A Christian Pastor Reviews "When Church is Hard" by Tyler Johnson

 

    I recently stopped by the local Deseret bookstore where I live in Logan, Utah. Even though I am a Christian pastor, I am constantly reading and studying LDS material so that I can better understand the theology and culture of the church. Other than that I’m just a book nerd in general (I have a serious problem). On this particular trip to the DB, a book caught my attention: When Church is Hard by Tyler Johnson. So I forked out $18.99 plus tax and then explained to my wife that it would be the last book that I buy for a while (do you think she bought it :). While there is some good information in the book, there are some things about it that grieved me, so I felt compelled to review it from a pastor’s perspective. Let’s dive in. 

The Winds Are Changing 

    There are two audiences that Johnson is aiming for in this work, those who have been hurt by the church and left, and those who are hanging on by a thread either because of doubt or church hurt. But before I get into the content of When Church is Hard, I just want to take a moment to point out that I think it says a lot about the current climate of the LDS church to even publish a book title like this. Not only did Deseret publish this book but it was front and center as I walked into the store (it caught my attention, didn’t it). It reminds me of a novelty item that my grandmother kept out in her yard. It was a big rock with a sign sitting on top of it that said, “This is a weather rock. If it’s wet, it’s raining outside. If there is snow on it, it’s snowing. If it’s hot to the touch, it’s hot outside. If it’s cold to the touch, it’s cold outside.” The humor was facetious, but the point was clear, you don’t need a weather rock to determine what the weather is doing. This book seems like a weather rock to me, pointing to the obvious problem of a mass exodus of people from the LDS church (mostly younger people). Johnson admits this in the opening chapter. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, specifically, is no longer holding sway over its members in the way that it once did.” This is why Johnson writes to try and convince those who are on the fence to stay in the church. Let’s get into the content. 

The Pros 

    Giving credit where it’s due, I found Dr. Johnson very readable and engaging. I also appreciate the work that he does in the field of oncology. On a personal level, it took me about 5 minutes to realize that Mr. Johnson is very well-read. I automatically feel a certain level of respect and camaraderie with someone when I discover this fact about them. I enjoyed the early chapters of the book the most simply because he gave some really good data and insights on issues that affect organized religion accross the board. The truth is that we live in a TikTok world where everything must be flashy and last no longer than 90 seconds or people lose interest. On a practical level, this can make it difficult for churches of any stripe considering that a church service is going to require a certain level of listening and literary skills. It also means that people may have to go a whole hour or two without being able to check social media (Oh the agony!). 

    Our society is also quickly losing any sense of the sacred, and unfortunately, even many churches seem to be falling into the pit of consumerism. I haven’t checked the numbers lately but I think that it’s safe to say that most if not all mainline denominations in the U.S. are shrinking, while certain individual churches are flourishing. It is precisely for all of these reasons that a church can be small, and yet healthy. Or a church can be large and sick. The question is, what kind of spiritual food is being served, sheep food or goat food? Charles Spurgeon once said that he feared a day was coming in which, “instead of pastors feeding the sheep, we would be left with clowns entertaining the goats.” Attracting an audience isn’t necessarily the sign of a healthy church. Last year the church accross the street from my in-law’s house in Mississippi caught on fire when it was struck by lighting. The cell phone video that my Mother-in-law recorded of the incident made national news. That church had never had so many spectators, but it certainly wasn’t an indication of the health of the church. I didn’t mean to get off on a tangent here, I said all of this to say I think that people are leaving the LDS church in droves because the church is sick and not simply because of all of the cultural phenomena. I actually think that Johnson highlights this point even as he tries to deny it. Let’s examine his arguments. 

No Control like Damage Control

    There was a survey conducted in 2023 that determined that the top three reasons that people leave the LDS church are; 1. History related to Joseph Smith, 2. The Book of Mormon, 3. Race issues in the church. So it comes as no surprise that in a book geared towards keeping people from leaving the LDS church, these issues would be dealt with (I think that Johnson references this survey in the footnotes, although he never mentions why). Johnson never dealt with the problems of the Book of Mormon (i.e. zero ancient manuscripts to verify its validity, not one shred of archaeological evidence to prove the Lamanites, Nephites, or Jaredites ever existed, contradictions, anachronisms, massive sections of the BOM directly plagiarized from the KJV, etc.), but he does deal with some of the negative history of Joseph Smith and the racism within the church. 

    To Johnson’s credit, he admits that; 

    “Joseph Smith married many women, that some of those women were only teenagers, that some of the women were already married to other men, that most of the marriages were at least initially hidden from Emma, and that at least some of the marriages appear to have been physically consummated (though evidence suggests that was at least mostly not the case with sealings to married women, and the Joseph never fathered a child with any of his polygamous wives). Because these relationships were conducted in such privacy, much remains unknown about them. Even so, just the rough outline, at least on its surface, seems deeply troubling.”

    I have lost count of how many lifelong Latter-day Saints that I have talked to that don’t know this about Smith. And every time that I mention it, the LDS want to write me off as a rabid anti-Mormon. I appreciate Johnson for bringing this out, although I will say that I think that the internet has forced the church’s hand. They have lost their echo chamber as this information is so easy to find. However, I was staggered that Johnson didn’t say another word about it. He just went on to the next subject. Wait a second, the founding prophet of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, married over 30 women, many of them teenagers (at least one as young as 14, Johnson left that out), at least 11 of them were married to other men when Smith married them, and at least eight of them he married before Emma found out about it, and we’re just going to act like it’s not a big deal? Move along folks, nothing to see here. Not only that, Joseph Smith actually had the gall to tell Emma that God said to him that if she didn’t forgive him and accept these new wives she would be destroyed (D & C 132:52-54).  

    In what universe is this ok? To my LDS readers, is this the man that you’re going to trust your eternal soul to? This is the “prophet” that you’re going to trust the souls of your family with? Do you trust this man when he criticizes and changes the Bible? Do you trust him when he says that the church and the gospel of Christ were essentially lost on the earth and God commissioned him to restore it? This man was a pedophile, a deceiver, and a serial adulterer, and Johnson just mentioned it in passing and moved on to something else. See, this is the part where everyone who’s not drinking the Kool-Aid sees it for what it is. No wonder people are leaving the church in droves. Nobody in leadership has the answers to these obvious problems. Like Johnson, they just go on damage control. 

    Johnson went on to mention the obvious history of racism in the church, as blacks weren’t allowed to receive the priesthood or enter the temples until 1978 (everyone outside of the echo chamber knows they caved because of the pressure of the civil rights movement). However, I found it staggering that right after Johnson mentions Smith’s sex romps, he tries to distance him from racism, as if Smith would be above that. Johnson stated, “The revelation of 1978 was not a new policy but instead a restoration of the policy Joseph Smith had implemented.” This assertion is very debatable, but even if it’s true, it still raises hard questions to which Johnson and the church have no answers. This brings me to my next point. 

Questions with No Answers

    After briefly (as in less than a page and a half) mentioning Smith’s sexcapades and the church’s historical racism, Johnson proceeds to try to deal with the obvious question that all thinking people are asking at this point; if the prophets that supposedly speak for God can get it so wrong, then how can the church be true? As you can probably guess, it was a dumpster fire. Johnson begins by saying; 

    “It’s one thing to note that these teachings have changed, but the larger point here is to acknowledge that some Church teachings from previous eras were wrong and harmful- a truth we can now recognize precisely because those old teachings have been superseded by greater light and further revelation.”

    This is smooth as silk right here folks. In the same sentence, Johnson calls these teachings from a previous era (polygamy and racist policies) “wrong and harmful”, and then proceeds to say that these teachings have been “superseded by greater light and further revelation.” The implication is that the previous revelations that were “wrong” were also given by light and revelation from God and have just been outdated and superseded by greater light and revelation. This is what George Orwell called “doublethink.” He said, “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” Johnson’s doublethink reveals a terrifying proposition, even when the prophets are wrong, they are right. 

    If there was any doubt about this, Johnson removes the doubt by what he says in the following pages, “The imperfections of prophets must therefore draw us back to the necessity of the Atonement, grace, and love of Jesus.” I almost spit my decaf out when I read this statement. Wait, what? So the imperfect teachings of the prophets should drive Latter-day Saints back to other teachings that were also given and taught by imperfect prophets. Does the reader see a problem here? Again, even when the prophets are wrong, they are right. No wonder people are leaving the church in droves, there isn’t any solid foundation of truth. The LDS church is built upon a foundation of sand. 

    This point is further driven home by what Johnson says about LGBT issues. He never condemns the LGBT lifestyle, nor does he condone it. Instead, he heavily implies that just like the prophets changed their mind about blacks in the priesthood, they could also change their minds about the LGBT. What utter confusion. What was a sin yesterday, could be accepted and celebrated tomorrow and vice versa. And I’m just going to call it, I give the LDS church 5-10 years before they figure out a way to seal gay weddings in the temple. But when they do, I can still pick up my Bible, written by the true Prophets and Apostles and it will still say that homosexuality is an abomination unto God. Johnson made it sound like the greatest hope for the LGBT is that the prophets change their mind about it being sinful. I want to say that the greatest hope for any sinner is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for sinners. The beauty of the gospel is not that Christ affirms us in our sin, but that He saves us from our sin! 

    Johnson repeatedly calls the prophets imperfect, and therefore they prophesy imperfectly. But this wasn’t true of the Biblical Prophets and Apostles. Deuteronomy 18:20 says, “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.” Speaking for God is a very serious thing. To speak lies in the name of God is an offense punishable by death and yet the LDS church says, well nobody is perfect, no big deal. What makes someone a false prophet, but prophesying false things in the name of God? 

    Johnson is a smart guy, and he clearly recognizes the screaming implications of these issues that I have raised. He brings all of this full circle when he says; 

    “This brings us back to those insistent questions: if living means evolving, how can the Church be both true and evolving? If the Church changes its stance on important issues, then what makes it any truer than any other church or well-meaning organization?”

    See, Johnson gets it. How can the church be true (something settled and objective) and also be evolving (fluid and changing)? This is the million-dollar question. This would be a perfect time for Johnson to hit a grand slam in the bottom of the ninth, considering the importance of this issue. I have told many of my LDS friends that if they could give me objective reasons to believe that Mormonism is true, then I would leave the Christian church and be the most dedicated Latter-day Saint that I can possibly be. But thus far, no one has been able to give me a single objective proof for Mormonism. Let’s see if Johnson can surprise me. He answers this question by saying, “Some parts of the answer to this question can be understood only within the most private chambers of an individual seeker’s heart.” Um, what? So all thinking people both inside and outside of the LDS church recognize a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction with the idea of the church being both true and evolving and Johnson says, well you just have to listen to your heart. But what about when a person’s heart is screaming that the church isn’t true? This is the most subjective, culty answer imaginable.  

    Johnson gives four reasons why he thinks the church is true; I will save the first one until last for commentary’s sake.  

    4.  “An environment, a set of precepts, and access to the power of grace that transform us into men and women of Christ.” (yeah, because other churches don’t have that) 

    3. “Access to unique authority because of the restored priesthood and priesthood keys” (prove it) 

    2. “Covenant communities where we strive to become like Jesus while lifting and building the Saints who surround us.” (yeah, because other churches don’t have that) 

    1. “A soaring theology distinguished by sometimes subtle and sometimes radical departures from creedal Christianity and that, when taken in its entirety, offers a grand and robust set of answers to modernity’s most pressing and existential answers.” 

    This last one really got me. “A soaring theology,” “robust answers,” We can’t even get a straight answer for how the church can be both true and evolving. We can’t even get answers as to how the prophets could have been speaking and acting on behalf of God when they barred blacks from the priesthood and the temples. We can’t even get an answer as to how Joseph Smith could have been both a true prophet of God and a nympho at the same time. Are you kidding me? And the church wonders why the church is experiencing a mass exodus. They have absolutely no answers to these important questions. However, according to Johnson, Latter-day Saints should embrace these blessings of uncertainty and confusion; 

    “By opening ourselves to questions, accepting ambiguity can be for us a powerful spiritual accelerant, reminding us that certainty can stunt spiritual growth and put blinders on our ability to take in full spiritual vistas.”

    Absolute goobly gock. Certainty about the foundations of what you believe is a powerful spiritual accelerant. Just ask the Apostles, who ran scared on crucifixion day and yet, were willing to be tortured and martyred after they saw the risen Christ. 

Faith Means to Let Your Brains Fall Out and Just Love People and Stuff

    This blog review has already gotten longer than I prefer. I will wrap it up with this section. Johnson closes the book by repeatedly downplaying the importance of intellectual inquiry into the LDS faith. I mean, repeatedly. There are so many block quotes on this issue that I would have to nearly double the size of this blog to squeeze them all in. But let’s look at a few, and then have some final words.  

    “Faith is not an academic or purely cognitive exercise. Ultimately though epistemological confidence matters, such confidence is a necessary means, but not an end. We are not here on earth attempting to procure sufficient confidence in a list of certain truth claims. Rather, the truth-claims matter because prophets and scriptures are meant to draw our eyes to God, and as we come to know God, that closeness changes who we are.” 

    I can’t even pretend to completely understand this word salad. Our confidence in truth claims matters, but not really. Truth claims only really matter because it’s the prophets that are saying them. And by their truth claims that we can’t vet, and that could be wrong and be completely reversed in a few years by new decrees from new prophets, they draw us closer to God and stuff. Let’s proceed. 

    “We Should likewise take care to ensure that intellectual queries, no matter how honest or important, do not eclipse the real work of discipleship, which is more about action; loving God, and loving our fellow humans; than it is about anything strictly intellectual.”

    In other words, stop asking those pesky questions. Just trust us. Keep your heads down and be good Latter-day Saints and everything will be ok. Now who wants some cookies and Kool-Aid? What Johnson is ignoring is that statements like this are theological, which means that they require theological answers. Even statements like “love God” raise questions that require answers. Who is God? What is He like? What does He require of us? What does it mean to love God? What is love for that matter? Johnson is essentially saying don’t think, just do. Johnson continues; 

    “Faith is not ultimately about accepting cognitive premises. Rather, it is the love that kept the prodigal son’s father eagerly scanning the horizon and the fire that burned under the father’s feet as he ran to embrace his son (see Luke 15:11-32).” 

    Don’t think, just love. At this point I can’t help but wonder what Dr. Johnson has against the intellectual, especially considering that he’s a cancer doctor and a Stanford professor! He deals with objective cognitive premises every day of his life. Christ Himself told us to love the Lord with all of our mind (Mark 12:30). 

    It’s also ironic that Johnson uses the illustration of the prodigal son considering that Jesus was using this parable to teach theological truth. Christ was speaking to a crowd which included the Pharisees. The Father represents God welcoming sinners who come to Him in repentance and faith. But something that is often missed is that the elder brother was upset because this sinful brother had come home. The elder brother represented the Pharisees, a point that they would have easily recognized. Jesus was saying that the prodigal son was better off than they were because even though he left for the far country of sin, he came to the Father in repentance. The elder brother was in the far country of sin even in his father’s house. But I guess I’m thinking too much. Ok, two more quotes and I’m done, I promise. 

    “I hope that our doubts about the veracity of this or that historical or theological claim will eventually fade, not so much because we have arrived at a state of unquestioning certainty--which is often impossible and sometimes undesirable--but instead because the absolute certainty of truth-claims fades in significance when seen against the pressing need to feed the hungry, comfort the sad, welcome the refugee, and bind up the wounds of the hurting.” 

    Don’t worry about the negative or confusing historical or theological claims that the LDS church has no answers for. Just do stuff. Here is what Johnson misses with this type of epistemology. The sincerity of our faith doesn’t matter if the object of our faith is false. Our faith will never be greater than the object of our faith. So this brings us right back to square one, are the teachings of the LDS church based in reality,? Are they true? This is ground zero. The top three reasons why people are leaving the church are because they can’t get straight answers to questions that question the validity of the LDS faith. It’s as simple as that. Dr. Johnson wrote a whole book trying to address the problems without answering the questions. Instead, he suggests that people should stop asking the questions. 

    For the grand finale, the crescendo, the climax, and the encore, Johnson closes the final chapter with these words; “Believing is fired not by intellectual inquiry, but by belonging and becoming beloved…believing is simply that: love.”

    I think that Hallmark should sue Johnson for plagiarism. Seriously though, this whole book is designed to give people reasons to stay in the church, but in the end, all the reader is left with are the same old questions without answers, empty platitudes, smart-shaming, and Hallmarky cliches. This is why the LDS church should have a bumper sticker that says, “intense belief in nothing, that could change tomorrow” 

Closing Thoughts

    I hope that my motives of love and concern aren’t overshadowed by my spiritual gift of sarcasm. I just can’t stand to see people in spiritual bondage because they have been repeatedly lied to. The truth is that church can be hard because that church is standing upon the truth of the word of God and the people in the pews don’t want to hear it. However, church can also be hard because that particular church is led by false prophets who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Church can be hard because they are consistently inconsistent in their doctrine and have no answers to the hard questions. Church can be hard because the leadership sweeps their sin under the rug and expects the members to do the same. Church can be hard because they have a false gospel that adds works to the finished work of Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. I would say that the LDS church is hard precisely for all of the reasons except for the first one.

    Sadly, a recent survey shows that nearly 70% of people that leave the LDS church to get out of church completely. To those Latter-day Saints who are struggling, you have options. You can have Jesus without Joseph. You can have pastors who teach you, without having so-called prophets that try to control the way that you live and think. You can have certainty in the unchanging truth of God’s Word as found in the Bible. You can have a church family without all of the comrades. You can have freedom and forgiveness in Christ alone without the ordinances and authority of the LDS church.

    So much more could be said. I have written extensively on all of these issues. Please check out some of my other blog articles. And if I can help you in any way, please reach out to me. 

    In His Service, Pastor Vaughan, Ephesians 2:8-9  

Notes

1. Tyler Johnson, When Church is Hard (Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, UT, 2024)

2. Jana Riess (8 March 2024). "Who is leaving the LDS Church? Eight key survey findings". The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah. Religion News Service. Archived from the original on 9 March 2024 

3.  George Orwell, 1984 (Signet Classics, 1961)

The Great Apostasy of the "Great Apostasy"; Mormonism's Flawed Foundation

    This is the final part of a two-part blog series. You can read part one here

     The word “apostasy” is never used in any English translation of the Bible. Although the Greek word “apostasia”(ἀποστασία) is used twice. It’s translated as “forsake” in Acts 21:21, and “away” in II Thessalonians 2:3. So even though the word “apostasy” isn’t found in the Bible, the doctrine can be found in a few texts that we will dissect. Apostasy can be defined as “the abandonment or renunciation of one’s religious faith or moral allegiance.” Apostasy in the Christian sense can exist on an individual, local church, or denominational level. Here is the key to understanding Biblical apostasy and where the LDS church gets it wrong. Apostasy is the abandonment of a truth standard, not the loss of a truth standard. It’s logically impossible that apostasy could be the loss of a truth standard because, without the truth standard, there could be no way to gauge the apostasy. Think about it like this; there are very clear and strict laws against murder in the U.S. and yet the CDC reported nearly 25,000 homicides nationwide in 2022.” This is a form of apostasy because thousands of people abandoned the law in order to commit murder. No one would argue that the problem is with the law itself, but with those that broke the law. Joseph Smith’s logic would argue that the law itself had become lost or corrupted and that was the reason for all of these murders, and that he had been commissioned to rewrite the law. This is unfactual and illogical, it also doesn’t fit the definition of apostasy, but this is exactly what Smith has done with Christianity. 

What Joseph Smith taught about the Christian church wasn’t an apostasy, but an extinction of the very things that make the Christian church, the Christian church. Talmage seems to have recognized this distinction but chose to double down in support of his prophet anyway. He stated, “Let it be repeated that apostasy from the Church is insignificant as compared with the apostasy of the Church as an institution.” Talmage is committing intellectual treason with this quote. He is correct when he states that many people have apostatized from the church (the abandonment of a truth standard). However, when he claims that the church itself apostatized as an institution, he is no longer speaking of an apostasy, but an extinction. Unless he wants to wrestle with the question of which truth standard the church abandoned, and I don’t think he wanted to go there (hint: it’s the Bible, which is where will go to now). 

There are only a handful of texts in the New Testament that speak to the idea of an apostasy. One of them is I Timothy 4:1-3- “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.” First of all, I believe that most of the time it’s a gross oversimplification to say that one verse destroys an entire belief system. But in this case, I believe that one word in this text destroys the foundation of Mormonism; the word “some.” This text states that some will depart from the faith, but not all. Contrast this with Joseph Smith stating that “all their creeds were an abomination” or “those professors were all corrupt.” How does some departing from the faith line up with what Talmage said about the church being “literally driven from the earth?”, or what McConkie said about apostasy being universal? 

Notice the appeal to a truth standard that Paul uses throughout this text. “In the latter times some with depart from the faith.” What is the faith? It’s the Christian faith that Jude said was “once delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3). The implication is that there would never be a need to revise or refine it because the message of the Christian faith had been perfectly delivered by the Apostles through the writings of the New Testament (more on this later). Paul doesn’t say that the Christian faith would be lost, but that some would depart from it. This is not what Smith taught. 

 “Giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” Instead of surrendering to the Holy Spirit, people will give heed to Satanic spirits. Instead of surrendering to the doctrines of Christ as found in the Word of God, people will give heed to false doctrines and false teachers. This in no way implies that the Holy Spirit went into hiding or that the Word of God was lost prior to Joseph Smith, but that people departed from these things.

“Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” Lies and hypocrisy cannot exist without the presence of a truth standard. A lie is the opposite of truth. It is a violation of the truth. Hypocrisy is the appearance of adhering to a truth standard, while actually not adhering to it. A conscience is the God-given moral compass that tells us right from wrong. But a conscience separated from an objective standard of moral truth is nothing but a subjective opinion. A seared conscience is dead to the truth. Paul isn’t even hinting at the idea that the truth of God’s word would be lost, but that people in their sinfulness would depart from it. 

“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.” Why is wrong to forbid someone to marry? It’s because the truth standard of God’s word says, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.” (Hebrews 13:4). “Whose findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.” (Proverbs 18:22). What’s wrong with commanding someone to abstain from meats? It’s because the truth of the Word of God allows the eating of meat. 

Paul just assumes that even in the latter times there would be the existence of a truth standard, the Word of God. Even in this same chapter, Paul repeatedly encourages Timothy to combat false doctrine with God’s Word. “If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.” (I Timothy 4:6). “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” (I Timothy 4:13). “Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” (I Timothy 4:15-16). Again, when we read about the great apostasy according to Joseph Smith and compare it to the departing from the faith that Paul talked about, we know that one of these things is not like the other. 

Another text that is used to teach the doctrine of apostasy is II Thessalonians 2:1-3- “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 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.” Paul states that the second coming of Christ will not take place until after there is a great falling away from the faith. Not to belabor the point, but this language again assumes a truth standard that is departed from and not destroyed. In verse 12 of this same chapter, Paul says that those who reject the faith of Christ will be “damned” because they “believed not the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” How can they be damned for rejecting a truth standard that doesn’t exist because it has been corrupted into oblivion?  

The final text that typically gets used on the subject of apostasy is II Timothy 3:1-7- “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.” To be technical, the term “last days” refers to the time between the ascension of Christ and His second coming. Paul was already living in the last days when he wrote this epistle. Wickedness has always been a world staple, but what is the solution? Paul answers that very question later in this chapter. “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (II Timothy 3:14-17). The solution to the perilous times of the last days is to take heed to the God-breathed Scriptures. This would be impossible if, at any time throughout the period of the last days, the truths of God’s Word had been lost. 

So What Exactly Did the Church Lose?

It has been really hard to get a straight answer from most of the LDS that I have asked this question. Maybe they honestly don’t know. Maybe it’s difficult to articulate, or maybe it’s just easier to defend vague assertions over specific realities. However, in my research and reading of LDS authorities, I found that everything the LDS church claims was lost from the Christian church can be placed into one of four categories. They are Scriptural reliability, Apostolic authority, priesthood succession, and the gospel message. As Christian pastors, this makes Dave and I’s mission really simple. Disprove these four claims and it’s game over. That’s exactly what we intend to do throughout this book. 

Should we succeed in doing this, it will reveal an incredible irony. If the standard of God’s Word in the Bible hasn’t been corrupted, if the gospel message was never lost, if Apostolic authority and priesthood succession are still intact, then that means that Joseph Smith didn’t restore the truth, he rejected it. This makes Smith and the LDS church the apostates for abandoning the truth standard and principles of Christianity (I say this with nothing but love and concern in my heart). This means that Smith and the LDS prophets are the false prophets that Christ warned us about, who come in sheep’s clothing but are actually ravening wolves (Matthew 7:15). It means that the LDS church is guilty of preaching a false gospel that Paul warned us about in Galatians 1:8 (ironically warning us not to believe it, even it is delivered by an angel). It means that the teachings of the LDS church are some of the “fables” the people turn to in rejection of the truth (II Timothy 4:4). Ultimately it means that the teaching of “the great apostasy” is in fact, great apostasy.

Before I end this chapter, I thought that I would give Elder Talmage the final word; 

“If the alleged apostasy of the primitive church was not a reality, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not the divine institution its name proclaims.”

I couldn’t agree more.

More to come...

Notes

1. James Talmage, The Great Apostasy (Salt Lake City, Utah, 1909)

2. Oxford English Dictionary

3. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

The Church vs. "The One True Church" of the LDS

 

In 2015 I had the privilege of flying to Israel and touring the holy land with a group of about 40 pastors. The whole trip was overwhelming to me. To be able to see ancient sites and cities with my own eyes that I had read about in the Bible was an experience that I will never forget. One thing that really stuck out to me as the tour went on was just how much Jesus used the imagery of the landscape to drive home the point of the particular sermon that He was preaching. It’s amazing that even 2,000 years after Christ walked the earth we can still see and understand exactly why Christ preached a particular sermon in a particular place. This is especially true of the ancient ruins in Cesarea Phillipi (Banias). 

Cesarea Phillipi is located in Northern Israel at the foot of Mt. Hermon. In Jesus’ day, this area was devoted to the worship of several Greek gods. On this one hillside was the Temple of Zeus, the court of Pan and the Nymphs, the Nemesis Courtyard, and the Temple Tomb of the Goats. All of these pagan worship sites were bastions of unspeakable debauchery, such as child sacrifice. However, one of the most notable features in Cesarea Phillippi was a cave-like opening appearing in the shape of a giant gate that had been carved into the side of the mountain. This “gate” was located right next to where these temples stood. It was said that the god, Pan, had access to go back and forth from the netherworld to these temples and the nearby town through this gate. By now the reader might have already guessed that this portal is known as the gates of hell (hades). It was in this location that Christ made His famous statement, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18) 

This is one of the more debated verses of Scripture. There have been quite a few heresies and false teachings that have been spawned by ripping this verse from its context. I think one of the main reasons for the confusion is that we read this text through Western eyes, whereas Jesus was referencing a real place in real-time. When Christ made this statement, He was most likely standing on a hillside overlooking the site of the gates of hell and these pagan temples. He could not have pointed to one without pointing to the others. Christ used this opportunity to point to these pagan temples and say, “Upon this rock will I build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” We know that the gates of hell refer to a real place carved into the side of Mt. Hermon. We have no reason to believe that the “rock” that Jesus is referring to in the same sentence is anything other than the mountain where these pagan temples were located. The rhetorical language was both powerful and clear; Christ and His church would triumph over all of these false gods and their temples. 

The Gates of Hell, Cesarea Phillipi (Banias)

    What a powerful statement concerning the church of Christ! The language that Christ uses presents the idea of the church triumphantly charging the gates of hell (for gates are built for defense, not offense). But this statement from Christ goes far beyond just those false gods of the Greeks. Satan is ultimately the one behind all false religion and debauchery. According to Christ, neither Satan, sin, false religion, persecution, death, or even the forces of hell shall be able to stand against the church! I can’t even begin to describe what a powerful moment it was for me to stand on that hillside with those pastors. The gates of hell are still just as visible today as they were in Jesus’ day, but the temples and shrines are all in ruins. The church is still marching triumphantly through this world, even though those pagan temples have been destroyed! 

How can we square what Jesus said about the church triumphantly charging the gates of hell with what Joseph Smith said in his first vision about the abomination and loss of the church on the earth? Christ says in no uncertain terms that the gates of hell won’t stand against my church. Joseph Smith essentially said that in fact, the gates of hell did prevail over Christ’s church. My argument is that what Christ said and what Joseph said can’t be reconciled. Either Jesus or Joseph was lying (spoiler alert; it wasn’t Jesus). I can’t overemphasize the importance of this issue, considering that the foundation of Mormonism is in the two central elements of Smith’s first vision, which are the great apostasy of the church and the need for restoration. This raises some key questions that must be answered. What exactly is the great apostasy? What did the church lose that needed to be restored? What is the church for that matter? The answers to these questions are the hinges upon which the door of truth swings concerning the claims of the first vision. This issue is so vital that in the preface to the 1993 printing of The Great Apostasy by Elder James Talmage, the publishers stated;

“If there had not been a general falling away or apostasy from the faith of the original primitive Christian church, then theoretically, there would be no need for Mormonism as a distinct religious faith today. Mormonism’s very existence, therefore, is dependent on the belief that there was an apostasy from primitive Christianity.”

Talmage also stated in his original 1909 preface; 

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims the restoration of the Gospel, and the re-establishment of the Church as of old, in this, the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. Such restoration and re-establishment, with the modern bestowal of the Holy Priesthood, would be unnecessary and indeed impossible had the Church of Christ continued among men with unbroken succession of Priesthood and power, since the meridian of time.”

I will be citing Talmage a lot in this chapter because he has written so extensively on the subject of the great apostasy. In his preface, Talmage has already given me a wonderful deductive argument to work with. It goes like this; Joseph Smith claimed the church was lost due to the great apostasy and needed to be restored. The church was never lost. Therefore, Mormonism is a sham. This is the central thesis of this chapter as I attempt to answer Smith’s claims. 

The Church Defined

Before I charge the gate of whether or not the church was lost, it just makes sense to define what the church is. The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklēsia, which means the called out ones, or the called out assembly. Mounce writes;

  “The church is the called out ones of God…Paul never thinks of the church as a physical structure but as a dedicated group of disciples of Jesus Christ (Phlm 2, Col. 4:15), whom he has purchased with his own blood (Rev. 5:9). The Apostle sees the church as a new race, which he lists it alongside Jew and Greeks in I Cor. 10:32; it is sufficiently equipped with leadership and gifts to fulfill God’s purposes on earth (12:28); and it is the avenue through which the wisdom of God is made known.”

There are two main aspects of the New Testament church, the personal aspect and the local aspect. On a personal level, those who have been saved by grace through faith in Christ are the church. On the day of Pentecost following the ascension of Christ, when the New Testament church was officially born, the Scripture says, “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47). I Corinthians 12:12-13 says, “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” The Baptism of the Spirit is a one-time event in the life of a Christian that takes place the moment that a person puts their faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:13). So on a personal level, the church of Christ is the saved in Christ. As Christians, we are the body of Christ. In this sense, the church isn’t so much an organization as it is an organism. We are to be the hands, feet, mouth, and heart of Christ upon the earth (I Corinthians 12). Nobody outside of Christ belongs to His church, and nobody in Christ is outside of His church. 

This concept is sometimes called the invisible church. This term makes me nervous because of the way that some people abuse it. I have asked certain people in the past where their home church is, to which they replied, “I don’t go to church, I am the church. I belong to the invisible church.” The problem with this kind of mentality is that it often leads to invisible church attendance, invisible giving, invisible worship, invisible effort, invisible evangelism, etc. The Lord never meant for it to be this way. This brings us to our next point, the importance of the local aspect of the church. 

The local church can be defined as a local body of believers, whose members have been saved, baptized, have qualified leaders (bishops and deacons, I Timothy 3), under the authority of God’s Word (II Timothy 3:14-4:4), with the power to enact church discipline (Matthew 5:18-20) and charity (I Timothy 5:3-9), for the purpose of glorifying Christ, making disciples and fulfilling the great commission (Matthew 28:19). Nowhere in the New Testament do we find a prescriptive form of church government in which there is a hierarchy of leadership outside of the local church. The early churches were autonomous. This local, autonomous aspect of the church is seen throughout the New Testament. Many times the local aspect is seen in lock-step with the personal aspect. For example, when Paul was writing to the church at Corinth, he opened his epistle by writing, “Unto the church of God (personal) which is at Corinth (local), to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours” (I Corinthians 1:2, emphasis mine). “And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church (personal) in thy house (local).” (Philemon 1:2, emphasis mine). “Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians (local) which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ (personal): Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (I Thessalonians 1:1, emphasis mine). 

This certainly hasn’t been an exhaustive study of the church. However, understanding and recognizing these categories of personal and local aspects of the church really changes the game. Let’s discuss the possibilities these two categories bring to the table. First, it means that it is possible for someone to be a member of a local church and not even be saved. They could just be playing the game and looking the part. Church membership alone doesn’t make someone a Christian. Many people have died and gone to hell with their names on a church roll, and in good standing. 

Another possibility is that an organization that claims to be a church, isn't a church at all in the eyes of God, or according to biblical principles. They might not have qualified church leadership. They might not be operating under the authority of the Word of God. Just because a group or organization claims to be a church doesn’t mean they belong to Christ. Jesus commanded John to write to the church at Ephesus with a warning that He would remove their candlestick if they didn’t repent. Christ also commanded John to write to the church of the Laodiceans. In that letter, Christ used rhetorical language to show that this lukewarm church had essentially locked Christ outside the doors of His own church. What this means is that a so-called church can be operating without Christ being within a hundred miles of what they are doing. Like a chicken with its head cut off, there may be some movement, but it’s separated from the head. Sadly, there are also “churches” out there that are operating under the power of Satan in order to deceive (II Corinthians 11:13-15). This means that certain local churches can become apostate, but the church can still march on triumphantly. 

Before moving on, let’s talk about one of the chief problems that the personal and local aspects of the church present to the idea of a great apostasy as taught by the LDS church. For the great apostasy to have occurred as Joseph Smith taught, the earth would have to be completely void of any Christians or good local churches. Would any of my LDS friends be willing to say that out loud? Does anybody actually believe that when Joseph Smith showed up on the scene in the 1800s that all Christians and good local churches were extinct? Make no mistake about it, this is what the LDS church has historically taught. Elder Talmage wrote; 

“It is evident that the Church was literally driven from the earth; in the first ten centuries immediately following the ministry of Christ the authority of the Holy Priesthood was lost from among men, and no human power could restore it.” 

I can hear my LDS friends screaming, “But the Bible talks about a great apostasy!” Yes, it does. But what does that mean? Let’s take a look at what the Bible teaches about apostasy, what it is, and what it isn’t. In an incredible twist of irony, the Bible actually exposes groups like the LDS church as being a part of this apostasy, and not the solution to it. 

More to come...

Notes

1. I understand that the phrase “this rock” is somewhat ambiguous. Christ was clearly pointing at something and we weren’t there to see what it was. I recognize that the “rock” could be Christ as He is the cornerstone of the church. It could also be Peter and the Apostles as they were foundational to the church (as the living stones in I Peter 2:4, not as Peter being the pope). These interpretations are faithful to the whole of Scripture. Regardless of the exact interpretation, the outcome is the same, a glorious and triumphant church. 

2. 1993 preface of The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage (Seagull Books, Salt Lake City, Utah)

3. James Talmage, The Great Apostasy (original preface, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1909)

4. William D. Mounce,  Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Academic, 2009)

5. Bishop, pastor, and elder speak of different aspects of the same office. Bishop means overseer. Pastor means shepherd. Elder carries the idea of a seasoned teacher. Therefore, these are not different offices.

6. James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith (Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, UT, 1984 reprint) 185.

No, Christians and Latter-Day Saints Do Not Worship the Same Christ

 This is part 3 of this blog series. You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 here.

The Biblical Christ

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father.” This is really where the rubber meets the road concerning the nature and person of Christ. What did the Nicaean bishops mean by this statement? Let’s walk through one section at a time and see whether this creed matches what the Bible teaches about Christ. 

“The only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages.” I think that this first statement is ground zero for where the LDS church gets it wrong concerning the nature of Christ. What does it mean for Christ to be the Son of God? We know what it means for man to sire a son, but does that apply to the Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ? The answer is a resounding “No.” We will almost certainly get into heresy when we start with man and try to reason our way up to God. In the Bible, there are certain anthropomorphisms and rhetorical statements that ascribe specific attributes to God so that humans might better understand Him. For example, Psalm 91:4 says that God “shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.” Is the point of this verse that God has wings and feathers, or is this just rhetorical language to show us that God will keep those who trust in Him safe? The latter is the obvious answer. What about Isaiah 66:1 when it says, “Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.” Does this mean that God literally has His feet propped up on the earth, or is the point that God is powerful beyond our comprehension? Again, the point is unmistakable. So when the Bible calls Christ the “Son of God”, does this mean that Heavenly Father impregnated Heavenly Mother, and that’s how Christ came into existence? Or is the term “Son of God” the best that human language can give us to describe the eternal relationship that the Father and Son have always enjoyed? The Bible clearly teaches the latter, which is also why the Nicaean bishops taught it. 

The Nicaean Creed makes it a point to call Christ the only Son of God who was “begotten.” Jesus is called the “only begotten Son of God” in several places in the New Testament (John 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, I John 4:9, etc.) The word “begotten” as it pertains to Christ is translated from the Greek word, monogenēs, which means “unique or one of a kind.” It does not mean firstborn. Monogenēs is also used to describe Isaac in Hebrews 11:7 when it says, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.” Isaac wasn’t the firstborn son of Abraham, Ishmael was. However, Isaac was unique or “begotten” because he was the child of God’s promise (see Galatians 4:21-31). This is why the Nicaean Creed says that Christ was “begotten from the Father before all ages.” Christ is the unique Son of God in that He shares both essence and eternity with God the Father. There has never been a time when the Father or Christ didn’t exist (or the Holy Spirit for that matter). This is another similarity between the Arian heresy and the LDS church, Arius taught that there was a time when Christ was not, and so does the LDS church. 

The LDS church teaches that Christ was the firstborn spirit child of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. The 1997 edition of Gospel Principles states in chapter 2 (“Our Heavenly Family”), “Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ (see D&C 93:21), so he is literally our elder brother (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 26).” It may not come as a shock to learn that the 2009 edition of Gospel Principles also completely removed that second sentence. However, as we have seen, the use of monogenēs presents a real problem for LDS doctrine because it won’t allow for the idea of Christ simply being the firstborn child of Heavenly Father. The Bible teaches that Christ is eternal, uncreated, and unborn. We will see this principle in the next section as we discuss the Trinity. 

God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. The Nicaean bishops made it clear that they believed that whatever God the Father is, Christ is. This sentence could be restated; The Father is God, Christ is God. The Father is Light, Christ is Light. The Father is true God, Christ is true God. Christ is unique, not made, of the same essence as the Father. This word “essence” (homoousion) caused more outrage than anything else in the Nicaean Creed. The reason is that it’s Trinitarian language. The Trinity is one of the most hated doctrines in Scripture because our finite minds can’t comprehend an infinite God. How can God be one in essence or being, and yet three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)? Logic says that God must be one or three, but He can’t be both. However, if we are going to let Scripture stand on its own, we must believe in a triune God. Let’s see what the Bible has to say about the Trinity. 

First, let me quickly address a popular strawman, that the word “trinity” isn’t found anywhere in the Bible. That’s a true statement, but it’s misleading, and here’s why. The word “missionary” isn’t found anywhere in the King James Version. I don’t think any of my LDS friends would try to argue that there are no missionaries found in the Bible. “Missionary” is a term that someone coined to explain the work and calling of someone like the Apostle Paul who went to foreign countries in order to spread the gospel and plant churches. In the same way, the term “trinity” was coined to explain the biblical teaching of one God manifested in three persons. Don’t get hung up on the terms, pay attention to the teaching. What does the Bible teach concerning the essence of God? Let’s look at that now. 

Trinitarian language is found throughout the Bible, even from the very beginning. Genesis 1:26 says,  “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Notice that God uses the plural pronouns “us” and “our” to describe Himself. Why would God use plural pronouns to describe Himself? In the very next verse, it says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27) Now this same God is referring to Himself with singular pronouns, “his” and “he.” This interchange of singular and plural pronouns to describe the same God can only make sense in a trinitarian framework. 

The Trinity is also seen in the use of the name “Jehovah” (Yahweh) in the Old Testament. The LDS church teaches that “Christ is Jehovah; they are one and the same person.” I would not argue that Christ is Jehovah in the Old Testament. Christ’s reference to Himself as the “I AM” of Exodus 3 in John 8:58 is sufficient alone to prove this point. However, there are instances in the Old Testament that God the Father and the Holy Spirit are also referred to as “Jehovah.” For example, Psalm 110:1 says, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Notice that the first “LORD” is in all caps. The English translators did this to show that this word was translated from the covenant name of Jehovah (Yahweh). The second “Lord” in this verse is not in all caps. In this case, it’s translated from the word “Adonai”, which means “master.” So Yahweh said unto Adonai, sit at my right hand. Jesus quoted this verse to the Pharisees in reference to Himself (Matt. 22:41-46). The point that Christ was making was that He was much more than a human king. For why would David call his son “Lord?” Hebrews 13:1 also gives commentary on Psalm 110:1 when it says, “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?” This leaves no doubt that in Psalm 110:1 Jehovah is God the Father and He said unto Christ to sit at His right hand, which is exactly where Christ is today (Acts 2:33-34, Hebrews 10:12). 

Jeremiah 31:33 says, “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Pay attention to the fact that this is a direct quote from Jehovah (“saith the LORD”). Hebrews 10:15-16 gives commentary on Jeremiah 31:33 and it attributes this verse as being given by the Holy Ghost. “Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them” So the Holy Spirit is referred to as Jehovah in Jeremiah 31:33. The Father is Jehovah, the Son is Jehovah and the Holy Spirit is Jehovah. The three persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share in the one essence of being of Jehovah, and yet the Father is not the Son, is not the Holy Spirit. There is no way to make heads or tails out of this without a Trinitarian framework. 

Let’s look at some New Testament examples of the Trinity. Think about the command to baptize converts. Jesus said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 28:19). Jesus didn’t tell us to baptize in the names, plural, but in the name, singular of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. What sense does that make? It’s because there is one God manifested in three co-equal and co-eternal persons. There is no way to make this fit without a Trinitarian understanding of God. 

We looked at the use of the name “Jehovah” in the Old Testament but let’s also take a look at the use of “God” in the New Testament. Romans 10:9 says, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” This is really important as it tells a person how they might be saved from their sin, which is to believe that God raised Christ from the dead. So who raised Christ from the dead? Well, God did. But Acts 3:26 says that God the Father raised up his Son Jesus. In John 2:19-21 Christ said that He would raise Himself from the dead. Romans 8:11 says that it was the Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead. How is this possible? It’s because the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, while distinct persons, make up the one being or essence of God and they all played a part in the resurrection of Christ. I hate to sound like a broken record but this cannot be explained coherently outside of a Trinitarian framework.  

The first verse of John chapter 1 is despised by many. It’s kryptonite to anyone who would try to hold onto the idea that Christ isn’t the second person of the triune God. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The “Word” (Logos) is Jesus Christ, and He is God. But wait, He was also in the beginning with God. How is that possible? It’s because God the Father and God the Son are co-equal and co-eternal. It’s also interesting to note that the very next verse says, “The same was in the beginning with God.” (John 1:2). This is a third reference to God within these two verses. In other words, God (the Father) was with God (The Word) and was with God (The Holy Spirit) before the beginning of time. The Joseph Smith “translation” has butchered this verse. John 1:1 in the JST says, “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” In the JST rendering of this verse, Christ isn’t the “Word”, the Word is the gospel message. And Christ isn’t God, He is just of God. The reader must understand that none of the many ancient manuscripts that we have for John 1:1 support the JST’s rendering of this verse, not even close. That’s because it isn’t a translation, it’s a fabrication. It isn’t an honest attempt to explain John 1:1, but an attempt to explain it away. 

John 1:14 says, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” The Word is a person, not merely a message. This is the central theme of the book of John, that God became flesh and dwelt among us. This attempt to change the identity of Christ is damnable heresy. Time and ink simply will not allow me to expound more upon this issue. But one thing is clear, the Nicaean bishops so overwhelmingly opposed Arius not because they were abandoning the Scriptures but because they were standing upon them. Let’s return to the Nicaean Creed. 

“Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human.” There is no way that this statement can be true unless Christ is eternal and uncreated. This is another major point of discrepancy between Biblical Christianity and the LDS church. We mentioned earlier that the LDS church teaches that Christ is the firstborn of Heavenly Father, but they also teach that Christ is the brother of Satan. This is another teaching that has been greatly watered down in the LDS church in recent years because it’s so glaringly anti-Christian. However, the early church leaders were very vocal about this doctrine. Not only did they teach that Christ is the spirit brother of Satan, but that both Christ and Satan presented a plan of salvation to Heavenly Father, who chose Christ’s plan over Satan’s. “After hearing both sons speak, Heavenly Father said, “I will send the first.” (Abraham 3:27)

The Bible says that Christ is the creator of all things both in heaven and on earth. Colossians 1:15-17 says, “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” The term “firstborn” in this text comes from the Greek word “prōtotokos” which speaks of highest rank or first cause. This context will not allow for Christ to be a result of creation when He is the cause of creation. The point to be made here is simple. Christ cannot be the brother of Satan if He is the creator of Satan. Christ cannot be the creator of all things if there were gods before Him. This is a huge distinction to make. In LDS theology Christ was a man who became God. In Biblical Christianity, Christ is the eternal God who became a man. They are not the same Christ. 

Conclusion: I started this chapter off by quoting former LDS Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley when he stated that the LDS church rejects the Christ of the ancient creeds in favor of the Christ presented by Joseph Smith. I then presented this deductive argument, President Hinckley admitted that the LDS church doesn’t believe in the Christ of the ancient church creeds. The ancient church creeds line up perfectly with the Biblical Jesus. Therefore, the LDS church doesn’t believe in the Biblical Jesus. We then walked through the Nicaean Creed as it pertains to the nature of Christ and saw that Nicaean bishops aligned their belief with the Bible, in total contradiction with LDS doctrine. 

To put it plainly, the Biblical Christ is the eternal second person of the trinity, co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. He is the one true God and creator of all things. This God became a man in order to die for sinners  In LDS doctrine, Christ is the first spirit child of Heavenly Father and the spirit brother of Satan. He was a man who became a god. He isn’t eternal God, but a mere god among gods. There is no comparison between the two. Things that are different are not the same. Truth is based in reality and not on someone’s sincere false belief. Our faith will never be greater than the object of our faith, no matter how sincere that faith may be. I make an earnest plea to my LDS friends when I say that they have placed their faith in a false Christ, a mere figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination. And that Christ cannot save.