gospel that the man Jesus Christ taught.
The Christ of Joseph Smith’s diminished, subordinated, nature is reiterated and revealed in the Books of Abraham and Mose where he is revealed to be just another pre-existent son of God and the brother of Satan:
Abraham 3 23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.
27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.
28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.
Moses 4 1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that Satanrebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.
Thus when you look at the 1 John 4:1-3 test, did Joseph “confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”, well technically, yes. However, practically, no, since he did not confess that that that Jesus Christ who came in the flesh was, is, and ever shall be, God incarnate, he didn’t. A case can be made either way depending on whether the historical context is considered (which Mormons tend not to do) or ignored (which Mormons tend to do).
All this is why of the four biblical tests for a False Prophet, this last one is the “go-to” proof text for Latter-day Saints who want biblical support for Joseph Smith’s prophetic credentials. With the first three, there isn’t much “wiggle room” but with this last one, there is, so that’s the one that they tend to fixate on.
CONCLUSION
Joseph Smith is unquestionably a False Prophet according to the Biblical Criteria. Remember, you only have to fail one of these four tests to qualify as a False Prophet. Joseph Smith clearly fails three of the four, and a good case can be made that he failed the fourth one. Feelings aside, the evidence is clear: Joseph Smith, according to the Bible, is a False Prophet.
compiled by Eric Johnson Joseph Smith “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. 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” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372).
First Presidency “In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost–in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages” (Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p. 312).
Mormon Apostles “The Bible, if read fully and intelligently, teaches that the Holy Trinity is composed of individual Gods” (John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 58).
“If Christians are people (and this is the standard definition of the clergy of the day) who believe in the holy trinity as defined and set forth in the Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostles creeds, meaning that God is a three-in-one nothingness, a spirit essence filling immensity, an incorporeal and uncreated being incapable of definition or mortal comprehension — then Mormons, by a clergy chosen definition, are ruled out of the fold of Christ” (Bruce R.McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 2:113).
“May I divorce myself for the moment from the mainstream of present-day evangelical Christianity, swim upstream as it were, and give forth some rather plain and pointed expressions on this supposedly marvelous means of being saved with very slight effort. But before zeroing in on this religious mania that has now taken possession of millions of devout but deluded people, and as a means of keeping all things in perspective, let me first identify the original heresy that did more than anything else to destroy primitive Christianity. This first and chief heresy of a now fallen and decadent Christianity — and truly it is the father of all heresies — swept through all of the congregations of true believers in the early centuries of the Christian Era; it pertained then and pertains now to the nature and kind of being that God is. It was the doctrine, adapted from Gnosticism, that changed Christianity from the religion in which men worshipped a personal God, in whose image man is made, into the religion in which men worshipped a spirit essence called the Trinity. This new God, no longer a personal Father, no longer a personage of tabernacle, became an incomprehensible three-in-one spirit essence that filled the immensity of space. The adoption of this false doctrine about God effectively destroyed true worship among men and ushered in the age of universal apostasy” (Bruce R. McConkie, “What Think Ye of Salvation By Grace?” BYU Devotional Address given January 10, 1984; Transcribed from original speech. See also Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, pp. 69-70).
“In common with the rest of Christianity, we believe in a Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. However, we testify that these three members of the Godhead are three separate and distinct beings. We also testify that God the Father is not just a spirit but is a glorified person with a tangible body, as is his resurrected Son, Jesus Christ” (Dallin Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign (Conference Edition, May 1995, p. 84).
“We maintain that the concepts identified by such nonscriptural terms as ‘the incomprehensible mystery of God’ and ‘the mystery of the Holy Trinity’ are attributable to the ideas of Greek philosophy. These philosophical concepts transformed Christianity in the first few centuries following the deaths of the Apostles” (Dallin Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign (Conference Edition), May 1995, p. 84).
“Our first and foremost article of faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is ‘We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.’ We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “The One True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 2007, p. 40).
“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” (Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 2007, p. 40).
Mormon Seventies “The ancient prophets knew that the Godhead consisted of three separate and distinct personages, each of whom had a definite work to perform, and yet they all worked in perfect unity as one. The three Gods constituted the Holy Trinity” (Milton R. Hunter, Pearl of Great Price Commentary, p. 52).
Other Sources “THE TRINITY CREATION. They believe in the trinity creation. The trinity was voted on in the Council of Nicene hundreds of years after Christ’s death. A bunch of church leaders and government officials got together and voted on ‘who God was?’, and it wasn’t even a unanimous vote. There were about four different versions of God that they voted on. The version that is used by Catholics and Protestants today only won by about a 40 percent margin. Their view of God, as you may know, is that He is like a formless mass of spirit that fills the whole universe and when He comes to earth, part of it breaks off and forms itself into Jesus” (Scott Marshall, Tracting and Member Missionary Work, p. 73).
“If an acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity makes one a Christian, then of course Latter-day Saints are not Christians, for they believe the doctrine of the Trinity as expressed in modern Protestant and Catholic theology is the product of the reconciliation of Christian theology with Greek philosophy” (BYU Professor Emeritus Robert L. Millet, A Different Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints, p. 171).
“Mormonism is simultaneously monotheistic, tri-theistic, and polytheistic. There is but one God, yet there is a Godhead of three, and beyond them, ‘gods many, and lords many’ (1 Cor.8:5)” (BYU Professor Rodney Turner, “The Doctrine of the Firstborn and Only Begotten,” The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations From God, H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate, eds., p. 102).
Appendix: Hacking Through the Jungle of Mormon Trinity Obfuscation
by Fred W. Anson A common Mormon tactic in Mormon argumentation regarding the Trinity is either what we see in this Hugh B. Brown’s quote from Eric Johnson’s above compilation…
“In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost–in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages” (Hugh B. Brown, The Abundant Life, p. 312).
… or, this one from BYU Professor Rodney Turner:
“Mormonism is simultaneously monotheistic, tri-theistic, and polytheistic. There is but one God, yet there is a Godhead of three, and beyond them, ‘gods many, and lords many’ (1 Cor.8:5)” (BYU Professor Rodney Turner, “The Doctrine of the Firstborn and Only Begotten,” The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations From God, H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate, eds., p. 102).
In both cases, an obfuscating Semantic Fallacy is used whereby the Mormon source changes the definition of the term “Trinity” so that it no longer fits the existing, common, generally accepted definition, which is:
“There are three persons within the Godhead. These persons are understood in theology as distinct characters. The differences among the three, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are real differences but not essential differences. In other words, there is only one essence to the Godhead, not three. In our experience as human beings, each person we meet is a separate being. One person means one being, and vice versa. But in the Godhead, there is one being with three persons.” (R.C. Sproul, “Who is the Holy Spirit?” (Crucial Questions Series Book 13) (pp. 5-6). Reformation Trust Publishing. Kindle Edition).
Again, and even more directly, succinctly, and a bit more expansively:
“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (James R. White, “The Forgotten Trinity” (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition).
That one being, three persons may seem like theological hairsplitting but it’s vital, as Mr. Sproul goes on to explain:
“We must maintain this distinction lest we slip into a form of polytheism, seeing the three persons of the Godhead as three beings who are three separate gods.” (Op. Cit., Sproul).
Can you see how Mormon Leaders simply ignore the “one being” part of the definition in order to create a Law of Contradictions Fallacy like the one that Rodney Turner has engaged in? Stated plainly, one simply cannot be simultaneously monotheistic, tri-theistic, and polytheistic, can they? This claim is self-defeating and irrational, isn’t it?
Thankfully, the current LdS Church has attempted to damage control these past missteps by issuing this clearer statement on their official and correlated website:
“…where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being… The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22). (“Godhead”; retrieved December 15, 2016).
And while that’s a good thing, they immediately attempt to engage in the same old-school muddying of the water with this “gem”:
“Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation.” (Ibid)
A Screenshot of the Gospel Topic “Godhead” article on the official LdS Church website as of the date of this article.
Unfortunately, that closing, “Oh by the way… one in purpose and doctrine!” obfuscation has emboldened some Latter-day Saints to claim, “See we’re monotheists!” which relative to the actual definition of the Trinity is analogous to saying, “See the Los Angeles Rams are united in their purpose and game plan doctrine, therefore they are one football player!” Friends, eleven (11) distinct persons with distinct roles playing in Sofi Stadium are still also eleven (11) distinct beings, not just one, aren’t they? That means that there are, therefore, eleven (11) football players on the fields, not just one (1), correct? It’s as I said in an article on this very issue:
“Many Mormons claim incorrectly that the Mormon Godhead is Three Persons and Three Beings which equals One God.
That is three Beings and three Persons = One God. Monotheism.
Again, this is simply NOT possible. It is a logical contradiction because it is both internally contradictory and self-contradictory given the definition and nature of “being” and/or “person”.” (Fred W. Anson, “Trinitarian Godhead v. Mormon Godhead Logic Exercise”).
Of course, the double bind that the LdS Church has put itself in here is due to its uber-dogmatism that God is an exalted man whose ontology is corporeal rather than spiritual despite the Bible’s repeated insistence that God is not only not an exalted man but is ontologically a spirit, not a corporeal being as we humans are. Please compare and contrast the following unique LdS scripture…
“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.” (D&C 130:22).
… to God’s revelation of Himself in the Bible:
“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent…” (Numbers 23:19a KJV)
“I am God, and not a man — the Holy One among you.” (Hosea 11:9 NIV)
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24 KJV)
“You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully.” (Deuteronomy 4:15 KJV)
Further, the Bible is clear that changing the spiritual, invisible God into the physical image of a man is a sign of a foolish and darkened heart in addition to being a knowing denial of the only true and living God the Creator, isn’t it?
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God INTO AN IMAGE MADE LIKE TO CORRUPTIBLE MAN…” (Romans 1:21-23b KJV caps added for emphasis)
In addition, they will point to Jesus Christ and say, “Oh yeah, well what about Jesus Christ, are you going to tell us that He isn’t an exalted man? And the simple answer is, ‘Why yes, Christ’s human nature most certainly is! However, Christ’s divine nature never has been a man, it is spirit just as the Bible says. Thus, Jesus Christ is both fully God and fully man just as the Apostle Paul said:
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:5-8 KJV)’
Thus, the quick and easy response to this particular Latter-day Saint argument is simple: Simply ask them to show you from the Bible where it says the same of Heavenly Father. That is, where does it say that He ever condescended from His divinity, made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men? I can save you some time, it doesn’t. Anywhere.
So can you now see the gas lighting obfuscation that the LdS Church and its Apologists engage in here? They start with the conclusion that God, “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” and then try bending the facts to fit it (hoping that no one will scrutinize, let alone notice it, of course) rather than simply letting the evidence lead them to the conclusion. That, my friends, is Mormon Apologetics in a nutshell.
But stated plainly, as soon as you brush away the Mormon Apologetic smokes and mirrors, current Brighamite Latter-day Saint theology is neither Trinitarian nor monotheistic, no matter how much, “See we’re monotheists, just like you, just in a different kind of way!” sleight of hand and pontificating that they may do. Logically, and rationally, it is simply not possible, is it?
How the new Mormon Missionary social media tactics are like the COVID-19 coronavirus.
by Fred W. Anson and Michael Flournoy In October 2020, Columbia University Irving Medical Center published their findings on how and why the COVID-19 coronavirus is so infectious and so lethal:
“Coronaviruses are adept at imitating human immune proteins that have been implicated in severe COVID-19 disease, a study from researchers at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons has found…
Many plants and animals use the art of mimicry to trick their prey or predators. Viruses employ a similar strategy: Viral proteins can mimic the three-dimensional shapes of their host’s proteins to trick the host into helping the virus complete its life cycle.
“Viruses use mimicry for the same reason as plants and animals—deception,” says Sagi Shapira, PhD, assistant professor of systems biology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons. “We hypothesized that identifying viral-protein look-alikes would give us clues to the way viruses—including SARS-CoV-2—cause disease.” (“Coronaviruses Are Masters of Mimicry, New Study Finds”, October 27, 2020, CUIMC website)
To translate all that medical speak into plain English, the COVID-19 coronavirus tricks its human host’s body into thinking that it is something benign – just a plain ol’ body protein (“nothing to see here, immune system – I’m just like you are!”) rather than a counterfeit foreign invader that is seeking to kill, steal, and destroy. To put it bluntly, it dishonestly presents itself as what it’s not to deceive itself past the body’s natural defenses so it can invade and harm it.
But wait, there’s more! The article explains how after it has invaded the body via dishonesty and deceit COVID-19 then persuades the immunity system that it’s there to help and begins to trigger the body’s own natural defenses in aiding the demise of its human host:
‘Coronaviruses… are particularly good at it and were found to mimic over 150 proteins, including many that control blood coagulation or activate complement—a set of immune proteins that help target pathogens for destruction and increase inflammation in the body.
“We thought that by mimicking the body’s immune complement and coagulation proteins, coronaviruses may drive these systems into a hyperactive state and cause the pathology we see in infected patients,” Shapira says.’ (ibid)
So given all this is it any wonder that it’s hard not to think of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as coronavirus-like whenever it claims to be, “Christian, just like you all”? Case in point, there’s been a recent pandemic of LDS-run pages pretending to be orthodox, mainstream Christianity without indicating that they are, in fact, Mormon. Again, coronaviruses are masters of mimicking our body’s defense proteins, so instead of fighting them off, our own natural defense system actually helps it develop and replace healthy cells with diseased, counterfeits. So when the LDS church functions the same way, it acts like a virus, a predator, the archetypical wolf in sheep’s clothing.
This would be akin to ex-Mormon Atheists creating pages called, “Latter-day Saints of the Second Anointing” or “Ascended Latter-day Saints” and putting in the description that they have embraced greater truth and light without indicating that it’s antagonistic to not only Mormonism in particular, but theism in general.
Or, if you prefer, it’s like, Evangelical Christians, say, in the North San Francisco bay area, setting up a Facebook page called, “North Bay Latter-day Saints” to proselytize to local Mormons without fully disclosing upfront that they are, in fact, Evangelical Christians. Or maybe, Oklahoma? I mean, after all, Evangelicals do, in fact, consider themselves Saints living in the Latter-days, and therefore, Latter-day Saints, right? So what’s the problem?
Any Latter-day Saint would be very rightly and justifiably infuriated at such a play. They would scream that it is dishonest. This is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. And they would be right, wouldn’t they?
So given that can anyone see the problem with these Mormon-founded and run Facebook groups?
And if the reader doubts that these groups are in fact, Mormon front groups, then I would encourage you to consider the About Page for the North Bay Christians group:
Yes, that’s right the website link that’s given points to the official, LDS Church website in Salt Lake City. Oh and if you GPS that street address, you’ll find this there…
Well, what do you know this “Christian” church is actually a Mormon Ward Hall, isn’t that interesting? But friends, this is just the beginning, Appendix A contains a listing of the Facebook groups that the authors discovered while they were researching this article. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
What’s especially interesting about this tactic is that, according to the standard of honesty established by the LdS Church, it is a form of lying:
“Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.” (Gospel Principles, Chapter 31: Honesty; http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty)
Again, for emphasis, “We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”
This is even more surprising given the fact that Mormon Leaders throughout the years took great pains to distance themselves from those no-good, rotten, lousy, apostate Christians out there. Here’s a small sample:
“What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world” – Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 270
“…all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels.” – Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., The Elders Journal, v. 1, no. 4, p. 60
“Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth.” – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 6, p. 176
“When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was groveling in darkness.” – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 5, p. 73
“With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world.” – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 199
“Christians—those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about—some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men. The poor devils, they could not get up here and preach an oral discourse, to save themselves from hell; they are preaching their fathers’ sermons —preaching sermons that were written a hundred years before they were born. …You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be damned with your priest. – Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, v. 5, p. 89
“Christianity…is a perfect pack of nonsense…the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.” – Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 6, p. 167
“Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom.” – Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 127
“What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast.” – Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 225
“What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing… Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God.” – Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 225
“After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon.” – Apostle George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, p. 324
“Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls.” – Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, see pp. 45-46
“… all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ…. in large part the worship of apostate Christendom is performed in ignorance, as much so as was the worship of the Athenians who bowed the Unknown Gods.” – Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 269, 374-375
And if there’s still any lingering doubt what the goal of what payload this mimicking “virus” group is carrying, the founder of the Latter-day Saint religion couldn’t have been any clearer when he claimed that these were the very words of God, could he?
“It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?” (Joseph Smith – History 1:17-20)
In true “virus” fashion, the rather obvious goal of this deceptive and dishonest mimicry is to invade, replace the real with the counterfeit, and then ultimately destroy the original.
Any questions?
To be fair, Mormon missionaries do not realize their tactics are deceptive. But the fact that so many of these pages exist proves that this is a concerted effort by the church, and not delinquent missionaries acting on their own. The “Elders” are just pawns in this game of chess. They are taught to teach line upon line, and precept upon precept. They see it as giving people the information they are ready to commit to but are blinded to the fact that it’s really a deceptive and deliberate virus infection.
To any Latter-day Saints reading this, I ask a simple question. If this approach by your missionaries is not dishonest, then what is? What does shady proselytizing look like, and how does it differ from this? If this type of guerrilla warfare is acceptable because they believe the church is true, then aren’t anti-Mormons justified in bending the truth if they believe it to be inferior to what they have to offer – or even false?
If The Book of Mormon is true and the Spirit bears witness of it, shouldn’t that be on the forefront of these pages? When Joseph Smith, the restoration, and The Book of Mormon take a backseat as a principle for later, it gives the impression that you’re embarrassed by your own religion or don’t believe its message is powerful enough to change hearts on its own. When you mimic our faith, you concede that we have a greater message. If I were a Latter-day Saint I would be upset with all this: If not at the blatant deception these missionaries employ, then at the indignity of my cherished beliefs being swept under the rug by my own representatives.
Remember what Jesus said, “No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.” (Luke 11:33 KJV) What are we non-LDS supposed to think when your missionaries behave like a virus, imitating orthodox Christianity and hiding its core beliefs under a bushel?
After all, didn’t Jesus also say, “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” (John 3:20 KJV)?
So, Latter-day Saints, if you’re sick of your church being called a cult, I have a simple piece of advice for you: stop acting like one. You can start by ceasing and desisting with this sleazy, unethical, and deceptive tactic.
Appendix A: Roster of Mormon “Christian” Front Groups Here is a roster of the known instances of these groups as of today’s date and listed in the order that they were discovered:
Full-On Deceptive Groups These are groups that use the word “Christian” in their name and deceptively lead the unsuspected to think that they are a mainstream Christian group based on their name and their “About” page description.
“Deception Lite” Groups These are groups that don’t use the word “Christian” in their name but use other terms instead to get those ignorant of Mormonism to think that they are a mainstream Christian group based on their vague, ambiguous, rather generic name and their “About” page description.
Appendix B: An Example Exchange with A Mormon Front Group Admin or Moderator The following exchange took place with a group Administrator or Moderator of one of these Mormon Front Groups on December 18, 2021, on Facebook (aka “Meta”) Messenger. The red arrow at the end was added to indicate where they blocked one of the article authors, Fred W. Anson, from Direct Messaging any longer.
This content is included in this document to illustrate the kind of evasion and obfuscation that the Mormons running these groups engage in. We found it enlightening – and I suspect that you will too.
Figure 1 of 6
Figure 2 of 6
Figure 3 of 6
Figure 4 of 6
Figure 5 of 6
Figure 6 of 6 (please note the red arrow – this is the point at which I was blocked from chatting with them any longer)
Appendix C: Another Example Exchange with A Mormon Front Group Admin or Moderator The following exchange took place with a group Administrator or Moderator of one of these Mormon Front Groups in December 2021 on Facebook (aka “Meta”) Messenger with a member of the “Preaching From An Asbestos Suit” Facebook group with, it is assumed, an entirely different set of Group Administrators and/or Moderators in another Facebook group. In this, the investigator wasn’t blocked from further Direct Messaging the Mormon(s) on the other side but was simply “ghosted” (got no response or reply at all) instead.
That said, please note the consistency in the verbiage and tactics (evasion, deflection, obfuscation, etc.) between these two exchanges. The Church Office Building in Salt Lake City will surely deny it but these groups appear to be following a common, uniform, template and set of instructions in terms of both the execution and day-to-day handling of these groups.
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9 At this point the investigator was “ghosted” by the Latter-day Saint on the other side of this exchange.
Appendix D: The “My Soul Delights in Plainness: Daily Christian Devotionals” Bait and Switch Group Of all the Mormon “Christian” Front Groups that we have encountered so far, the Facebook group, “My Soul Delights in Plainness: Daily Christian Devotionals” (see https://www.facebook.com/MySoulDelightsInPlainness) is by far the most blatantly misleading.
Consider this, based on the group name alone, what would you expect to find in this group? Passages from the Christian canon perhaps? Or perhaps devotional excerpts from well-known Christian writers and/or speakers? Well, here’s what you actually get when you click through:
A collection of screenshots from the “My Soul Delights in Plainness: Daily Christian Devotionals” Facebook group (click on the images to zoom them)
Yes, that’s right in this “Christian” group you get passage after passage from the uniquely Latter-day Saint scripture, The Book of Mormon. So like all the others, this group is nothing more than a Mormon front group deceptively masquerading as a “Christian” group.
To their credit, their “About” page does contain this disclosure, “*Not an official page of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*” but it’s my understanding this was only added after they had been confronted by their dishonesty and deceit by mainstream Christians.
And yet again, the reader will note the consistency of the branding in both the name of the group and the “About” page. Clearly, despite any disclaimers or denials, these Mormon “Christian” front groups are too consistent and uniform in their formatting, content, and methodology to just be a bunch of rogue Latter-day Saints who all somehow got this ‘wild hare’ to set up and run front groups that brand and position themselves as “Christian” when they’re not, they are Latter-day Saints.
And if the reader is thinking that this assessment is unbalanced or unfair, I would ask them to consider this: From the inception of this group on September 14th, 2021 until this date of writing, December 31, 2021, this group hasn’t contained a scrap of any “devotion” from anything but Latter-day Saint sources, and that includes anything from the Bible, which common scripture to both Mormonism and mainstream Christianity. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing.
Doubt me? If so then click here to go to the very first post in their newsfeed and then start scrolling through the rest of the page timeline. Friends, now once is an anomaly, but twice is a pattern, isn’t it? And if it’s pattern after pattern after pattern, then what is it? Stated plainly a consistent pattern of deceit can clearly be seen here, can’t it? And to be blunt, this is not a Christian page, it is a Latter-day Saint group through and through, isn’t it?
Appendix E: A Sign of Deceit in Gilbert, Arizona In late February 2022, an Ex-Mormon posted a photograph of a very mainstream-looking Christian street sign that was placed in front of the Mormon Meeting Hall that’s on the corner of Ocotillo and Higley Roads in Gilbert, Arizona (5656 S Higley Rd, Gilbert, AZ 85298, to be exact). This sign contains all the elements of mimicry discussed above up to and including:
Failing to fully, openly, and candidly disclose that the religious group that meets in that Baptist-looking building behind the sign is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rather than a mainstream Christian church.
In the same vein, using not the full name of the church on the sign. That is, using the generic official LdS Church URL (ChurchOfJesusChrist.org) on the sign to describe the religious organization behind the sign and the building rather than explicitly stating that the meeting house is, in fact, a Mormon church.
Using traditional Christian iconography on the sign (an image of a Christ-like figure) rather than anything that’s distinctly Mormon – such as Moroni blowing his trumpet, for example.
Not disclosing that the meeting times given on the sign are the meeting times for three separate and distinct Mormon Wards and services, rather than three options for the same service for the same church congregation – as is the practice in mainstream Christian churches.
This last point hides the fact that if the investigator were to join this church they would be told which ward and which service that they would be required to attend at this church based on their street address. To explain further, in mainstream Christian churches, those meeting times on their street signage are the times for the same service for the same church congregation because the church membership is too large to meet all at once in just one meeting to you have the option of any of three different meeting times for the exact same service in the same building. However, in the LdS Church, those are the meeting times for different congregations (aka “Wards”), in this case, three of them, and maybe even different services.
Furthermore, you can go to any of the three meetings as a member of a mainstream church congregation, it’s entirely up to you and what works for your family. However, in the LdS Church if you become a member you will be told which of the three meetings you and your family must attend because that’s when your assigned Ward meets in the building based on what ward boundaries you reside in.
Yes, it’s a subtle distinction, perhaps even a minor one, but still different than what most American churchgoers might expect given how church services are typically done in modern Protestant churches. The LdS Church is more closely aligned with the Roman Catholic Parish system which seems foreign, even odd, to the Protestants that history has shown Mormonism is more prone to convert.
So you can see that this seemingly innocuous street sign is hiding a whole host of deceptive practices which are designed to lure the unsuspecting investigator into Mormonism. As several people on Facebook very rightly pointed out, this type of bait and switch misrepresentation isn’t the stuff of mainstream religious groups, it’s the type of bait and switch tactics that Mind Control Cults use to snare new members.
And, again, as the saying goes, “Mormon Church if you don’t want to be called a cult, then stop acting like one.” You can start by knocking off all of the practices discussed in this article, beginning with integrity compromised street signs like this one.
This street sign was placed in front of the Mormon Meeting House at 5656 S. Higley Road, Gilbert, Arizona in late February 2022.
This article was originally published on the “From Water to Wine” website on 2021-12-30.
This updated edition of the article has been greatly expanded from the original.
How the Doctrines & Covenants 10:37 Apologetic For the Hofmann Case Destroys Mormonism
The original Book of Commandments and Revelations and the corresponding section of the Doctrine and Covenants are shown. (credit: Jason Olson, Deseret News)
by Fred W. Anson A common, recurring, Mormon apologetic for why if Mormon Leaders were true prophets of God, they couldn’t discern the real nature of the Hofmann forgeries goes like this…
“The Lord made it clear to Joseph Smith that a prophet is not granted to know all the designs of those who seek to destroy the Church:
‘But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter.’ (DC 10:37)
The LDS doctrine of agency requires that those who plot evil be allowed a certain latitude, though (as President Hinckley prophetically noted) permanent harm to the Lord’s work will not be permitted.” (FAIRMormon website, “Forgeries Related to Mormonism/Mark Hofmann”)
Here is my response to this argument: 1) In the Hofmann case, Mormon Leaders (up and including the LdS First Presidency) did NOT “hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter”. Putting out Press Releases so the news of Hofmann’s “finds” can be blasted out around the world and publishing articles about Mark Hofmann manuscripts in the Church produced, “The Church News” (see the “Week Ending May 3, 1980” edition, for example) is anything but “holding your peace”, isn’t it? So this premise is simply false, they not only didn’t hold their peace, they shouted it from the rooftops, didn’t they? If you doubt me, please consider the image below from The Church New insert to the Deseret News from the Week Ending May 3, 1980.
The article regarding the Mark Hofmann “Anthon Transcript” find in the Week Ending May 3, 1980 edition of The Church New insert to the Deseret News, the Church-owned newspaper.
2) The folks who have claimed that Mormon Prophets have extraordinary powers of discernment and who have set the bar, high, higher, even highest, aren’t Mormon Critics it’s the Mormon Leaders themselves. The expectation that a prophet has the type of unique type of discernment required to know all the designs of those who seek to destroy the Church so that it can’t be lead astray HAS been set by Mormon Leaders in general, and Mormon Prophets in particular. It has not been set by Mormon Critics. Consider the words of these official, correlated LdS Church manuals and publications:
“President Wilford Woodruff (1807–98) declared that we can have full confidence in the direction the prophet is leading the Church:“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty” (Official Declaration 1, “Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto”; emphasis added).
President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) taught this same principle:
“You keep your eye upon him whom the Lord called, and I say to you now, knowing that I stand in this position, you don’t need to worry about the President of the Church ever leading people astray, because the Lord would remove him out of his place before He would ever allow that to happen” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 533).
President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) gave similar assurance to Church members:“The Church is true. Those who lead it have only one desire, and that is to do the will of the Lord. They seek his direction in all things. There is not a decision of significance affecting the Church and its people that is made without prayerful consideration, going to the fount of all wisdom for direction. Follow the leadership of the Church. God will not let his work be led astray” (“Be Not Deceived,” Ensign, Nov. 1983, 46; emphasis added).” (LdS Church, “Teachings of the Living Prophets Student Manual”, Chapter 2: The Living Prophet: The President of the Church)
Friends, these aren’t the claims of Mormon Critics, are they? They are the word of Mormon Prophets in official, LdS Church publications aren’t they? So tell me, who is setting this extremely high “we have the highest level of spiritual discernment that’s so unique and special that we can never lead you astray” expectation? Is it Mormon Critics or is it the Mormon Prophets themselves?
This is REALLY the biggest enemy of the LdS Church, isn’t it?
3) As a result of #2, the unstated, implied argument that D&C 10:37 is arguing against (again, “a prophet IS granted to know all the designs of those who seek to destroy the Church”) is, in reality, a Strawman Argument, isn’t it? Thus, Mormon Apologists’ REAL debate opponent when they use the D&C 10:37 apologetic is their own Church’s Prophets, isn’t it? Again, and in actual fact, Mormon Critics are simply holding Mormon Prophets to the standard that those Mormon Prophets have set for themselves, nothing more, aren’t they?
Mormons Leaders, you have met the enemy and he is you, not your critics, haven’t you?
4) D&C 10:37 is in direct contradiction with the oft-cited Latter-day Saint application of the bible proof text that, “The Lord will do nothing without revealing His secret to the prophets” (Amos 3:7). The practical, real-world, application that Mormonism gives this text is that the current living Mormon Prophet possesses some kind of special discernment that the rest of us lack. Thus, if they truly possess the type of highly tuned and refined Amos 3:7 spiritual discernment that they claim they do, then the Lord should have revealed to the prophet the secret that Hofmann and his manuscripts were fraudulent and about to lead the LdS Church astray, correct?
After all, “The Lord will do nothing without revealing His secret to the prophets”, right? Again, this isn’t the Amos 3:7 application standard established by Mormon Critics, is it? However, it is the standard that Mormon Prophets have set for themselves, isn’t it?
So if it ain’t true, then why are Mormon Prophets saying it?
5) Since D&C 10:37 absolves Mormon Prophets of, in reality, possessing the type of special and unique, highly tuned spiritual discernment that they so often claim they do elsewhere, then in reality Mormon Prophets are simply nothing special. They are, in fact, just as common and ordinary as you and I, aren’t they? That’s because anyone “can hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter”, can’t they? Stated plainly “holding your peace” and saying nothing until after all the facts about the matter are known, doesn’t require any kind of special gifting at all, does it? In fact, it’s just good old common sense, isn’t it? Anyone can do it, it doesn’t require any type of special divine anointing or gifting at all, does it?
6) Due to #5, D&C 10:37 is really saying that there is really nothing special about Mormon Prophets at all. They are, in reality, no different than any other Religious Leader on the planet, are they? So whether the religious leader is a Latter-day Saint, Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, the Prophet of some other Mormon Denomination, or that weird independent Pentecostal guy running the church downtown out of the converted movie theatre, they are what they are, and nothing more: Just ordinary men running churches, aren’t they?
And the LdS Church leaders are just one of the boys, aren’t they? They have absolutely no special or unique spiritual discernment that the other guys in this religious scrum, do, do they? Yes, they have said they do since the inception of Mormonism, but no, in reality, they clearly don’t. The Hofmann case proved it.
7) The LdS Prophet was clearly leading the LdS Church astray by starting to change doctrine based on being deceived by Hofmann. I mention this one because this is an apologetic argument that Mormons like to use regarding the Hofmann case which is another false premise when it’s examined against the evidence. Specifically, in addition to leading the Church astray in regard to the authenticity of the forgeries (see above, #1 in particular), the LdS Church leaders were also changing Church origin doctrine (see above) based on Hofmann’s deceit. This is an easily documented fact.
The most blatant example of this is Dallin H. Oaks, “Reading Church History” 16 August 1985, CES Symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History, which was given at BYU and is now being suppressed by the LdS Church on its official Church website, in which he said this:
“Another source of differences in the accounts of different witnesses is the different meanings that different persons attach to words. We have a vivid illustration of this in the recent media excitement about the word salamander in a letter Martin Harris is supposed to have sent to W. W. Phelps over 150 years ago. All of the scores of media stories on that subject apparently assume that the author of that letter used the word salamander in the modern sense of a “tailed amphibian.”
One wonders why so many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning of salamander, which may even have been the primary meaning in this context in the 1820s. That meaning, which is listed second in a current edition of Webster’s New World Dictionary, is “a spirit supposed to live in fire” (2d College ed. 1982, s.v. “salamander”). Modern and ancient literature contain many examples of this usage.
A spirit that is able to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of the angel Moroni: a personage in the midst of a light, whose countenance was “truly like lightning” and whose overall appearance “was glorious beyond description” (Joseph Smith-History 1:32). As Joseph Smith wrote later, “The first sight [of this personage] was as though the house was filled with consuming fire” (History of the Church, 4:536). Since the letter purports only to be Martin Harris’s interpretation of what he had heard about Joseph’s experience, the use of the words white salamander and old spirit seem understandable.
In view of all this, and as a matter of intellectual evaluation, why all the excitement in the media, and why the apparent hand-wringing among those who profess friendship with or membership in the Church? The media should make more complete disclosures, but Latter-day Saint readers should also be more sophisticated in their evaluation of what they read. For Latter-day Saints, evaluation also has a spiritual dimension. This is because of our belief in Moroni’s declaration that “by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5). That promise assures spiritually sensitive readers a power of discernment that will help them evaluate the meaning of what they learn.” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Reading Church History”, 16 August 1985, CES Symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History, BYU; also see https://si.ldschurch.org/performance/Talks%20For%20Teachers/reading-church-history_eng.pdf [restricted link on official LdS Church website])
And the Ostlings said so well in Mormon America in regard to the Mormon Church origin story, if you change Mormon History then Mormon Theology must shifts too in order to accommodate it.
“History, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is more than pageants, parades, trail markers, monuments, and restored homesteads. There is a very real sense in which the church’s history is its theology, and that not merely the supernatural events surrounding the church’s beginnings with the Angel Moroni and the golden plates at Hill Cumorah. In a body that believes itself the recipient and expression of continuing revelation, it is everything that has happened to the church ever since. And just as creedal churches have official statements of faith, the Mormon Church tends to have official versions of sacred history.” (Richard & Joan Ostling, “Mormon American (Rev. Ed.)”; Nook Edition position 638.8-640.0/1200)
8) Therefore, and as a result of all of the above, D&C 10:37 is REALLY the complete undoing of Mormonism, isn’t it? Isn’t it, in fact, telling us that at the end of the day, the LdS Church in general and its Prophets in particular, have nothing special or unique to offer that you can’t get from any other human institution when it comes to special insight, spiritual discernment, or revelation? D&C 10:37 is really telling us that Mormon Leaders can lead the LdS Church astray, isn’t it?
Further, and that said, the Hofmann case also shows us that they have led the Church astray in the past, haven’t they? So, once you fully analyze and deconstruct this Mormon Apologist D&C 10:37 argument it not only doesn’t vindicate or absolve Latter-day Saint Prophets from performing to the extremely high standards and expectations that they have set for themself, does it? Rather, it exposes, indicts, and condemns them and their religion, doesn’t it?
Neither are what they claim to be, are they?
Spencer W. Kimball, the LdS President at the time, examines the Mark Hofmann forgery known as “The Anthon Transcript” with a magnifying glass. Surrounding him (left to right) are Mark Hofmann, Eldon Tanner, Marion Romney, Boyd Packer, and Gordon B. Hinckley
A cover from dime novels and the NY Detective Library (Courtesy of the University of Rochester’s Rare Books and Special Collection)
compiled by Fred W. Anson In my last article, I considered the interesting genre parallels between the Book of Mormon and 19th Century Dime Novels (which in Joseph Smith’s day were known as “Story Novels” and typically were serialized in newspapers)1. In that article, I gave examples of frontier and historical fiction. However, Dime Novels were also the birthplace of crime fiction, detective stories, and today’s modern mystery story. While this particular Dime Novel genre didn’t really come into its own as a standalone genre later in the 19th Century it was still present earlier in the century as well. As Wikipedia explains:
“The genre of mystery novels is a young form of literature that has developed since the early-19th century. The rise of literacy began in the years of the English Renaissance and, as people began to read over time, they became more individualistic in their thinking. As people became more individualistic in their thinking, they developed a respect for human reason and the ability to solve problems.
Perhaps a reason that mystery fiction was unheard of before the 19th century was due in part to the lack of true police forces. Before the Industrial Revolution, many of the towns would have constables and a night watchman at best. Naturally, the constable would be aware of every individual in the town, and crimes were either solved quickly or left unsolved entirely. As people began to crowd into cities, police forces became institutionalized, and the need for detectives was realized – thus the mystery novel arose.” (see Wikipedia, “Mystery Fiction”)
In Joseph Smith’s day, the genre was just in its infancy and the setting was more typically rural than urban. So the setting for a Story Novel mystery in his day would be a crime on the American Frontier rather than say, Chicago, or New York.
So what does any of this have to do with the Book of Mormon? Well, nothing, except for the fact that we have an archetypical 19th Century Dime Novel detective story anachronistically in a work that claims to be ancient – the entire ninth chapter of the book of Helaman in fact. Sadly, due to its length, I couldn’t include it in my prior article, but I also didn’t want it to get away either. So here we are.
In the Book of Mormon, our intrepid Dime Novel detective is Nephi, the son of the Prophet Helaman (the second), who was the son of the Prophet Helaman who was the son of King Benjamin – got all that? (if nothing else, Joseph Smith was great at recycling Book of Mormon names wasn’t he?). This Wikipedia synopsis will set the stage for our story:
Upon returning to the “land of his nativity”, Nephi found the people in a state of “awful wickedness.” The Gadianton robbers had usurped positions of power and the government had, therefore, become full of corruption. [see Helaman 7:4]
Being filled with sorrow because of the wickedness of the people, Nephi ‘bowed himself’ and prayed upon a tower in his garden, which was by the highway leading to the ‘chief market’ in the city of Zarahemla. In the ‘agony of his soul,’ Nephi lamented the state of the people and wished that he could have lived during the time of Lehi, the forefather of his people. [see Helaman 7:6-10]
Those passing by heard his prayer of anguish, and they ran and called others together to determine the cause of this great mourning. Upon seeing the gathering people, Nephi turned his attention from praying to preaching. He counseled the onlookers to repent and to overcome the attraction of pride and riches. He prophesied of the loss of their great cities if they did not repent and earn the protection of the Lord. He also explained that the Lamanites, who were traditionally more wicked, would enjoy a better fate in the afterlife, and live longer in the promised land because they had not “sinned against that great knowledge” that the Nephites had received – representing a principle of the accountability that comes with knowledge. Lastly, he testified that he knew what he had spoken was true “because the Lord God has made them known” unto him. [Helaman 7:7-19]
Upon hearing Nephi’s words, there were some judges, who were members of the Gadianton robbers against whom Nephi taught, who roused others to opposition in an attempt to have Nephi arrested and tried. Others, however, were convinced of the truth of his words to the extent that those who were opposed feared to lay their hands on him. [see Helaman 8:1-10]
Seeing that he had convinced at least some of the crown, Nephi continued his preaching. He began by addressing the skeptics in the group who did not believe in his status as a prophet of God by comparing himself to Moses using the example of the parting of the Red Sea. From there he transferred into a discussion of different prophecies that had been made concerning the coming of Christ, first by teaching of the parallels between the serpent staff Moses raised in the wilderness and then teaching of the Priesthood given to Abraham, which was after the order of Christ. He also mentioned prophecies by Zenos, Zenock, Ezias, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. Jeremiah he addressed specifically with respect to the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, something the people knew of from the descendants of Mulek in their own land. Lastly, he taught of the people’s ancestors, including Nephi and Lehi, as witnesses of the “coming of Christ.” [see Helaman 8:11-24]
Then, after reminding the people of their wickedness due to choosing riches and pride rather than following the counsel of these prophets, he testified that their destruction was “even at [their] doors” and reveals the secret murder of their Chief Judge by his brother – both of whom were Gadianton robbers. [see Helman 8:25-28]
Five members of the crowd ran to the judgment-seat to test Nephi’s words. (Wikipedia, “Nephi, son of Helaman”)
And with that, ladies and gentlemen, the game is afoot!
An artist’s rendering of a scene from Helaman 9. (“Seantum” by Briana Shawcroft)
Helaman 9:1-41
Behold, now it came to pass that when Nephi had spoken these words, certain men who were among them ran to the judgment-seat; yea, even there were five who went, and they said among themselves, as they went:
Behold, now we will know of a surety whether this man be a prophet and God hath commanded him to prophesy such marvelous things unto us. Behold, we do not believe that he hath; yea, we do not believe that he is a prophet; nevertheless, if this thing which he has said concerning the chief judge be true, that he be dead, then will we believe that the other words which he has spoken are true.
And it came to pass that they ran in their might, and came in unto the judgment-seat; and behold, the chief judge had fallen to the earth, and did lie in his blood.
And now behold, when they saw this they were astonished exceedingly, insomuch that they fell to the earth; for they had not believed the words which Nephi had spoken concerning the chief judge.
But now, when they saw they believed, and fear came upon them lest all the judgments which Nephi had spoken should come upon the people; therefore they did quake, and had fallen to the earth.
Now, immediately when the judge had been murdered—he being stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy, and he fled, and the servants ran and told the people, raising the cry of murder among them;
And behold the people did gather themselves together unto the place of the judgment-seat—and behold, to their astonishment they saw those five men who had fallen to the earth.
And now behold, the people knew nothing concerning the multitude who had gathered together at the garden of Nephi; therefore they said among themselves: These men are they who have murdered the judge, and God has smitten them that they could not flee from us.
And it came to pass that they laid hold on them, and bound them and cast them into prison. And there was a proclamation sent abroad that the judge was slain, and that the murderers had been taken and were cast into prison.
And it came to pass that on the morrow the people did assemble themselves together to mourn and to fast, at the burial of the great chief judge who had been slain.
And thus also those judges who were at the garden of Nephi, and heard his words, were also gathered together at the burial.
And it came to pass that they inquired among the people, saying: Where are the five who were sent to inquire concerning the chief judge whether he was dead? And they answered and said: Concerning this five whom ye say ye have sent, we know not; but there are five who are the murderers, whom we have cast into prison.
And it came to pass that the judges desired that they should be brought; and they were brought, and behold they were the five who were sent; and behold the judges inquired of them to know concerning the matter, and they told them all that they had done, saying:
We ran and came to the place of the judgment-seat, and when we saw all things even as Nephi had testified, we were astonished insomuch that we fell to the earth; and when we were recovered from our astonishment, behold they cast us into prison.
Now, as for the murder of this man, we know not who has done it; and only this much we know, we ran and came according as ye desired, and behold he was dead, according to the words of Nephi.
And now it came to pass that the judges did expound the matter unto the people, and did cry out against Nephi, saying: Behold, we know that this Nephi must have agreed with some one to slay the judge, and then he might declare it unto us, that he might convert us unto his faith, that he might raise himself to be a great man, chosen of God, and a prophet.
And now behold, we will detect this man, and he shall confess his fault and make known unto us the true murderer of this judge.
And it came to pass that the five were liberated on the day of the burial. Nevertheless, they did rebuke the judges in the words which they had spoken against Nephi, and did contend with them one by one, insomuch that they did confound them.
Nevertheless, they caused that Nephi should be taken and bound and brought before the multitude, and they began to question him in divers ways that they might cross him, that they might accuse him to death—
Saying unto him: Thou art confederate; who is this man that hath done this murder? Now tell us, and acknowledge thy fault; saying, Behold here is money; and also we will grant unto thee thy life if thou wilt tell us, and acknowledge the agreement which thou hast made with him.
But Nephi said unto them: O ye fools, ye uncircumcised of heart, ye blind, and ye stiffnecked people, do ye know how long the Lord your God will suffer you that ye shall go on in this your way of sin?
O ye ought to begin to howl and mourn, because of the great destruction which at this time doth await you, except ye shall repent.
Behold ye say that I have agreed with a man that he should murder Seezoram, our chief judge. But behold, I say unto you, that this is because I have testified unto you that ye might know concerning this thing; yea, even for a witness unto you, that I did know of the wickedness and abominations which are among you.
And because I have done this, ye say that I have agreed with a man that he should do this thing; yea, because I showed unto you this sign ye are angry with me, and seek to destroy my life.
And now behold, I will show unto you another sign, and see if ye will in this thing seek to destroy me.
Behold I say unto you: Go to the house of Seantum, who is the brother of Seezoram, and say unto him—
Has Nephi, the pretended prophet, who doth prophesy so much evil concerning this people, agreed with thee, in the which ye have murdered Seezoram, who is your brother?
And behold, he shall say unto you, Nay.
And ye shall say unto him: Have ye murdered your brother?
And he shall stand with fear, and wist not what to say. And behold, he shall deny unto you; and he shall make as if he were astonished; nevertheless, he shall declare unto you that he is innocent.
But behold, ye shall examine him, and ye shall find blood upon the skirts of his cloak.
And when ye have seen this, ye shall say: From whence cometh this blood? Do we not know that it is the blood of your brother?
And then shall he tremble, and shall look pale, even as if death had come upon him.
And then shall ye say: Because of this fear and this paleness which has come upon your face, behold, we know that thou art guilty.
And then shall greater fear come upon him; and then shall he confess unto you, and deny no more that he has done this murder.
And then shall he say unto you, that I, Nephi, know nothing concerning the matter save it were given unto me by the power of God. And then shall ye know that I am an honest man, and that I am sent unto you from God.
And it came to pass that they went and did, even according as Nephi had said unto them. And behold, the words which he had said were true; for according to the words he did deny; and also according to the words he did confess.
And he was brought to prove that he himself was the very murderer, insomuch that the five were set at liberty, and also was Nephi.
And there were some of the Nephites who believed on the words of Nephi; and there were some also, who believed because of the testimony of the five, for they had been converted while they were in prison.
And now there were some among the people, who said that Nephi was a prophet.
And there were others who said: Behold, he is a god, for except he was a god he could not know of all things. For behold, he has told us the thoughts of our hearts, and also has told us things; and even he has brought unto our knowledge the true murderer of our chief judge.
And there you have it folks: Nephi, Son of Helaman, Dime Novel Detective Extraordinaire! Nick Carter, Allan Pinkerton, and William J. Burns (aka “America’s Sherlock Holmes”) would be proud.2
NOTES 1 “Throughout the Victorian period, novels in serial parts were published in abundance in newspapers and magazines—by far the most popular form—or in discreet parts issued in installments, usually 20 monthly issues.
Many 19th century authors established themselves by first publishing original fiction in serial format. Charles Dickens, Wilkie Collins, George Eliot, Elizabeth Gaskell, Thomas Hardy, George Meredith, Robert Louis Stevenson and more, all published serial novels, either in monthly magazines or as discreet serial parts.” (University of Victoria Library, “19th Century Serial Novels”)
2 For those unfamiliar with these names, here’s a primer:
Nick Carter “Nick Carter is a fictional character who began as a dime novel private detective in 1886 and has appeared in a variety of formats over more than a century. The character was first conceived by Ormond G. Smith and created by John R. Coryell. Carter headlined his own magazine for years, and was then part of a long-running series of novels from 1964 to 1990. Films were created based on Carter in France, Czechoslovakia and Hollywood. Nick Carter has also appeared in many comic books and in radio programs.” (Wikipedia, “Nick Carter (literary character)”)
Allan Pinkerton “Allan J. Pinkerton (25 August 1819 – 1 July 1884) was a Scottish–American detective and spy, best known for creating the Pinkerton National Detective Agency…
Pinkerton produced numerous popular detective books, ostensibly based on his own exploits and those of his agents. Some were published after his death, and they are considered to have been more motivated by a desire to promote his detective agency than a literary endeavour. Most historians believe that Allan Pinkerton hired ghostwriters, but the books nonetheless bear his name and no doubt reflect his views.” (Wikipedia, “Allan Pinkerton”)
Willliam J. Burns
“Despite the fact that Holmes and Dr. Watson are fictional characters, though, their cultural influence can even be discerned in the history of the world outside of the printed page. Ever since the end of the Victorian age, real detectives and police officials have often been held to the standards of fiction and have even seen their exploits re-cast as updated versions of one of Doyle’s many gaslight era tales. One American law-enforcement figure, in particular, bore the burden of living up to Holmes’s legacy: William J. Burns, an Irish-American sleuth who bore more than a passing resemblance to Doyle himself.
According to William R. Hunt’s biography Front-Page Detective: William J. Burns and the Detective Profession, 1880-1930, Burns was a friend of both President Theodore Roosevelt and Doyle—the latter of whom publicly hailed Burns as “America’s Sherlock Holmes.” For much of his career, Burns was almost guaranteed a headline each time he caught on to a forgery or risked his life in the line of duty…” (Benjamin Welton, “The Man Arthur Conan Doyle Called ‘America’s Sherlock Holmes'”, The Atlantic, November 20, 2013)
Beggar's Bread 