The True Temple vs. the False Temples of the LDS Church

 At the most recent LDS General Conference (Spring of 2024), President Russel M. Nelson said, “The Temple is the gateway to the greatest blessings God has for each of us. The Temple is the only place on earth where we may receive all of the blessings promised to Abraham.”  The LDS church places an incredible amount of emphasis on earthly temples. In fact, during this same speech President Nelson also promised the construction of fifteen new temples in various places throughout that world. I’m sure that the price tag for this project will be in the billions. But what if I told you that according to the clear Biblical account that the temple isn’t a place, it’s a person? And that in the person of Jesus Christ, all of the promises to Abraham are fulfilled? 

A Better Temple

In the Old Testament, the LORD sent Nathan the prophet unto David in order to deliver an extremely important prophecy. Nathan told David that, “it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne forever.” (I Chronicles 17:11-12). This is known as the Davidic Covenant. 

There are two major promises made in this Davidic covenant. First, that a son of David would raise a temple unto the LORD, and that this son’s throne would last forever. As with so many other prophecies in the Bible, there was a near and far fulfillment to these promises. In the short term, David’s son Solomon raised the first temple when he took the throne of Israel. However, Solomon could not have been the ultimate fulfillment of Nathan’s prophecy because his throne didn’t last forever. Neither did the temple for that matter. It was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians in 586 B.C. 

The ultimate fulfillment would come through a greater son of David, Jesus Christ. There are two genealogical records of Christ in the New Testament gospels. The genealogy found in Luke’s gospel follows the line of Mary (Luke 3:23-38). Matthew’s gospel follows the line of Joseph (Matthew 1:1-17). Both of these genealogies make it a point to link Christ to the line of David, one by adoption (Joseph) and one by birth (Mary). It’s also interesting to note that when the second temple was destroyed in AD 70 that all of the Jewish genealogical records were destroyed as well. This means that the only messianic genealogical records in existence point to Christ.  

Christ fulfilled Nathan’s prophecy because He raised up an everlasting temple unto God, and His throne is an everlasting throne. In John chapter two, just after Jesus had cleansed the temple for the first time he told the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” (John 2:19-21). Christ is the better temple! He rose from the dead three days after His crucifixion, fulfilling the promises of the Davidic covenant. This is why believers have direct access to God through Christ no matter where we may be. Hebrews refers to Christ as "a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands." (Hebrews 9:11) 

This raises a natural question, if Christ is the temple, then what’s the point of earthly temples? The answer is that there is no point, and that’s the point. In the gospels there is a clear replacement theme from the way that things were (this is especially seen in John’s gospel). Jesus was ushering in a new time and doing a new thing. Part of that new thing was to replace the earthly temple and all of its ordinances. 

There are two other key events in the New Testament that prove that Christ has permanently replaced the earthly temple. First, when Christ died on the cross, there was a great earthquake and the temple veil was torn in half from the top to the bottom (Mark 15:37-38). The temple veil covered the entrance to what was known as the Holy of Holies. This was said to be the place where the presence of God dwelt. Only the High Priest was allowed to go in there once a year to atone for the sins of the people (more on this in the next blog). The major point to be made here is that Christ is the true and better temple and through His death and resurrection, we have direct access to God the Father. Therefore, there is no need for an earthly temple or priest.

The second major historical event that proves the replacement of the earthly temple is the destruction of the temple itself. Christ prophesied in Matthew 24 that the temple would be destroyed and that not one stone would not be left upon another. (Matthew 24:1-2). This came to pass in AD 70 when Titus and the Romans invaded Jerusalem. Just as Christ said, they didn’t leave one stone upon another.  

What’s amazing about this is that almost 2,000 years later the Jews still have not been able to rebuild their temple even though they were given much of their land back in 1948. Not only do the Jews no longer have a temple, but Christians have NEVER had a temple. There is no such thing as a Christian temple. It can’t be found within the pages of the New Testament, nor within the annals of church history. The Kirtland temple in 1836 was the very first of its kind. 

The Only Temple

Elder James E. Talmage wrote, “In both ancient and modern times the covenant people have regarded the building of temples as a labor specifically required at their hands.” This is a claim that simply cannot be substantiated, neither by Christian Scripture, nor church history. Notice that Talmage speaks of “temples” plural. This is a concept that would have been foreign to the Jews. He goes on to explain;

“From the destruction of that great edifice onward to the time of the reestablishment of the Church of Jesus Christ in the 19th century, our only record of temple building is such mention as is found in the Book of Mormon, which affirms that temples were erected on what is now known as the American continent, but we have few details of construction and fewer facts as to administrative ordinances pertaining to these western temples.” Talmage admits that the only record of any kind of temple since the destruction of the Jewish temple is found in the book of Mormon. However, not only does this completely contradict the finished work of Christ, there is absolutely no archaeological or historical evidence to back up his claim. 

Something else that has to be considered here is that the Jews only had one sacred temple location. Ever since David purchased the threshing floor of Ornan on Mt. Moriah (I Chronicles 21:18-27) this was to be the only site of the Jewish temple. This is one reason that the Jews hated the Samaritans so much, because they built their own temple in another location and claimed that it was legitimate. We get a glimpse of this conflict in the conversation between Christ and the Samaritan woman at the well. “The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” (John 4:19-20). The Jews would have lost their minds over the idea of some of their own people traveling across the ocean and building other temples. To be frank, we have absolutely no objective reason to believe that it happened. Christ isn't just the true temple, He is the only true temple. 

When considering these facts, the honest reader must ask themselves why. Why did the Lord do away with the Jewish temple and never allow it to be rebuilt. Why didn’t Christ or the Apostles say anything about Christian temples? Why weren’t there any Christian temples in the first 1800 years of church history? Why is there zero objective evidence to prove the existence of Jewish/Christian temples in the ancient Americas? Why did Joseph Smith “restore” something that never existed in the first place? What’s the point of earthly temples if Christ is our temple? And perhaps the most sobering question of all, what if the LDS church is wrong and are neglecting the one true temple in Jesus Christ? Wouldn’t that make Mormon temples, pagan temples? 

For More information about salvation in Christ, visit our church page https://gracebaptistlogan.org/how-to-be-saved.html

Did Christ Really Rise From the Dead?

 

Christian apologist, Lee Strobel, was at one time an aspiring journalist for the Chicago Tribune. As a devout atheist, Strobel was extremely distraught when his wife became a committed Christian. Hoping to bring his wife to her senses, Strobel set out on an investigative journey to disprove Christianity. 

Not sure exactly where to begin, Strobel reached out to a Christian co-worker to find that one Jenga block that he needed to remove in order to bring down Christianity. “The resurrection”, his co-worker replied. “Christianity rises and falls on the resurrection. If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead then Christianity is nothing but a house of cards.” Strobel’s co-worker then laughingly warned him that he would be responsible for the truths that he uncovered, and he was absolutely right (as Strobel found out). 

The truth is that if Christ didn’t rise from the dead then Christianity is a farce and should be avoided like the Black Plague. But… if Christ really did rise from the grave then everything that Christ said is true. His claims about being God are true. The Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ are true, His teachings on salvation, heaven, hell, judgment, etc. are all true and one day He will stand before us as our judge. If Christ rose from the dead then every individual is responsible to bow before Him as Lord of all. Needless to say that this is an important issue. So did Jesus really rise from the dead?  

Just to give a full disclosure, I am a Christian pastor. The Lord saved me as a 14 year old boy and I’ve never gotten over that day. I know that He is alive for the simple reason that a dead savior could never do what Christ has done for and in me. I’ve been to Israel. I’ve been in the empty tomb, but I didn’t have to travel 6,000 miles across the ocean to be convinced that Christ rose from the dead. 

With that being said, we as Christians aren’t dependent upon subjective experience to prove the claims of our faith. Nor do we promote a blind faith that causes us to put our trust in fairytales. The fact that Christ rose from the dead is an objective historical reality, one in which all of human history revolves around. For the remainder of this article, I wish to put forth the evidence for Christ’s resurrection. 

Throughout the centuries there have been great arguments for the reality of the resurrection. Multiple witnesses reported, and in many cases recorded what they saw even on pain of death. The disciples ran scared on crucifixion day and yet all of them but John were brutally murdered for preaching Christ (John himself was burned in hot oil and exiled to Patmos). What changed them? What did they see? Secular historical sources such as Josephus recorded that Christ appeared alive after the crucifixion. And let’s not forget that much to the chagrin of the Romans and the Sanhedrin, that the body was never found.

While all of these are great arguments, my aim is to examine the arguments that attempt to explain these things away. Sometimes the greatest arguments for a particular position are the arguments against that position. Let’s take a look at what humanist and atheist historians and scholars say about the resurrection and see if they can bear the burden of proof that the resurrection of Christ didn’t happen. 

In my opinion, one of the greatest lines of argumentation for the resurrection of Christ is known as the “Minimal Facts” argument. This argument was made popular by noted Christian scholar, Gary Habermas. Habermas is considered to be one of the world’s contemporary experts on the resurrection of Christ (see the link below the see the debate between Habermas and Flew). Habermas and the minimal facts argument seeks to answer the question, what do the antagonistic experts believe about Christ and the resurrection. In other words what do Christian and atheistic experts agree upon? Once we find where the common ground ends, then we can really get to the nuts and bolts of the disagreements. Below is a list of the minimal facts that virtually all experts of every stripe agree upon; 

1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.

2. Christ was buried, most likely in a private tomb

3. Soon afterwards, the disciples were distraught and seemingly hopeless. 

4. Jesus' tomb was found empty soon after His entombment.  

5. The disciples had experiences that they believed were actual appearances of the resurrected Christ. 

6. Due to these experiences, the disciples’ lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing to die for their beliefs.   

7. The proclamation of the resurrection took place very early, from the beginning of church history. 

8. The disciples’ public testimony and preaching of the resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Christ had been crucified and buried shortly before. 

9. The gospel message centered upon preaching about the death and resurrection of Christ. 

10. Sunday became the primary day for Christian gathering and worship. 

11. James, the brother of Jesus, was a skeptic until he had an experience in which he thought he saw the resurrected Christ. 

12. The Apostle Paul was a great persecutor of Christians until he also had an experience in which he believed that he had an encounter with the resurrected Christ and was converted. 

At this point I want to reiterate that these historical facts are agreed upon even by atheist scholars and historians. The disagreement comes in the explanation of these things. For the Christian the answer is very simple; Christ did indeed rise from the dead. The reason that the disciples were willing to die for what they believed is because they saw the resurrected Christ and though their detractors might take their heads, they weren’t going to change their minds. The reason that the resurrection was preached even in the earliest days of the church is because Christ actually rose from the dead. An urban legend would have taken much longer to spread. The reason that Christians worship on Sunday is because that’s the day that the empty tomb was found. This is seen even in the book of Acts. Again, for the Christian the answer is easy. But what about the skeptics? How do they answer these things? Below is a list of common explanations of the minimal facts without the resurrection ;

1. The Hallucination Theory- This states that the disciples were in such a state of distress after the crucifixion that they had mass hallucinations of the resurrected Christ. People really do experience hallucinations during times of heavy, prolonged stress (usually assisted by drugs, dehydration, etc.). The problem with this is that hallucinations aren’t a shared experience. People don’t share hallucinations anymore than they share dreams. No one has ever woken up in the morning, turned over to their spouse and said, “what do you think about that dream that we had last night?” It takes a lot of faith to believe in a mass hallucination event.

2. The disciples went to the wrong tomb. This is silly, but it’s made even more silly by the fact that the simple way to silence this would have been for the Romans and Jews to go to the real tomb. Just produce the body of Jesus and all of this goes away. 

3. The Swoon Theory. This is the idea that Christ actually didn’t die on the cross, but was merely unconscious. Sometime after Jesus was entombed He came too. Uno, because the Romans didn’t know how to kill people. This also doesn’t explain how a severely injured Christ could have escaped from a sealed tomb with Roman guards and a stone door that weighed over 3,000 lbs. 

4. The Disciples Stole the Body. Again, this can’t account for how the disciples got past between 16 and 35 highly skilled Roman soldiers who were literally guarding this tomb with their life. This theory also fails to explain what motivated the disciples to opt for the perks of torture and death. 

5. The Body Double Theory. This is the idea that it wasn’t actually Christ that died on the cross, but a body double. The term “grasping at straws” really comes to mind with this one. One can’t help but laugh when thinking about the miracle involved with trying to find a volunteer for such an endeavor. Yet again, produce the body of the body double and all of this goes away.  

I’m not kidding when I say that this is the best that they’ve got. These are the great theories that explain away the resurrection of Christ. Not only are they pitiful, but all of these theories acknowledge the fact that the tomb is empty. This brings us to the crux of the whole matter; the tomb is empty, what are you going to do about it? Will you ignore it and live life as if there is no God, steadily marching towards your death. Or will you be humbled before the King of kings and Lord of lords? 

The simple gospel message is this. We have all sinned against God and violated His holy law. As a Holy God and righteous judge, He must punish sin. Sin has to be punished. Yet this Holy God in His love sent His Son, Jesus Christ, the Second person of the Godhead to this earth. The Creator entered into His creation through the womb of a virgin. As the God-Man, Christ lived the perfect life that we could never live, satisfying the just demands of God’s law. When Christ was on the cross He bore our sin. God the Father poured His wrath upon Christ for our sin. Christ was punished for the bad things that we have done. And the good news of the gospel is that if we would just repent of our sin and the illusion of our own goodness, and put our faith in Christ that He would forgive, cleanse and save us from our sin and cloth us in His righteousness. This is the greatest story ever told and it’s true. Christ is risen! The tomb is empty! And life is worth the living because He lives. Happy resurrection weekend everyone. 

For more information on how to be saved and have new life in Christ, visit our church website; 

https://gracebaptistlogan.org/how-to-be-saved.html

Below is a debate between Gary Habermas and atheist, Anthony Flew. This exchange is really important because Flew admits to the reality of the minimal facts. Also, Flew admits to believing in the hallucination theory. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4R4qesYbaQ

Let Us Prey and the Death of the "IFB"

 

A Friend Named Grief

Grief is a strange friend. Whenever grief shows up at your door, you know that something bad has happened. Everybody deals with the arrival of grief in a different way. Some blow up in anger. Others seek someone to blame (many times justifiably). Many can do nothing but weep. Some attempt to deny that he is even there. However, if you will take grief in and embrace him long enough, he can be a great vehicle of change in your life. 

This is where I find myself after watching the first episodes of the Let Us Prey documentary series. I am grieved. I am grieved for the victims who were taken advantage of by men who should have used their position to lift them up and have a positive impact on their lives. I am grieved by many in the IFB who have rushed to publicly defend these men at the expense of the victims (I am honestly shocked by how many it’s been). I am grieved for the mudslinging that this has caused on social media between otherwise reasonable people. And threaded through all of this, is the fact that this great evil and the ensuing fallout happened in the name of Christ. It sickens me. 

Without going into detail, sexual abuse has had a huge impact upon my life, family and ministry. It’s the main reason that I’m going back to school to become a certified biblical counselor. My wife and I have had to deal with things behind closed doors that would make grown men cry. Again, when I say that I am grieved for these victims, it’s not just a cliché. I intend to let grief stick around long enough to make a change in me. (If anyone reading this is a victim of sexual abuse and needs an advocate, my wife and I have helped many people and would love to help you)  

Where Do We Go From Here? 

This blog article isn’t going to be a detailed review of Let Us Prey. I believe that for any thinking person the evidence speaks for itself. I know that many are angry because they feel like this documentary is a smear campaign against the church. Honestly, the motives really don’t matter in the face of facts such as these. As an IFB pastor (more on this later) I am looking in the mirror and asking myself, “where do we go from here?” This will be the central pondering of this blog. 

What Exactly is The IFB Anway?

Put yourself in my shoes for just a minute so you can better understand the quandary that I find myself in. I was saved in an IFB church at the age of 14 (that was in 1999). The church that I was saved and discipled in definitely checked a lot of the stereotypical boxes that we so often hear about. It was a very revivalistic style of church. The doctrine and discipleship definitely could have been deeper. Just like any other church, it wasn’t perfect. With that said, there were never any sexual scandals of any kind. The pastor was there for over forty years and had a great reputation in the community. And my experience at that church was a positive one overall.

 Key for the purposes of this blog, I never even heard the name “Jack Hyles” until years after I left that church in 2006 to serve in another church. So imagine my confusion as the producers of Let Us Prey told the world that Jack Hyles was actually the one that founded the IFB. Now anyone in the know recognizes the fact that Hyles didn’t found the IFB anymore than Peter Ruckman founded the King James Bible (and no, this isn’t an endorsement of Ruckman). The fundamentalist movement really began near the turn of the 20th century and initially stretched across denominational lines (for a great read on this period of history see George Marsden “Fundamentalism and American Culture”). The original fundamentalist movement was an anti-movement that sought to reestablish the fundamentals of Christianity in the face of the decaying culture and theological liberalism within the church. This was a good thing. 

However, movements can be hijacked and labels can have their meaning changed. This leads me to ask the question, whatever the movement started out as, what has it become? What is the IFB? What does it mean to be an Independent Fundamental Baptist? And is this label worth fighting for? 

I was talking to my friend Dave Mallinak this morning about these very issues (Dave recently wrote an incredible blog series about what he wishes would change within the IFB, check those out here https://davemallinak.com/2023/08/01/what-i-wish-would-change-among-independent-baptists/). We agreed that labels are supposed to speak to certain consistencies within a generalized group. So what consistencies are true of the IFB as a whole in 2023? For one thing, a large portion of the IFB has adopted a KJVO position that is so radical that men like John R. Rice are rolling over in their grave. I have my reasons for being a King James man, but I know many good men who haven’t come to the same conclusions. I don’t think that the exclusive use of the KJV is a litmus test for who is or isn’t a false teacher. And I certainly don’t believe that an English translation is double inspired and has replaced or superseded the original languages that they were translated from. Such a belief is destructive to the doctrine of preservation. 

Another consistency seems to be a level of separation that’s unhealthy for the body of Christ. I think that biblical triage is a good thing. I think that we need to recognize the difference between fellowship and cooperation. There are churches and pastors in the valley where I live that are my brothers in Christ and we enjoy fellowship, but we are different enough to where I think we understand that there should be a limited or non-existent level of cooperation and that’s ok. Where I pastor in the mountains of Mormon country Utah, there aren't enough Christians or churches here to be too tribal. We need each other.  

I’m sure that I could list other things, but even stopping at these two I have already ostracized myself and am left wondering if I have left the IFB, or have they left me? If I’m being honest, many times I feel like a man with no country. 

This leads to perhaps the greatest question, has Hyles hijacked the IFB? Are they the new brand? The media and the culture certainly think so. If so, then another consistency that you can add to the list is sexual abuse and cover ups. I found it interesting that yesterday as I was pondering on the content of this blog that I came across an online poster for an upcoming IFB meeting. The featured speakers for this meeting are Jack Trieber, Bob Gray Sr. and Bruce Goddard. What do all of these men have in common? Let’s see, oh yeah, they all have connections with Hyles and they have all defended, and/or covered for abusers. Goddard was even featured in Let Us Prey for covering for two different associate pastors under him for raping underaged girls in the church (both have since been convicted). Trieber tried so desperately to cover for Cameron Giovannelli, the former president of his bible college, for having sexually assaulted a high school student at the Christian school where Giovannelli was the principal prior to moving to California. He was later convicted (and pleaded guilty) in large part due to the fact that Pastor Stacy Shiflett exposed him (standing ovation!) (you can read about this in Shiflett’s book “Wolves Among Lambs”). 

As I looked at this poster for the upcoming meeting, I found myself angry. Do these men have any discernment at all? Any shame? How do they continue to dance around the 800 lb gorilla in the room? Who would host these guys? And together I might add! I guess we can argue about who the “true IFB” really is, but one thing is for sure, is that whatever these guys are, I’m not. In fact, I’m again em. 

I began this blog by asking where we go from here. I can’t answer for anybody else, but the first thing that I want to do is publicly separate myself from the Hyles brand and others like them. I remember when President George W. Bush addressed the nation after 911. He made the statement that the U.S. would make no distinction between the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. I want it to be known that I make no distinction between the abusers and the pastors and churches that harbor them. This is not an agree to disagree issue with me. There is no brand or affiliation worth winking at that kind of wickedness. My only brand is Christ and He made it really clear where He stands when He preached a message that could have been entitled “Millstones for Molesters.” I have set my face against the likes of you. 

An Interesting Proposition 

The founding pastor of the mission church where I currently serve in Utah told me that years ago when our church was looking at getting a new church sign that they made the decision to leave out the word “fundamental”. The reason that they did this is because of how the Mormons would see it. The fundamentalist Mormons are the stereotypical incestuous polygamists that you’ve heard about (ironically, they are also up to their neck in sexual abuse scandals, Google Warren Jeffs). 

I wholeheartedly support the decision to take the word “fundamental” off the sign. Is it time that Independent Baptists like myself do that same thing? I mean if Hyles and the crazies truly have hijacked the IFB ship, I say let them drive it off like the Titanic. I don’t need the label. I can do just fine as an Independent Baptist. I recognize that this raises some logistical issues with understanding our fellowship, but so be it. We can post our confession online. 

I know that some might be really resistant to this suggestion. But what if you had that same mentality about the word “gay”? We all know that “gay” is a beautiful English word that means happy, but not anymore. I haven’t heard a single preacher stand in the pulpit and say, “Bless God, I’m gay and I don’t care what anyone thinks.” Why try so hard to defend being a fundamentalist?

Concluding Thoughts and Solutions

I’m just one man. I pastor a small Independent Baptist Church in Utah. I can’t do a whole lot, but upon examination of our church bylaws, I realized that we don’t have any clear cut policies or training in place should the pastor ever be accused of sexual misconduct. I am a firm believer in the autonomy of the church (that is that we are self-governed). I believe this to be the biblical model. If the church has Godly leadership, this can be a real blessing because there is no corruptive interference from outside the church. However, if wolves make their way into the leadership of an autonomous church, there is usually no one who is able or willing to hold them accountable. I hope to remedy this in our church. 

Dave Mallinak and I are in the process of drafting policies that will be voted into our respective church by-laws mapping out the process by which leaders in the church are to investigate and hold pastors accountable in the case of alleged sexual misconduct (involving the authorities when required). There is biblical precedent for this, “the elders that sin rebuke before all that others may fear.” (I Timothy 5:20). I want to be held accountable, and I want to make sure that policies and training are in place to hold me accountable. But I also want to make sure that the leadership that comes in after me will be held accountable as well. The plan is to release these policies to the public so that other churches may follow suit if they see fit. 

Some Closing Farewells

To victims of abuse in the church, both in the documentary and not, I am so sorry. I am sorry for what you went through, and for what you are going through now. And my prayer is that you can find grace and peace. I pray that those who harmed you in the name of Christ, don't taint your view of Christ. Salvation in Him is the only way to true freedom and peace. 

To the “IFB” who is more concerned with protecting a brand than protecting victims, your days are numbered. Your echo chamber is getting smaller everyday. We can thank God for the internet because it has taken your mindless monologue and turned it into a dialogue. Dialogues expose faulty and cultic monologues. 

To the Independent Baptists like myself, it’s time to take a stand. We ought to be the loudest voice and the first line of defense against arrogant and sinful men who choose to wear our label. Choose a side because the stakes are too high. If not, then grief is sure to make a visit to our churches and our homes before too long. At the end of the day there are only two types of pastors, those that make decisions based on fear of the consequences, and those that make decisions based on what's right and what is pleasing to Christ.

Sharing the Gospel With Latter-Day Saints

      

Audio Version

     I live and pastor in Logan, Utah, tucked into the Northeastern corner of the state. We are only about an hour and twenty minutes from Salt Lake City. Here in Cache Valley the LDS population hovers around 86%. Needless to say that Christians are in the minority here (at about 2%). 

Due to the fact that many of my friends from across the world know that I live in the Mormon Mecca, it’s not uncommon to get questions about how to minister to the LDS in their area. Just this week I had a friend from Mississippi reach out to me and ask if I would be willing to put something into writing so that he and his co-workers will be better equipped to witness to their Mormon customers. While I have only lived and ministered here for about 3 ½ years and in no way claim to be an expert on the subject, I will be glad to share some helpful things that I have learned along the way. 

The Logan Temple 

        Love is the Principal Thing. There is an old saying, “Nobody cares what you know until they know that you care.” This is especially true with the LDS. Many of them have been conditioned to be skeptical of Chrstians, especially Baptists. Great numbers of LDS really believe that we hate them and are out to persecute them. I have been greatly saddened by stories from some of the LDS that I have talked to about how they went on their two year mission to the Bible belt (where I am from) and were treated like absolute garbage by so-called Christians. I’ve had to apologize many times on their behalf. To those so-called Christians, I just want to say please do us all a favor and just stop. Go lock yourself in a room, pray and read the New Testament and don’t come out until you have at least a first-grade understanding of Christ’s heart for sinners. And then maybe next time you won’t mess up such a great opportunity to share the gospel and be Christ to others. 

Just remember that we aren’t trying to win an argument, we are trying to win people. Although I haven’t been accepted into this culture as a whole I can say that I have built some great friendships within the LDS community over the last few years (some of them brought us cookies to the house just last week). I am glad to call them my friends. Above all else, love them with the love of Christ. 

Cookie Cutter Evangelism. If your background is anything like mine, you were probably given a few verses from Romans and told to go out and win the world. However, Christ and the early church were much more detailed than that. Christ dealt differently with Nicodemus then He did with the woman at the well. When the Apostles preached to the Jews they went straight to the Old Testament Scriptures. However, when they dealt with the polytheistic pagans at Lystra they began by teaching them about the monotheistic God of Scripture. 

I bring this up in order to point out that although the gospel never changes, everyone has a different starting point for how to get there. Although I will do my best to give the starting point for the LDS as a whole, it will still be important to try and discern the starting point for each individual. This is true no matter who we are sharing the gospel with. 

Objective vs. Subjective Truth. Subjective truth is “your truth”. It’s really nothing more than an opinion based on personal experience. Objective truth is a standard beyond us. Objective truth is something that would be true even if we had never been born in order to have an opinion about it. As Christians, our objective standard of truth is the Word of God (Genesis-Revelation). The LDS really struggle with this concept. It may not always be the best thing to just start quoting Scripture because the LDS really don’t see the Bible as objectively authoritative. 

Authority in the LDS system is very fluid and confusing. If you ask them what their authority is they will likely cite some combination of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, their feelings, experiences, and the writings of their prophets. They also believe in what is known as continuous or progressive revelation. This simply means that their living apostles and prophets continue to speak for God on the earth. This can be very confusing because many times the current prophets and apostles say things that completely contradict the dead ones. In this case the LDS church always goes with the living prophets and apostles. However, I have found that due to all of this frustrating confusion, most LDS tend to just go with their feelings. 

One of the things that surprised me about the LDS is how mystical they are as a whole. They are taught to seek out God through their feelings, emotions and what they sometimes call a “burning in the bosom”. All of these things are based on subjective experience that cannot be vetted objectively. I’ve had quite a few LDS missionaries in my living room tell me something along the lines of, “I testify that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that the Book of Mormon is true.” This is usually when I kindly point out to them that what they have just said is 100% subjective and that I could just as easily say, “I testify that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and the Book of Mormon isn’t true and now what?” 

The most important thing to remember when sharing the gospel with the LDS is to convince them that our authority is better than theirs. The Bible can be objectively examined. In doing so it has withstood the most intense scrutiny in the areas of history, unity, prophecy and manuscript evidence. This isn’t true of the LDS writings. In fact, I have asked many LDS people if they can give one objective reason that proves their beliefs to be true and so far nobody has been able to provide one. 

A great way to try and establish the difference between their subjective authority and our objective authority is to give an example of a prosecuting attorney who is trying to convict a criminal. If he stands before the judge and jury and says, “your honor, members of the jury, I know this man is guilty because I testify that he is guilty. I felt a burning in my soul last night while I was praying.”, That “evidence” would never hold up. However, if he could provide DNA, the murder weapon in the defendant’s possession, fingerprints, video, witnesses, etc. Now we have something. This is the difference between LDS authority and the Bible. This is ground zero when dealing with the LDS as a whole. 

Are the LDS Christians? The early LDS leaders were very vocal about their belief that the Christian church had become corrupt, even “abominable” (I Nephi 13:6). Joseph Smith stated that in his vision  the Lord told him not to join any other churches because they were so corrupt and taught false doctrine. According to Smith, God commissioned him to restore the true and pure church. 

This is important because within the last few decades (I think this was started by President Hinckly), the LDS began trying to convince others that they are Christians. I usually try to establish early on in the conversation that it’s logically impossible that we believe the same things because I believe in the things that Joseph Smith said were lost and needed to be restored and purified. This really helps to cut out the smoke and mirrors and enables us to get down to the nuts and bolts. Once it is established that we clearly don’t believe the same things, then we can get to which one is right. 

Grace AND Works? When talking to the LDS it’s very important to define your terms. They will claim that they believe in things like salvation by grace, but grace to them is nothing more than an opportunity for them to carry the baton the rest of the way. I’ve had many LDS tell me that they believe in salvation by a “combination of works and grace”. I like to point out to them that this very statement is a misnomer. By definition, “grace” means undeserved, unmerited favor with God. Therefore grace cannot be earned. There is no such thing as deserved grace. 

As Christians, we do believe that if there is a root of salvation, that there will be the fruit of salvation. However, we don’t work in order to be saved, we work because we are saved. And from that forgiven heart full of grace and gratefulness we can serve the Lord with the right motives. 

A great point of contrast for these differing views of grace are found in Ephesians 2:8-9 and II Nephi 25:23. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9). “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved after all we can do.” (II Nephi 25:23). Although in recent years the LDS church has gone to great lengths to water down the obvious, there is no other way that that verse can be taken, especially in light of everything else that they teach about the gospel. In LDS theology, grace isn’t the free and undeserved gift of God, but a reward for your good works. It’s really important to get them thinking in terms of biblical grace. 

Good News? While the LDS give lip service to things like grace, faith, justification etc., at the end of the day it’s really all about the church. The LDS church is very reminiscent of the Judaizers that Paul was writing about in the book of Galatians. The Judaizers would have given lip service to Jesus, but they would have claimed to be the way to Jesus. Become a Jew, get circumcised, and keep the law, then you can get to Jesus.

The LDS church basically does the same thing. Jesus is the way, but keeping the ordinances of the church, the priesthood, sacraments, baptism, sealing in the temple, the temple recommend etc. This is the way to Jesus. Ask an LDS if they can make it to the top level of Heaven through Jesus without the ordinances of the church and you will find what they are really putting their faith in. 

At the end of the day the LDS gospel is a works based gospel. I have found it beneficial to ask them if they have done enough to get to the top level of Heaven. 99%  of the time their answer is “no”. Then I ask, “could you ever get to a place where you could know for sure if you have done enough.” Again, their answer is almost always “no”. Then I ask, “well how is that good news?”, to which blank stares are sure to ensue. This is a great opportunity to shift them to the know-so gospel of grace. There is no more good news than salvation by grace through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. 

Balancing the Scales. The LDS really do believe that in a real sense, God has a scale that He is going to use to weigh out their good works and their bad works. If their good works outweigh their bad works then they will be exalted to the top tier of Heaven. We have to put salvation into legal terms. 

One of my favorite outreaches is to set up our church table at public places like the fair and USU campus. We have a sign that says “there is no such thing as a good person, change my mind.” I was able to speak to almost 400 people at the fair over the course of three days with this challenge last year. So many people are willing to defend themselves as good people. The conversations usually go something like this; 

LDS- So you don’t think that there are any good people in the world?

Me- (smiling) no I don’t. Do you? 

LDS- Of course. 

Me- Ok, what standard would you use in order to determine whether someone is a good person or not? 

LDS- Loyalty, honesty, a hard worker, giving to charity, etc. 

Me- I think that we can all agree that these are good things. But let me ask you this, do you think that everyone has done bad things in their life? 

LDS- Oh yes, of course. 

Me- So the million dollar question is, can the good things that we do erase the bad things? Think about this in a legal setting. Can our good deeds erase the laws that we have broken. 

LDS- No they can’t. 

Me- So how can we have our sins erased if our good works can’t erase them? 

At this point I take them to the 10 commandments so that they can see that they have personally broken God’s law. Then I take them to the cross. We must put salvation into a legal context because our sin is a legal offense against God. 

Conclusion. I realize that this hasn’t been an in depth discourse on Mormon theology. There is SO much that could be discussed. I am trying to keep things simple with how to share the gospel with the LDS. Sometimes we get bogged down with religious red tape and we miss the heart of the gospel, the sinner’s need for a savior. Just remember to saturate everything in prayer because our efforts are in vain without the power of God. It is the Lord that changes hearts and saves sinners. I hope this has been helpful. If you have any more questions you can email me at preacherofgrace@yahoo.com. 

For another great resource, check out our Mormon Hope Podcast

In Christ, Brandon Vaughan, SDG, John 17:3

Reasons Why I Am an Expository Preacher

 

Audio Version

     A Life Changing Encounter. There I was, standing in the vestibule of the first church that I pastored, having a conversation with another much more seasoned preacher who had stopped by for a visit. I was in my early 20’s and had absolutely no clue what I was doing. Not to mention the fact that I was on the verge of burnout. Between working a full time job, taking care of a family with two small children and pastoring a church, sermon prep seemed like an impossible Everest every week. 

     My preacher friend, seeing the weight upon my shoulders, began to gently prod me to share with him what was wrong. I dropped my head and said “I am really struggling to know what to preach week in and week out. I spend more time trying to come up with a topic and a text than I do actually studying the text. How can I know what I am supposed to preach each week?” My friend gently put his hand on my shoulder, and the answer that he gave me would change my life forever. “Why don’t you just preach the Bible?” I looked at him like he was crazy. Was he being sarcastic in my moment of weakness? “No, I am serious”, he said. “Preach through books of the Bible. Each week you will already know what text that you are preaching from and all you have to do is study in order to dig out the treasures within the text. You will find that both you and the church will grow together in ways that you never thought possible.” 

I was floored. What a novel idea. Just preach the Bible, as it was written by the prophets and apostles. I have now been preaching expository sermons for over fifteen years and I have found it to be one of the greatest joys of my life. And although I do believe that there is a place for other types of preaching (i.e. topical and textual), I am convinced that in a pastoral setting over the course of time, these other types of sermons are simply inferior for feeding the flock of God when compared to expository preaching. Here are some reasons why I am a committed expository preacher. 

Expository preaching is Biblical preaching. Before too many people get mad and pull their hair out, we must be quick to define our terms. The word “expository” simply means to explain or describe. Therefore, it is possible to preach an expository sermon from a particular text or texts without necessarily preaching through books, verses by verse. But if our preaching doesn’t explain the text, then we aren't preaching biblically. Explaining the text is biblical preaching. Therefore, in this sense expository preaching is biblical preaching. However, it has been my experience as a pastor of over 15 years that true biblical exposition (certainly for pastors who are preaching in the same place from week to week) goes hand in hand with preaching verse by verse through books of the Bible. So for the purposes of this blog, when I talk about expository preaching I am referring mainly to preaching through books of the Bible. (As a side note, it’s important to understand that expository preaching doesn’t ignore tota scriptura. It also doesn’t mean that the pastor can never break away from the schedule and hit on specific things if necessary. These are false caricatures.

Expository preaching makes the pastor a servant to the Scriptures. Before I became a dedicated expository preacher, I would always agonize over what topic and text to preach. This led to a very subjective practice of trying to feel God out or “listen to the Spirit”. I was always trying to find “something that would preach.” However, what I found is that no matter what text or topic I went with, I eventually ended up preaching my hobby horses anyway. Expository preaching forces us to serve the text, not allowing us to use the text for our own purposes. The pastor will be preaching more of the bible and less of himself. 

Expository preaching forces the preacher to deal with hard texts. There are just some hard texts that given a choice, we would never choose to tackle. This forces the pastor to dig deep and exposit these hard texts, which forces him to grow. This also helps the congregation because they have without a doubt wrestled with these hard texts as well. Expository preaching has forced me to wrestle with the consistency of my own doctrine, and as a result caused me to believe in things that I was taught to hate and vice versa. This will almost never happen with a man who consistently takes his presuppositions to a topic or preselected text.  

Expository Preaching Connects the Narrow Emphases With the Broader Context. I cannot accurately put into words how the years of expository preaching have connected the doctrinal dots for me. This is something that topical or textual preaching simply cannot do consistently over the course of time. Last year I visited a church while traveling out of state. The pastor was a topical/textual preacher and his message came from the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. His whole message was based on the false premise that the elder brother represents saved people who lose their heart for sinners. While the pastor might have said some true things in his sermon, he completely missed the broader point of the text. If he had been preaching through the book of Luke verse by verse, he would have realized that at the beginning of chapter 15 Christ began sharing these parables in front of the Pharisees because they were scoffing at the fact that Jesus accepted publicans and sinners. So when Jesus was giving the parable of the prodigal son, he was condemning the Pharisees as being the elder brother (something they would have easily picked up on). Although they appeared to be better than the prodigal, their hearts were wicked, and they were worse off than sinners who had humbled themselves before the Father. This pastor didn’t know that because his study was limited to one text, separated from its broader context. He had taken his own thoughts and read them into the text of Scripture. Expository preaching greatly nullifies this problem. 

Expository Preaching causes the Pastor and the Church to grow together. The bible was not written in a topical fashion. Therefore, expository preaching brings out the context and authorial intent in ways that are much more difficult for a topical/textual preacher. Consistent expository preaching teaches a congregation how to be expository readers. Each week I am not just teaching my people how to listen, but how to study the bible on their own. Every biblical sermon should answer the following questions; What is the text saying (culture, background, speaker, broader context, etc.), what does the text mean (how would the original audience have understood the message), how can this text apply to my life, and how does this text connect with the gospel. This is very difficult to do when bouncing around from place to place. 

Our congregation knows the general text that I will be preaching from each week. Many of them get ahead of me and study it out. Since they already have an idea of what’s on the menu, this puts pressure on me to put the sheep food out there. I believe that this is one of the greatest reasons that expository preaching is so hated by so many preachers. It leaves very little room for laziness. It doesn’t take that much effort to go to a concordance and hand pick half a dozen verses on the same topic in order to fill up a 30 minute time slot. On the other hand, it takes great dedication to dig out the truth of a text, in context and with authorial intent. 

Expository Study Sustains the Pastor. My preaching would get so stale, dry and repetitive if my sermon ideas always originated with me. Expository study of the Scriptures keeps it fresh and new in my heart. Each week I am digging into the word of God to see what He has to say. Through the trials that my family and I have had to endure over the past several years, I can say without any hesitation that the grace of God and the expository study of the Scriptures have sustained me. 

Expository Preaching Allows the Pastor to Preach the Whole Counsel of God. When a pastor preaches expository sermons week in and week out it means that he will be dealing with issues and doctrines with the same frequency and order as the writers of Scripture. It’s a built in way of avoiding hobby horses and using the pulpit like a Gatling gun in order to straighten out certain problems and people within the church. 

A Perfectly timed war. Far be it from me to insert myself into someone else’s Twitter war but….I had already outlined this blog when I just happened to cruise through my Twitter feed and find the podcast war between the Fundamental Baptist Podcast (hosted by David Baker) and the Starving for Truth Podcast (hosted by Chance Summers and Austin Weist). It just so happens that their fight is over the issue of expository preaching. SFT recently did a podcast on expository preaching. In that episode, Weist admitted that expository preaching led him to become a Calvinist. Baker did a podcast rebuttal in which he called Weist a heretic (although he did not call him by name). Not only that, he made it a point to say that sometimes expository preaching turns people into heretics. This spat gives me a perfect opportunity to deal with some of the common (and not so common) arguments against expository preaching. And also to expose in real time, some of the flaws of topical/textual preaching. 

In order to lay some groundwork, I have never met any of these men. When it comes to the SFT podcast, I have listened to a few episodes. I agree with much of their content, yet disagree with much of their IFB broad brushing. However, I think they are spot on when it comes to this issue of expository preaching (here I am yet again defending the RFP broad brushers, I’m not sure if it’s grace or stupidity, but here it goes).

I am not that familiar with Mr. Baker, but I did listen to his podcast response to SFT. I would like to respectfully confront his arguments against expository preaching (and his promotion of topical preaching). 

As a side note, I really don’t like the spirit of division within the professing body of Christ, I don’t care where it comes from. I completely understand that there are some hills worth dying on, but Mr. Baker pulled out the infamous H-word (I’m talking about heretic) to describe Mr. Weist. Why you might ask, because Weist is a Calvinist. I would like to ask Mr. Baker if this means that Mr. Weist isn’t saved, or that he just really gets on your nerves? Would you use the term “heretic” to describe Calvinists like Spurgeon, Bunyan, Whitefield, Edwards, the KJV translators, or the writers of pretty much every well known Baptist confession prior to the BFM of 1925? Are they heretics too, or is that just for living Calvinists? Honest Question. 

Were Jesus and the Apostles topical preachers? Mr. Baker argued that Jesus and the apostles were topical preachers. This is unsound logic for a few reasons. For starters, we don’t know exactly what they preached, at least not in detail (I am referring to their actual sermons, not their inspired writings). It is doubtful that the biblical account gives us a word for word transcript of their sermons. The longest sermon in the New Testament is the Sermon on the Mount (assuming for the sake of argument the unlikely scenario that this was one continuous discourse). The average reader can read the sermon on the mount in less than four minutes. It’s hard to believe that the entire discourse that Christ gave on that hillside lasted a grand total of four minutes. It’s equally as difficult to believe that Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, Stephen’s discourse before the Sanhedrin or Paul’s plea to Felix were all just a couple of minutes apiece. 

Something else to consider is that we have at least one clear example of Christ engaging in expository preaching from the Old Testament Scriptures (Luke 4:16-21). He stood up in the synagogue, read through Isaiah 61:1 and explained it (this day is the Scripture fulfilled in your ears). 

Also, the inspired writings of the apostles are clearly expositional in nature. When a pastor preaches through what they wrote to the church, verse by verse, their congregation will be hearing what the apostles wrote in the order it was written, in the context it was written and for the purpose that it was written. So I’m not exactly sure what Mr. Baker’s point is. We all know that using the book of Acts in a purely prescriptive way leads to all kinds of heresy. 

No, expository preaching doesn’t create heretics, proof texting does. Mr. Baker called Mr. Weist a heretic due to his podcast comments about how preaching through John 6 (most specifically verse 44) turned him into a Calvinist. Mr. Baker made the point that preaching verse by verse caused his confusion and if he had just studied this topic it would have led him to John 12:32 where it states that if Christ was lifted up on the cross that he would draw “all men” unto himself. This gives me the PERFECT opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of expository vs topical preaching. Let’s break down these two texts and see if Mr. Baker’s argument holds up. 

John 6:36-44- “But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. 38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

I am going to do something that Mr. Baker did not do in his podcast, and that is walk through this text in order to find out the context. Jesus was dealing with the problem of unbelief. In this case the people had seen him perform all kinds of miracles. They had also had the privilege of hearing the incarnate Word, preaching the Word. And yet they still didn’t believe. However, unbelief is a universal human problem. In fact, if those thousands rejected the message even after encountering God incarnate, then what chance do any of us have of being saved? Are we just better than them, smarter, more humble or less sinful? Of course not. Christ gives the answer to human unbelief here in the text; the drawing of sinners by the Father, and the giving of them to the Son. Even Jacob Arminius understood that this text was talking about total depravity and the necessity of God’s initiation in salvation (although he had a different view on how this plays out than Calvin and the Reformers). You don’t even have to be a Calvinist in order to see the point of what Jesus is saying. John 6 gives the context of John 6, you don’t have to jump to John 12 in order to give context to John 6. Jesus’ audience didn’t have to wait until the events of John 12 in order to understand what he was saying to them in John 6. Jumping to chapter 12 isn’t an honest attempt to explain John 6, it’s an attempt to explain it away. This is proof texting 101. 

Now let’s break down John 12 in its context. 

John 12:20-32- “And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast: 21 The same came therefore to Philip, which was of Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus. 22 Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. 23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. 26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour. 27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. 28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”

In the context, some Greeks had crashed this Jewish feast in order to hear Jesus. This would not have gone over well as the Jews viewed them as dogs. When Jesus said that when He was lifted up would draw all men unto Himself, it was literally in response to the Greeks being in their midst. He could have very easily been pointing at them when He said it. So He wasn’t talking about drawing every single person without exception, but every kind of person without distinction, all kinds of people. He was speaking of the world of Jews and Gentiles. For anyone who would argue this point I have a few simple questions. Does God draw people unto salvation apart from them hearing the gospel? Of course not. Does everyone hear the gospel in their lifetime? Of course not. Then how does God draw every single individual unto salvation if every single person doesn’t hear the gospel?  It’s a basic deductive argument. However, it’s not even necessary because both John 6 and John 12 present their own respective contexts. There is no need for proof texting. 

Has the reader seen in this short exercise the superiority of expositing the scriptures in context vs building a doctrine by jumping around “topically” from place to place? Proof texting is a cult leader's dream. I live and pastor in the heart of Mormon country Utah. I love to have LDS missionaries in our home so that my family and I can feed them and talk about the gospel. The LDS have no problem quoting verses from the Bible in order to try and prove their point. However, when I make them open up to that particular passage and walk them through it in context I can visibly see them start to squirm. This is because a text without context is a pretext. The Bible in its context destroys their position.  

Some closing thoughts. I really didn’t even scratch the surface of this issue. Certainly more can (and has been) said by much greater minds than my own. However, I do hope that Mr. Baker reconsiders his stance on expository preaching, as well as the “heresy” of fellow believers. I also hope that this has been a help to the pastors who have become a slave to the idea that somehow the Bible isn’t enough. That somehow God needs your feeling the wind of the Spirit in order to keep things exciting. As if the Spirit inspired Scriptures aren’t exciting enough. Expository preaching has transformed my life, doctrine, study habits, relationship with God, family and church, and I am convinced that it will do the same for anyone who is willing to put in the work. 

SDG, Brandon Vaughan, @realbrobrandon