In 2012 I published a book called, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”. Four years later I embraced Evangelical Christianity. So what enticed me, a Mormon apologist, to abandon my faith in the LDS church? This article is part of a recurring series, where I explain why, by refuting my past self.

---

“Are you saying we’re not Christian?”

It’s the most awkward part of discussing theology with Latter-day Saints. This loaded question leaves many Evangelicals speechless. We can’t say no because of their reaction. In their eyes, they are so obviously Christian, that any assertion to the contrary is laughable.

In fact, it’s just the excuse they need to write us off forever. Clearly, we’re just hateful antis who are more interested in fighting against God than having a fair discussion.

I believe many conversations end here, with Latter-day Saints walking away and shaking their heads.

What should be said is, “That’s an interesting question. Why do you think you’re Christian?”

This open ended question encourages dialogue instead of stifling it. We can then go point by point, and give each argument the attention it deserves.

As a demonstration, I’ll be going over my own arguments as a Mormon, and explaining why I’m left unconvinced.

In my book, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, I attempted to persuade Evangelicals that Mormons were Christian too. I spent half a chapter trying to scare them out of preaching to Latter-day Saints.

After all, I argued, Mormons could be Christian. I pointed to the apostle Paul, who persecuted Christians but later said he was the least of the apostles because of it. Clearly, the only thing to be gained by messing with Mormons was a future of shame and regret.

To that I say, baloney! I’m supposed to avoid preaching to someone because they might be saved and that would be embarrassing? I would be tickled to find a Mormon I preached to in God’s Kingdom, and I think they’d feel the same about me. No one says “I told you so” in heaven.

Here’s the reality. The possibility that I didn’t preach to an unsaved sinner because he seemed Christian is the graver error.

The end result of that isn’t a little awkwardness. It’s a soul damned for eternity. Christians should be too afraid not to preach the gospel.

I also find it fascinating that my old self equated preaching with persecution. Granted, there are times Evangelicals heap real persecution on Latter-day Saints, but challenging their theology doesn’t fit the bill.

Latter-day Saints should welcome the challenge. If their theology proves stronger, it’s a chance to win us to their side. The fact that most of them prefer to throw out pejorative names like “anti-Mormon” instead of talking is a major sign they’re in a cult instead of a religion.

In my book I defined a Christian as someone who believes in Christ and accepts Him as their personal Savior.

I wrote, “So whether The Book of Mormon is true or Joseph Smith was a prophet are irrelevant to this specific point.

For this question all that really matters is whether we believe in Christ or not. As it turns out, we do. We believe Jesus was more than a prophet. He is our Savior, our Redeemer, and our Hope. Nephi of The Book of Mormon said, ‘…We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophecy 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).” (“A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, Michael Flournoy, p. 34)

It’s always amazed me how quick Mormons are to quote the dictionary like it’s scripture. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a Christian as one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

My Mormon self was careful not to define a Christian simply as one who believes in Christ. If he had, I would have pulled out James 2:19 (ESV) which says:

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!

According to the dictionary, demons must be Christian. But that’s not good enough, is it? There’s more to being a Christian than having a knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah. We must accept Him as well.

My counterpart did assert that we must accept the Lord, but he and I have different ideas of what that means. He believed it meant receiving LDS ordinances and keeping the commandments. I believe it’s receiving His righteousness through faith alone.

My old self tried to create a choke point by dismissing the need to talk about Joseph Smith or The Book of Mormon. To that I say, let’s broaden the playing field. Believing in false scripture and prophets does matter, particularly when they teach a pseudo gospel.

Concerning this topic, Paul wrote:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8 ESV)

The Greek word used for accursed is anathema, which implies excommunication by an ecclesiastical leader. In Mormonism, excommunication and salvation are mutually exclusive propositions.

My counterpart pointed out that many Latter-day Saints think that having Jesus in the name of their church proves they are Christian. I wrote:

“It should come as no surprise then, that Latter-day Saints are flabbergasted when someone says we aren’t Christian. It’s very common for us to say, ‘Look at the name of our church, it has Jesus’ name in it. Of course we’re Christian!’” (“A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, Michael Flournoy, p. 35)

If your church’s name makes you a Christian, then what’s to stop me from starting my own church and naming it “A Better Restoration”? Would that make me a prophet? Would naming myself Jesus make me the Messiah? Of course not.

I continued:

“So maybe we do believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods, and maybe we do believe the Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bone as tangible as man’s. But you know what, it’s still irrelevant…

The Bible places emphasis on knowing God, not knowing about Him. Thus we can assume that a simple disciple who has a relationship with God is better off than a scholar who knows all about Him, but hasn’t bothered to get to know Him personally.” (“A Biblical Defense of Mormonism “, Michael Flournoy, p. 35)

Obviously, there’s a lot to unpack here. In this highly contrived hypothetical situation, it’s true that an unlearned disciple is better off than an unsaved scholar. But that doesn’t mean God will overlook an incorrect ontological view of Him.

In fact, Acts 17:29-30 (ESV) says this:

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

In other words, it’s a sin to view God incorrectly. And while my LDS self had no problem classifying Evangelicals as Christian, I see too many differences now for us to have the same Jesus.

Our Jesus was never created. Our Jesus was always God. He never had to take a body to become complete. Our Jesus is one in essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Our Jesus saves sinners despite their works, not because of them.

My Mormon self would have been appalled at this. He argued, “How much ignorance are we allowed to have before God withholds His grace?

Here’s why I ask: some Christians believe Melchezidek was Christ, some describe the Trinity in terms of Modalism, some Christians believe God chose who would be saved before we were born, and others think He’s the type to let us choose. Many Christians I’ve been in discussions with have even said the Trinity is mysterious.” (“A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, Michael Flournoy, p. 36)

I then quoted Acts 17:23 (KJV) where Paul pointed to an altar with the inscription: ‘To the unknown god’, and said, “Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.”

My argument was that God could be worshipped in ignorance. Otherwise, even Evangelicals couldn’t be called Christian due to their fragmented beliefs.

My arguments were misinformed. The Trinity is mysterious, but not in regards to the descriptions given in the Bible. We know what kind of a Being God is. As far as Modalism, they too are outside the bounds of Christianity and need repentance.

That might sound like nitpicking to Latter-day Saints, but even they have their limits. After all, they wouldn’t consider Muslims to be Christian, but I could use their logic to argue that they are.

After all, don’t they believe in Christ? Sure, they don’t think He’s divine, and maybe they mistakenly call Heavenly Father “Allah”, but that’s just ignorant worship. Based on the dictionary, they’re Christians too.

Mormons can win the argument for their Christianity, but only on a technicality. In the end, this victory is empty and meaningless.

Relying on a textbook definition to be saved is like relying on another driver’s blinker to keep from being hit. It’s the intentions that matter, not whether someone has their blinker on.

If I could tell Latter-day Saints anything, I’d remind them that Christ isn’t bringing a dictionary on Judgment Day. If our names aren’t in the Book of Life, we’ll be damned forever.

Salvation is an intensely personal matter. It’s not the name of our church that’s found in the Book of Life. We can’t get in under the prophet’s umbrella. It’s our names we should worry about.

So the right question isn’t are Mormons Christian. The right question is for the individual. Are you a Christian? Are you on His right hand? Is your name written in The Book of Life, and if so, by whose merits?

There are thousands of nominal Christians in the world today who show up for church and go through the motions. If asked, they’ll claim Christianity. But that’s not the same as being born again.

In Matthew 7:21-23 (ESV) Jesus says,

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’”

Clearly, there’s no participation trophy for being in a Christian church. Even if we’ve done works and ordinances in Christ’s name, it won’t count towards righteousness. In the end all that really matters is whether or not we know Jesus.

Can Latter-day Saints be Christian? Absolutely. Christ can save someone anywhere, be it a temple, a prison, or a mosque. However, as the remainder of my series will point out, the LDS church itself does not meet the requirements to be called a Christian church because it teaches a false god and a false gospel.

• By Michael Flournoy

In 2012 I published a book called, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”. Four years later I embraced Evangelical Christianity. So what enticed me, a Mormon apologist, to abandon my faith in the LDS church? This article is part of a recurring series, where I explain why, by refuting my past self.

In my book, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, I tried to downplay the importance of Joseph Smith. I wrote:

“Joseph Smith’s story is a remarkable one. It’s one which Mormon missionaries never fail to teach their investigators. Furthermore, opponents of the Church never tire of attacking Joseph’s character, and members of the Church usually feel obligated to defend him. I think it’s a waste of time.

If I went to my mother’s house for her famous green bean casserole, I wouldn’t denounce her or her specialty if I found out she used canned, instead of fresh green beans. Similarly, Joseph Smith is just a technical detail of the broader picture. A mortal man who is dead was never our central message; God becoming man and rising from the dead is our central message, along with the fact that His bride, the Church, has been restored to her former glory. We’re talking about a wedding here! Heaven forbid one of the guests should get all the attention!

I’m not trying to minimize Joseph since he played an essential role in the restoration of the gospel. Salt is an essential ingredient in bread too, but many a loaf’s been ruined because too much salt was added.” (Michael Flournoy, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, p. 53)

Looking back, I see a frightened young Mormon who suspected that Joseph was involved in distasteful activities, but suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. I tried to create a choke point by defining what was and what wasn’t important to the debate.

To put things in perspective, Joseph isn’t just a guest at the LDS wedding. He’s the best man. When the bride ran away last time, he’s the one who brought her back. He’s the reason the wedding is even happening.

In Mormonism, Christ wasn’t appealing enough to win the bride by Himself, much less keep her from divorcing Him. He required a wingman. And this is the worst kind of wingman there is, because not only are the bride’s eyes on the Groom, they constantly glance back at Joseph.

Jesus may have her hand, but Joseph has her heart.

I tried to shield Joseph from attack the same way a chess player tucks away his king. I pointed to other “weasels” in the Biblical narrative. There was Judas Iscariot, who Jesus handpicked as an apostle. There was Jonah who fled from his duty, and Aaron who built a molten calf for Israel to worship.

If these men could be called of God despite their sins, then God could use anyone. Arguments against the character of Joseph were irrelevant. In fact, it was preposterous to think someone had to be good to work for God.

Okay, Past Self, hold your horses. God can use evil men to accomplish his work, that’s a far cry from what the LDS Church teaches about Joseph. To them he is a prophet, and must be worthy not only to receive revelation from God, but to hold priesthood keys necessary for governing the Church.

Galatians 5:18-23 (ESV) makes it very clear that the works of the flesh are evil, but those who follow the Spirit will exemplify a holier set of traits. It reads:

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Simply stated, it’s erroneous to sweep Joseph’s traits under the rug and only look at The Book of Mormon as his fruit.

Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.” (Matthew 7:15‭-‬18 ESV)

Notice what He didn’t say. Christ didn’t say to ignore a prophet’s misdeeds. He didn’t say to zone out when they speak heresy since they’re fallible men. And He certainly didn’t say it was wrong to criticize them even if the criticism is true. Rather, we are to call their works into question.

Granted, all believers are still sinners, and even Biblical prophets made mistakes. But if we look at the accusations against Joseph, we see a man who was anything but a saint.

He was charged with treason and conspiracy to murder a former governor. He was arrested 42 times. He was charged with banking fraud and destroying a press that criticized him. He sent men on missions and married their wives while they were away. He lied about his polygamy in public and in private to his wife Emma.

Latter-day Saints denounce these claims as anti-Mormon fabrications designed to ruin Joseph’s reputation. However, the sources for this evidence are all Mormon or Mormon friendly – up to and including Joseph Smith himself in “The History of the Church” (see https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study/history-of-the-church/ ).

Since I didn’t argue for the character of Joseph in my pro-LDS book, it’s not my goal to argue against it here. I tried to argue that the First Vision itself was evidence of Joseph’s prophetic calling. I wrote:

“But what about 2 Corinthians 11:14 which says Satan is transformed into an angel of light? If the devil is capable of such trickery, how can we be sure Joseph wasn’t visited by Satan disguised as God? Everyone who’s served a mission has probably heard someone argue along these lines. However, the argument is Biblically unsound. In the New Testament when Jesus casts out demons, the Pharisees accuse him of casting out demons through Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. To this Christ replies, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?’ (Matthew 12:25-26 KJV)

Joseph Smith said when he prayed he was first set upon by a dark force before being delivered by God. Since neither God nor Satan is divided, we are left with only two options: first, that God attacked Joseph, but was abolished by Satan, or second, that Smith’s account is true and he was delivered by God.” (Michael Flournoy, “A Biblical Defense of Mormonism”, p. 57)

This is a classic false dichotomy. This whole argument assumes that Joseph was telling the truth about what happened. It’s a cleverly constructed house that lacks a foundation.

The simplest explanation is the First Vision never happened. The whole event was fabricated. Joseph never saw God and was never called to restore Christianity from apostasy. In fact, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18).

My Mormon self believed that the most important fruits to look at were The Book of Mormon and the restored gospel. In this series of articles I will examine these fruits and show that Joseph brought forth false scripture and a false god. To top it off, he produced a false gospel: one that required a restoration and was therefore perishable. These rotten fruits are the reason I went from defender of the LDS faith, to ex-Mormon Apologist.

• By Michael Flournoy

Mormonism has a unique view of God and the universe. Many of its adherents believe God the Father was once a man like us, and was deified by obeying the commandments of his Father. Prior to that, he was formed from an eternal amorphous substance called intelligence. Or he was something called an intelligence that is different somehow to a spirit child. Mormon doctrine is ambiguous on what the state of existence was prior to spirit birth.

In the King Follett Sermon, Joseph Smith said:

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.^[1]

In the Sermon in the Grove he said further:

I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. ‘In order to do that,’ said he, ‘suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist — two men on the earth, one wise[r] than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them.’

If Abraham reasoned thus — If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.^[2]

According to this logic, there is an infinite regression of Gods, and therefore no being is truly eternal. Instead of an eternal God who governs the universe, Mormons believe that an eternal law holds sovereignty.

They often use this idea to mock Christians, saying it is ludicrous to believe God sent Jesus to atone for sins that He fashioned. They say it’s essentially God saving us from Himself.

Alma 32:13 in The Book of Mormon states that if justice were destroyed then God would cease to be God. The implication is that something higher must govern God and His children.

This position is appealing because it separates God from the problem of evil. If good and evil are eternal, then no one can pin the blame on God.

However, while this seems to tie the mysteries of the universe in a nice little bow, there are more problems than solutions under the surface. In this article we will discuss six problems with the doctrine of a law that predates and governs God.

Problem #1: Where Does Agency Come From?

According to some LDS sources, agency is an eternal law. It’s something we’ve always had. Other sources say it’s a gift from God. However, both assertions cannot be true. If we already had it, it couldn’t be given to us.

Moses 4:3 says that God gave man his agency. This is also stated in Doctrine and Covenants 101:78 which reads:

That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.^[3]

However, in a talk entitled, “The Gift of Agency”, Wolfgang H. Paul of the seventy said:

When we came into this world, we brought with us from our heavenly home this God-given gift and privilege which we call our agency. It gives us the right and power to make decisions and to choose. Agency is an eternal law. President Brigham Young, speaking of our agency, taught: “This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come. Every intelligent being must have the power of choice.^[4]

So which is it? Is agency an eternal law, something possessed by all intelligent creatures? Or was it something that had to be given? It cannot be both.

Either way, the implications are staggering. If God gave us agency then He had to force something onto us without our consent. Seeing as one-third of the hosts of heaven (in LDS theology) fought against agency, it’s clearly a gift that would have been rejected in some cases if it had been possible.

If God gave us agency, He also gave us the tendency to use that agency for evil. Ether 12:27 in The Book of Mormon confirms this:

And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.^[5]

If God gives us agency and weakness to succumb to sin, then He’s no longer excused from the problem of evil, but is directly responsible.

If agency is eternal, then God could not have given it to us. Even if it began by virtue of creation, it’s still not technically correct to say it’s a God-given gift since He couldn’t withhold it.

If this is the case, then evil is also an eternal principle. This means we naturally had agency and the tendency to either use it well or badly. It means God has no ability to destroy evil, because good and evil have always existed.

So either God is the author of evil or He is powerless to stop it.

Problem #2: The Council in Heaven

If agency is a natural byproduct of intelligent existence, then Christ had no right to propose a plan where agency would exist on earth. What other choice was there? LDS doctrine states this was the Father’s plan, but it was actually the natural order of the universe. God deserves no credit.

Lucifer’s plan was equally illogical, because there was no way to quell human agency. If God couldn’t do it, how could Lucifer?

Things get even more interesting if God did give humans agency, because Lucifer’s proposal to relinquish it was a return to the natural order of things. God would have broken the law because the advent of agency brought evil into existence.

God’s plan involved so much evil stemming from his gift of agency, that it would necessitate the death of His Son to set things right. Lucifer was merely returning to the eternal law and saying in effect, “Let’s not bring all this evil into the world.”

Latter-day Saints claim that Lucifer’s plan was born of greed, but even so, that one sin pales in comparison to all the evil that would have been avoided.

It also makes sense that Lucifer would claim God’s throne, since in breaking the law, He would cease to be God. Alma 42:13 says Godhood ceases when justice is destroyed and Mormon 9:19 says it ends when a divine being changes.

The god of Mormonism is guilty of both charges since he forced agency on mankind but no longer believes in forcing anything, and since he brought evil into the world through the gift of agency. As such, he has forfeited his right to the heavenly throne.

Problem #3: The War in Heaven

In Problems #’s 1 and 2, we introduced questions related to where agency comes from. Is it an eternal law, an inherent quality of all intelligent beings as Brigham Young taught? Or is it a gift given to spirit beings by their God-father when they’re formed from intelligence? This is the age-old Mormon question…sorry, this is the almost 200-year-old Mormon question: did we exist as individual entities prior to spirit birth?

If we lacked agency prior to spirit birth, then God forced us into a state of existence (spirit bodies) that we didn’t choose for ourselves, unless we also freely chose spirit birth to God in order to traverse the ontological chasm between intelligence and spirit being. The idea that God would force anything upon us goes contrary to the common LDS refrain that God won’t abrogate agency.

LDS theology has a “war in heaven” myth to demonstrate that prior to the ontological change from spirit beings to embodied, mortal beings, a war was fought over whether or not agency should be a part of this earth. No such myth exists in LDS theology for the change from intelligence to spirit being. Were there multiple wars? Is perpetual war over agency a necessary part of existence?

On the one hand, this leads to uncertainty about the nature of humans and Gods. It also suggests that at some point in the plan of eternal progression, a change in type of being was forced upon us against our wills. So not only is God guilty of change, but the entire law of eternal progression hinges on human progression from intelligence to spirit being to physical being to glorified, physical being. According to Smith, we have got to learn how to become Gods as all Gods have done before.

Each step of that progression represents a change. If the eternal law requires both agency and the absence of change, is God really free if he is beholden to something external to himself? At what point must one stop changing to ensure one achieves and maintains Godhood?

On the other hand, if we inherently possessed agency as individual entities prior to spirit birth, then who’s to say that we couldn’t have figured out how to traverse the ontological gulf from intelligence to spirit being on our own? Besides, for Mormons who reject Joseph Smith’s “Infinite Regression of Gods” model, isn’t that just what they believe the Father did? Either that, or God has always been God from all eternity and Smith was wrong.

Problem #4: By How Many Eternal Laws is God Bound?

According to the LDS law of eternal progression, God formed spirit children from eternally existent intelligence. Or He may have formed spirit children from eternally existent intelligences. LDS scripture is ambiguous on that point. Nevertheless, according to Mormon theology, God later fashioned physical bodies for the spirit children he had formed. We are told that the highest form is to be a glorified, physical being.

The God of Mormonism, as a glorified being, still seems to have physical limitations. According to Joseph Smith, God, himself, cannot dwell in the heart of man, and cannot be omnipresent. Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 states:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.^[6]

According to this LDS scripture, only the Spirit can dwell in the heart of man. As if this logical inference from physicality isn’t enough, Smith made his dedication to the physical limitation of God even more plain earlier in his remarks that are canonized in Section 130. Commenting on John 14:23, Smith said:

The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.^[7]

With that claim, Smith overturned the meaning of Jesus’ promise, that in the indwelling of the Spirit, the Father and Son make their abode or dwelling place with believers. In John 14:15-24, “all three persons of the Trinity are said to indwell the believer: the Spirit (v. 17; cf. Rom 8: 9, 11), Jesus (vv. 20, 23; cf. Col 1: 27), and the Father (v. 23).”^[8]

What’s interesting is that the Greek word used in John 14:23 to describe the manner in which the Father and Son make their abode with believers (Μονήν) is the same word used in verse 2 to describe the many mansions Jesus is going to prepare for his followers.

If God and Jesus are limited physically from dwelling in the hearts of humans, then how can we trust that Jesus can fashion physical dwelling places in the life to come that will be fit for his physically resurrected followers?

If we follow Smith’s method of ignoring what the Bible says and attempting to logically reason to what Smith thought possible, we cannot be certain that the “covenant path” that God has traversed — a path that leads from spiritual to physical — actually leads to a higher level of existence. A God bound by one external law is a God bound by too many.

Problem #5: What is Agency’s Opportunity Cost?

The more vexing challenge posed by this problem comes in when one considers what Mormons are taught in the Endowment ritual performed within temples. The Endowment confers — contingent on one’s enduring to the end in a state of worthiness — a person’s exalted inheritance as a king or queen, priest or priestess, god or goddesses. Each spirit child of God who becomes exalted increases God’s power and glory.

Without discussing the parts of the Endowment ceremony that Mormons covenant not to reveal to others, the LDS plan of eternal progression is presented theatrically, including the fall of humanity brought about by the serpent’s beguiling of Adam and Eve. When Lucifer is confronted by God, about his introduction of sin into this world, Lucifer retorts:

If thou cursest me for doing the same thing which has been done in other worlds, I will take the spirits that follow me, and they shall possess the bodies thou createst for Adam and Eve!

Assume that what Lucifer is presented as saying here is true; that he and his unembodied followers can possess the bodies of Adam and Eve and their children. Agency is something that seems to have caused a lot of trouble!

First, it made one of God’s eldest spirit sons his enemy and one third of his spirit children aligned themselves with Lucifer in that “war in heaven.” They were cast out — bodiless — their eternal progression halted; they were damned eternally. God’s future glory was reduced by one third before the mortal probation on earth even began. Second, it renders sin necessary. Unless Lucifer is lying here and he did something different in introducing “agency” to Adam and Eve than what had been done on other worlds. Third, it allows God’s enemy to do something that Joseph Smith said even God himself can’t do. Namely, dwell within the hearts of humans (see Alma 40:13). If the path of eternal progression and agency means that God cannot do something his enemy can, how can we be assured that God will ultimately prevail in ridding his worlds of evil?

Problem #6: Is Agency Really Free?

Thus far, we’ve focused on the classic model of Mormon cosmology. Let’s remind ourselves or where we are. On Mormon cosmology, if we step back to that moment before spirit birth, we were either: A) amorphous intelligence (unorganized spirit matter) lacking agency or B) we already existed as individual free agents prior to spirit birth. Let’s call Option A the “Elohim is the First God” model and we’ll call Option B the “Infinite Regression of Gods” model. The “Elohim is the First God” model seems to be on the ascendancy among Mormon thinkers because the “Infinite Regression of Gods” model presents a host of problems.

The “Elohim is the First God” model is replete with its own issues. We’ve presented one in Problem #4. In this model, not only is there a point at which God forced an ontological change upon something (amorphous intelligence) that lacked the ability to choose otherwise, but he forced agency itself upon his resultant spirit children. Since we couldn’t choose to have it in the first place as amorphous intelligence, then agency presumably must be a gift given rather than an inherent quality.

But Lehi in 2 Nephi 2:11 taught his sons that “it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.”^[9] The “God is the First God” model that Mormons are clinging to more and more of late either ensures that God broke eternal law by introducing agency, or it fails immediately to offer a cogent systematic ordering of Mormon doctrine, since there would be no opposing choice in any sense in the ontological state of amorphous intelligence. Neither for Elohim to first figure out how to transcend that state nor for others to follow later.

Further down the line, there are other theological problems with this model. Mormons generally buck against the doctrine of unconditional election to salvation. In their system, one must be able to accept or reject a gift — the gift of grace, for example. However, on either Mormon cosmological model agency is a gift that cannot be rejected. If agency cannot be turned down, why must it be necessary that grace can be rejected?

“Not so!” a Mormon may cry. “We must be able to choose God over Lucifer. But there will come a time when Lucifer and his followers will be locked away in Outer Darkness for all eternity. They will not have agency to leave that space and trouble the saints of God any more.”

Apparently, agency can’t be rejected but can be abrogated on Mormonism. Work out that logical inconsistency! Additionally, God breaks eternal law on both models. If Elohim is the first God, then he jumped the shark by discovering all on his own that he possessed agency and went through an ontological change that Mormon theology suggests only a literal Father of spirits could bring about. That is, unless, God has been God from all eternity.

Conclusion

In this article, we’ve primarily explored the classical model of understanding who God is within Mormon thought and discussed some problems that result from trying to understand Mormon theology in a systematic way. While the “Elohim is the First God” model is certainly on the ascendency, Mormon scripture canonized remnants of Joseph Smith’s “Infinite Regression of Gods” model, which he most fully presented in the final two sermons he preached before his death.

That fact makes it difficult for latter-day saints to fully embrace the “Elohim is the first God” model. One of the appealing factors of the “Elohim is the First God” model is that one can avoid the “embarrassment” — as one recent Mormon commentator described it — of the “Infinite Regression of Gods” model. The avoidance of embarrassment comes from the fact that adherents of the “Elohim is the First God” model — unlike their “Infinite Regression of Gods” counterparts — get to claim that God has always been God and is the God of Gods. In this, they may think that they are closer to Biblical theology and can avoid criticism. But the remnants of Smith’s plurality of Gods teachings in Mormon scriptures make a consistent, systematic Mormon cosmology impossible. It’s the challenge that every deep LDS thinker faces. One cannot fully embrace the “Elohim is the First God” model without damaging the thing that Mormonism tells its adherents is their destiny. Namely, to learn how to become Gods.

In this article, we presented six problems with Mormon cosmology, which places eternal law above God. We close by posing two questions to for our readers to consider:

1) Does Elohim have agency inherently?

2) Does Jehovah have agency inherently?

If your answer to the first question is ‘yes’ but your answer to the second is ‘no,’ then there was a point at which Jehovah was not God, and agency had to be given to him. According to 2 Nephi 9, the eternal Creator himself must carry out the infinite atonement for it to be efficacious. If Jehovah was not God in every sense, he fails the requirements of the atonement per the Book of Mormon.

If your answer to both questions is ‘yes,’ then humans can never be Gods, because Mormonism suggests that agency — if it is something that humans have — is a gift given by God. If agency had to be given to us, then there is a sense in which we will never be fully like Elohim and Jehovah.

If you’re an LDS adherent of the “Infinite Regression of Gods” model, congratulations! The God you worship has broken eternal law.

If you’re an LDS adherent of the “Elohim is the First God” model, congratulations! The God you worship has broken eternal law. If you’re feeling a bit frustrated at this point, but you’re okay with the idea that God has always been God. Congratulations! Mormonism may not be for you!

All you have to do is jettison the teaching that eternal law external to God is greater than God. The conclusion is simple! You cannot have your Biblical theology and imbibe Joseph Smith’s theology too.

References:

1. Smith, Joseph, The King Follett Sermon, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng ↑
2. Smith, Joseph, The Sermon in the Grove, https://emp.byui.edu/jexj/courses/sermon_in_the_grove.htm; also cited in History of the Church 6:473-479; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 369-376 ↑
3. Doctrine and Covenants 101 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/101?lang=eng ↑
4. Paul, Wolfgang H., The Gift of Agency, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2006/04/the-gift-of-agency?lang=eng ↑
5. Ether 12 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/ether/12?lang=eng ↑
6. Doctrine and Covenants 130 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130?lang=eng ↑
7. Ibid. verse 3 ↑
8. Harris, Murray J.. John (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament) (Kindle Locations 8446-8447). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. ↑
9. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2?lang=eng ↑

• By Michael Flournoy and Paul Nurnberg

We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth. The 7th LDS Article of Faith

A prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6 promised that Elijah would come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Due to this prophecy, the Jews didn’t recognize Christ when He came. They were too busy waiting for Elijah to show up first.

After determining that John the Baptist wasn’t Christ, the Jews asked him, “What then, are you Elijah (the KJV says “Elias” which is Greek for Elijah)? Are you that prophet?” John answered that he was not (John 1:19-21).

Later, when Christ was on the cross He cried, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” He was calling out to God, but the Jews thought he was calling Elijah. They waited a moment to see if Elijah would show, but he didn’t (Matthew 27:46-49). They looked beyond the mark and missed the Messiah.

To this day they save a seat for Elijah each Passover. Meanwhile, Mormons claim Malachi 4:5-6 was fulfilled when Elijah appeared to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple.

Both groups are blissfully unaware that the prophecy was fulfilled in an unexpected way. In Matthew 17 Jesus took Peter, James, and John to the Mount of Transfiguration. At the top they saw Moses and Elijah. They saw Jesus transfigured and heard the Father call Him Son.

On the way down, the disciples asked why the scribes always said that Elijah must come first. 

Jesus 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.”

(Matthew 17:11-12 ESV)

The disciples then realized He was speaking of John the Baptist. This coincides with Luke 1:17 where the angel told Zacharias that John would “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.” (ESV)

The point is, God didn’t fulfill the prophecy the way people expected, and Mormonism falls into the same trap. The LDS church has a preconceived formula for how a spiritual witness works.

Doctrine and Covenants 9:8-9 gives an example:

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

Mormons typically equate a burning in their hearts with feeling the Holy Spirit. This feeling is a sign of the truthfulness of The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s prophetic mission, and the authority of the LDS church.

However, there’s a lot of gray area in the spiritual realm. I couldn’t see it because I was knee deep in the delusion that Mormonism was true. The red flags were there all along. Any religion that tries to force God into a box or a magic formula surely doesn’t know Him.

This is the story of how I received visions as a Mormon, and how they eventually destroyed my testimony.

Like a Fire is Burning

In my dream President Hinkley was on TV. With a solemn voice he proclaimed that the end of the world was at hand. I ran outside as tornadoes touched down, destroying everything in their path.

I ran for my life as debris flew everywhere. I took refuge in a building with large windows. A crowd was gathered there, staring in awe at the storm outside.

I began singing. “The Spirit of God like a fire is burning.” Other voices chimed in with me. “The latter day glories begin to come forth.”

More people joined in until everyone was singing. The despair faded as we sang vigorously, “We’ll sing and we’ll shout, with the armies of heaven ‘Hosanna! Hosanna to God and the Lamb! Let glory to them in the highest be given henceforth and forever, amen and amen!’”

The storm abated and sunlight filled the sky. I awoke feeling an overwhelming burning in my heart. That was shortly before I left on my mission. When I entered the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah I was amazed to find that one of the buildings resembled the one from my dream.

I believed it was a sign that I was where God wanted me. But then a slew of other dreams came to me, and I struggled to understand their meaning. I knew God was telling me something, but what?

While serving in Anaheim California, I dreamed I was debating an Evangelical in his home. I showed him verses in the Bible that disproved his position, one after another. 

He flipped desperately through the pages searching for something to stop the onslaught, but I was merciless. Suddenly, he stopped turning the pages. His eyes grew wide as he read a passage aloud. “Mormonism is not true.”

I awoke with a gut wrenching feeling. Should I be concerned? Was there doubt in my mind, or was it a spiritual attack from Satan? I consoled myself with the fact that the Bible contained no such phraseology. 

The dream was probably the result of spicy Mexican food the night before, and nothing more.

In a second dream I was being interviewed by a priesthood leader at church when a grizzly bear emerged and came after me. I picked up a pole and stood to defend myself. My priesthood leader shouted tactics which I followed diligently, but nothing worked. With each strike of its paws, I could feel the pole weakening.

I had the impression that I needed to trust more in God. I threw down the pole and was filled with an ungodly power. I was able to catch the bear’s paws in my hands, as if I were boxing a toddler. The threat had been neutralized.

I awoke to the Spirit surging through every faculty of my being. I felt like God was telling me I was relying too much on my leaders, and needed to balance that with faith in Christ.

After my mission I dated my first wife. I was noncommittal and wanted to avoid marriage until I finished school and had financial success. Then one evening as I sat in a priesthood meeting, I had the sensation that Heavenly Father was sitting next to me on the pew.

I could feel His words in my mind. “Where are you on marriage?”

I said in my heart that I wasn’t ready. I needed a few years to get my act together first.

“You don’t have to wait that long,” He replied. My reservations melted away. I tried one last argument. I told Him I was happier being single.

“No, you’re not.”

In my mind’s eye I saw a vision of the future. My girlfriend was now my wife. She played piano in our snug little home while the children and I sat around singing for Family Home Evening. Euphoria filled my soul at what I saw.

“Everything will be alright,” God assured me. 

I ran and told my girlfriend what happened and a few months later we were married in the San Antonio temple. 

The third dream came a couple of years later. We’d been unable to have children and because of financial problems, we were forced to move in with her sister. Her sister and her husband had just had their first child. I envied their excitement. I wondered why God hadn’t deemed me worthy of having a child.

While I struggled with those feelings, I dreamed I was on the temple grounds at night holding my crying niece in my arms. I walked to the top of a hill and held her up to the sky. “Here you go, Lord,” I called out. “She’s all yours!”

A blinding pillar of light shot down from the sky and in an instant she was gone. I skipped away happily, more light hearted than I’d been in months. 

Upon waking I decided God was telling me to go to the temple. It was the only place my troubled soul could find peace.

Dying Embers

No matter the spiritual experience, it always bolstered my faith in the LDS church. After all, Mormonism was true and the Spirit could do naught but validate it. 

But over the years my faith shifted and I found myself relying on Jesus instead of religion. Not long after leaving Mormonism, I finally understood the meaning of my dreams. 

In the dream with the grizzly bear, I only succeeded when I stopped listening to my leader. His advice was worthless. It was Jesus, and Jesus alone who deserved my trust.

My other dream gave the same message. The temple stood far in the background when God took away my problems. Peace wasn’t found in a man-made structure. It came directly from God.

The worst part of my transition was being abandoned by my wife. She wanted me to wait in the wings while she dated other men, just in case she matured during the process and decided to stay married. When I protested, she said we had to divorce.

Heartbroken, I asked if she ever loved me. “I love your paychecks,” she responded. 

I wondered why God convinced me to marry a narcissist and endure an emotionally abusive marriage for nearly a decade. Was He so short-sighted that He couldn’t anticipate this? If so, what right did He have to promise me everything would be okay?

Maybe God was a monster. Maybe He told me to marry my first wife because He wanted me to suffer. 

As time went on, I realized the truth. God was neither powerless nor a monster. Rather, I misinterpreted one of the most powerful experiences of my life. 

That meant one of two things. Either God couldn’t communicate reliably past human fallibility, or the whole experience was a figment of my imagination. If God couldn’t communicate to us, then I couldn’t trust myself or prophets to interpret the Spirit. If it was my imagination, then there was no way to differentiate between feelings and revelation. 

As a Latter-day Saint, I wanted a spiritual event so badly, that my subconscious mind manufactured one. And if that experience was suspect, so was every other experience I used to validate the LDS Church.

I used to believe the restored gospel was like a chariot of fire, taking me to heaven. Now I only see wreckage. The chariot is rusted, missing wheels and lying decomposed in the dirt.

If you are a Latter-day Saint, I implore you to consider my story and the experiences that contradicted the restored gospel. 

You may think I misinterpreted the Spirit or that Satan deceived me somehow, but that’s a double-edged sword. If it happened to me, it could be happening to you. 

Experience is as flimsy a standard as they come. If you need a burning in the bosom to know your church is true, then it probably isn’t. 

I pray the God of Israel will open your eyes before it’s everlastingly too late. 

• By Michael Flournoy

As a young man I visited the Patriarch of my stake to receive a Patriarchal blessing. He laid his hands on my head and said, “Brother Michael, I name you of the lineage of Ephraim and the House of Israel.”

It wasn’t a surprising revelation. Most of the Church members I’d met were aligned with Joseph, either through Ephraim or Manasseh.

In Mormonism, it was probably the best tribe to be from. After all, it was Joseph, not Judah, who obtained the birthright. It was Joseph who had a morally upright character and saved his brothers from starvation. Judah, on the other hand, married a Canaanite and slept with his daughter in law.

Joseph also received one of the greatest blessings from Jacob. It seemed odd that his descendants would be lost forever. But that’s where Mormonism filled in the gaps. According to LDS doctrine, before Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians, a family from the tribe of Joseph fled and crossed the ocean to the American continent. There, they became a great people and wrote a record called The Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was allegedly given this record by an angel, along with the ability to translate it into English. In 2 Nephi chapter 3 of The Book of Mormon it’s revealed that Joseph Smith himself was a descendant of Joseph who was sold to Egypt.

Joseph was a revered name in the Mormon church. The tribe of Joseph was renewed through the restoration of the gospel, and was now in charge of gathering the other tribes. This was done through missionary work because baptism was what made someone Abraham’s offspring and inheritor of his covenant.

In 2016 the mindset I’d grown up with came crashing down when I embraced Christianity. I went from law to grace, from works to faith, and from Joseph to Judah.

I’ve studied the paths these tribes took, and can see a clear parallel with Mormonism and Christianity. I’d like to share my insights here.

Let’s start with the parable of the Prodigal Son, as told in Luke 15:11-32. It begins with a man having two sons. The younger son departs for a faraway land and engages in riotous living. He loses his inheritance, and comes back begging to be made a servant. Surprisingly, the father accepts him back and throws a party in his honor, even killing the fatted calf. The older son is furious and wonders how his brother could be welcomed back after wasting their money on harlots.

In Genesis 38 Judah leaves and settles among the Canaanites. He marries a Canaanite woman and has three sons. Two of his sons marry a woman named Tamar, and God kills both of them for their wickedness.

Judah tells Tamar he will give her his third son when he grows up, but reneges on the offer. Tamar dresses like a prostitute and sleeps with Judah. It’s a crazy story, but when Judah realizes what has happened he is convicted of his wickedness, just like the younger son in the parable.

The tribe of Judah resembles the prodigal son, having been passed over to receive the birthright. And yet, the Messiah comes through their lineage. This is something Mormon doctrine cannot grasp.

There’s a passage in Doctrine and Covenants 130:20-21 which reads:

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated- and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

In other words, every blessing is merited by the good we do in this life. This flies in the face of the Biblical account. You see, Judah wasn’t the only shady character in Jesus’ family tree. There was Tamar, a Canaanite, and Bethsheba, who David stole from Uriah. Rahab the harlot was also part of Christ’s genealogy.

Why did the Savior come from such a broken family and not the one holding the birthright?

Truth be told, the tribe of Ephraim ended up being one of the most wicked tribes. In Judges 1:27-29 we read that Manasseh and Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites as commanded, but subjected them to hard labor instead.

Perhaps they thought keeping the Canaanites as slaves would give them a leg up. They were wrong. The Canaanites corrupted them, and as early as Judges chapter 2, they are seen worshipping Baal. These people did not give them a leg up, they weakened them. Ephraim in particular, would become head of the rival state of Israel and would war with Judah, siding with Judah’s pagan enemies.

In order to give its adherents a leg up, the LDS church institutes sacraments and temple ordinances. But really, it’s just putting something else in the place of Jesus. It’s a little leaven leavening the whole loaf. It’s Ephraim trying again to usurp Judah’s authority, and failing miserably.

As for this former Latter-day Saint, I renounce my “birthright” and the priesthood ordinances that were supposed to make me holy. I renounce the whited sepulchers they call temples. I choose the Messiah who came from a broken lineage and befriended sinners. I choose the God who instituted mercy and came to cleanse the unclean.

All my hope rests with the Lion of Judah.

• By Michael Flournoy

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

Matthew 7:1-5 KJV

Imagine a scenario where two Mormon missionaries knock on a door. A man answers wearing a cross and clutching a Bible. The senior missionary, Elder Taylor, goes into a canned speech, “We’re missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

“Right on,” the man says. “I’m a saint of the latter days too.”

Elder Taylor ignores the outburst. “We’re here to share a message of joy. We believe our families can be together forever.”

The man at the door nods enthusiastically. “I agree.”

“We believe that the priesthood has been given to men.” The man continues his obnoxious nodding.

“And we believe we have a living prophet right now.”

“Amen,” the man says. “Prophet, Priest, and King. Jesus is all we need!”

The missionary realizes this man might be using the same words as him, but he means something totally different.

In order to break the language barrier, he tries a frontal assault. “The church Jesus established fell into apostasy.”

The Christian winces. “Why do you have to attack my faith? Can’t you share your beliefs without going after mine?”

The other missionary, Elder Young, speaks up. “I was raised Baptist, but the restored gospel has given me great joy.”

The man at the door shakes his head in disappointment. “There’s no joy outside the gospel of grace. If you left it’s because you were offended, didn’t trust God enough, or you wanted credit for your salvation.”

“No,” Elder Young stammers, “I found greater light and knowledge.”

“Ah, you intellectualized your way out of the faith.”

Elder Taylor jumps to his companion’s defense. “If you would just read The Book of Mormon and pray about it…”

“I’m sorry,” the man says, “I try to stay away from anti-Christian literature.”

“That’s ridiculous,” Elder Taylor says. “If you visit our website, you’ll see so many references to Christ.”

The man lifts his finger up. “You can’t trust everything you read on the internet. Look guys, I have a testimony that the Bible alone is God’s word and if anyone comes offering new scripture, they must be servants of the devil. Good day.”

With that the door is closed.

I would ask my LDS readers if this exchange was fair. Does it leave you with a bad taste in your mouth? Don’t you wish people would be more open-minded and less judgmental?

Let me pull a “Nathan the prophet” and say, you are the man in my parable.

When Christians try to have conversations with Latter-day Saints, you use our words. You claim to be Christian too, but muddy the conversation by foregoing clarification. You say you’re saved by grace, but fail to mention that you’re exalted by ordinances. You mention heaven, but neglect the degrees of glory.

When we try to break the language barrier and talk about your doctrine, we’re labeled anti-Mormon. You accuse us of having nothing better to do but bash your cherished beliefs because we aren’t good Christians.

When we leave the LDS church, you accuse us of having weak testimonies or claim we were offended by some trivial matter and decided our eternal happiness wasn’t worth it anymore. The implication is we’re immature quitters.

When we show you evidence that points away from Mormonism, you question the authenticity of the source. If the golden rule is applied to this standard, then clearly Latter-day Saints neither want nor deserve their faith to be approached with an open mind. Contempt is a double-edged sword. If you want people to play fair, it starts with you. The gaslighting and the unrighteous judgment has to stop.

Truth doesn’t have to play games. It doesn’t walk around with fingers in its ears hoping critics go away. It’s not afraid to look into someone’s experience and give them the benefit of the doubt. In short, it’s not afraid to challenge itself.

If this doesn’t align with the culture of your church, then ask yourself this question: how is that different from the tactics employed by cults? At best, it’s a sign of spiritual immaturity.

Now that you’ve had a chance to look inwardly, I offer this plea: if you believe you have the truth, then act with the dignity that truth deserves.

• By Michael Flournoy

Growing up Mormon, I believed mankind lived in heaven with God before mortality. Prior to coming to earth, Jesus presented the Father’s plan to us. We would be granted bodies and the ability to choose between good and evil. Since we would all sin, Christ would atone for all mankind. This would grant salvation to those who repented of their sins.

In the midst of this, Lucifer rebelled, taking a third of the hosts of heaven with him. His platform involved taking away men’s freedom of choice so everyone would come back to heaven. As a reward for doing this, he would take God’s throne.

War ensued in heaven and Lucifer and his followers were cast down to earth, never to receive physical bodies or a chance at redemption.

I believed God’s gift of free will, or agency, was ultimately what made Him good. I was perfectly content to embrace open theism to protect God from the evil in the world. A God who couldn’t stop the world’s evil was preferable to a God who condoned it.

Like most Latter-day Saints, I had deep misgivings about Calvinism. I believed it was Luciferianism in the truest sense: the cancer of Christianity. It was diametrically opposed to Mormonism. If any of its five points were true, it would undermine everything I believed.

However, as the years went by I became disenchanted with Mormonism and embraced Christianity instead.

In Moses 7 in the Pearl of Great Price, Enoch allegedly sees God crying in a vision. In awe he asks, “How is it that thou canst weep?”

In verses 32-34 God answers,

“Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.”

In summary, God weeps for two reasons. First, He can’t violate the agency of man and make him obey. And second, He must punish his children, even though he doesn’t want to.

To be frank, this is pathetic. To say God begrudgingly deals out justice is to say justice isn’t an integral part of His nature. Furthermore, if God is fretting about people’s salvation to the point of tears, how am I supposed to be confident in anyone’s salvation, including my own?

A being that helpless is not worthy of worship.

The other day at church someone stated that everyone who goes to hell will have had their sins paid for. It made no sense and left a bad taste in my mouth. Even with the ransom theory of atonement, the oppressor was supposed to relinquish his captives when payment was made.

Was Christ’s blood insufficient payment? I decided I needed to examine other alternatives, including Calvinism.

While reading Exodus and Romans 5, the strength of the Reformed position came into focus. When God spoke to Moses from the burning bush He sent him to tell Pharaoh to let his people go.

In Exodus 3:19-22 (ESV) God gives Moses the whole playbook. He says:

“But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless compelled by a mighty hand. So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all the wonders that I will do in it; after that he will let you go. And I will give this people favor in the sight of the Egyptians; and when you go, you shall not go empty, but each woman shall ask of her neighbor, and any woman who lives in her house, for silver and gold jewelry, and for clothing. You shall put them on your sons and on your daughters. So you shall plunder the Egyptians.”

In Mormonism, and I suspect other Arminian perspectives, God can’t know for certain what we will do with our freedom of choice. He can make an educated guess, but can never be 100% sure.

But God doesn’t tell Moses they’re going to play it by ear depending on Pharaoh’s actions. Instead He gives out spoilers. Any number of choices could have upset the playbook. Pharaoh could have let the Israelites go. Or after experiencing the plagues of Egypt, Pharaoh might have continued to hold Israel hostage. Finally, the Egyptians could have withheld their jewelry.

The point is, God was willing to take that bet because he knew how things would turn out. In the midst of the Exodus story we see something shocking. God hardens Pharaoh’s heart. For all intents and purposes, the king of Egypt is God’s puppet and there is never a moment where the Lord is not in control.

When Israel is led out of captivity it isn’t because of a choice they made. It’s because God chose them. In fact, many times during the trip they complain that they should have died in Egypt. Yet despite their will, God continues to save them.

Romans 5 also blew my mind when reading through it. It was so contrary to everything I believed as a Latter-day Saint. There I learned that Jesus was a second Adam. When the first Adam sinned his transgression was imputed to us and when Jesus died his righteousness was imputed instead.

Verse 19 is of particular interest. It reads:

For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:19 ESV)

The implication this verse makes is staggering. Adam’s transgression is accredited to mankind despite our inaction, and this verse seems to say the same of the atonement.

I’m not ready to become a Calvinist yet. I feel I’m just now getting acquainted with the real Calvinism. God’s sovereignty is definitely it’s strong point, and God’s decree of evil is its stumbling block. But even Arminianism has to grapple with this.

If God knew what Satan would do but made him anyway, then He’s complicit. And if God watches the evil of the world and can stop it but doesn’t, then He can be accused of sins of omission rather than commission.

The choice seems to boil down to two things: would I rather have a God who frets tearfully over the ones He cannot save, or a God who is in control 100% of the time, even if I don’t agree with who He chooses to save and who He doesn’t?

The Bible describes Jesus as the author and finisher of our faith. As an author myself, I suspect that if Jesus is author and editor of my faith, that doesn’t leave me a part.

For me, the pendulum is swinging towards the God who is sovereign.

• By Michael Flournoy

22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

Mark 13:22 (KJV)

In a YouTube video entitled “The Scripture That Saved My Life From Human Traffickers” (https://youtu.be/LJof2_59vbc), Tim Ballard tells a story about going undercover to gain intel.

As he finished his mission, the traffickers decided to kill him and his fellow operatives in order to acquire their belongings. Tim went to his car and grabbed his worn out Book of Mormon. In the midst of the chaos he remembered Alma 58:11.

11 Yea, and it came to pass that the Lord our God did visit us with assurances that he would deliver us; yea, insomuch that he did speak peace to our souls, and did grant unto us great faith, and did cause us that we should hope for our deliverance in him.

Tim Ballard got out of the car and was surprised to find the traffickers had left. In the video he testifies of The Book of Mormon and says, “There’s power in just holding the book.”

Tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints claim they’ve gained a spiritual witness that The Book of Mormon is true. This testimony comes by utilizing “Moroni’s Promise” in Moroni 10:3-5.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

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

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

The Book of Mormon compels the reader to abandon logic, and instead balance their testimony of the restored gospel on the tightrope of subjective feeling.

Faith promoting experiences are a dime a dozen in Mormonism. Parents get uneasy feelings and discover their toddlers mere steps from busy roadways. The men use the priesthood to heal the sick. Those who pay their last dollar on tithing find magical checks in the mail that cover their expenses.

Under this mountain of spiritual evidence, one must conclude that Mormonism is true, right?

Not so fast, hold your cureloms! It turns out even non-LDS folks experience these spiritual events.

I once worked with a lesbian named Kourtney who didn’t believe in God. Instead she believed in the universe. One day she said she asked the universe for money and found 20 dollars on the side of the road.

I chastised God inwardly. “Where’s my 20 dollars?” I asked. I was an obedient member of the true church. If anyone deserved 20 dollars, it was me. “Don’t you know she’s living in sin, God? Besides, she believes in the universe. You know this is going to reinforce her false beliefs, so why bless her?”

My black and white viewpoint couldn’t make sense of the situation. God was supposed to reward the righteous and punish the wicked.

My mistake, it turned out, was trying to force God inside a box.

In Matthew 5:44-45 (KJV) Jesus says:

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

The problem with this is it dismantles most of the experiences used to justify the LDS church.

Luckily, there’s still miracles. Certainly the act of casting out demons and priesthood healing is evidence of the validity of the restored gospel, right? Wrong again.

Deuteronomy 13:1-3 says:

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

This passage makes it clear that a sign or wonder can be employed by a false prophet.

Pharaoh’s magicians were able to perform miracles. They made a stick turn into a snake and turned water into blood. If Moses hadn’t been there, it would have been easy to assume they had God on their side.

Joseph Smith certainly could have produced a book that gave individuals a burning in the bosom, whether it was true or not.

But what about the temple? What about all the stories about spirits appearing to family members and thanking them for doing their ordinances?

That’s problematic as well.

In 1 Samuel 28 Saul asks a witch to conjure up the deceased Samuel so he can speak to him. The spirit of Samuel appears and foretells of Saul’s death.

Under the heading Samuel in the LDS Church’s Bible Dictionary we read:

The account in 1 Sam. 28:5–20 of the prophet being brought back from the dead by the witch of Endor, at King Saul’s request, presents a problem. It is certain that a witch or other medium cannot by any means available to her bring up a prophet from the world of spirits. We may confidently be assured that if Samuel was present on that occasion, it was not due to conjuring of the witch. Either Samuel came in spite of and not because of the witch, or some other spirit came impersonating him.

The fact that it can’t definitely be stated whether it was Samuel or another spirit is terrifying. This means evil spirits are so good at impersonating people, that it’s impossible to tell the difference. So when you see a spirit in the temple, how can you be certain it’s not a demon in disguise?

The Book of Mormon prophecies of itself in 2 Nephi 26:16:

16 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.

The fact that it expressly mentions familiar spirits in conjunction with the coming forth of The Book of Mormon should tell you all you need to know. As a well known early Mormon apostle, Willard Richards, infamously said:

“God or the devil has had a hand in that book, for man never wrote it.’” (D. Michael Quinn, “They Served: The Richards Legacy in the Church,” Ensign, Jan. 1980, p.25)

Since a familiar spirit is a demon, that settles the dispute.

Let’s return to the story I shared at the beginning of the article. Even if God was sending inspiration to Tim Ballard through Alma 58:11, it’s still not a point for Mormonism.

We need to stop mistaking the tree for the forest. The experience Tim shares isn’t about a book, it’s about a principle. Alma 58:11 talks about assurance, and ironically, that’s one thing Mormon’s don’t have.

Latter-day Saints must obey God’s commandments. They must eradicate their sins. They must pay 10% of their incomes to the Church. They must endure to the end because the threat of losing salvation hangs constantly overhead. This is nothing short of human trafficking on a spiritual level.

I invite all Latter-day Saints to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. His grace is free, and it endures forever on our behalf. Only Christ can speak peace to our souls. Thanks to His vicarious atonement, we can rest in our deliverance through Him.

Hebrews 6:17-19 (KJV)

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

18 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:

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

• By Michael Flournoy

And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

–Matthew 22:37

An Application of Textual Criticism

The year before I left the LDS Church, I received as a gift Royal Skousen’s The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text, published by Yale University Press. That first night, I read the introduction in which Skousen describes his decades of research aimed at reconstructing the earliest English text of the Book of Mormon by comparing the various early manuscripts and stripping away changes made by Smith’s scribes and later editors. It had only been a couple years since I’d been introduced to the science and purpose of Textual Criticism. Here, I was seeing it applied to a Mormon text for the first time. While I was eager to get to the resultant textual reconstruction to see what insights Skousen’s work had uncovered, I re-read the 35 pages of Introduction and Editor’s Preface that first night. It had unlocked in my mind several questions that had been sitting on the shelf of my mind for a few years, and now weren’t going to let go.

• All of that work to arrive at the earliest English text, but to what end?
• Aren’t there still cultural and time gaps between modern readers and the supposed ancient authors that can never be bridged due to the fact that the golden plates aren’t extant?
• On what basis were subsequent changes to the English text of the Book of Mormon made, if they weren’t original, and there is no recourse to an original language manuscript?

As I’ve engaged with Latter-day Saints on these questions, answers have varied, but mostly those I’ve encountered have held to the idea that original language manuscripts for the Book of Mormon aren’t needed, because Skousen’s work gets us as close to the source of Joseph Smith’s inspired translation as we’re going to get. This raises a couple related questions:

• Who was inspired, the supposed ancient authors of the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith?
• If both, then does Joseph Smith’s original manuscript also contain errors?

Approaching Inerrancy

Like my view of Scripture, my understanding of the concept of Biblical inerrancy was informed by my upbringing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The title page to the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith said was translated from the last leaf of the golden plates, contains a statement and a warning about mistakes in the text. It reads, “And now if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men; wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ.”^[1] Not only did the Book of Mormon’s supposed ancient authors predict how its detractors would react to it (“A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.”^[2]), but also predicted that it would be put under scrutiny for errors and warned against rejecting it on that basis. The passage about how “gentiles” would react to the Book of Mormon had struck me as the manipulative, self-serving justification of a modern author trying to foist his own work on the world as ancient Scripture since that notion had unlocked in my mind sometime in early 1999 when I was sitting on a bed in an apartment in Budapest, but I’d pushed it aside. The title page warning now struck me as similar.

When asked why the eighth Article of Faith doesn’t contain a disclaimer for the Book of Mormon like it does for the Bible (“as far as it is translated correctly”), Latter-day Saints will often argue that it’s not needed because the Book of Mormon was translated “by the gift and power of God” so its resulting translation is perfect and exactly as God wants it. That aligns with Skousen’s work to try to identify the earliest text. Presumably, the closer Skousen gets to the original English text, the closer he gets to the perfect English text—but not to the ancient version of the text, if such were indeed to exist.

Ostensibly, both the ancient authors of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith in translating it, were inspired in what they wrote. Skousen’s entire exercise would be futile without that assumption! Why, then, does the title page contain the escape hatch it does? It suggests that despite God’s involvement, if humans are involved in the production of Scripture (either in writing the original texts or in translating them with God’s help) there will unavoidably be errors.

The translation process as described by David Whitmer suggests that Smith put his face in a hat and the translation of the characters on the plates was shown to him on his seer stone in the hat, one character from the plates and its interpretation at a time, and that the next character’s interpretation would not appear until the scribe had recorded it correctly.^[3] Such a verbally inspired translation process should not have resulted in any errors needing correction by later editors, but that is not what we have with the Book of Mormon, necessitating Skousen’s work to arrive at the earliest text.^[4]

Where Christians can logically reason to the inerrancy of Scripture from God’s perfection, Mormon Theology seems to lack a robust concept of inspiration powerful enough to overcome human frailty, else Latter-day Saints would also reason to a position of scriptural inerrancy, but even the supposed inspired translation of the title page of the Book of Mormon prevents them from doing so. The Book of Mormon, from the title page to the supposed worries of its ancient prophet Moroni is rife with the concerns of a mind seeking to convince the world that what he is producing is Scripture on par with the Bible.^[5]

Flunking Inerrancy

In the first article in this series, I affirmed a belief in the inerrancy of the Bible.^[6] A friend with whom I served on the LDS Mission wrote me to share his thoughts on my article. One of his statements reminds me of a sentiment I have seen often from Latter-day Saints. He said, “I don’t think I can ever conceive of anything as ‘God’s inerrant word.’”

As I transitioned out of the LDS Church, and continued to discuss religion with others online, I found that Latter-day Saints often reacted with incredulity to the concept of Biblical inerrancy. I think this stems somewhat from what is stated in the eighth Article of Faith: “We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God.” This ties the reliability of the Bible with the reliability of the translation, in some ways confusing what Christians are affirming when they hold to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. I also think it stems from the idea that human involvement in the production of Scripture necessarily entails error, because as the title page of the Book of Mormon suggests, to “err is human.”^[7] Latter-day Saints come by a misunderstanding of the doctrine of inerrancy honestly.^[8]

One thing that discussing the concept of Biblical inerrancy with Mormons online circa 2010-11 taught me is that I didn’t have a firm grasp of the concept of Biblical inerrancy myself. I knew that it was something that many Evangelical Christians affirm, but as Latter-day Saints (at least one of them a Biblical scholar not just laypersons) presented me with their arguments against the concept, I often found myself either agreeing with them or flummoxed as to how to respond.

It wasn’t until I began attending a Christian Seminary, studying for an M.Div. in Biblical Studies that I encountered two clarifications that gave me solid footing for understanding the concept of Biblical inerrancy, and could see that many of the arguments made against the concept are rooted in a misunderstanding of what is being affirmed.^[9] The two clarifications that helped me to have a better grasp of what an affirmation of inerrancy entails are:

• Infallibility (the idea that the Bible is incapable of failing) is the stronger concept than inerrancy
• Inerrancy (the idea that the Bible contains no errors) applies only to the original text, not to later copies or translations

I affirm both the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. Here’s why.

• The Bible teaches that God’s word is truth (free from error)
• The utter reliability of God’s Word has been the consistent teaching of the Church from earliest times
  • “You have studied the Holy Scriptures, which are true and inspired by the Holy Spirit. You know that nothing contrary to justice or truth has been written in them.” – Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians (between 70 – 96 CE)^[10]
  • “[. . .] the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit [. . .] – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter 28 (between 174 and 189 CE)
  • “For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.” – Augustine Letter From Augustine to Jerome (405 CE)

An elegant argument can be made for the infallibility and inerrancy of the Biblical autographs. One of my theology professors lays out the argument for the inerrancy of the Bible as a logical syllogism supported by the Bible’s own teachings:

• Premise A: Every word of God is true (Titus 1:2; John 17:17; 2 Cor 6:7; Col 1:5; 2 Tim 2:15; James 1:18)
• Premise B: The Bible is the Word of God (2 Tim 3:16; Mt 15:6; Mk 7:13; Rom 9:6; Psalm 119:105; Rom 3:2
• Conclusion: The Bible is inerrant^[11]

Another of my favorite theologians, R. C. Sproul, puts that syllogism this way:

• Premise A: The Bible is the infallible Word of God.
• Premise B: The Bible attests to its own infallibility.
• Premise C: The self-attestation of Scripture is an infallible attestation.
• Conclusion: The Bible is the infallible Word of God^[12]

However, Sproul rightly notes that the syllogism as structured above leads to the charge of circular reasoning. The conclusion is contained within the first premise. This pre-suppositional method of argumentation is wholly a theological enterprise, and I don’t have any problems with it and can affirm it on those grounds. But it doesn’t describe how I came to trust the Bible as infallible and inerrant.

This, and all I have laid out in this article about the historical reliability of the Bible when compared with the Book of Mormon, is why I hold to the classical approach to Biblical infallibility and inerrancy. It also can be structured as a logical syllogism:

• Premise A: The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy document.
• Premise B: On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe confidently that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
• Premise C: Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible authority.
• Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is more than generally trustworthy: it is the very Word of God.
• Premise E: That the word, in that it comes from God, is utterly trustworthy because God is utterly trustworthy.
• Conclusion: On the basis of the infallible authority of Jesus Christ, the Church believes the Bible to be utterly trustworthy, i.e. infallible^[13]

The first premise allows for the study and wrestling that I’ve done with regard to historical reliability of texts claimed to be Scripture. The rest of the premises argue from that to various theological positions leading to the conclusion. This classical structure marries the two facets of my religious experience: mind and heart. I can love God with my mind and be justified in loving God with my heart. It leaves room for the work of the Holy Spirit in me through my studies. It escapes base fideism and allows for the evaluation of evidence and reasoning to play its part in my religious convictions. Historicity matters!

---

1. Times and Seasons, Vol. III, No. 24, “Truth Will Prevail” accessed from http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v3n24.htm#943 ↑
2. 2 Nephi 29:3 ↑
3. See David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ ↑
4. This problem was also identified by LDS Scholars David L. Paulsen and R, Dennis Potter in their response to Owen and Mosser’s review of How Wide the Divide: A Mormon & An Evangelical in Conversation. See their discussion of the issue as handled by Stephen Robinson on pp. 231-235 https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=msr ↑
5. Ether 12:23-29 ↑
6. Continuing the Tragic Quest https://beggarsbread.org/2019/03/03/12289/ ↑
7. Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism, accessed from https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69379/an-essay-on-criticism ↑
8. The Gospel Topics entry on Bible, Inerrancy Of states the following:Latter-day Saints revere the Bible. They study it and believe it to be the word of God. However, they do not believe the Bible, as it is currently available, is without error.Joseph Smith commented, “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, chapter 17).[…]As the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, many errors entered the text. The existence of such errors becomes apparent when one considers the numerous and often conflicting translations of the Bible in existence today.So while Joseph Smith, as quoted here, explicated a view that is close to what Christians mean by inerrancy, the view argued against in this brief article from the LDS Church’s website is a straw-man. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/bible-inerrancy-of?lang=eng ↑
9. Hat tip to my theology professor and Dean of the Seminary while I was there, Dr. Johnny Pressley, for the clarity with which he (and Dr. Cottrell) presented theological concepts. They both achieved a clarity of thought and enunciation of theological concepts for which I will forever be grateful and which I will forever be chasing. ↑
10. Most scholars date this writing to the last three decades of the first century CE. ↑
11. Jack Cottrell, Solid: The Authority of God’s Word, College Press Publishing Company, Joplin, MO 1991, 40-41. ↑
12. R. C. Sproul, Scripture Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine, P&R Publishing, Philipsburg, NJ, 2005, 69. ↑
13. Ibid. 72-73. ↑

• By Michael Flournoy

“It is finished.”Jesus (John 19:30 ESV)

Imagine you took your old clunker to get restored and the mechanic only did half the job. He promised to continue working on it, but couldn’t give a definite date of completion. In the meantime, you were welcome to keep using it.

Would you proudly drive a partially restored vehicle through town? That’s basically what Latter-day Saints are doing with their faith. 

In October of 2018, in a video interview President Nelson said, “We’re witnesses to a process of restoration. If you think the Church has been fully restored, you’re just seeing the beginning. There is much more to come… Wait till next year. And then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest. It’s going to be exciting.”

With one whip of the tongue he shattered Mormonism’s foundation. If the restoration started almost 200 years ago, and it’s just starting to gain momentum, how long do we have to wait on the finished product?

My friends, Mormonism is worthless thanks to this revelation. There is no reason anyone should join this religion or give credence to the logic of its apologists and missionaries. 

Why? Because we don’t know what’s next. In the past five years they’ve made changes to the missionary age, made the nickname Mormon anathema, changed “home teaching” to “ministering”, made it a policy not to baptize children of gay parents and reversed it, and they sliced off an hour of church.

At the rate things are going, they could institute the Trinity and the doctrine of forensic righteousness. They may proclaim sola scriptura and trade prophets for pastors.

Mormons can’t refute this, because no one knows the future. If the LDS church embraces Protestant doctrines, then we were ahead of the curb. Of course, it’s more likely to veer farther off the straight and narrow path.

Either way, it’s nonsense to join. The constant changes impair our freedom of choice because as long as we don’t know what’s coming, we can’t make an informed decision. Embracing Mormonism is like embarking on a road trip without a GPS.

Never again do we have to stand by while Mormons rant that we emerged from Catholicism with a new gospel because they don’t even have a gospel yet. Our message hasn’t changed: Christ forgives all who believe, and trades His righteousness for our sins. 

Romans 1:16 says:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Paul makes it pretty simple. The gospel is the power of God’s finished work to save those who believe. If the gospel isn’t finished, then it can’t be trusted and we should be ashamed of it.

So for any Mormon who wants to proselytize me or my fellow Christians I give this answer: if the gospel is still restoring, how can you know what you have is better than Biblical Christianity? And if the Church isn’t fully restored, aren’t we still in the great apostasy?

You believe you know not what. We know what we believe. So come preach to us when the restoration’s over.

• By Michael Flournoy