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.