Archive for the ‘Michael Flournoy’ Category

by Michael Flournoy
I sat around feeling dazed after two Mormon missionaries left my house one evening. The conversation had not gone as well as I would have liked. Despite being an Ex-Mormon apologist, I had been outclassed during the discussion.

As I replayed the night’s dialogue in my head, it became clear why I had struggled. I had allowed the two Elders to go on the attack when I should have been pressuring them. Their victory had been assured in the first few moments of the discussion. Since I failed to pin them down, they were able to engage in guerrilla warfare. This made it impossible to counter-attack, because I never knew exactly where they were coming from.

It’s been said that pinning down LDS theology is like nailing Jello to the wall, and that’s true. My new approach “The Possible Gospel”, is a way to pin a Latter-day Saint down so you can focus your message appropriately.

Step 1: Pin them Down
The first question you need to ask a Latter-day Saint is, “What type of righteousness do you believe gets you Eternal Life?”

The 5 types are as follows (in order from most accurate to least accurate):

Imputed Righteousness: God accredits all His righteousness to the believer up front.

Infused Righteousness: God gives His righteousness to His followers little by little as a reward for their obedience.

Joint Righteousness: The believer does his best and Christ makes up the rest.

Enabled Righteousness: Christ’s atonement enables or empowers believers to keep the commandments and obtain their own worthiness.

Self Righteousness: Righteousness can be obtained without Jesus.

As an aside, the words “saved” and “salvation” are almost worthless in this discussion. They may believe in imputed righteousness for salvation an in another righteousness for eternal life and exaltation, which are more important in their theology. You are always better off saying “exaltation” or “eternal life”.

You may need to specify that you are talking about the righteousness needed to enter the highest heaven: the Celestial Kingdom.

I don’t recommend trying this with more than one or two Mormons at a time, because different answers will complicate the process.

Also, don’t be surprised if the Latter-day Saint tries to squirm out of answering this question. Mormon do not like being pinned down. They will always want to leave some windows open to leap through if they get in a tough spot. For example, they might say, “I believe in a combination of these.”

If this happens, simply explain that the types of righteousness are exclusive to each other. Infused and imputed righteousness is God’s righteousness, joint righteousness is a combination of the two, and enabled and self-righteousness belong to the individual person. Suggest that perhaps what they believe in is joint righteousness.

The worst thing a Mormon can say is, “Maybe it’s none of those. Maybe it hasn’t been revealed yet.” If this occurs, remind the Mormon that the gospel is the means of salvation. If Mormonism is the “restored gospel” there must be a solid answer to this question.

In short, you must get the Latter-day Saint to commit to one of these answers or there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Step 2: Sink the other Boats
Once you get the Mormon to commit to one of the 5 types of righteousness, it’s time to play some Battleship. Sink the other types of righteousness until there is nothing left except the answer they picked and imputed righteousness. This is to prevent them from switching answers later in the discussion.

Refer to Step 3 to get a feel for refuting the different types of righteousness.

What’s nice about this step, is you are temporarily siding with the Mormon against these other false types of righteousness, and it’s likely they will actually help you complete this step. If they do, make sure to use their own words if they try to change positions later.

Step 3: Sink their Boat
Sinking Self Righteousness
Chance of them choosing this: Very Low
You won’t need to spend a lot of time on self-righteousness because the Mormon will agree that salvation is impossible apart from Jesus. You will want to discuss this first, as it sets the stage to sink the other types of righteousness (hint: enabled, joint, and infused righteousness are really just fancy types of self-righteousness at the end of the day).

A good verse to bring up is Galatians 2:21, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”

Sinking Enabled Righteousness
Chance of them choosing this: High
I recommend using the “Impossible Gospel” approach to deal with enabled righteousness.

Start with this question: If you believe in enabled righteousness, you must be perfect. Right?”

On the off chance they say, “yes”, point to 2 Nephi 4:17-19 in The Book of Mormon. It says:

“Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.

I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.”

Note: This is a great verse to bring up at some point in the discussion even if they admit to being imperfect, because the theme of this verse “trusting God while still in sin” goes against enabled, joint, and infused righteousness.

You can pressure the Mormon and say, “Do you really believe you’re more righteous than Nephi?”

You can also point out 1 John 1:8, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

Of course, the Mormon will usually admit they are not perfect yet. When this happens, ask them why not. After all, if they are covered in the enabling grace of Christ, then keeping the commandments should be easy, so why do they struggle?

Sometimes Mormons will say they are getting a little better at obeying God each day. If this happens, ask for their ETA on reaching perfection.

Ask them if God will be satisfied with just improvement on judgment day when they are still in sin. Be prepared with Alma 45:16 in The Book of Mormon, which says God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

Some more verses to hammer in the impossibility of the enabled gospel are as follows:

James 2:10: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.”

2 Nephi 25:23 (Book of Mormon): “For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.”

Moroni 10:32 (Book of Mormon): “Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind, and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.”

Note: These Book of Mormon verses are great to use if the Mormon chose joint righteousness because they promote it more than enabled righteousness.

You’ll want to explain to your LDS friend that reaching perfection so we can have grace is actually the same thing as self-righteousness, and a perfect person doesn’t need grace.

Mormons may protest and say you are twisting their scriptures, and they rely on Christ. They may argue that commandments and covenants are simply part of faith because faith is an action word and not merely belief.

If this happens, ask if the Jews felt the same way. Didn’t they believe in the law and in God? Therefore Galatians 2:21 applies to them. If righteousness comes through the law, or commandments, or LDS covenants then Christ died in vain.

Challenge the Latter-day Saint to show you a passage in scripture that calls Jesus the great Empowerer or the Enabler.

Sinking Joint Righteousness
Chance of them choosing this: High
If the Latter-day Saint chooses joint righteousness, I recommend referring them to the talk “His Grace is Sufficient”, by Brad Wilcox. Although Mr. Wilcox is LDS, he is an enemy to joint righteousness, and he refutes the idea within the first six minutes of his talk. Mormons tend to be more receptive to correction from their own people.

Start with the question, “How much do you have to do before Christ makes up the difference?”

The Mormon will usually say they have to do their best. 2 Nephi 25:23 says we are saved after all we can do, and Moroni 10:32 says we must deny ourselves of all ungodliness for Christ’s grace to suffice.

Use the Impossible Gospel argument to point out that they aren’t doing “all they can do”. Could they have spent 5 more minutes praying this morning? Could they have read 10 more minutes of scripture? Could they have spent last weekend at the temple or feeding the homeless? Do they ever indulge in self-gratification when they could be serving God?

Use the arguments in my section about enabled righteousness to show that God cannot look upon sin with allowance, and if we falter in one point we are guilty of breaking His whole law.

Ask the Mormon if we can be saved in our sins and be prepared with Alma 11:37 in The Book of Mormon that says we cannot be saved in our sins. Explain to your LDS friend that joint righteousness is synonymous with salvation in sin.

Explain further that joint righteousness is impossible. Either we are worthy by ourselves and God doesn’t need to intervene, or we are sinners, and thus in the red. If we are in the red, God is saving us in sin, and fully on His own.

Sinking Infused Righteousness
Chance of them choosing this: Medium
Most Latter-day Saints have never heard of infused righteousness, but sometimes when it’s explained to them they’ll jump on the bandwagon.

If they choose infused righteousness, build it up first. Use Philippians 3:9 to show that Paul didn’t have a righteousness of his own, but a righteousness that came from God. Explain that infused and imputed righteousness are the only two viable options.

The trouble is, even though infused righteousness has a Biblical appearance, it still has the same practical problems as the other types of righteousness. For instance, if we are having righteousness infused into us, why would we still struggle? And why would God mix His righteousness with someone who is in sin?

If you are familiar with Catholicism (they believe in infused righteousness), use some comparisons. Catholics believe in a holding place for Spirits that aren’t righteous enough, just like Mormons. Catholics believe in ongoing communion to cancel out sin and add righteousness, just like Mormons.

The dilemma with infused righteousness is it never quite gets you all the way to perfect worthiness. Eternal life is always something you strive for, but never something you achieve.

The apostle Paul dismantles infused righteousness in Romans 4:4-5:

“Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.”

In other words, if God hands out His righteousness as a result of our obedience, that’s a wage. However, Paul stresses over and over again that grace is a gift, and it has nothing to do with our works.

(click to zoom)

Step 4: Teach them Imputed Righteousness
At this point, the Mormon will be confused or anxious so offer them a way out. Tell them they might like imputed righteousness more than they think because it’s all over The Book of Mormon and it’s a major theme in the temple.

A Mormon likely won’t be familiar with imputed righteousness, so you’ll have to explain it a little. I do it like this:

“Imputation is kind of the opposite of amputation. Instead of having something taken off you, you’re having something put on, or accredited to you. It’s kind of like marrying a millionaire. Even if you were tens of thousands of dollars in debt before, you are now a millionaire by virtue of your spouse.

You actually do believe in it. You believe that when Jesus died, He took our sins upon Him. That’s imputation. The big difference between us, is I believe in double imputation. So not only did Jesus take the full weight of my sins, he also gave me the full weight of His righteousness when I became a believer.”

A good example of double imputation is the story of Barabbas, a guilty criminal, in the New Testament. Christ took the death penalty that Barabbas deserved, while Barabbas received the freedom that Jesus deserved.

Imputation is a major theme in LDS temples because Mormons do saving ordinances for the dead who can’t receive them. The dead do not have to physically perform any works, they just have to accept what has been done on their behalf. It is a flawless representation of imputed righteousness.

Mormons will probably push back a little by emphasizing obedience, sanctification, and repentance. Sometimes the phrase, “I believe that too,” is your best tool. This way Mormons come to realize that imputation covers all the bases that are important to them. The difference is, it provides a safety net for the believer while they are being sanctified.

Show the Mormon Moroni 10:32-33 in The Book of Mormon. The same passage that refutes joint and enabled righteousness, fits imputed righteousness perfectly. Especially verse 33 which says,

“And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.”

According to this verse, perfection comes before sanctification, and both are the result of grace and the shedding of Christ’s blood. I’ve told LDS before, “If that’s not imputed righteousness, then I don’t know what is!”

This passage in Moroni echoes Hebrews 10:14: “For by a single offering [Christ] has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”

The fact is imputed righteousness immediately satisfies the worthiness requirement to enter God’s presence, while allowing the believer to grow in his walk with God.

Step 5: Get out of God’s Way
This approach isn’t very flashy, and it’s not going to make anyone too defensive. You never really get to a resolution, it’s more about planting a seed and letting God grow it. Instead of attacking Mormonism, you are showing the virtues of a Biblical doctrine.

This is the belief that stole me away from Mormonism, it was the antidote to a works-based religion. Mormons say they are saved by grace, but they also believe ordinances like baptism are required to enter the Celestial Kingdom. Imputation is the missing puzzle piece that emphasizes grace and negates works and covenants.

Challenge the Latter-day Saint to study imputed righteousness. Tell them you have a testimony of the doctrine, and let them know you are available if they have questions about it.

The more a Latter-day Saint comes to embrace imputation, the more precarious their position becomes. If imputation is true, there is no requirement for temple ordinances because we already have sufficient righteousness. If imputation is true there was no need for a restoration because Christians already had the true gospel.

If imputation is true we don’t need a priesthood to seal us to God because Christ’s righteousness already does that. Simply stated, if imputation is true then Mormonism is false.

“Sinking of HMS Hood” by J.C. Schmitz-Westerholt

BACK TO TOP

by Michael Flournoy
Mormonism boasts an incredibly unique story. Its theology includes a pre-mortal existence where humanity lived as God’s literal children before coming to earth. Mormons also believe in eternal families and in the exaltation of man, or the ability to become Gods. Amid this story, there is also an unlikely hero: Lucifer.

Of course, any Latter-day Saint will tell you that Satan is certainly not the hero of their religion, but the facts speak otherwise. Below are three instances where, according to the LDS narrative, Satan is the good guy.

Instance 1: The Pre-Mortal Existence
According to Mormonism, we all lived with God the Father as spirits before coming to earth. All of us, including Jesus and Satan, were siblings, and literal children of God. One day, Jesus presented the Father’s “Earth Plan” to the rest of us.

We would pass through a veil of forgetfulness, which would erase our memories as we were born into mortal bodies on earth. Then we would be tested, to see if we were worthy to return back home. The fall of man was a part of the plan, and as such we would all fall short and sin, thus disqualifying ourselves from God’s presence. Luckily for us, Jesus would also come down and sacrifice himself, which would enable our return. However, tapping into this sacrifice would require that we keep all the commandments and abstain from sin.

One man had the gall to oppose the plan. Lucifer proposed an alternate plan, a plan where everyone would return to live with God because it would either be impossible to sin or said sin wouldn’t count against us.

The reason this makes Satan the good guy, is because the Father’s plan was evil. There is no specific account of what Satan said in Mormon theology, but I imagine it went something like this:

“Are you serious, Father? We’re your children, and you’re going to erase our memories and send us away to test us? And those who fail can never be with you again? Is this a game to you? There is not a single one of us here who denies that you are God, and we would do anything for you. We have already proven our loyalty, and now this? Have you gone mad?”

In Mormon belief, a third of the hosts of heaven sided with Lucifer and fought a war with those who stood with God. This was essentially a war over agency – man’s freedom of choice. In the end, God’s army won and Lucifer and his followers were cast down to earth without bodies. Mormons believe that every person who is born on earth accepted the plan to choose good and evil and that the choices we make are ultimately on our shoulders.

It is widely believed that Satan wanted to take the choice to sin away from us and control us. There has also been some speculation that his plan would allow agency, but our sins would not be imputed to us. President J. Reuben Clark said, “As I read the scriptures, Satan’s plan required one of two things: either the compulsion of the mind, the spirit, the intelligence of man, or else saving in sin.”1 In other words, what the devil may have been advocating is actually the Protestant view of grace: that sin does not count against the salvation of God’s children!

Lucifer front and center from the 2013 Temple Endowment film surrounded by (left to right) Adam & Eve; Peter, James & John, and, last but not least; Elohim (aka “Heavenly Father”).

Instance 2: The Garden of Eden
Adam and Eve were the first spirit children God sent to earth. He placed them in the Garden of Eden and planted the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil there. They were given two commandments: not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and to multiply and replenish the earth.

Here’s where things get dicey. In Mormon theology, Adam and Eve were not capable of having offspring until after they partook of the forbidden fruit. God placed them in a Catch 22 and forbade them to do exactly the thing he wanted them to do. Dishonesty, anyone?

Lucky for them, Lucifer was there to persuade Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and the fall (which the LDS call a “fall upward”) was initiated. However, rather than honor the devil for allowing mankind to procreate, Mormons believe that Satan was tricked into making God’s plan work, but was actually trying to stop it.

The videos in the LDS temples show otherwise. These videos give members an exclusive look at the creation and the fall of man, which you can’t find in the Bible or other LDS scripture. Each video has the same script, and in them when God rebukes Satan for giving Eve the forbidden fruit, he responds angrily, “If thou cursest me, for doing the same thing which has been done in other worlds…”

Satan is clearly aware of God’s plan in the videos, and he is rightfully upset at God for punishing him for doing his will.

Things become even more nefarious later in the temple videos. After the fall God and Jesus are portrayed as being distant from Adam and Eve, usually sending messengers in their stead to check on them. Meanwhile, Lucifer is in their presence almost the whole time.

At one point in the video, Lucifer breaks through the fourth wall and looks directly at the audience. He says, “I have a word to say concerning these people. If they do not walk up to every covenant they make at these altars in this temple this day, they will be in my power.”

By addressing the audience directly, saying “in this temple”, it is implied that Satan is, in fact, present inside the temple.

“I have a word to say concerning these people. If they do not walk up to every covenant they make at these altars in this temple this day, they will be in my power.”
(Lucifer breaking the fourth wall in a scene from the 1991 Temple Endowment film)

Instance 3: The Crucifixion
Fast forward to the end of the Savior’s ministry, and Lucifer does something strange that Mormon doctrine can’t explain. In Luke 22:3-4 we read:

Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was of the number of the twelve. He went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them.

Why is this so strange? Think about it. According to LDS doctrine, Lucifer was there at the council in heaven. He knew that Jesus had to die in order for God’s plan to work. So why on earth would he convince Judas to betray him? It seems to me that if Lucifer really was the enemy of God, he would do the opposite. His best play would be to make everyone love Jesus so they wouldn’t kill him.

The only logical explanation within Mormonism is that Lucifer, being the good guy that he is, decided to do the right thing. He knew that everyone would go to Outer Darkness if Jesus didn’t die on the cross. Even though he didn’t agree with God’s plan, which necessitated the gruesome death of his brother Jesus from the beginning, it was the only chance mankind had. So he manned up and did the right thing, for which God pinned on him the blame.

Lucifer truly is the hero of the LDS narrative.

My Plea to Mormons
2 Nephi 15:20 in The Book of Mormon states: Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

If you are LDS reading this, I plead with you to open your eyes and accept the simpler explanation. There was no pre-mortal existence. There was no fall upward. It was not Plan A for Jesus to die for mankind. In other words, Jesus was not brutally beaten and crucified because God planned it that way, but because we went astray from God’s plan. God is righteous, and Satan is evil.

I’ll tell you the truth in plainness: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not true.

That being said, our God is true! I call on you to put away your trust in a false religion that calls good evil, and evil good, and give your devotion to God instead. He will never fail you, He will never lie to you, and He will never forsake you.

NOTES
1 see Conference Report, Oct. 1949, p.193; also quoted in Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual [2010], p.15.

BACK TO TOP

Elder Jeffery R. Holland speaking at the October 2017 General Conference.
(click image to watch the full address)

by Michael Flournoy
During last Fall’s General Conference, I had two Latter-day Saints recommend that I listen to the talk given by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, an apostle of the Mormon faith. The talk, entitled “Be Ye Therefore Perfect- Eventually” was rumored to put the nail in the coffin of the argument levied against the church that it holds to an impossible gospel.

Holland begins his speech by ripping Matthew 5:48 out of context, saying we are to be “…perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect,” and continues, “yet surely the Lord would never give us a commandment He knew we could not keep.” His main idea throughout the talk is that we can be content with steady improvement. The ironic part is even in the out of context version embraced by the LDS church, Jesus did not say to be perfect- eventually. He simply said to be perfect – that is, right here, right now.

The talk’s title, which I was not aware of until recently, called to mind Alma 13:27 which says, “And now, my brethren, I wish from the inmost part of my heart, yea, with great anxiety even unto pain, that ye would hearken unto my words, and cast off your sins, and not procrastinate the day of your repentance.” Alma did not suggest shaving off our sins, little by little. I would argue (and I think Alma would agree) that steady improvement is just a fancy word for procrastination.

Now lest any of you get the wrong idea and think I do not like Elder Holland, let me set the record straight. He is far and away my favorite LDS apostle. As far as public speakers go, he is probably the most powerful man in the entire church. And if he showed up at my door on a stormy night, looking for food and shelter, he would have it. No questions asked.

As I listened to his speech, I felt like a hopeless romantic who was peeling petals off a flower. But instead of saying, “She loves me, she loves me not,” I found myself thinking, “he gets the gospel of Christ. He gets it not. He gets it. He gets it not…” Some of his statements were nothing short of inspirational. My favorite quotes from the talk are as follows:

“Every one of us is a debtor, and the verdict was imprisonment for every one of us. And there we would all have remained were it not for the grace of a King who sets us free because He loves us and is ‘moved with compassion toward us.’”

“Our only hope for true perfection is in receiving it as a gift from heaven- we can’t ‘earn’ it.”

“I am grateful to know that in spite of my imperfections, at least God is perfect—that at least He is, for example, able to love His enemies, because too often, due to the ‘natural man’ and woman in us, you and I are sometimes that enemy. How grateful I am that at least God can bless those who despitefully use Him because, without wanting or intending to do so, we all despitefully use Him sometimes. I am grateful that God is merciful and a peacemaker because I need mercy and the world needs peace.”
(Jeffrey R. Holland, “Be Ye Therefore Perfect—Eventually”, General Conference, October 2017 on the official LDS Church website) 

This final quote hits the nail on the head and is the hope of all Christians everywhere. And while I do appreciate his humility in admitting he needs mercy and is sometimes an enemy of God who despitefully uses Him, it makes me wonder how any Latter-day Saint can expect to eventually gain perfection. Because if Elder Holland, an apostle, has not obtained it at the age of 77, then seriously, who can?

Things take a particularly precarious turn when Jeffrey R. Holland attempts to explain the parable of the Unmerciful Servant. In the parable, a man is forgiven a 10,000 talent debt, only to harshly punish a debtor who owes him a mere 100 pence. It’s a pointed story about the importance of forgiveness.

Holland, however, puts an unusual twist on the meaning of the parable, rendering it not only unbiblical but contrary to The Book of Mormon as well. First, he compares the debts to what they might be in modern U.S. currency. The debt the man was forgiven would be roughly equivalent to 1 billion dollars, while the amount he refused to forgive would be 100 dollars.

After joking that 1 billion dollars is an incomprehensible personal debt (because no one can shop that much) he states,

“Jesus uses an unfathomable measurement here because His Atonement is an unfathomable gift given at an incomprehensible cost. That, it seems to me, is at least part of the meaning behind Jesus’s charge to be perfect. We may not be able to demonstrate yet the 10,000-talent perfection the Father and the Son have achieved, but it is not too much for Them to ask us to be a little more godlike in little things, that we speak and act, love and forgive, repent and improve at least at the 100-pence level of perfection, which it is clearly within our ability to do.”
(Ibid, bolding added for emphasis, italics in original) 

The implication is that we are capable of making a down payment of 100 pence to God and go from there to eventually come to pay the remaining 10,000 talents.

King Benjamin in The Book of Mormon vehemently opposes the gospel taught by Elder Holland. “Are we not all beggars?” he first asks and then expounds on in Mosiah 4:19-20,

“For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.”

According to King Benjamin, we are all beggars. And do beggars have the ability to pay 100 pence? No, we do not. Even the servant in the parable used by Jeffrey R. Holland could not pay the 100 pence. What Latter-day Saints are being asked to do essentially, is to be able to leap out of earth’s atmosphere by the end of their lives. But not to worry, a six foot vertical will suffice for now, as it is clearly within our ability to do.

The fact remains that for we fallen, broken, and sin-corrupted children of Adam, perfection is indeed an impossible gospel. Whether it is now, or 50 years down the road, not one of us is up to the challenge – no, not one. We are all beggars.

Perfection has to be granted as a gift – it must be imputed to us. How grateful I am that at least Jesus is impossibly strong and perfect and that He has given me that perfection as a gift. Because if I were trying to obtain it through my own merits, all the time since the creation would not be near enough.

Yes, we are all beggars, but Jesus’ gift of imputed perfection is enough. It is finished.

King Benjamin’s response to Jeffrey R. Holland.
(Mosiah 4:19)

by Michael Flournoy
When I was a child, I frequently fought with my younger brother. I’m not talking about play battles, I mean we were trying to destroy each other. My parents had tried to make us stop, to no avail. One night, amid World War 3, my mother made a startling announcement: she and our father had decided they were going to leave us and never come back. My siblings and I shrieked and wailed as they stalked out the door. Within seconds, the feeling of dread was overwhelming. As the oldest, the burden of feeding and educating the others probably fell on me, and it was a burden I had no hope of carrying.

I threw open the sliding glass door and plunged into the unforgiving night. On the back patio, I screamed their names, fairly certain they could not hear me and that I’d never hear their voices again. When I went back in, my parents were there, consoling my brothers and sister, saying they would never leave us.

Looking back, I do not fault my parents for what happened that night. Parenting is a tough thing to do. It doesn’t come with a manual, and half the time it’s like making your way through a pitch black room littered with Legos. Besides, we are all fallible human beings. What I cannot excuse, however, is a god who abandons his children.

A year ago I sat down with an LDS coworker who told me he couldn’t even visit a church that taught that God sends people to hell forever. This was exactly the sentiment I had felt as a Mormon, and it’s probably the way most Latter-day Saints see it too. A God who thrusts people to eternal hell just doesn’t seem merciful. I’ll be the first to admit that hell is a harsh punishment in Protestant Christianity, but it’s even harsher in Mormonism, where God sends his own children there.

According to Mormonism, every person on the face of the planet is literally the offspring of God. This of course, stands in opposition to orthodox Christianity where only saved believers are His children. God is believed to be omniscient and omnipotent; a being who loves everyone perfectly. Yet despite this, in Mormonism, only a small percentage of God’s children will have the chance to live with him in eternity.

Mormons do try to soften the blow of this by espousing a belief in three levels of heaven. Even though Heavenly Father only resides in the highest kingdom, and only the most righteous people will go there, they believe virtually all mankind will go to at least some degree of heaven. The lowest level, the Telestial world, is thought to be so beautiful that if we could see it, we would kill ourselves to get there. In the LDS mindset, this is far more merciful than being sent to a place of fire and torment.

But is it? Elder Holland, an apostle of the LDS church, once said, “I wouldn’t know how to speak of heaven without my wife and my children. It would not be heaven for me” (Temple Open House video – click here to view). This is exactly how Christians view any place devoid of God the Father, it would not be heaven for us. Well guess what folks, in Mormonism eternal families and fellowship with Heavenly Father are both restricted to the Celestial Kingdom alone. So ask yourselves, is a beautiful world where the Father does not come, really heaven? And is it really less painful than a hell made of fire and brimstone?

Whether literal or metaphorical, The Book of Mormon describes the suffering God’s children will endure after the final judgment in Alma 12:16-18.

And now behold, I say unto you then cometh a death, even a second death, which is a spiritual death; then is a time that whosoever dieth in his sins, as to a temporal death, shall also die a spiritual death; yea, he shall die as to things pertaining to righteousness.

Then is the time when their torments shall be as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever; and then is the time that they shall be chained down to an everlasting destruction, according to the power and captivity of Satan, he having subjected them to his will.

Then, I say unto you, they shall be as though there had been no redemption made; for they cannot be redeemed according to God’s justice; and they cannot die, seeing there is no more corruption.

Latter-day Saints may argue that this is a temporary “everlasting destruction” or it’s only talking about the few who go to Outer Darkness with Satan and his angels, but either way it’s a moot point. In Mormonism these are God’s children who are being abandoned, and left chained by the power of the devil.

Mormons also claim that everyone essentially goes to the degree of heaven they are most comfortable in, and it’s not really God abandoning us, it’s us abandoning him. What concerns me about this approach, is I believe there are people who honestly want God, but cannot abandon their sins, despite all desires to the contrary. These will have the doors to the Celestial Kingdom shut in their face and God will say, “I’m sorry, but you chose this.”

At least the Mormon god is consistent. Assuming that humanity does comprise God’s children, Jesus’ words to the Pharisees are incredibly harsh in John 8:42 where he denounces their heritage, “If God were your Father, you would love me…” In verse 44 he goes on to say their father is none other than the devil. Mormon doctrine also teaches that the Holy Ghost abandons us when we break the commandments, leaving us in the very teeth of sin when we need him the most. I would expect this kind of behavior from a teenage girl. I would not expect it from the highest being in the universe, the Alpha and the Omega.

In 1 John 4:8 we learn that God is love. I’m not talking about the “love” Mormons attribute to him: where he lovingly abandons his children to hell and puts the blame on their shoulders, I’m talking about a noble kind of love. This love is described in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NIV).

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

It is not wrong for Latter-day Saints to struggle with the justice of God and the eternal nature of hell. It is, however, hypocritical to cast stones at Christianity while excusing the problems in their own theology. As for me, I cannot even visit a church that teaches God sends his own children to hell.

A satirical take on a popular Neo-Orthodox Mormon bestseller.

 

 

“And they fell down before me, and were about to worship me, but I would not suffer them, saying: I am thy brother, yea, even thy younger brother; wherefore, worship the Lord thy God…”
— 1 Nephi 17:55

I was a Latter-day Saint for thirty years before becoming an Evangelical Christian in 2016. I was a faithful member who magnified his callings, served a mission, married in the temple, and held a temple recommend. I wrote a book defending LDS truth claims and debated Protestants in online forums, podcasts, and a couple of times in public.

I enjoyed being LDS, but there was one thing that always bothered me: the culture of prophet worship. For many years, my eyes were closed to it, but as time went on it became more and more unbearable. I remember sitting in a BYU Pathways class and a young man made a comment about one of the apostles working a pitiable job in his youth. Enthused by the idea, he said, “It just goes to show that the prophets and apostles aren’t that different from us, they could have worked miserable jobs or sinned… I mean, I’m sure they never committed any major sins, but…”

His comment got me thinking. Where had the idea that the prophets and apostles had not committed major sins come from? Wasn’t that what made repentance so great? You could be the worst sinner on earth, and repentance could transform you into a great apostle or a prophet. I thought of Alma the younger and the apostle Paul, who had anything but flawless pasts. Yet somehow, the LDS mindset no longer considered that a valid possibility for its leaders.

Near the end of my tenure in Mormonism, someone got up to teach a lesson in Elder’s Quorum about Joseph Smith. He started the lesson saying he was going to teach us 15 things about the prophet that we probably didn’t know. My interest piqued. I wondered if he would mention that Joseph had a gun the day he was killed, or that he married other men’s wives. However, as he plunged through the points it became obvious that only good things were being said. Thus the Joseph we were learning about was not a man, but God.

Assuming that Joseph really was a prophet, and his mission was to divert attention away from himself to God, I cannot help wondering what he would think about the young man’s comments in college, or the Elder Quorum instructor’s lesson that day. Furthermore, if he was a prophet of God, I cannot imagine any reaction short of humiliation from him at the sound of hymn 27, “Praise to the Man” being sung in church.

Doctrine and Covenants 25:12 says: For my soul delighteth in the song of the heart; yea, the song of the righteous is a prayer unto me, and it shall be answered with a blessing upon their heads.

In other words, hymns are prayers to God according to the Doctrine and Covenants. So instead of a hymn and an opening prayer, there are actually two opening prayers. One’s just set to music. That’s why I have a problem with hymn 27, and you should too. A song about a man does not qualify as a prayer to God, so every time it is sung in church an opportunity is missed to receive the blessings promised in D&C 25:12.

Singing “Praise to the Man” is more than a problem of simple opportunity cost. No matter how you slice it, the song is worshipful in nature, and since Joseph is the subject of the song, the worship goes to him. Consider the fact that if Jesus became the song’s subject instead of Joseph, the lyrics would largely remain true, and would certainly be worshipful.

Now you’re probably thinking, “Great, another fallacious argument that Mormons worship Joseph Smith”. However, that’s not quite what I’m saying. To be fair, Mormon don’t typically have Joseph shrines in their houses. I have never heard a Mormon say, “So and so really needs Joseph in their lives,” or “save us, Lord Joseph.” Nor do I consider singing hymn 27 as idolatrous as praying to saints.

However, we read in Exodus 20:3-5 that we are to have no other gods before God, for He “is a jealous God.” You may think that since Joseph was God’s prophet, reverencing him is a way to worship God, but I would caution you against that mindset. If a man had a servant, and his bride slept with that servant, that would not be honoring her husband. This analogy is especially applicable because the church is the bride of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 11:2 Paul says, “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”

I plead with you my friends, not to be taken by the subtle culture of prophet worship. When hymn 27 is sung, don’t sing along. In Matthew 6, we are taught that if our eye is single, our whole body will be filled with light. Immediately after, in verse 24 Jesus says no man can serve two masters, “for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” If your praise and your hymns are directed at Joseph Smith, then your eye is not single to the glory of God.

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
— Joshua 24:15 (KJV) 

In Christ’s Bond Service,

Michael Flournoy

Computer wallpaper promoting the 2005 LDS film, “Praise to the Man”.

by Michael Flournoy
There are three conversions in Mormonism: social, doctrinal, and spiritual.

Doctrinal Conversion is to believe that the tenets of Mormonism are true, along with The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

Social Conversion is to believe that the LDS church is a godly institution, its leaders are inspired, and its founder, Joseph Smith, had an upright, moral character.

Spiritual Conversion is any experience that validates a Mormon’s beliefs.

The most common of these is Spiritual Conversion. It typically occurs after reading The Book of Mormon, which challenges the reader to ask God if it’s true. It promises that God will reveal its truthfulness through the power of the Holy Ghost. Rather than testing The Book of Mormon against the Bible, Latter-day Saints resort to subjective feelings, and often equate a burning in the bosom to an answer from the Spirit. The exact wording in The Book of Mormon is as follows.

Moroni 10:4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

These conversions serve as a three-legged stool to keep Mormons tethered to the LDS gospel. If one leg is kicked out, they can keep going on two legs while the damaged one is repaired. Thus, in order to bring them out of the church, at least two of the three conversions must be targeted. However, Latter-day Saints are unlikely to divulge details about their spiritual conversion because those experiences are considered sacred. To them, talking about their experiences with Christians is casting their pearls before swine.

That leaves the social and doctrinal conversions to target. Most Mormons lean either to the doctrinal or the social side of their faith. Rarely, if ever, do you find a Mormon who is on fire about the doctrine and the culture of the church. If they don’t lean either way, they are probably less active. I was a Ward Mission Leader right before leaving, and it was often said that a new convert to Mormonism needed three things: A friend (social conversion), a calling (social conversion), and to be nourished by the good word of God (doctrinal conversion).

Of the two types of Latter-day Saints, the vast majority are socially converted, cultural Mormons. They do not participate in online debates, and their testimonies are not founded on logic. I have been in several wards over the years, and typically I have found only 1 or 2 individuals per congregation that really know their stuff. These doctrinal Mormons are, to some degree or another, outcasts in the faith.

I heard a talk over the pulpit once, where a man was comparing his parents, one of whom was doctrinal, while the other was a cultural Mormon. He said, “My father knew The Book of Mormon backward and forward, he had much of it memorized, and he could explain why each passage was important, but my mom knew it was true…” He implied that because of her blind faith, his mother was the more righteous of the two.

My Conversions into Mormonism
Although I was born under the covenant, I still had to be converted to Mormonism. My social conversion came at age fifteen. I finally made good friends at church and it’s where the pretty girls were. I would have gone without being dragged there by my parents.

My spiritual conversion came a year later when I attended Especially for Youth, a week-long retreat for Latter-day Saints. On Thursday night they ushered us into a room and showed a video about Jesus. It had people testifying that he was their Savior and he’d changed them. That night, the real Jesus visited me.

I was faced with his majesty and righteousness. I knew that I was a wretched sinner, and I would have been satisfied if he had wiped me off the face of the planet. However, instead of wrath, he sent me his love. It was an unbelievable love. It’s the kind of love that says, “You hate my counsel, your feet are slow to do good and swift to do evil, and many of the things you do displease me, but I love you anyway.”

God’s overwhelming, undeserved love made me weep for hours on end. I looked at the context of the situation. I was at a Mormon sponsored event, which I interpreted to mean that the church was true. I decided that my allegiance would be to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When I turned 19, I turned in my mission papers and went to the far away land of California to preach the gospel. Even then, I was seeking the burning in the bosom my counterparts had experienced after reading The Book of Mormon. I was expecting something powerful like my Jesus experience, but it never came. Eventually, I settled on a logical testimony that The Book of Mormon was true, even though it made me feel like a second class citizen in the church.

Spiritual Conversion as articulated by a Mormon Apostle. (click to zoom)

In time, other experiences bolstered my spiritual conversion. On my mission, I met my friend Ed Enochs, an Evangelical Christian, who debated my companion and me for three hours one day. I walked away from that encounter convinced that Mormonism was false. I was saddened at the thought of my family and friends back home. How, I wondered, could such intelligent people be roped in by a scam like Mormonism?

Ed also convinced me that the Bible was the word of God. I decided to examine it and see if it supported the truth claims of the church.

Somehow, as I studied the Bible, I came across all the passages that seemed to support Mormonism, and my doctrinal conversion was complete. When I returned home I became an amateur apologist bent on defending Mormons from smooth talking Christians. With all three conversions in place, the LDS church had me hooked. I spent the next decade as its captive.

My Three Conversions out of Mormonism
By 2015, God was waging war on all three of my conversions. I decided that year to study grace in order to become a more effective weapon. In Mormonism, there are 3 levels of heaven, 6 definitions of salvation, and 50 shades of grace. So every time I came across heaven or salvation in LDS scripture, I had to decipher which level of heaven and what kind of salvation was being described. It was the most frustrating thing I had ever done in my life and I was envious of the elegant simplicity of the gospel my Christian friends believed in.

Later that year the church came out with its policy that children of gay parents could not be baptized. I was not on board with the policy, but what irked me, was the day after it was leaked Mormons were already defending the policy online. It seemed like Latter-day Saints everywhere were abandoning Spirit and scripture in favor of uncontested apostolic authority.

I was on an online forum one day and another Latter-day Saint said he didn’t have a problem with the policy, but if he did, he would just pray about it until he didn’t anymore. I responded, “If that’s not a cult mindset, I don’t know what is!”

Unfortunately, it was a public forum and my family decided to hold a small intervention for me. They warned me to use caution when discussing the church and one family member said throwing the prophet under the bus was the same as throwing Jesus under the bus.

I knew that despite my family’s concern, the truth could withstand criticism. In favor of my relationships, however, I decided to keep my big mouth shut. It was just a stupid policy, after all.

A few days later I saw Elder Nelson speak to Millennials on BYU TV about the policy. He explained that it was not a policy at all, but a revelation from God that had been unanimously received by all 15 prophets, seers, and revelators. My jaw dropped. Suddenly, my issues with the church were just as much doctrinal as they were cultural since God himself was the alleged mastermind behind the policy.

In Mormonism, there are three pillars of truth: the leadership, the Spirit, and the scriptures. Any of these can be used to acquire truth, but in my case, the Spirit and the scriptures were telling me the exact opposite of what the leaders were saying. That October I learned that there had been over 30 suicides of gay and lesbian LDS youth. I was shocked that the so-called “plan of happiness” was causing so much sorrow.

My social conversion shattered into a million pieces. I was no longer proud to be a Mormon; I was ashamed of it. And with my doctrinal conversion struggling as it was, I was dragged into a faith crisis lasting several months. Mormonism had infiltrated every aspect of my identity and questioning it caused me to fall into a confused state of depression.

I managed to stay active through it all. I kept studying grace and came to believe that Christ’s imputed righteousness granted salvation. I found evidence of it in both the Bible and The Book of Mormon, and for a time my doctrinal conversion stabilized. That is until God opened my eyes to the fact that my new favorite doctrine was hostile to the mandatory LDS covenants and ordinances.

My spiritual conversion collapsed soon after that. It didn’t matter that I still had experiences that I couldn’t explain away. One leg was simply not enough to support my testimony. I gave my life to Jesus and over time I discovered that my spiritual experiences did not hold up under scrutiny.

Kicking out the Legs of Conversion
Spiritual conversion is the toughest to target since Mormons are so protective of it. Ex-Mormons might have a shot though, by talking about the spiritual experiences they had while active, and why they failed the test of time. Most Christians will need to go after social and doctrinal conversion instead.

First, find out what kind of Mormon you’re talking to. Does she believe her leaders’ words are always inspired? Does she blur the lines between culture and doctrine? Is she LDS because of the great programs and family values? Does she think people leave the church because they intellectualize their way out? If so, she’s probably a cultural Mormon.

Does he believe the prophets and apostles sometimes speak as men? Is he wary of the culture, but protective of the beliefs? Does his testimony of the LDS scriptures have some basis in logic? Does he think people leave the church over cultural issues? If so, he’s probably a doctrinal Mormon.

Doctrinal and Social Conversion as articulated by a late Mormon Apostle. (click to zoom)

Conventional wisdom says to strike where the Mormon is weak, but that may not be the right strategy. Since my social conversion was weak, I doubled down on the doctrine to overcompensate. I overlooked the prophets’ mistakes because they were men. When faced with Joseph Smith’s misdeeds, it never dented my view that he was a prophet. I just thought he was abusing authority God had actually given him. All the social problems in the world could not have relinquished my grip on the Mormon church.

God attacked my doctrinal conversion first. That made me vulnerable to social problems in the church and set the stage for the avalanche to come. So if you’re talking to doctrinal Mormons, talk about doctrinal issues first: like contradictions between LDS scriptures and the Bible. If you’re witnessing to cultural Mormons, talk primarily about social problems: like Joseph Smith’s polyandry.

I would caution against coming off too aggressive with Latter-day Saints. Above all else, be a friend first. Mormons are wary of Christians who constantly attack their beliefs. We don’t have to tell our LDS friends they’re in a cult every time we see them. They already know what we think, I promise. Bold, fiery preaching may erode their doctrinal conversion, but if it is not coming from a relationship of trust, it will simultaneously bolster their social conversion.

Navigating someone past the three conversions is ultimately the work of God, and it’s a long, drawn out process. Sometimes all we can do is plant seeds, pray for the LDS, and love them. Mormons are unlikely to ever choose Christianity if all they remember from us is: ‘attack, attack, attack’.

I am forever grateful to the many Christians who befriended me while I was LDS, who respected me despite my beliefs, who saw past my religion and saw me, who prayed for me, who built me up, who let the light of Jesus shine through them, and who treated me like a brother before I was one. I don’t know where I’d be without them.

About the Author
Michael Flournoy served a two-year mission for the LDS Church where he helped organize three Mormon/Evangelical dialogues and has participated in debate at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Born into Mormonism, Mr. Flournoy converted to Evangelical Christianity in 2016.

 

A Critique of Brad Wilcox’s “His Grace is Sufficient”

“And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”
(Matthew 12:7 ESV) 

by Michael Flournoy
I was born and raised in the Mormon Church, and in early 2015 I began a serious study on the topic of grace. One of the first videos I watched was a BYU devotional given by Brad Wilcox called “His Grace is Sufficient”. Not only did Mr. Wilcox revolutionize the way I viewed grace, his talk was largely responsible for my journey out of Mormonism and into mainstream Christianity.

I was surprised when I listened to it recently, to see how it sounded to my Protestant ears. I caught myself saying “amen” half a dozen times. I was struck by how useful his catchphrases were for explaining my own transition. He says for instance, that we aren’t earning heaven, we’re “learning heaven.” He uses a piano analogy where Mom pays for lessons and requires us to practice. Practicing does not pay for the lessons, nor does it pay back Mom. He goes on to say that we’re keeping the commandments for a different reason, “it’s like paying a mortgage instead of rent, making deposits in a savings account instead of paying off debt…”

To this day Brad Wilcox is a favorite LDS speaker of mine. However, I found a few problems with his speech. Namely, the way he describes Evangelical Christians is mostly false. He says his Born Again friends often ask him if he has been saved by the grace of Christ, and he replies with a question they haven’t fully considered: “Have you been changed by grace?”

This is a common misconception about Evangelical Christianity. Having been LDS, I recall thinking the Christian model of salvation was very 2-dimensional. Having passed through the veil so to speak, to the other side, I see now that Christianity is not what Brad portrays it to be.

In fact, as an Evangelical, my day to day lifestyle is not so different from how I lived as a Mormon. What has changed is my motivation for living the way I do: before, I was trying to earn heaven, and now I’m learning it. I was obeying from a place of condemnation, but now it’s from a place of acceptance. Before it was about fear, now it’s about appreciation. When I embraced Brad Wilcox’s grace, I found that I fit in with Evangelicals much more than my fellow Latter-day Saints. So in answer to his unconsidered question, here is my unexpected answer: yes, the grace of Christ is changing me.

As a Latter-day Saint, I scoffed at the idea that we were created for God’s glory alone. As I mentioned previously, it seemed 2-dimensional. I thought those who were “saved” would have no motivation to be better spouses, parents, employees, and disciples. I assumed as Brad stated, that Christians believed “God required nothing of [them]”. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, God’s abundant grace motivates Christians to improve and give their lives to Jesus.

He goes on to explain that Latter-day Saints can sometimes view God’s commandments as overbearing and say, “Gosh, none of the other Christians have to tithe. Gosh, none of the other Christians have to go on missions…” Actually, we do. To set the record straight, “other Christians” do understand the importance of obedience.

I was shocked the first time tithing was discussed at my Protestant church. I thought I had gotten away from all that! My pastor explained that we don’t pay tithing to get into heaven, but because we’re free. As a Latter-day Saint, my perception was that Christians viewed grace as a license to sin. I see now that grace is better described as insurance, covering us in case we sin.

In his speech, Brad Wilcox mentions several people who don’t understand grace: there are those who are giving up on the LDS church because they are tired of falling short, young men and women who graduate from high school and slip up time and again and think it’s over, return missionaries who slip back into bad habits and break temple covenants and give up on hope, and married couples who go through divorce.

He chides anyone who thinks there are only two options: perfection, or giving up. He does not seem concerned that such a huge swath of Latter-day Saints are ignorant about grace, even after admitting he used to picture himself begging to be let into heaven after falling short by two points. My idea of grace was not dissimilar to his. Ironically, he belittles Christians for having the same view of grace he has now, while turning a blind eye to Latter-day Saints who hold an opposing view, as if it were a coincidence.

However, these views against grace are not a coincidence, but a byproduct. My diagnosis is that Brad Wilcox understands grace, but he doesn’t understand Mormonism.

After all, Alma 5:28-29 in The Book of Mormon says if we are not stripped of pride and envy we are not prepared to meet God, nor do we have eternal life. Where’s the grace in that? Doctrine and Covenants 82:7 says if we sin our former sins return to us. Where’s the grace in that? Moroni 8:14 states that should someone die while thinking children need baptism, his destination is hell. Where’s the grace in that? Alma 11:37 says that Jesus cannot save us in our sins. My friends, there is no grace in a religion that says we must amputate all sin from our lives before Jesus can save us.

Mr. Wilcox conveniently leaves out covenants in his speech, which form the foundation of eternal life in Mormonism. According to LDS doctrine, covenants like baptism and temple sealings are required to enter the Celestial Kingdom. These covenants are two-way promises where God gives us eternal life if we keep our end of the bargain. The temple covenants include keeping the commandments, so a Latter-day Saint who fails by 2 points on judgment day will have no right to plead for grace. In Mormonism, grace is not enough.

I do love Brad Wilcox’s speech. I would not be where I am today without it. That said, I call upon him to repent for his false witness against Evangelical Christians and I pray he will see the error in defending an organization that tramples the grace of God. I can say from experience that coming into Protestant Christianity from Mormonism is like “…paying a mortgage instead of rent, making deposits in a savings account instead of paying off debt…”, it’s the difference between being a servant of your own free will, and being a slave.

mercy-and-grace-heat-map

About the Author
Michael Flournoy served a two-year mission for the LDS Church where he helped organize three Mormon/Evangelical dialogues and has participated in debate at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Born into Mormonism, Mr. Flournoy converted to Evangelical Christianity in 2016.