In October 2020, Columbia University Irving Medical Center published their findings on how and why the COVID-19 coronavirus is so infectious and so lethal:

“Coronaviruses are adept at imitating human immune proteins that have been implicated in severe COVID-19 disease, a study from researchers at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons has found…

Many plants and animals use the art of mimicry to trick their prey or predators. Viruses employ a similar strategy: Viral proteins can mimic the three-dimensional shapes of their host’s proteins to trick the host into helping the virus complete its life cycle.

“Viruses use mimicry for the same reason as plants and animals—deception,” says Sagi Shapira, PhD, assistant professor of systems biology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons. “We hypothesized that identifying viral-protein look-alikes would give us clues to the way viruses—including SARS-CoV-2—cause disease.”
(“Coronaviruses Are Masters of Mimicry, New Study Finds”, October 27, 2020, CUIMC website)

To translate all that medical speak into plain English, the COVID-19 coronavirus tricks its human host’s body into thinking that it is something benign – just a plain ol’ body protein (“nothing to see here, immune system – I’m just like you are!”) rather than a counterfeit foreign invader that seeking to kill, steal, and destroy. To put it bluntly, it dishonestly presents itself as what it’s not to deceive itself past the body’s natural defenses so it can invade and harm it.

But wait, there’s more! The article explains how after it has invaded the body via dishonesty and deceit COVID-19 then persuades the immunity system that it’s there to help and begins to trigger the body’s own natural defenses in aiding the demise of their human host:

‘Coronaviruses… are particularly good at it and were found to mimic over 150 proteins, including many that control blood coagulation or activate complement—a set of immune proteins that help target pathogens for destruction and increase inflammation in the body.

“We thought that by mimicking the body’s immune complement and coagulation proteins, coronaviruses may drive these systems into a hyperactive state and cause the pathology we see in infected patients,” Shapira says.’
(ibid)

So given all this is it is any wonder that it’s hard not to think of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as coronavirus-like whenever it claims to be, “Christian, just like you all”? Case in point, there’s been a recent pandemic of LDS-run pages pretending to be orthodox Christianity without indicating their Mormonism. Again, corona viruses are masters of mimicking our body’s defense proteins, so instead of fighting them off, our own natural defense system actually helps it develop and replace healthy cells with diseased, counterfeits. So when the LDS church functions the same way, it acts like a virus, a predator, the archetypical wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This would be akin to ex-Mormon Atheists creating pages called, “Latter-day Saints of the Second Anointing” or “Ascended Latter-day Saints” and putting in the description that they have embraced greater truth and light without indicating that it’s antagonistic to not only Mormonism in particular, but theism in general.

Or, if you prefer, it’s like, Evangelical Christians, say, in the North San Francisco bay area, setting up a Facebook page called, “North Bay Latter-day Saints” to proselytize to local Mormons without fully disclosing up front that they are, in fact, Evangelical Christians. Or maybe, Oklahoma? I mean, after all, Evangelicals do, in fact consider themselves Saints living in the Latter-days, and therefore, Latter-day Saints, right? So what’s the problem?

Any Latter-day Saint would be very rightly and justifiably infuriated at such a play. They would scream that it is dishonest. This is the pinnacle of hypocrisy. And they would be right, wouldn’t they?

So given that can anyone see the problem with these Mormon-founded and run Facebook groups?

And if the reader doubts that these groups are in fact, Mormon front groups, then I would encourage you to consider the About Page for the North Bay Christians group:

Yes, that’s right the website link that’s given points to the official, LDS Church website in Salt Lake City. Oh and if you GPS that street address, you’ll find this there…

Well, what do you know this “Christian” church is actually a Mormon Ward Hall, isn’t that interesting? But friends, this is just the beginning, Appendix A contains a listing of the Facebook groups that the authors discovered while they were researching this article. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

What’s especially interesting about this tactic is that, according the standard of honesty established by the LdS Church, it is a form of lying:

“Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”
(Gospel Principles, Chapter 31: Honesty; http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty)

Again, for emphasis, “We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”

This is even more surprising given the fact that Mormon Leaders throughout the years took great pains to distance themselves from those no-good, rotten, lousy, apostate Christians out there. Here’s a small sample:

“What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world”
– Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 270

“…all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels.”
– Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., The Elders Journal, v. 1, no. 4, p. 60

“Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth.”
– Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 6, p. 176

“When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was groveling in darkness.”
– Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 5, p. 73

“With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world.”
– Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 199

“Christians—those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about—some of them are the biggest whoremasters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men. The poor devils, they could not get up here and preach an oral discourse, to save themselves from hell; they are preaching their fathers’ sermons —preaching sermons that were written a hundred years before they were born. …You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be damned with your priest.
– Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, v. 5, p. 89

“Christianity…is a perfect pack of nonsense…the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.”
– Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 6, p. 167

“Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom.”
– Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 127

“What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast.”
– Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 225

“What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing… Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God.”
– Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 225

“After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon.”
– Apostle George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, p. 324

“Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls.”
– Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, see pp. 45-46

“… all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ…. in large part the worship of apostate Christendom is performed in ignorance, as much so as was the worship of the Athenians who bowed the Unknown Gods.”
– Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 269, 374-375

And if there’s still any lingering doubt what the goal of what payload this mimicking “virus” group is carrying, the founder of the Latter-day Saint religion couldn’t have been any clearer when he claimed that these were the very words of God, could he?

“It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?”
(Joseph Smith – History 1:17-20)

In true “virus” fashion, the rather obvious goal of this deceptive and dishonest mimicry, is to invade, replace the real with the counterfeit, and then ultimately destroy the original.

Any questions?

To be fair, Mormon missionaries do not realize their tactics are deceptive. But the fact that so many of these pages exist proves that this is a concerted effort by the church, and not delinquent missionaries acting on their own. The “Elders” are just pawns in this game of chess. They are taught to teach line upon line, and precept upon precept. They see it as giving people information they are ready to commit to, but are blinded to the fact that it’s really a deceptive and deliberate virus infection.

To any Latter-day Saints reading this, I ask a simple question. If this approach by your missionaries is not dishonest, then what is? What does shady proselytizing look like, and how does it differ from this? If this type of guerrilla warfare is acceptable because they believe the church is true, then aren’t anti-Mormons justified in bending the truth if they believe it to be inferior to what they have to offer – or even false?

If The Book of Mormon is true and the Spirit bears witness of it, shouldn’t that be on the forefront of these pages? When Joseph Smith, the restoration, and The Book of Mormon take a backseat as a principle for later, it gives the impression that you’re embarrassed by your own religion or don’t believe its message is powerful enough to change hearts on its own. When you mimic our faith, you concede that we have a greater message. If I were a Latter-day Saint I would be upset with all this: If not at the blatant deception these missionaries employ, then at the indignity of my cherished beliefs being swept under the rug by my own representatives.

Remember what Jesus said, “No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.” (Luke 11:33 KJV) What are we non-LDS supposed to think when your missionaries behave like a virus, imitating orthodox Christianity and hiding its core beliefs under a bushel?

After all, didn’t Jesus also say, “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.” (John 3:20 KJV)?

So, Latter-day Saints, if you’re sick of your church being called a cult, I have a simple piece of advice for you: stop acting like one. You can start by ceasing and desisting with this sleazy, unethical, and deceptive tactic.

Appendix A: Roster of Mormon “Christian” Front Groups

Here is a roster of the known instances of these groups as of today’s date and listed in the order that they were discovered in:

Full-On Deceptive Groups

These are groups that use the word “Christian” in their name and deceptively lead the unsuspected to think that they are a mainstream Christian group based on their name and their “About” page description.

North Bay Christians
(North San Francisco Bay Area, California)
https://www.facebook.com/northbaychristians

Oklahoma Christians
(Oklahoma)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/526053168052630

North East Ohio Christians
(North East Ohio Area, Ohio)
https://www.facebook.com/NorthEastOhioChristians

Christians in Barry County, Michigan
(Barry County, Michigan)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1037071850409374

 

“Deception Lite” Groups

These are groups that don’t use the word “Christian” in their name but use other terms instead to get those ignorant of Mormonism think that they are a mainstream Christian group based on their vague, ambiguous, rather generic name and their “About” page description.

Followers of Jesus Christ
(Worldwide. This is an extremely large group with over 27,000 members)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1634088103506681

Followers of Christ in Greater Cleveland
(Cleveland, Ohio)
https://www.facebook.com/FollowersofChristinGreaterCleveland/

Followers of Jesus Christ in Kpong, Ghana
(Kpong, Ghana)
https://www.facebook.com/TheChurchofJesusChristKpong/

Followers of Christ in Southern India
(Southern India)
https://www.facebook.com/FollowersOfChristInSouthernIndia/

Followers of Jesus Christ in New Hampshire
(New Hampshire)
https://www.facebook.com/FollowersofJesusChristinNH

Followers of Jesus Christ in Bighorn Basin
(Bighorn Basin, Wyoming)
https://www.facebook.com/FOJCBighornBasin

Followers of Christ in the West Valley
(Phoenix, AZ)
https://www.facebook.com/FollowingChristPHX

Believers of Jesus Christ in The Gila Valley
(Gila Valley, AZ)
https://www.facebook.com/BelieversofJesusChristinTheGilaValley

ASL Believers of Jesus Christ in Tucson
(Tucson, AZ)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/418941586493015

Believers of Christ in Metro Detroit
(Detroit, MI)
https://www.facebook.com/BelieversofChristinMetroDetroit

Believers of Jesus Christ in Nogales & Sahuarita
(Nogales, AZ)
https://www.facebook.com/BelieversofJesusChristinNogalesandSahuarita

Believers of Jesus Christ in the CNMI
(Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands)
https://www.facebook.com/BelieversofJesusChristintheCNMI

Believers of Jesus Christ in the Desert
(Silver City, NM)
https://www.facebook.com/BelieversofJesusChristintheDesert

Appendix B: An Example Exchange with A Mormon Front Group Admin or Moderator

The following exchange took place with a group Administrator or Moderator of one of these Mormon Front Groups on December 18, 2021 in Facebook (aka “Meta”) Messenger. The red arrow at the end was added to indicate where they blocked one of the article authors, Fred W. Anson, from Direct Messaging any longer.

This content is included in this document to illustrate the kind of evasion and obfuscation that the Mormons running these groups engage in. We found it enlightening – and I suspect that you will too.

Figure 1 of 6
(page down to continue)

Figure 2 of 6
(page down to continue)

Figure 3 of 6
(page down to continue)

Figure 4 of 6
(page down to continue)

Figure 5 of 6
(page down to continue)

Figure 6 of 6
(please note the red arrow – this is the point at which I was blocked from chatting with them any longer)

• By Fred Anson & Michael Flournoy

For me, Fred, every General Conference there’s always one speaker that I always look forward to hearing from, Dieter F. Uchtdorf. To say that he’s my favorite Mormon Leader is an understatement. In fact, I once offended an entire Internet group by suggesting that all the other Mormon leaders with seniority in front of him should choose the right by stepping aside and letting him assume his clearly rightful place as the President of the LDS Church. The non-Mormons were offended that I would implicitly endorse the LDS system of church governance and the Mormons were offended that I would suggest that their system is anything less than ideal. Toes stepped on all around. Well done, Fred!

My enthusiasm is due to what I see as his clear focus on Jesus Christ and His redeeming grace above all else. In my opinion, if there is any voice in General Conference that can be counted on to exalt Jesus it is Dieter F. Uchtdorf. So you can imagine my excitement when there was a buzz on Facebook that in his Spring 2018 General Conference – on Easter Sunday, no less – address Elder Uchtdorf, had preached the clear, pure, gospel of the Bible. And we can see why they would come to that conclusion when words like this are spoken:

To find the most important day in history, we must go back to that evening almost 2,000 years ago in the Garden of Gethsemane when Jesus Christ knelt in intense prayer and offered Himself as a ransom for our sins. It was during this great and infinite sacrifice of unparalleled suffering in both body and spirit that Jesus Christ, even God, bled at every pore. Out of perfect love, He gave all that we might receive all. His supernal sacrifice, difficult to comprehend, to be felt only with all our heart and mind, reminds us of the universal debt of gratitude we owe Christ for His divine gift…

Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins.

All of them.

On that most important day in history, Jesus the Christ opened the gates of death and cast aside the barriers that prevented us from passing into the holy and hallowed halls of everlasting life. Because of our Lord and Savior, you and I are granted a most precious and priceless gift—regardless of our past, we can repent and follow the path that leads to celestial light and glory, surrounded by the faithful children of Heavenly Father.

Because of Jesus Christ, we will rise from the despair of death and embrace those we love, shedding tears of overwhelming joy and overflowing gratitude. Because of Jesus Christ, we will exist as eternal beings, worlds without end.

Because of Jesus the Christ, our sins can not only be erased; they can be forgotten.

We can become purified and exalted.

Holy.
(Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Behold the Man!” Spring 2018 General Conference)

But friends, there are some real problems here! For a start, not only does the Bible affirm that the atonement took place on the cross, not the Garden of Gethsemane, so does the Book of Mormon:

“And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world”
— 1 Nephi 11:33

“Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world”
— 3 Nephi 11:14

And there’s a good reason for this, though the difference between Gethsemane and Golgotha might appear to be a trivial technicality, it underscores the vast differences between orthodox Biblical Christianity and Mormonism. By situating it at Golgotha, mainstream Christianity locates the atonement in the sacrifice of Christ; by situating it in Gethsemane, Mormons locate the atonement in the obedience of the believer.

It’s the difference between grace and works. On the one hand, there is the truly finished work that the believer looks to in faith; and on the other, there is the completed demonstration that the believer aspires to recreate (albeit metaphorically). In the latter, Christ might show the way, but he stops short of becoming the way, thus the believer is thrust back on his own efforts to secure the goal. As Adam Gopnik in the New Yorker noted, Mormonism is more about attainment than atonement, (Adam Gopnik, “I, Nephi: Mormonism and its Meanings”; The New Yorker, August 13, 2012). But such a focus denies the Christ-centered redemption narrative that’s at the very core of the gospel message and so rightly cherished by Christians the world over.

Further, and in the end, Elder Uchtdorf shifts the focus of his address off of the exaltation and glory of Jesus Christ and places it squarely on what Christ can do for us:

So, when you ponder the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, what do you see?

Those who find a way to truly behold the Man find the doorway to life’s greatest joys and the balm to life’s most demanding despairs.

So, when you are encompassed by sorrows and grief, behold the Man.

When you feel lost or forgotten, behold the Man.

When you are despairing, deserted, doubting, damaged, or defeated, behold the Man.

He will comfort you.

He will heal you and give meaning to your journey. He will pour out His Spirit and fill your heart with exceeding joy.

He gives “power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength.”

When we truly behold the Man, we learn of Him and seek to align our lives with Him. We repent and strive to refine our natures and daily grow a little closer to Him. We trust Him. We show our love for Him by keeping His commandments and by living up to our sacred covenants.

In other words, we become His disciples…

My beloved brothers and sisters, I testify that the most important day in the history of mankind was the day when Jesus Christ, the living Son of God, won the victory over death and sin for all of God’s children. And the most important day in your life and mine is the day when we learn to “behold the man”; when we see Him for who He truly is; when we partake with all our heart and mind of His atoning power; when with renewed enthusiasm and strength, we commit to follow Him. May that be a day that recurs over and over again throughout our lives.

I leave you my testimony and blessing that as we “behold the man,” we will find meaning, joy, and peace in this earthly life and eternal life in the world to come. In the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.
(Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Behold the Man!” Spring 2018 General Conference)

So, in the end, the message preached here is that when we “behold the man”, Jesus Christ becomes something of a magic talisman or cosmic “turbo button” that we can push to get past our problems and press on to both temporal and eternal achievement and accomplishment. In such a scenario God gets pushed right off of the throne of our lives so we can sit down.

This is not the gospel of Jesus Christ, this is the gospel of I, me, mine. It is a false gospel.

Further, despite Elder Uchtdorf’s use of the scripture elsewhere in his address, this is not, “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins” (2 Nephi 25:26), this is the gospel of “It’s all about what Christ can do for me!” And, speaking as those with Mormon family and friends, it is this false gospel that breaks our heart.

For you see, the gospel isn’t about us, it’s about Jesus. Perhaps another German said it best when he so plainly and directly stated, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” And his words are even more powerful and plainer when considered in their full context:

The cross is laid on every Christian. The first Christ-suffering which every man must experience is the call to abandon the attachments of this world. It is that dying of the old man which is the result of his encounter with Christ. As we embark upon discipleship we surrender ourselves to Christ in union with his death—we give over our lives to death. Thus it begins; the cross is not the terrible end to an otherwise god-fearing and happy life, but it meets us at the beginning of our communion with Christ. When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.
(Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “The Cost of Discipleship”, p.71, Nook edition)

A gospel than culminates in the garden rips the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ out of it. Mr. Bonhoeffer, might not be the Bible but he most certainly understood this. Consider the words of the Apostle Paul:

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
— Galatians 2:20&21 KJV

Or, better yet, consider the words of Jesus Himself:

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.”
— Luke 9:23&24 KJV

Garden theology and cross theology are completely at odds. The disciples were with Jesus in the garden. They were admonished to watch and pray. An angel came and strengthened Jesus. If the atonement happened in the garden, then Jesus was incapable of ransoming mankind alone. He needed help. This gospel makes grace an enabling power instead of a saving power, and salvation becomes a joint effort.

Cross theology has Jesus suffering alone. He even calls out saying, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” No one is present to strengthen the Savior or lighten his load. The burden is His, and His alone to carry. This gospel crowns him King of the Jews, the author, and finisher of our faith, and the sole rescuer of men.

Garden theology is a gospel of never-ending striving. In Mormonism, Jesus bled from every pore as He took the sins of mankind, but even after that he said to Peter, “Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11)  Speaking in the future tense, he admitted he yet had a cup to drink. He describes this bitter cup in 3 Nephi 11:11 as “taking upon me the sins of the world.” Mormonism, therefore, is a theology of never truly having salvation. Just as Jesus still had to drink the bitter cup, Mormons still have to keep the commandments and endure to the end. There is no light at the end of the tunnel, and salvation is always something you aim for but can never possess.

Cross theology has Jesus definitively saying, “It is finished!” (John 19:30) It is a gospel of peace and rest, a gospel of trust, knowing that God has our salvation firmly in His grip. Salvation is a gift, it’s something believers can possess and be assured of in mortality.

Perhaps most dangerous of all, garden theology makes Jesus into a mere man. In the garden, he says to God, “Not my will, but thine be done.” (Luke 22:42) This is a theology where men are on a journey to become Gods themselves, and Jesus is on the same path trying to align Himself with the Father. In this vein, in the aforementioned 3 Nephi 11:11 passage Christ even goes so far as to say, “I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning” which implies that the atonement was a contest of his will v. Heavenly Father’s. Cross theology, in contrast, has Jesus in full submission to the Father. The wills are aligned. Jesus even says, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!” (Luke 23:34). In this theology, Jesus is already one with the Father. He is already fully God.

I, Michael, always thought it was amazing how Pontious Pilate could stare Jesus, the author of all truth, in the face and say, “What is truth?” It was this utter blindness that led him to say, “Behold the man!” What irony, that Pilate said these words, and nearly 2,000 years later they were repeated multiple times by a Mormon “pilot”. The true gospel of the cross does not inspire us to behold the man, it inspires us to behold the Son of God!

Garden theology teaches that God’s work is to exalt mankind. Everything is filtered through this lens. Every trial we go through is about our growth and learning. In cross theology, everything is for the glory of God alone. We are bidden to take up our cross, for only in losing our life can it be found – a paradox that requires a total and complete trust in God alone, even when the trial makes no sense to us or others. Thus, the gospel isn’t about personal achievement, it isn’t about self-actualization, it isn’t even about achieving personal perfection, it’s about dying to self, and being resurrected to live in Christ (see Romans 6:1-11). If the atonement culminates by simply achieving a life of self-glorifying obedience to religious laws and ordinances, then what need is there for the cross at all?

Friend, the gospel isn’t about using Christ as an enabling power, or a benevolent older brother to guide your way. The gospel isn’t about Jesus punching your E-ticket so you can be resurrected and spend eternity with your family and friends. The gospel isn’t about living a happy, self-actualized, prosperous life in the here and now. The gospel is about dying. The gospel can’t be found in the garden. Nor is it found in choosing the right. The gospel is found on Golgotha. On a cross. In a tomb. In death. The gospel is about dying to self and being raised to live with Christ in His righteousness. The gospel is Jesus Christ. He is the beginning and He is the end. As C.S. Lewis, said well,

Give up yourself, and you will find your real self. Lose your life and you will save it. Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favourite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end: submit with every fibre of your being, and you will find eternal life. Keep back nothing. Nothing that you have not given away will be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in.
(C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis Signature Classics)“, pp. 226-227, Kindle edition)

Friend, He calls to you, to me, to us, and to anyone who will listen, “Come and die.”

• By Fred W. Anson & Michael Flournoy

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”

Introduction

I remember driving past a church sporting a playground on the way to our ward one Sunday morning. I pressed my face against the back seat window. “Mom,” I called out. “That church has a playground, can we go there?”

“Please Mommy?” My younger sister chimed in next to me.

My child’s mind quickly did the calculations. This church was half the distance of our ward, which was a win for Mom, and we would get a playground to enjoy.

She dismissed our pleas, saying a church like that might be fun, but it wouldn’t teach us what we needed to know. I shot my sister a sympathetic look as she pouted in the seat beside me.

As the weeks went by I tried to spot other churches that did not teach the true gospel. As we passed a number of them each week, I noticed almost every single one of them had something in common that was missing at my church: the cross.

I asked my mother one day why our church didn’t have crosses. She replied that the cross was a murder weapon. It was what they used to kill Jesus, that’s why we didn’t use it at our church.

I understood then that bad churches displayed the cross. Whenever we drove by one, I would feel a sense of distress for Jesus. How bad He must feel knowing that people were flaunting the worst moment of His life for the whole world to see!

When I went on my two-year mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Evangelical Christianity continued to flummox me. They claimed to love Jesus, but they were obsessed with His blood. I was certain they would have killed Him themselves if they’d lived during New Testament times.

There was so much they weren’t privy to. They didn’t know how important the resurrection was or that Jesus actually took our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane. The cross was just one puzzle piece, but it was all apostate Christianity had.

A decade passed and something unusual happened. I abandoned my beliefs and became an Evangelical. My friends and family speculated about what happened to my testimony. Some thought I chose an easier path or intellectualized my way out of the faith. However, there’s only one reason I left the faith that captivated seven generations of my family, and it has everything to do with the cross.

The Bible revealed five truths about the cross I’d never heard before and it became beautiful to me. I no longer cared about priesthood authority, temples, or eternal families. I was like the man in Christ’s parable who found treasure buried in a field and sold all he had to obtain it.

Here are the five facts I never understood about the cross as a Latter-day Saint:

1. The cross wasn’t a murder weapon

The cross was certainly meant to be a murder weapon, but things were different when it came to Jesus. You see, His life wasn’t taken, it was given.

In John 10:17-18 (KJV) Jesus says, “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”

Clearly, Jesus was not murdered. He went to the cross of his own volition, and when the Roman soldiers tempted him to free Himself, He chose to showcase His love by staying and dying.

In fact, two separate attempts by Peter to have Jesus forgo the ordeal were met with resistance. In Matthew 16 Jesus explains to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem to suffer and be killed. Peter takes him aside and argues with Him, saying this will not happen.

In verse 23 Jesus rebukes him, saying, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” He immediately transitions into preaching that the taking up of our cross is the means by which we find life.

Later when Jesus is captured, Peter takes his sword and cuts off the high priest’s ear. Surprisingly, Jesus calls off the attack saying, “Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” (John 18:11 KJV)

It appears that the bitter cup had not yet been consumed in the garden. And what was this cup Jesus asked to be excused from, but later drank on the cross?

It was God’s wrath.

Consider Isaiah 51:17 (KJV) “Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, which hast drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury; thou hast drunken the dregs of the cup of trembling, and wrung them out.”

This leads to my second point: that on the cross Jesus absorbed the wrath that was meant for us.

2. Jesus became our propitiation on the cross

Propitiation is a word I never heard as a Latter-day Saint. It is defined as an action that appeases someone and the Biblical narrative uses it to show Jesus appeasing God’s anger for our sins.

In order for God to be righteous, He must be just. If He were to forgive us without punishing sin, He would be unholy and therefore undeserving of worship.

Romans 3:23-26 goes into detail about why this propitiation is important:

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.“

Jesus drank the cup of God’s wrath vicariously for us on the cross. His suffering culminated in separation from the Father. Paul explains that this showcases the righteousness of God. No sin is left unpunished, leaving God the freedom to forgive anyone who believes in Christ. Thus the cross renders God both just and justifier.

3. The cross initiates the new covenant

Hebrews 9:16 tells us: “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.“

A synonym for testament that Latter-day Saints might be more familiar with is covenant. Verse 17 goes on to explain that a covenant has no power as long as the testator is alive.

In other words, if Jesus had lived an immortal life after Gethsemane, there wouldn’t be an atonement. This makes the cross the instrument by which we gain access to the covenant of grace.

4. We are made perfect through the cross

Colossians 2:13-14 (KJV) states: “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.”

According to the Bible our sins are permanently forgiven through the cross. Romans 5:10 says we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. Hebrews 10:14 says that by one offering Christ has perfected forever those that are sanctified. However, Christ’s offering on the cross doesn’t just pardon our sins, it also makes us righteous.

Consider Romans 5:19: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.“

This is why Romans 5:10 associates our salvation with Jesus’ life and death. Jesus kept God’s law to the last iota, and on the cross His life of perfect obedience was accredited to our spiritual ledgers.

2 Corinthians 5:21 says that Jesus became sin for us so we could be made righteous. Colossians 1:20-22 (KJV) expounds further on this teaching:

“And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight.”

5. The cross constitutes the entire atonement

Romans 5:8-11 (KJV) says: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.“

This passage confirms that Christ’s death justifies us and equates the atonement with the cross. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 2:2 Paul says, “For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

This statement always bothered me as a Latter-day Saint. Why put so much emphasis on the crucifixion when Gethsemane and the resurrection were just as important?

Let’s take a closer look at both events to find out why.

In the LDS church, I was repeatedly told that Jesus bled from every pore in the garden of Gethsemane as He took our sin, pain, and sorrows. This event is described in Luke 22:44.

However, the Biblical text doesn’t say Jesus bled at all. What it actually says is: “…His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”

The subject in the sentence isn’t blood, it’s sweat. The phrase “as it were” means that the sweat was like blood in some regard. Perhaps it was discolored or thicker than usual. Anxiety and stress can cause sweat to thicken, and Jesus certainly felt that in Gethsemane as he prepared for the coming crucifixion.

If Jesus really had bled from every pore, I’m sure Luke would have said so. The absence of this detail leaves me to conclude that the LDS narrative about Gethsemane is false.

What about the resurrection? Didn’t Paul teach that if Jesus was not raised we were yet in our sins? Indeed, he did (1 Corinthians 15:17). And he spoke the truth. If there was no resurrection, we would remain condemned.

However, this isn’t because the cross was insufficient to secure eternal life for us. The reason the resurrection is so important is because Jesus said he would return from the dead (John 10:18). It was proof that He truly was the Son of God.

Imagine that Jesus had come boasting that He was divine and would prove it by taking our sins on the cross and resurrecting three days later. But in this scenario, Jesus never came back to life. What would that mean? It would mean he was a fraud and his atonement was a hoax. But since He did return to life, we can trust that He is the promised Messiah and rest in the assurance that we’ve been perfected through the cross.

Conclusion

I pray that any Latter-day Saints reading this won’t be offended by my analysis. You’re probably wondering why I’m so determined to undermine what you believe. I think it’s the older brother in me. I want you to know the truth, even if it hurts a little.

I want you to be free. I want you to know you can have assurance in Christ’s merits instead of stressing about your own. Because of the cross, you never have to worry if you’re good enough. The only thing you have to do is believe in Jesus. Trust that He is enough. There is nothing you can add to what He’s done because His work was perfect. He will never disappoint or let you down. Of that I am certain.

Introduction

One of the most intriguing topics The Book of Mormon covers is the church of the devil. There has been some speculation from LDS leaders in the past over what constitutes this abominable church and guesses have ranged from the government to Catholicism. However, the current LDS position is the church of Satan is any doctrine or organization that fights against their church.

George Q. Cannon said,

“And to-day, those who are inciting mobs against this people; those who go to Congress, and incite persecutions against us; those who fulminate threats and frame petitions; those who meet together in conventions; those who gather together in conferences, are those who belong to this ‘mother of abominations,’ this ‘whore of all the earth,’ and it is through the influence of that accursed whore, that they gather together and marshal their forces in every land against the Latter-day Saints, the Church of the living God.”

(George Q. Cannon, “PREDICTIONS IN THE BOOK OF MORMON, etc.,” (April 6, 1884) Journal of Discourses 25:128.)

However, if you read the passages in the Standard Works that deal with this subject, they’re too specific to account for every anti-Mormon movement or false religion. As I’ve studied the abominable church and pieced together the signs, The Book of Mormon seems to point to a specific organization, one that is thriving at this very moment.

The Book of Mormon draws a parallel between the church of the devil and the secret society of Gadianton, since both are founded by the Devil. The Pearl of Great Price explains that Satan created this organization at the very beginning (see Moses 5:51). Its presence is evidence of a culture that is ripe for destruction.

Surely the world we live in today is a conducive environment for such an organization. So ask yourself, what would the church of the devil look like if it was here right now? Would it blatantly refer to itself as The Church of Satan, or would it mimic Christianity? Would its members be hateful and barbaric, or successful and articulate?

Thankfully, The Book of Mormon has given 17 clues to assist in our endeavor to identify the abominable church. So grab your magnifying glass and join me as I solve the mystery: who is the devil’s church?

#1. It emerges from the Gentile nations.

In 1 Nephi 13:4 we read:

“And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.”

Could The Book of Mormon be hinting at the Protestant reformation that started in Germany with Martin Luther and spread to France with John Calvin?

Or perhaps another modern organization fits the bill, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Scientology that had their beginnings in the United States?

The brush here is so large that it could even include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since it started in the U.S. and spread to England and Canada. In fact, the only thing we can definitively say is what the abominable church isn’t, and that’s Judaism. Let’s move on.

 

#2. Its Members Will Be Well Dressed

1 Nephi 13:7-8 says:

“And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.

And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.”

If there’s one thing this passage makes clear, the great and abominable church is not some casual, sandal-wearing Evangelical church. Its members will be known for their fashionable attire. They will probably wear dress shoes, skirts, and suits to church.

 

#3. It Will Be Widespread

1 Nephi 14:11 has this to say about the cursed church:

“And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.”

This is not some obscure faith, secluded in the mountains of Tibet. The religion the text refers to will be known throughout the world. It will penetrate every continent, visit every clime, and sweep every country.

 

#4. It Will Speak In All Tongues

The Book of Mormon teaches that the church of the devil will have dominion over every tongue and people. To do that, they will need to spread their message in every language.

Their missionaries will have special training in learning new languages. Their scriptures and pamphlets will also be translated into innumerable languages.

 

#5. It Will Have Political Power

For this organization to have dominion, they will need political prowess. Like the Gadianton Robbers, their members will sit in high ranking government seats.

When we think of a political church, Catholicism immediately comes to mind since it used to reign over entire nations. However, smaller churches can have great influence too. This link details the political victories of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

#6. It Will Be Wealthy

According to The Book of Mormon, this church will have its heart set on silver and gold (1 Nephi 13:7-8). It is likely that this organization will have millions, if not billions of dollars stashed away.

1 Timothy 6:10 tells us that the love of money is the root of all evil. If you want to find the church of Satan, follow the money. Here is a list of the ten richest religions in the world.

 

#7. It Will Have False Prophets and Apostles

Matthew 24:24 (NKJV) says:

“For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 (NKJV) expounds on this, calling these false authorities Satan’s ministers:

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”

If we add the New Testament account to what The Book of Mormon says (3 Nephi 14:15), we see that the church of the devil will not overtly appear evil. It will mimic Christianity and will seem righteous to the outside world.

It will even boast prophets and apostles who hold the power to perform miracles. Because they seem like agents of light, many will be deceived into obeying them.

#8. It Will Have Ornate Buildings

In 1 Nephi 8, Nephi sees a vision of an iron rod leading people to the tree of life. In verses 26-27 he records:

“And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.

And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.”

It could be argued that the great and spacious building is merely metaphorical, but since the fine material worn by the devil’s minions is literal, we can argue that the great and spacious building is literal as well.

After all, the members of this great church care deeply about appearances, so why wouldn’t they worship in grand structures? Since the building rests above the earth, it could symbolize a construct that the members consider holy.

#9. They Will Have Secret Signs and Tokens

Helaman 6:22 has this to say about the Gadianton Robbers:

“And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant.”

Since the Gadianton Robbers had secret tokens and words, so will the church of the devil. An example of a token could be a special handshake. Secret words could be new names or a whole phrase like, “Health in the navel, marrow to the bones.”

#10. They Will Make Oaths and Covenants

Regarding the secret society of Gadianton, Helaman 6:21 states:

“But behold, Satan did stir up the hearts of the more part of the Nephites, insomuch that they did unite with those bands of robbers, and did enter into their covenants and their oaths, that they would protect and preserve one another in whatsoever difficult circumstances they should be placed, that they should not suffer for their murders, and their plunderings, and their stealings.”

The church of the devil will be a covenant people. One covenant they make will be to protect one another. This is strikingly similar to the covenant Latter-day Saints make in temples, where they vow to give everything to the defense of the church, even their own lives if necessary.

#11. It Will Have Demonic Influences

Since the devil is the founder of this church (1 Nephi 13:6), there will be evidence of demonic influences. Occult items like Ouija boards, tarot cards, and seer stones might be part of its history or Satanic symbols could be hidden in its architecture.

Its scripture will be like the whisper of a familiar spirit, or in other words, a demon. Interestingly enough, The Book of Mormon makes this claim about itself in 2 Nephi 26:16, which says:

“For those who shall be destroyed shall speak unto them out of the ground, and their speech shall be low out of the dust, and their voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit; for the Lord God will give unto him power, that he may whisper concerning them, even as it were out of the ground; and their speech shall whisper out of the dust.”

#12. It Will Practice Priestcraft

Just the mention of priestcraft gives Latter-day Saints a feeling of foreboding. They inherently believe that requiring payment to hear the gospel is Satanic even though scripture never actually lists it as a practice of the devil’s church.

2 Nephi 10:5 claims that Jesus was crucified because of priestcraft. If that’s true, it doesn’t get any more evil than that. There can be no doubt that the abominable church would institute such a practice.

Surely the LDS church wouldn’t engage in priestcraft, right?

Actually, it would. And it has. In 2017 the MormonLeaks website released pay stubs for Henry B. Eyering, one of the twelve apostles.

Gordon B. Hinkley, when explaining the stipend given to leaders, made it clear that it does not come from tithing funds. He said,

“Merchandising interests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings, particularly those contiguous to Temple Square, to help preserve the beauty and the integrity of the core of the city. All of these commercial properties are tax-paying entities.

I repeat, the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small and would not keep the work going for longer than a very brief period.

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.”

(Gordon B. Hinckley, “Questions and Answers,” Ensign (November 1985), 49.)

Why does it matter if their pay comes from tithing? Quite simply, that crosses the line into priestcraft. Would it surprise you to find that LDS leaders were at one point paid with tithing?

Historian D. Michael Quinn stated,

“In the nineteenth-century West, local officers of the LDS church obtained their support from the tithing they collected. As early as 1859, Brigham Young wondered “whether a Stake would not be better governed when none of the officers were paid for their services.” During Brigham Young’s presidency, ward bishops drew at will from the primarily non-cash tithing Mormons donated. President Young complained at the October 1860 general conference “against a principle in many of the Bishops to use up all the tithing they could for their own families.”

Even full-time missionaries benefited from tithing funds in the nineteenth century. The senior president of the First Council of Seventy commented in 1879 that the families of married missionaries should be supported from tithing funds. However, at best that practice barely kept struggling wives and children out of abject poverty while their husbands and fathers served two-year missions.

“In 1884, Church President John Taylor limited bishops to 8 percent of the tithing they collected (now primarily cash), while stake presidents got 2 percent of the tithing collected by all the bishops of the stake. In 1888, Wilford Woodruff established set salaries for stake presidents, and provided that a stake committee would apportion 10 percent of collected tithing between the bishops and the stake tithing clerk. At the April 1896 general conference, the First Presidency announced the end of salaries for local officers, in response to the decision of the temple meeting ‘to not pay Salaries to any one but the twelve.’”

(D. Michael Quinn, “LDS Church Finances from the 1830’s to the 1990’s”, Sunstone Magazine, June 1996, p.21; audio presentation January 1, 1992)

But perhaps the LDS definition of priestcraft is too small. 1 Nephi 13:8 lists silver and gold among the desires of the church of the devil. One must ask in light of this why the Mormon church seems so adamant about making money.

The LDS church even built the City Creek Center, a 1.6 billion dollar investment. It’s commonplace for churches to build schools, orphanages, and hospitals, but why does a church build a mall, unless its heart is set on riches?

According to the Wall Street Journal, the LDS church has amassed a whopping 100 billion dollars and has stock in Apple, Chevron, Visa, JPMorgan Chase, Home Depot, Amazon, and Google.

#13. It Will Oppress the Poor

Helaman 6:39 says:

“And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God.”

We can be certain that the LDS church would never sink this low. Well, not overtly. Like many false religions, it demands “tithing” from its members, teaching that it’s a commandment from God. But watch televangelist Kenneth Copeland demand tithing from his members, and it becomes clear that false preachers have no problem swindling their members for money under the banner of tithing.

Would the church of the devil institute tithing to hide their money laundering behind a facade of obedience? Without a doubt. This giving would have a sense of urgency. Leadership would follow up with the members to make sure they were paying. It would be mandatory, no matter what the finances of the members looked like. This coercive church would also avoid transparency about its finances.

Elder Valeri V. Cordón of the Seventy said,

“After some events related to a civil war in Central America, my father’s business went bankrupt. He went from about 200 full-time employees to fewer than five sewing operators who worked as needed in the garage of our home. One day during those difficult times, I heard my parents discussing whether they should pay tithing or buy food for the children.”

(Elder Valeri V. Cordón, April 2017 Conference, “The Language of the Gospel.”)

How is this even a question? A better question is, does a good organization emphasize paying tithing at the cost of your children’s lives? Does it make tithing a requirement to enter the temple to receive saving ordinances? This use of tithing can only amount to one thing: priestcraft at the expense of the poor.

This isn’t the only instance of Latter-day Saints turning their backs on the poor. In 2013 a bishop named David Musselman went to his ward disguised as a homeless man.

He stood outside the church building wishing congregants a happy Thanksgiving, and while some were polite, he was approached by a number of members who told him this was not the place for charity, and demanded that he leave.

Some might argue that this was just one ward. However, this random sampling constitutes 100% of the wards it has been tried in. To sweep it under the rug is to ignore what is certainly a widespread issue.

#14. It Yokes the Saints With Iron

1 Nephi 13:5 explains that the abominable church binds the saints with a yoke of iron. What does that look like? Lots of hard work? Salvation dependent on obedience?

Let me paint a picture of an iron yoke for you. An iron yoke is believing that God can’t save you in your sins. It’s believing that you must constantly repent and be better than you were the day before. It’s being so tied down with meetings that you never see your family. It’s a full-time ministry that you don’t get paid a cent for.

An iron yoke is having to find whole mornings or afternoons to go to the temple. It’s being told you can only wear one set of earrings and you can’t drink beer, coffee, or tea. It’s being told your dress can’t show your shoulders, and if men lust after you it’s your fault.

It’s being told where to go to church, and when. It’s being so steeped in family tradition that when it’s time to go on a mission, you don’t have a choice. Then, when you go on the mission the rules are so strict that they include when to wake up and go to bed. What you read and watch is restricted to a handful of church promotion materials.

It’s being told it’s unacceptable to criticize the leaders, even when the criticism is true. An iron yoke is having to do genealogy for your dead ancestors and not being able to shop or get lunch on Sundays.

When a musical number is done during worship and you can’t make a sound afterwards, that’s an example of a church that muzzles its members and yokes them in iron.

#15. It Diminishes the Gospel

1 Nephi 13:26-27 says:

And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.

In context, this passage is talking about the devil’s church tampering with the Holy Bible. While Latter-day Saints haven’t physically removed parts from the Bible, they’ve diminished it in other ways.

The most obvious of these is the addition of new scripture. Every time the canon grows the Bible becomes diluted, in the same way a pitcher of lemonade is diluted when water is added.

A Mormon would argue that they are adding lemonade to the pitcher of lemonade, but that’s not true, since what’s added contradicts the Bible.

For example, John 4:24 says God is spirit, but Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 says the Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bone. Ephesians 2:8 says grace is a gift from God, but Doctrine and Covenants 130:20-21 says all blessings must be earned through obedience. Romans 4:5 says God justifies the ungodly, but the Joseph Smith Translation changes the verse to say God justifies not the ungodly.

If that wasn’t bad enough, The Book of Mormon claims that the Bible is so corrupted that “an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.” (1 Nephi 13:29)

This essentially makes the Bible a tool of Satan. This may not constitute a physical removal of plain and precious doctrines, but it’s just as bad, if not worse. LDS scripture and leadership are seen as a fix to the Bible so it can’t be trusted to speak for itself.

#16. It Employs Deceit

Ether 8:16 says, among other things, that the Gadianton Robbers would lie. It’s not surprising that an organization founded by the devil would use deception and it’s safe to assume the abominable church would behave the same way.

Unfortunately, lying runs rampant in the LDS church. As a Mormon missionary I was taught to teach line upon line and precept upon precept, but actually I was just withholding information that would scare investigators away.

BYU professor Robert Millett instructed a class of future missionaries to avoid antagonistic questions. He said, among other things, “Don’t answer the question they ask, answer the question they should have asked.”

The Mormon Discussion Podcast did an episode revealing Elder Holland’s numerous lies. Mormon Stories also put out an extensive list of the dishonest acts of LDS leaders.

There has been a growing tendency for Mormons to mimic Protestant Christianity by using the same words but meaning different things. For example, the LDS will say they believe they’re saved by grace. But to them “saved” means resurrected and grace is an enabling power. They’ll speak of heaven but forgo explanation that there are three degrees of heaven in their theology.

The ploy to seem like any other Christian church is an attempt to get unsuspecting victims to lower their guard so they can slowly be inoculated with LDS doctrine. According to 2 Nephi 26:21-23, this is exactly how the devil operates:

“And there are many churches built up which cause envyings, and strifes, and malice.

And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.

For behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you that the Lord God worketh not in darkness.”

#17. It Fights Against the Lamb of God

1 Nephi 14:13 claims that the abominable church will fight against Christ. It says:

“And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.”

While the LDS church isn’t physically persecuting Christians, many of its leaders have taken to the podium to speak out against Jesus, His atonement, and His followers.

It all started with Joseph Smith’s first vision. He claimed he was visited by God the Father and Jesus as he prayed in a grove of trees. When he asked which Christian sect to join he “was answered that [he] must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed [him] said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’” (Joseph Smith- History 1:19)

The LDS church teaches that the church Jesus established fell into a complete apostasy and needed to be restored. But that’s not what the Bible teaches.

In Matthew 16:17-18 (NKJV), when Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord replies,

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

It should be noted that Jesus remains the subject throughout the passage. When He says, “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you”, He’s referring to Peter’s proclamation that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God. A moment later when he says “on this rock I will build my church,” He is still referring to Himself, and the proof comes when he affirms that the church will not be prevailed against. If the church was balanced on the decaying rock of man’s priesthood, it would have crumbled apart. But Jesus can confidently say Hades will not prevail, because the rock He speaks of is unmovable.

This is why the doctrine of an apostasy is so insidious. To claim the church fell away is to assert that Jesus is not the Christ.

Spencer W. Kimball, an LDS prophet, wrote the following:

“One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation. Along with all the other works necessary for man’s exaltation in the kingdom of God this could rule out the need for repentance. It could give license for sin and, since it does not require man to work out his salvation, could accept instead lip service, death-bed ‘repentance,’ and shallow, meaningless confession of sin.”

(Spencer W. Kimball, “The Miracle of Forgiveness, P. 101, 1969)

Again, this is contrary to what the Bible actually teaches. Romans 4:3-5 (NKJV) states:

“For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.”

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NKJV) goes on to say:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”

The Bible clearly teaches that grace is a gift from God that justifies us freely despite our ungodliness. Could this doctrine really have originated with Satan? No. We must conclude that Mormonism promotes a false Christ and rejects the Biblical Jesus.

Russell M. Nelson, the current LDS prophet, had this to say about the atonement:

“Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all mankind, even as many as will, shall be redeemed. The Savior began shedding His blood for all mankind, not on the cross but in the Garden of Gethsemane. There He took upon Himself the weight of the sins of all who would ever live. Under that heavy load, He bled at every pore”

(Russell M. Nelson, “The Message: His Mission and Ministry,” New Era magazine, December 1999, pp. 4, 6).

This statement subtly siphons away the power of the cross. This attitude is prevalent among Latter-day Saints. They view the cross as a barbaric murder weapon, or a necessary evil that merely falls under the shadow of Gethsemane’s glory.

However, in John 10:17-18 (NKJV) Jesus says,

“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

In other words, Jesus wasn’t murdered. He went to the cross of His own volition, in obedience to His Father. Paul explains further in Colossians 1:19-20 (NKJV):

“For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.”

It was on the cross that Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and imputed His righteousness to the faithful. To teach anything else is to promote a false gospel.

Conclusion

After examining The Book of Mormon’s claims about the devil’s church, there is only one religion that fits all 17 points, and that is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If you’re a Latter-day Saint reading this, you’re probably shaking your head or your fists, thinking the author is anti and it only proves your church is true. However, my conclusions didn’t emerge from my biases, but from your scripture. All I did was share facts showing your church matches the description of the church of the devil.

If you want to discredit me, that’s fine. But I implore you to examine your church more carefully. Truth isn’t afraid to challenge itself. If you love the truth, you will set aside your feelings and look deeper.

If you won’t examine your church with an open mind, you can’t claim to care about truth. If you make an excuse or dismiss my points out of hand, you’re no different from a cultist. Either way, you confirm everything I’ve said.

• By Michael Flournoy

If you try telling a Mormon that their gospel is impossible or their sins condemn them they’ll shrug their shoulders and laugh it off. In their minds, they have millennia to become perfect. So it doesn’t matter if all their sins have been repented of in mortality.

Perhaps the biggest proponent of this heresy is Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, an apostle of the LDS church. In a talk given during the October conference of 2017 entitled, “Be Ye Therefore Perfect- Eventually,” he rips Matthew 5:48 out of context, saying we are to be perfect, even as our Father in heaven is perfect, and explains, “surely the Lord would never give us a commandment He knew we could not keep.” The theme of his talk is that we can be satisfied with steady improvement.

Even if we assume Matthew 5:48 is talking about sinlessness, it still contradicts what Holland says in his speech. The verse never specified that perfection was an eventual goal, it simply said to be perfect.

Even The Book of Mormon warns against Holland’s ideology. Alma 13:27 says:

And now, my brethren, I wish from the inmost part of my heart, yea, with great anxiety even unto pain, that ye would hearken unto my words, and cast off your sins, and not procrastinate the day of your repentance.

The Book of Mormon does not suggest shaving off our sins, little by little. I would argue that steady improvement is just a fancy word for procrastination.

Lest any of you get the wrong idea and think I have a grudge against Elder Holland, let me set the record straight. He is my favorite LDS apostle. As far as public speakers go, he is the most powerful man in the LDS church. And if he showed up at my door on a stormy night looking for food and shelter, he would have it. No questions asked.

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

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

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

“I am grateful to know that in spite of my imperfections, at least God is perfect—that at least He is, for example, able to love His enemies, because too often, due to the ‘natural man’ and woman in us, you and I are sometimes that enemy. How grateful I am that at least God can bless those who despitefully use Him because, without wanting or intending to do so, we all despitefully use Him sometimes. I am grateful that God is merciful and a peacemaker because I need mercy and the world needs peace.”

(Jeffrey R. Holland, “Be Ye Therefore Perfect—Eventually”, General Conference, October 2017)

While these quotes hit the nail on the head, the rest of his talk left me convinced that he espouses a false gospel.

I appreciated him admitting his need for mercy, but he underestimated how much he needed it. He said that he and his audience have despitefully used God without intending to, but that’s not true.

Every time we sin, we do it intentionally. That’s what makes it so horrible. If sin was an unintentional mistake, it would be petty for God to condemn us for it. We wouldn’t need repentance and we certainly wouldn’t need mercy.

I also have to wonder how any Latter-day Saint can hope to gain perfection, because if Elder Holland, an apostle, has not obtained it by the ripe old age of 80, then who can?

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

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

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

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

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

This notion makes a mockery of the atonement. This is not a gospel about a debt that has been paid, but a debt that’s been delayed. The debt of sin has merely been refinanced and the interest rate has decreased, but its adherents remain in bondage.

The Book of Mormon vehemently opposes the gospel taught by Elder Holland. Mosiah 4:19-20 states:

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

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

According to The Book of Mormon, we are beggars. And do beggars have the ability to pay 100 pence? No, they do not. Even the servant in the parable couldn’t pay the 100 pence. What Latter-day Saints are essentially being asked to do, is leap out of Earth’s atmosphere by the end of their lives. But not to worry, a six foot vertical will suffice for now, as it is clearly within our ability to do.

The fact remains that for us fallen, broken, and sin-corrupted children of Adam, perfection is indeed an impossible gospel. Whether it is now, or 5,000 years down the road, not one of us is up to the challenge because we’re all beggars.

How are beggars expected to pay their debt if they have no livelihood then? The answer is simple: someone else has to step in and pay the debt in their place.

Let me ask this question: if you saw someone give a homeless person money, but overheard the benefactor saying he would accept incremental payments until he was paid back in full, how would you react?

You would probably be incensed at such a morally reprehensible act. What kind of narcissistic megalomaniac demands money back from someone without the means to do so?

Yet, this is exactly what Latter-day Saints believe the atonement is: a series of payments initiated through life-long repentance.

The Biblical Jesus is not so cruel. He did not offer beggars a lower interest rate on their sin debt. He paid the debt with His own money: the currency of righteousness.

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

My friends, what Elder Holland preaches is not the gospel, but a yoke of bondage. Like a credit card with a high interest rate, it promises a delay in paying up, but its intent is enslavement.

Thus I can confidently say that while Jeffrey R. Holland may be the best story teller on earth, and although he appears sincere in his beliefs, he is not an apostle of the Lord.

• By Michael Flournoy

“And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.”

(Matthew 12:7 ESV)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• By Michael Flournoy

“The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”

Romans 8:16-17 ESV

Romans 8:16-17 always topped my list of favorite Bible passages. When I was Mormon I thought it supported the doctrine of theosis, or man’s potential to evolve into a state of godhood. Since believers comprised Paul’s audience, I assumed they had been granted sonship with Christ through the covenant and ordinance of baptism.

Now that I’m an Evangelical I no longer see the LDS gospel touted within the passage. In fact, I see a message that is antithetical to everything the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches.

Let’s look at the first statement: “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs.” As a Latter-day Saint, I believed all human beings, angels, and demons were the literal offspring of Heavenly Father. However, none of the demons would get their birthright because they rejected their first estate and chose not to have bodies. That contradicted the sentiment that heirship was granted because we were God’s children.

“But wait,” a Mormon will say, “we are adopted by Christ when we accept the gospel.”

And thus begins the mental gymnastics. You see, unlike Evangelicals, Mormons believe we are children of God in more than one sense. First, we are naturally the Father’s children since he formed or procreated our spirits. However, this natural birthright isn’t worth anything since their god plans on sending Satan and a third of his spirit children to Outer Darkness for eternity. The vast majority of people who are born will fail to receive the title of joint-heirs with Christ.

Only those who accept the LDS gospel and are adopted by Christ will fully be children of God and claim heirship with Jesus. Here’s the problem with that: many Latter-day Saints associate the verses with our godly lineage through the Father, but the joint-heirs part is associated with adoption by Christ. However, the passage doesn’t make that distinction. It simply cites our sonship with God as the reason for being joint-heirs.

If this passage is talking about the Father, then surely our natural sonship with God would make everyone worthy of Celestial glory, thus negating the need for the LDS church. If the passage is about Christ, then it diminishes the idea of theosis, because it’s talking about adoption instead of a literal bloodline. If I was adopted by aliens, it would be silly for me to go around saying I could grow up to be an extra-terrestrial because I was the child of a couple of gray creatures from the stars.

The simplest explanation is there’s only one God, and men become His children through adoption which occurs at faith. As we dig deeper into this passage and LDS doctrine, that should be abundantly clear.

What Constitutes a Child of God?

The Mormon belief that Christ adopts us is found in Mosiah 5:7-8 which reads:

And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.

Before I get into critiquing mode, there’s an interesting parallel to Christianity I’d like to point out. This concept is strikingly similar to Federalism, where we are either condemned by association with Adam, or saved by association with Christ.

The LDS will say it’s our adoption to Christ that matters, not our natural lineage. It makes little sense to argue this point, since it’s a common theme we share, to the extent that Christ enables us to be heirs of God.

Just prior to being called “children of Christ” in Mosiah 5, the people come to faith and make a covenant to take Christ’s name upon them and to obey God’s commandments, so they may avoid a never-ending torment.

King Benjamin, the preacher in this narrative, points to the covenant, not their faith-changed hearts, as the reason for the adoption.

This covenant is identical to the one Latter-day Saints make at baptism, namely that they will take Christ’s name and keep the commandments. Mosiah 18:8-10 gives a basic outline of the baptismal covenant:

And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—

Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

Journal of Discourses 15:241-242 further ties our adoption to baptism:

“It is said by some that we are his sons and daughters only by adoption, or through obedience to the Gospel; that we become his sons and his daughters, through being born of the water and of the Spirit. Now I admit that it is necessary for the human family to be thus adopted.”

Not only does this go against John 1:12, it’s also illogical. What child has to sign a contract to be adopted in real life?

The problem becomes more severe when you consider that baptism is just the first step in the Mormon gospel. Concerning this, 2 Nephi 31:17-20 says:

Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

This is like getting all the adoption paperwork signed and then telling your new child, “This is only the first step. There are other things you must do to become my child, and if you disobey, I’ll bring you back to the orphanage.”

Talk about sucking the joy right of being adopted. What should have been a joyous occasion would be drenched with foreboding. The child might think, “What have I gotten myself into? Do I even want this family?”

Then of course, there’s the legal implications. If you adopt someone, that person is your child despite any requirements you make up. The child cannot gain any more sonship than he already has at the moment of adoption.

The Mormon church faces the same problem with baptism. If it’s really the moment we are adopted into Christ, then how can they put more terms to it? What use are temple ordinances?

A Latter-day Saint might say, “It’s the beginning of the path,” or “there are more blessings God wants to give us.”

I would respond that according to Romans 8:16 if we’re children, we’re joint-heirs with Jesus. That doesn’t sound like the beginning of a journey to me. How can we be rewarded more than that? If we were, our dominion would be greater than Christ’s.

The only reason temple ordinances would be necessary at that point, is if baptism didn’t make us children of God. Temple sealings would only be necessary if the endowment didn’t do the trick either. And if salvation depends on enduring to the end, no one on earth can really claim to be a child of God.

Even a Mormon must concede that temple ordinances aren’t necessary to become joint-heirs with Christ.

If we Suffer with Him

There is a second condition given in Romans 8:17 that Latter-day Saints will point out: “…provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”

It’s definitely a stretch to equate LDS covenants with suffering. The only way to arrive at this conclusion is to eisegete the passage. However, you almost have to wonder if any Mormon employing this tactic is making a Freudian slip. Are they admitting that Mormonism is a burden and they’re suffering because of it?

Regardless, this is a case of Mormons having their cake and eating it too, since they call their gospel the Plan of Happiness. Mosiah 2:41 has this to say about those who heed the gospel:

And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

Being blessed in all things and suffering are mutually exclusive in the LDS mindset. Appearance is everything. The culture insists that the happier and wealthier you are, the more blessed and righteous you are. Suffering is a natural consequence of disobedience.

Contrast that with the Christian view that being in Christ naturally brings on suffering. Romans 8:16-17 makes two statements: “if children then heirs” and “provided we suffer.” If the second statement doesn’t occur naturally, then the first is false because the birthright doesn’t make us heirs.

Consider what Jesus told his disciples in John 15:18-19 (ESV). “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”

Right after saying children of God are heirs, Paul tells the believers in Romans 8:18 that the suffering of the present time doesn’t compare to the glory that will be revealed in them.

He assumes that any believers reading his letter will be suffering. Simply stated, it comes with the territory.

The Birthright of Faith

As I mentioned earlier, if we obtain the birthright at baptism, then there’s no need for ordinances or covenants afterwards. There is nothing we can do to become more of a child of God. We are either adopted, or we aren’t. No other categories exist.

That said, the other problem facing Mormonism is that baptism itself is unnecessary for adoption into God’s family. Romans 8:14 (ESV) states:

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

According to LDS doctrine, the Spirit is capable of leading people prior to baptism. In fact, it’s what brings individuals to the baptismal font. If these people are led by the Spirit, then according to Romans 8:14 they’re God’s children before making any covenants.

“But wait,” a Mormon will say, “there’s the power of the Holy Ghost, and there’s the gift. You have to be led by the gift of the Holy Ghost which is given after baptism.”

Mormons believe in different layers of Holy Ghost involvement, but any argument to this effect is desperate and ineffective. After all, the text never distinguishes between the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. It simply states that if someone is led by the Spirit, they are children of God.

Even if we pretend these layers exist, baptism is still disqualified as birthright-inducing because whether by power or gift, the Holy Ghost is still leading people prior to entering the font.

We see this expressed in John 1:12-13 (ESV):

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

This verse points to adoption occurring at the moment we receive Jesus. Of course, Latter-day Saints are quick to say that baptism is the method by which we receive Christ, but that position is untenable.

First, John 1:12 explicitly says that those who receive Jesus are those who believe in His name. Second, baptism is never mentioned in the context of John 1, making this an argument from silence. Third, the passage says they were born by the will of God and not the will of man. Any doctrine that says baptism is a choice men make to assert adoption by their own will is unbiblical.

God adopts us. It doesn’t work the other way around. So if our birthright is obtained by belief in God, as the Bible states, we can conclude that baptism has no sway over our inheritance in heaven.

Mormonism employs layers and layers of doctrine in the hopes of diluting God’s word. That’s why they believe in three heavens, two castes of God’s children, and two relationships with the Holy Ghost. But all the mental gymnastics in the world can’t sidestep the gospel of grace.

If baptism does not cause adoption, we can conclude that priesthood and all the LDS ordinances are irrelevant. The Mormon church has no authority over spiritual adoption or our inheritance in heaven.

• By Michael Flournoy

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”

— 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV

---

One of the earliest memories I have of my grandpa is him teaching me a jingle that went like this:

I’m a Mormon

He’s a Mormon

She’s a Mormon

We’re all Mormons

Wouldn’t you like to be a Mormon too?

Be a Mormon

Read The Book of Mormon

I grew up listening to The Mormon Tabernacle Choir and in 2014 when the movie “Meet the Mormons” came out, I was thrilled. To me, the nickname Mormon evoked a sense of pride. It was synonymous with virtue and godliness. The Mormon church was the proverbial city on a hill.

Former LDS prophet, Thomas S. Monson unabashedly used the term Mormon in a poem he shared in his General Conference talk “Dare to Stand Alone.”

Dare to be a Mormon;

Dare to stand alone.

Dare to have a purpose firm;

Dare to make it known.

(Thomas S. Monson, “Dare to Stand Alone”, October 2011 General Conference)

Gordon B. Hinkley, another LDS prophet, defended the nickname when he quoted a friend as saying,

“Look, if there is any name that is totally honorable in its derivation, it is the name Mormon.” He went on to say,

“Anyone who comes to know the man Mormon, through the reading and pondering of his words, anyone who reads this precious trove of history which was assembled and preserved in large measure by him, will come to know that Mormon is not a word of disrepute, but that it represents the greatest good—that good which is of God.”

(Gordon B. Hinkley, “Mormon Should Mean ‘More Good’”, October 1990 General Conference)

I even used the “M-word” in my book, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism.” I didn’t just like the name because of what it represented: the priesthood, new scripture, and temples. I loved it because it was honest. If I told someone I was Mormon, they knew exactly what I believed.

I knew the nickname Mormon wasn’t official. It was important to acknowledge Christ in the name of our church to prove we were His followers. But the term Mormon differentiated us from other Christians.

Why would I want to be associated with them anyway? We had the restored gospel. We had eternal marriage and living prophets and apostles.

If an organization that was the byproduct of the great apostasy could bear the title Christian, then that designation wasn’t good enough.

Sudden Shift

Things took a drastic turn in 2018 when President Nelson spoke out against and disavowed the word Mormon. He said:

“What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the ‘LDS Church,’ the ‘Mormon Church,’ or the ‘Church of the Latter-day Saints,’ the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.”

(President Russell M. Nelson, “The Correct Name of the Church”, October 2018 General Conference)

The church immediately rebranded and the name Mormon went down the sinkhole. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir changed its name to the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square.

Websites like Mormon.org and LDS.org were updated to comeuntochrist.org and churchofjesuschrist.org. The longstanding symbol of the church changed from Moroni holding a trumpet to the Christus statue.

When referring to Latter-day Saints as Mormons online, I’m frequently asked what that is, like they’ve never heard that word in their lives. Not long ago, I might have been called “ex-Mormon” or “anti-Mormon”. Now I guess I’m an antichrist, which is weird since I absolutely love Jesus. Actually, let’s get to the heart of the matter. It’s not so much that things are weird, but that this whole metamorphosis reeks of dishonesty.

Let me explain. Before when I said I was Mormon, all the cards were on the table. Yes, there were negative perceptions that went along with that, but it provided a starting place. There was nothing stopping me from explaining that I believed in Christ and then talking over any questions people had. It was honest, and it differentiated me from apostate Christianity.

With the erasure of the name Mormon, no cards go on the table. This is understandable since negative associations with Mormonism exist. But things are actually a lot worse than that. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn’t just clearing the table, they’re putting out Protestant cards when they define themselves.

For example, let’s look at the new website domains, starting with churchofjesuschrist.org. Do you realize that all Christians think they form Christ’s church? Then there’s comeuntochrist.org. Again, coming to Christ is the goal of all Christians everywhere. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the church is anything but a typical Protestant denomination.

Another example is the change from “home teaching” to “ministering”, which is a very Protestant word. What was so wrong with Home and Visiting Teaching that a name change was necessary? As an outsider looking in, the game plan is obvious. By putting down Protestant cards, the LDS church is able to trick unsuspecting victims into dropping their guard so they can manipulate them into joining the church with greater ease.

This should be alarming since it’s the same way the devil operates. According to 2 Nephi 26:22 he leads people with flaxen cords before binding them with strong cords forever. Chapter 31 of the Gospel Principles manual has this to say about honesty:

“When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.”

My friends, truth doesn’t operate from the shadows. If you begin a theological discussion and feel the need to hide your views, withhold sensitive information, or mimic someone’s beliefs and engage in spiritual guerrilla warfare, then you need to reconsider whether your religion is true.

Although I’m no longer LDS, I think discarding the name Mormon was a mistake. According to President Nelson if you don’t emphasize Christ you disregard the atonement. But there’s another side to the coin.

When your website, logo, and language change to match Protestantism, the most important thing is the absence of revelation and priesthood authority. When you hide or delay what differentiates you from other Christians, you subtly disregard everything Joseph Smith did for you, including the restoration.

To my LDS readers I ask, do you worship a God of confusion? Did everyone who embraced the word Mormon, including Gordon B. Hinkley and Thomas S. Monson disregard the atonement? Were your former prophets deceived into handing victory over to Satan? Certainly, that position is untenable, but so is the alternative. President Nelson has transformed the church into a pseudo-Protestant look-alike and embraced the great apostasy.

If this is where continuing revelation leads, then count me out. I already belong to a real Protestant church and have no need for a knockoff brand. The LDS church is either a restoration of original Christianity, in which case having it stoop to the level of apostate churches is a sin against God, or it’s a parasite that feeds off Christian culture and language.

Which do you think it is?

• By Michael Flournoy

“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.”

(Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV)

In my last article, I described two types of gospels: the gospel of amputation and the gospel of imputation. I explained that imputation is the gospel of grace and those who adhere to it are forever secure in their salvation.

A dear LDS friend asked me this question after reading my work: what about pastors who serve faithfully for decades and then go full-blown Atheist? Were they ever saved?

As I pondered this question, Peter and Judas came to mind. Both were apostles and both of them knew Jesus. Peter denied Christ three times and Judas betrayed him to His death, yet one of them was saved and Jesus said of the other, it would have been good for him if he had not been born (Matthew 26:24). Why is that?

In my LDS days, I might have said that one repented and the other didn’t, thus pinning eternal life on one’s fruits. However, as an Evangelical, I’m no longer satisfied with that perspective. The deeper question is: what led one man to repent and the other not to?

To answer that, we need to look to the root of their motives. My understanding is one of these men had faith and the other did not. Peter was a saved Christian, but Judas was a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Romans 11:16 (KJV) says:

For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

This falls in line with what Christ says in Matthew 7:17-18:

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

In other words, if the seed of faith has been planted and taken root, we won’t be able to reject Christ later, even if we temporarily lose sight of Him.

In contrast, Jesus explains in Mark 4:16-17 what happens when the seed is planted in a stony heart and unable to truly take root:

And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness. And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended.

Even if they seem Christian for a time, those without faith are unsaved and cannot endure to the end. This is why 1 John 2:19 states:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

A Closer Look at Peter and Judas

If we look closely at Judas, we see a number of problems even before he betrayed Jesus. In John 6 Jesus teaches some difficult doctrine and some of his disciples leave (verse 64 implies that the departure is due to unbelief).

Jesus looks at his disciples and asks, “Will you also go away?”

Peter responds in verses 68-69 (KJV), “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The dichotomy is simple. Those who don’t believe leave, and those who do believe stay.

Jesus responds with a shocking statement: “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” Verse 71 reveals that the man He singles out is Judas Iscariot.

This means that Judas is special among the twelve, and not in a good way. The others would engage in petty disputes and they would all abandon Christ to his captors, but Judas stood alone as the unsaved individual among them.

For evidence of this, we need only look at John 12, where a woman uses costly ointment to anoint Christ’s feet and hair. Judas protests saying, “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence and given to the poor?” Verse 6 reveals his impure motives:

This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

With the aftermath of the betrayal, Judas feels guilty and gives back the silver he was paid, but instead of giving his life over to God, he takes his life by hanging himself.

I would ask my reader: does this sound like the heart of a real Christian to you? Because it doesn’t to me.

Granted, we never know what’s in someone’s heart before they die. It’s entirely possible that Judas experienced sincere repentance at the end. God alone will be the judge.

Slaves to Righteousness or Sin

In Romans 6, Paul uses a surprising analogy in regards to conversion. In verses 17-23 he writes:

But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.

But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The greek word rendered “servant” in the King James Bible is δουλους, which can also be translated as “slave”. Slavery is an appropriate analogy to describe the natural man.

Prior to faith we were slaves to sin and our reward was death. No matter how hard we tried, we couldn’t break free. Our salvation was every bit as forbidden as the fruit on the tree of life after the fall.

The only reason we were able to escape that fate, is because Jesus redeemed us by paying our price with His blood. As 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 states:

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

We ought not to think that we’ve been made free through the atonement. Rather, we’ve been traded to a new master. As the bondservants of Christ, we have neither the option nor the desire to leave Him.

At the moment of Peter’s third denial, he sees Jesus and weeps bitterly because of his actions. Why? Because he had faith. Because he was a sold out slave to Christ. He couldn’t sever the bond with his Savior anymore than a branch can sever itself from a vine.

Imagine for a moment that you divorced your spouse and the following week the press showed up at your door looking for answers. Would you be a sobbing mess, confessing to the world that you made a mistake? Or would you say you’d never been happier?

I’ve seen it many times with formerly believing Atheists. They claim they were restricted with their old beliefs and they’ve never been so happy. Does that sound to you like someone who trusted in Jesus, and knew His love and mercy? It doesn’t sound like it to me either.

The Word of God

I’m often asked how anyone can really know they’re saved, and the answer is simple. If someone is clinging to Christ, and nothing else for salvation, they are saved. If someone has faith in Jesus they are saved. If someone loves and trusts Jesus they are saved. If someone dedicates their life to Christ and accepts Him as Lord and Savior, they are saved.

To Latter-day Saints this seems over simplistic. Everything in their culture and theology suggests that Christ’s grace is obtained through obedience. If it’s really as simple as trusting in Jesus, then any old Christian can have eternal life in the Father’s presence.

What about the restoration, the priesthood, and the saving ordinances? They become obsolete in the presence of Christ. If you really think about it, isn’t Christ’s grace deficient if we have to enable, grow, and sustain it through our actions?

I had an epiphany recently while reading about the iron rod in The Book of Mormon that may help explain my position. I’d always been taught that the iron rod represented the word of God, and I interpreted that as obedience to prophets and scripture.

But it hit me reading this that it’s not so much a question of what the word of God is, but who. The Spirit opened my eyes and showed me the truth. Jesus is the Word of God! As John 1:1 (KJV) states:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The more I consider it, the more sense this new perspective makes. It means Jesus takes us to the tree of life. The narrative stops being about earning our way to salvation, and becomes a story about grace. It can no longer be argued (as I did in my last article) that God doesn’t love those who haven’t made it to the tree. On the contrary, Jesus is the expression of God’s love (John 3:16).

This brings us full circle with the gospel of imputation. Jesus Himself is our iron rod, our liahona, our temple, and our priesthood. It is He who brings us to the tree of life, and His grace is sufficient.

There’s no use fretting over future choices or current struggles with sin. God has made an oath that supersedes all that. If God made a promise He could back out of, He would be a liar. If it hinges on us then it’s morally wrong to make that promise.

But God is sovereign and never goes back on His word. He has given us the Holy Spirit as the earnest of our inheritance, which guarantees our pay out in heaven (Ephesians 1:13-14). Because of this we can know that our salvation is secure in the arms of His grace.

Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 6:17-20 KJV

• By Michael Flournoy

As a Latter-day Saint I believed Christ’s church fell into apostasy after the deaths of the apostles because there was no one left to hold priesthood keys or receive revelation for the organization. Without their leadership, damnable heresies entered the Church and corrupted it completely.

In my book, I approached this topic by examining the prophecy at the end of the Old Testament. I wrote:

“In Matthew 17 Jesus takes Peter, James, and John up the Mount of Transfiguration. At its top they see Moses and Elijah and hear God’s voice, proclaiming Jesus is His Son. On the way down the disciples ask the Master a question, ‘Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?’ Elias is the Greek form of the name Elijah. This question is in reference to the final prophecy of the Old Testament which states:

Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to the fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. (Malachi 4:5-6 KJV)

The Jews were under the mistaken impression that the Messiah would only come once and promptly deliver them from Rome. They were looking for Christ to come, but they also seemed to be looking for Elijah to come first. This is evident in the first chapter of John. When John the Baptist confesses he is not Christ, he is immediately asked, ‘What then, art thou Elias? Art thou that prophet?’ (John 1:21)

In fact, Jews to this day believe Elijah will arrive as a sign of the Messiah’s coming. From a Christian perspective, and with the knowledge we gain in the New Testament, we understand there will be a second coming of the Messiah, which is often referred to as the great and dreadful day of the Lord in scripture. So the prophecy at the end of the Old Testament could safely be translated: Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the [second coming] of the Lord.

Let’s look at the Savior’s answer to his disciples’ inquiry. In Matthew 17:11 he says, ‘Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.’ By speaking in the future tense, Christ clarifies that the prophecy had yet to be fulfilled. He also explains that not only would Elijah come, he would restore all things. At the time Jesus said this, he was on earth, his apostles were called, and the gospel was being preached; so for all things to be restored, all things had to first be lost.”
(Michael Flournoy, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, p.60)

Obviously, there’s a lot here to unpack, but the basic points I made were that John the Baptist wasn’t Elijah and that the prophecy wouldn’t be fulfilled until much later, presumably during the last days.

My first point that the great and dreadful day is a nod to the second coming, is a non-starter. I hoped to persuade my audience that Elijah didn’t show up until the restoration, but you know what else happened before the great and dreadful day of the Lord? Israel became a nation and was conquered. Moses led God’s people out of Egypt, and Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. Technically, everything in the history of our planet has happened before the second coming. So to that, I say, strike one.

I tried to say that Jesus referred to the prophecy in the future tense, proving that it hadn’t happened. However, let’s bear in mind that he was referencing the prophecy, and not explaining it. I might say, for example, “In Genesis, God says that if Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit, they will surely die.” Although I am speaking in future tense, that does not mean the fall hasn’t happened. In fact, Christ’s next sentence, which my LDS self failed to mention, switches immediately to past tense, “Elijah has come already.” This is exactly the kind of pivot someone would make when explaining God’s decree in the Garden of Eden. That’s strike two.

Now let’s look at the rest of Christ’s response:

“He answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.”
(Matthew 17:11-13 ESV)

The text of scripture specifically says the prophecy was fulfilled in John the Baptist. This coincides with Luke 1:17 (ESV) where the angel tells Zacharias that John will “go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.”

Not only do we have an angel attributing the same wording to John the Baptist that we find in the Elijah prophecy, we also have Christ reverting to past tense and New Testament scripture indicating that he was speaking of John. So to my intrepid LDS self, I say, strike three.

The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail

For Latter-day Saints to say the church fell into apostasy, they must do so by crawling over or under or around Matthew 16:18 to make that claim. In my Mormon days, I employed various gymnastic feats to weave around this difficult verse. For context, here is the entire passage:

“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
(Matthew 16:13-19 ESV)

Latter-day Saints hyper-focus on the rock the church was built on, believing this to be a conditional promise. The gates of hell would not prevail against the church if it remained on the rock. Instead of narrowing the rock down to one thing, Latter-day Saints take bits and parts of all the elements in this passage and build the rock from that.

For instance, flesh and blood not revealing the truth to Peter, but his Father in heaven, must mean that revelation is the rock of the church. The keys to the kingdom of heaven represent priesthood authority. And finally, Peter himself is the rock in the sense that prophets and apostles will always be needed to run things.

Let’s start with prophets and apostles, and why they aren’t the rock Jesus spoke of. In my book I made a case for prophets and apostles by saying:

“Whenever there was a dispute in the Church, the problem was brought to the apostles, and their answers became doctrine. For example, Acts chapter 15 tells us some new Christians began to say circumcision was still essential for salvation, but the matter was brought to the apostles who deemed it unnecessary. The apostles were also largely responsible for writing the New Testament; so clearly they were privileged to know God’s will for the Church and had the authority to implement it.”
(Michael Flournoy, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, p. 63)

Here I was trying to kill two birds with one stone, saying that revelation and apostles went hand in hand. However, it wasn’t as simple as that. In Acts 15, after the debate began, Barnabas and Paul were sent to inquire of the apostles at Jerusalem. But wait, wasn’t Paul an apostle? Why didn’t he evoke revelation right then? Once the matter was brought to the rest of the apostles, they didn’t resort to revelation either. Instead, the text says they argued about it.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul writes,

“Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.”
(Romans 4:9-10 ESV)

What’s interesting about this, is revelation wasn’t necessary to end the debate. Instead of appealing to revelation from God, Paul appealed to the scriptures. In this way, he fulfilled the same role that pastors do in Christian churches today.

But what about his new scripture, doesn’t that prove his importance as an apostle? Without a doubt, God used Paul to write amazing scripture. But if that is the sign of an apostle today, then the LDS leadership has failed miserably for decades. Not only that, but some of the writers of the New Testament aren’t even apostles. Where is Luke’s call to be an apostle? What about Mark and Jude? The fact is, if these men were not ordained apostles or prophets and yet were able to write scripture, then the whole argument for the leadership of the LDS church falls on its face.

To reinforce the necessity of revelation I wrote,

“Revelation is also a very practical way to lead the Church; Acts chapter 10 is a great example of how the early church functioned. A man named Cornelius, a gentile, was visited by an angel and told to seek out Peter, and informed that Peter would tell him what to do. So Cornelius sent three men to Joppa where Peter was staying. Before Peter could be confronted with the situation, and forced to make a decision based on finite reasoning, he was shown a vision in which a great sheet fell before him, which was inhabited by animals deemed unclean and inedible by the Law of Moses.

A voice spoke to him saying, ‘Rise Peter, kill and eat.’ But Peter said, ‘Not so Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.’ The voice spoke to him again, ‘What the Lord hath cleansed, that call not thou uncommon.’ This vision was given to Peter so he might know not to call any man common or unclean because it was time for the gospel to go to the gentiles. Since Christ personally instructed the apostles to go only to the Jews (Matthew 10:5-6), without indicating an expiration date for the command, it’s impossible to think Peter could have come to this conclusion without revelation.

It’s also quite telling that the Gentile emergence into Christianity happened through Peter. Why didn’t the angel tell Cornelius to start his own Christian denomination? It’s because apostles were a major part of the Church’s foundation!”
(Michael Flournoy, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, p.64)

Let’s start with the easy stuff first. Why didn’t the angel tell Cornelius to start his own denomination? It makes total sense for Cornelius and the other Gentiles to go to Peter, whether he was an apostle or not. He had more experience being a Christian leader than they did. Not to mention, he knew Jesus personally and was well acquainted with the story and doctrine. Even as an Evangelical, I think it would have been foolish for them to set out on their own.

Now onto the tricky part. Was it really impossible for Peter to know to go to the Gentiles? To answer that question, let’s take a look at the words of the Apostle Paul:

‘For I tell you that Christ became a servant to the circumcised to show God’s truthfulness, in order to confirm the promises given to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written,

Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles,
and sing to your name.”

And again it is said,
“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with his people.”

And again,
“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles,
and let all the peoples extol him.”

 And again Isaiah says,
“The root of Jesse will come,
even he who arises to rule the Gentiles;
in him will the Gentiles hope.”

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.’
(Romans 15:8-13 ESV)

The vision Peter received may have helped him know God’s will faster, but since the Old Testament said the Gentiles would place their hope in God, it’s a certainty that Peter and the apostles would have realized it even without revelation. In fact, all the revelations given by the apostles had a basis in scripture. This is in sharp contrast to the LDS church where practitioners are admonished to pray for a spiritual witness that their prophets are called of God. According to the New Testament, the Bereans tested what Paul said by scripture to see if his words were true, and because of this they were “more noble than those at Thessalonica.” (Acts 17:11 KJV)

I went on to argue that there was a concerted effort to keep the sanctity of the twelve apostles because when Judas took his life, they chose Matthias as a new apostle. Then, when James was martyred, Paul became an apostle.

First off, this is just two instances, and that’s a far cry from proving anything. Secondly, the LDS Church doesn’t even have twelve apostles. They have 15 prophets, seers, and revelators. If the number 12 is so important, why isn’t Mormonism sticking to it? Might I also hammer in the fact that they chose to ordain a new apostle under the direction of scripture and not revelation? If revelation is the foundation of Mormonism, it’s pretty odd to see the apostles sweeping it under the rug all the time.

I also tried to posit, as all Latter-day Saints do, that modern prophets fit the pattern God established throughout the Old Testament. But things aren’t really that black and white. For example, there were a number of women prophets in the Old Testament including Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, and Noadiah, who God used to speak to His people.

LDS doctrine does not allow women to be prophets or to receive God’s word, and that presents a shift from the Old Testament pattern. Furthermore, at one point the apostles tell Jesus they saw a man casting out demons in His name, and told him to stop because he wasn’t one of them.

Jesus responds, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:39-40 ESV) 

If this man had the authority to cast out demons, despite not being under the apostles’ leadership, what was to stop him from passing out saving ordinances? And if a random man could do all that, what need did there remain for prophets and apostles at all if we presume that LDS hierarchy claims are biblical and true?

Flournoy’s Fatal Flaw

I admitted in my book that Jesus was part of the foundation of the church, constituting the chief cornerstone. When the apostles died, the priesthood keys, revelation, and apostles were lost. Only Jesus remained, but that wasn’t enough to fend off the apostasy of the ancient church.

These days, I take umbrage at the idea that Jesus constitutes ¼ of our foundation. The whole idea that God’s church could fail, is derived from a small, insignificant deity. I wonder if Latter-day Saints would be so quick to call it an apostasy if their precious priesthood had remained. Or revelation through a prophet? Yet somehow, Jesus simply isn’t enough.

Well here’s a newsflash for my LDS readers: If the apostles’ deaths resulted in the Great Apostasy, then Christ stood by and watched as His bride was murdered. He abandoned the wheat to the tares and ignored the wolves that ravaged His flock. He ceased to be the bridegroom and was anything but a good shepherd.

As a Biblical Christian, I proclaim that the opposite is true. The church didn’t collapse because it fell off the rock. The church persevered because the rock it was built upon was Christ, the Son of the Living God. He explains to Peter that “flesh and blood have not revealed this to you…” In other words, Christ’s identity is still the subject at hand and continued to be in the following statement, “upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

If Jesus makes up the cornerstone, and everything else falls away, then that still leaves a foundation, and that means the apostasy could not have occurred. And since there was no apostasy, there could have been no restoration. And if there was no need for a restoration then as Joseph Smith, himself said so well, there is no need for the LDS Church:

“Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”
(Joseph Smith, “Comprehensive History of the Church” 1:42)

• By Michael Flournoy