SCRIPTURE AND AUTHORITY

A Comparative Theological Analysis:
“Are Mormons Christian?” Series

Introduction

Among the most consequential theological disputes between Latter-day Saint (LDS) theology and orthodox Christianity lies the fundamental question of Scripture and authority. This debate extends far beyond academic curiosity; it touches the very foundation of Christian faith and practice. How we answer questions about the nature of biblical authority, the sufficiency of Scripture, the possibility of additional revelation, and the historical continuity of Christ’s church determines not merely which books we read but which God we worship and what gospel we proclaim.

The Latter-day Saint movement, emerging from the religious ferment of nineteenth-century America, presents a comprehensive alternative to historic Christianity’s understanding of Scripture and authority. Founded upon Joseph Smith’s claims to prophetic restoration, LDS theology posits an open canon, questions biblical reliability, asserts a complete apostasy of the early church, and maintains that priesthood authority required restoration through angelic visitation. These claims stand in fundamental tension with the orthodox Christian position, held across Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions, which affirms the sufficiency of Scripture, the preservation of God’s word, the continuity of Christ’s church, and the finality of apostolic revelation.

This article provides a systematic examination of these competing views, analyzing their foundational claims, examining their scriptural and historical support, and evaluating their implications for Christian faith and practice. While approaching this subject with scholarly rigor and appropriate charity toward those who hold differing views, this examination will demonstrate that LDS positions regarding Scripture and authority represent a fundamental departure from biblical Christianity—a departure so significant that it raises serious questions about whether the LDS faith can legitimately be considered within the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy.

Latter-day Saint Theology on Open Canon, Scripture, and Authority

The Doctrine of an Open Canon

Central to Latter-day Saint theology is the belief in an open canon—the conviction that God continues to reveal Scripture beyond what is contained in the Bible. The LDS Church affirms four “standard works” as authoritative Scripture: the Bible (specifically the King James Version for English-speaking members), the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These texts together comprise approximately 900 additional pages of material beyond the biblical text, representing what LDS believers consider divinely inspired and authoritative revelation.

The Ninth Article of Faith, one of thirteen foundational statements composed by Joseph Smith, explicitly declares this open-canon position: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things about the Kingdom of God.” This statement establishes continuing revelation not as a peripheral doctrine but as a central tenet of LDS faith.

Elder Alexander B. Morrison of the First Quorum of the Seventy articulated this position with clarity in his address on the LDS concept of canon:

Not only is ours an expanded canon, but it is also open and unended. We do not subscribe to the finalist and minimalist views of other Christians with regard to holy writ. We believe in continuing and unending revelation, ever augmented by living prophets.
(Source: BYU Religious Studies Center)

This theological position has profound implications. LDS apologists at FAIR (Faithful Answers, Informed Response) argue that “the doctrine of a closed canon and the end of authoritative revelation is not found in the Bible” and that “to insist upon this doctrine is to place a non-Biblical doctrine in a place of preeminence, and insist that God must be bound by it.” They contend that requiring a closed canon would itself require extra-biblical revelation to establish, creating an internal contradiction for those who affirm sola Scriptura. (Source: FAIR LDS)

The FAIR argument presents a superficially clever rhetorical maneuver, but it suffers from significant logical and biblical deficiencies upon closer examination.

The Logical Problem: A Self-Defeating Sword

The argument cuts both ways—and more deeply against the LDS position. If we accept the premise that affirming a closed canon requires extra-biblical revelation (which it does not, but grant it for argument’s sake), then the LDS claim of an open canon faces the identical problem. By what authority do Latter-day Saints declare the canon open? If Scripture itself doesn’t explicitly state “the canon is closed,” neither does it state “the canon is open and will include nineteenth-century American texts.” The LDS position requires the very thing it criticizes: an authoritative declaration from outside the existing biblical text.

Moreover, the argument commits a category error. Sola Scriptura does not claim that every Christian doctrine must be stated in explicit propositional form within Scripture. Rather, it affirms that Scripture is the final authority by which all doctrines are tested. The sufficiency and completeness of Scripture can be derived from what Scripture teaches about itself—this is theology drawn from Scripture, not imposed upon it.

The Biblical Problem: Ignoring Direct Testimony

The FAIR argument conveniently sidesteps texts that speak directly to the matter:

Jude 3 declares the faith was “once for all delivered to the saints.” The Greek hapax (once for all) denotes completed, unrepeatable action—the same term describing Christ’s finished atonement (Hebrews 9:28; 10:10). This isn’t silence; it’s explicit testimony to finality.

Galatians 1:8–9 pronounces anathema on anyone—“even an angel from heaven”—who preaches a gospel contrary to what Paul delivered. This warning presupposes a fixed, identifiable apostolic gospel against which all subsequent claims must be measured.

2 Timothy 3:16–17 affirms Scripture makes believers “complete, equipped for every good work.” If additional revelation were necessary for completeness, this claim would be false.

Revelation 22:18–19, while primarily addressing John’s prophecy, reflects a broader biblical pattern of warning against tampering with God’s revealed word (cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5–6).

How LDS Apologists Sidestep Their Own King James Bible

This exposes a fundamental irony: the LDS Church officially uses the King James Version, yet systematically neutralizes its plain teachings through several interpretive maneuvers.

The “Mistranslation” Escape Hatch

The Eighth Article of Faith—“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly“—functions as a universal solvent for any inconvenient text. When Scripture contradicts LDS doctrine, the reflexive response is “that must be mistranslated.”

But notice the asymmetry: the Book of Mormon carries no such qualifier. It is simply “the word of God.” This creates a theological hierarchy where LDS scriptures judge the Bible rather than the reverse. As James White observed in his letters to Mormon elders, when he asks LDS missionaries “Do you know what the correct translation is, then?”—the answer is invariably no. The charge of mistranslation is asserted without evidence, invoked precisely when and only when the text challenges LDS teaching.

Selective Reading of Clear Passages

Consider what the KJV plainly states that LDS theology must circumvent:

On God’s nature:

• “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24)—yet D&C 130:22 insists the Father has “a body of flesh and bones”
• “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” (Isaiah 45:5)—yet LDS theology teaches a plurality of gods
• “From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God” (Psalm 90:2)—yet Lorenzo Snow’s couplet has God progressing from manhood

On salvation by grace:

• “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9)—yet LDS teaching adds temple ordinances, celestial marriage, and tithing as requirements for exaltation
• “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28)—yet Bruce McConkie called such belief “utter nonsense” that causes one to “lose one’s salvation”

On the finality of revelation:

• “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8)—yet Joseph Smith claimed an angel delivered the Book of Mormon
• “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3)—yet LDS teaching insists the faith required restoration

The “Plain and Precious Things” Inversion

The Book of Mormon’s claim that “plain and precious things” were removed from the Bible (1 Nephi 13:26–29) performs a remarkable rhetorical function: it preemptively discredits the very text LDS members hold in their hands. The Bible’s clarity becomes evidence of its corruption—if it were truly complete, it would contain LDS doctrines. Since it doesn’t, something must have been removed.

This is unfalsifiable circular reasoning. The absence of LDS teachings in the Bible proves they were deleted. Any biblical teaching contradicting LDS doctrine proves corruption. The Bible can never win.

Prophetic Authority Trumps Scripture

Ultimately, living prophetic authority supersedes the written word in LDS epistemology. As the BYU Religious Studies Center acknowledges, “for Latter-day Saints the highest authority in religious matters is continuing revelation from God given through the living apostles and prophets of his Church.”

This means that even if a KJV passage is acknowledged as accurately translated, a modern prophet’s interpretation or contradiction takes precedence. President Ezra Taft Benson made this explicit: “The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet… The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.”

The Practical Result

The KJV becomes a prop rather than an authority—carried to church, quoted selectively, but functionally subordinate to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and General Conference addresses. When a Latter-day Saint reads “there is one God” (1 Timothy 2:5) or “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27, contradicting proxy baptism for the dead), these texts are filtered through an interpretive grid that has already determined what they cannot mean.

The tragedy is that sincere LDS believers possess in their King James Bible everything necessary for salvation and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), yet have been taught to distrust its plain testimony whenever it conflicts with Salt Lake City. They hold the truth in their hands but have been conditioned to look past it.

The Historical Problem: Misrepresenting the Process

The canon wasn’t established by extra-biblical revelation but by recognition. The church did not bestow authority on texts; it recognized authority already inherent in them through apostolic authorship and doctrinal consistency. The councils formalized what the church had already received. This is fundamentally different from Joseph Smith’s claim of new revelation delivered by an angel.

The FAIR argument is rhetorically nimble but theologically hollow. It attempts to create a false equivalence while ignoring Scripture’s own testimony to its sufficiency and the apostolic gospel’s finality. The orthodox position doesn’t bind God—it trusts that God has already spoken definitively in Christ and through His apostles, and that this word endures forever (1 Peter 1:25).

The Eighth Article of Faith and Biblical Reliability

Perhaps no LDS doctrine creates greater tension with orthodox Christianity than 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.” The qualifying phrase “as far as it is translated correctly” introduces a fundamental reservation about biblical reliability that has no parallel regarding LDS-specific scriptures.

This position is reinforced by Book of Mormon passages such as 1 Nephi 13:26–29, which teaches that “plain and precious truths” were removed from the Bible by “that great and abominable church.” The text asserts that these corruptions necessitated restoration through additional Scripture:

Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church. (1 Nephi 13:32)

Historical LDS leaders have expressed varying degrees of skepticism toward biblical reliability. Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt wrote extensively on this subject:

What shall we say then, concerning the Bible’s being a sufficient guide? Can we rely upon it in its present known corrupted state, as being a faithful record of God’s word? We all know that but a few of the inspired writings have descended to our times… What few have come down to our day, have been mutilated, changed, and corrupted, in such a shameful manner that not two manuscripts agree… Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution?
(Source: Letters To A Mormon Elder, Chapter 2)

In Letters To A Mormon Elder, James White systematically dismantles LDS claims about biblical unreliability by distinguishing between transmission and translation—a distinction most Mormon missionaries conflate. White demonstrates that modern English Bibles translate directly from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, not through a chain of successive languages. With over 5,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts available, we can reconstruct the original text with remarkable accuracy. White exposes the Eighth Article of Faith’s qualifier (“as far as it is translated correctly”) as a convenient escape hatch invoked without evidence whenever Scripture contradicts LDS doctrine—while the Book of Mormon receives no such scrutiny.

The Great Apostasy Doctrine

Underlying both the open canon and the qualified view of biblical reliability is the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy. This teaching holds that following the death of the original apostles, the true church of Jesus Christ ceased to exist on earth. Priesthood authority was lost, essential ordinances were corrupted or abandoned, and saving truths were obscured or eliminated. This complete apostasy, in LDS teaching, made necessary a complete restoration through Joseph Smith.

According to official LDS teaching, “After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread wickedness, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth.”

This apostasy narrative serves as the theological foundation for all distinctive LDS claims. If no apostasy occurred, no restoration was necessary. If the church continued, Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling loses its rationale. The doctrine of the Great Apostasy is therefore not peripheral but central to the entire LDS theological system.

Yet this narrative flies directly in the face of nearly two thousand years of historical evidence. The claim requires believing that distinctive LDS doctrines—God as an exalted man, human progression to godhood, celestial marriage, temple endowments, proxy baptism for the dead, the three degrees of glory—were taught by Christ and His apostles, then vanished without a trace. But the historical record preserves no such disappearance. The Apostolic Fathers writing within decades of the apostles (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp), the second-century apologists (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus), and subsequent theologians across centuries and continents make no mention of these doctrines—not to teach them, not to defend them, not to condemn their removal. The ecumenical councils debated Arianism, Nestorianism, and Pelagianism, but never whether God was once a man or whether humans become gods in the LDS sense. Creeds, liturgies, catechisms, and monastic rules preserve no fragment of these teachings. To accept the Great Apostasy requires believing in a conspiracy of silence so total, so perfectly coordinated across every branch of Christianity for eighteen centuries, that it left not a single dissenting voice, not one manuscript, not one archaeological artifact. Such an erasure defies all historical plausibility. The very absence of evidence becomes its own testimony: these doctrines were not lost—they were never there to lose.

Orthodox Christian View of Biblical Authority and Apostolic Succession

The Doctrine of the Closed Canon

Historic Christianity—across Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions—affirms that the biblical canon is closed. This does not mean that God has ceased to work or speak, but that the foundational revelation necessary for salvation and godly living has been definitively given and preserved in Scripture. The canon represents God’s complete written revelation, requiring no supplementation.

The process of canonical recognition unfolded over the early centuries of Christianity, with the church discerning which books bore the marks of divine inspiration and apostolic authority. As theologian Michael Kruger notes in his essay for The Gospel Coalition:

The canon was not determined by human councils but recognized by the church as possessing inherent divine authority. The books were not made canonical by ecclesiastical decision; rather, their canonical nature was acknowledged because the church recognized in them the voice of God.
(Source: The Gospel Coalition: The Biblical Canon)

The epistle of Jude provides explicit testimony to the finality of apostolic revelation: “Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3, ESV). The phrase “once for all” (Greek: hapax) denotes a singular, unrepeatable action—the same term used to describe Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice in Hebrews 9:28 and 10:10. Just as Christ’s atoning work needs no supplementation, so the apostolic faith requires no restoration.

GotQuestions.org articulates the implications of the closed canon clearly:

The most significant implication of a closed canon is that additional books cannot be added to the Bible, and none of the books that are currently included can be removed. God has spoken. A closed canon implies that other religious books that devotees purport to be inspired by God should be rejected as spurious. The Book of Mormon, the Quran, the Vedas—all of these are works of men and women and not the product of God’s Holy Spirit.
(Source: GotQuestions.org)

The Reliability and Preservation of Scripture

Orthodox Christianity affirms not only the inspiration of Scripture but its preservation. God, having breathed out His word through human authors (2 Timothy 3:16), did not then abandon it to corruption. Rather, He providentially preserved His revelation across the centuries.

To suggest otherwise—that Scripture was corrupted beyond reliability, that “plain and precious truths” were lost, that God’s word required nineteenth-century restoration—is to level a devastating charge against God Himself. If the Almighty inspired His word yet failed to preserve it, what does this reveal about His nature? A God who breathes out Scripture only to watch helplessly as conspiring men mutilate it beyond recognition is not the omnipotent Sovereign of the universe but a defeated deity, outmaneuvered by human wickedness. Such a God lacks either the power to protect His revelation or the faithfulness to do so—either way, He fails in His Divine essence.

The biblical testimony stands firmly against such a notion. The LORD declared through Isaiah, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8, ESV). Jesus Himself affirmed, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35, ESV). The Psalmist proclaimed, “Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.” (Psalm 119:89, ESV). These are not tentative hopes but absolute declarations grounded in God’s immutable character. The God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2), who watches over His word to perform it (Jeremiah 1:12), who accomplishes all His purposes (Isaiah 46:10)—this God does not lose documents, suffer manuscript theft, or find Himself outfoxed by ecclesiastical conspirators.

The LDS position unwittingly demotes the God of Scripture to a being whose purposes can be frustrated by mortal men—a God who must wait eighteen centuries before finding a vessel capable of recovering what He carelessly lost. This is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is not the God who upholds the universe by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3). The preservation of Scripture is not incidental to Christian faith; it flows necessarily from the character of the God who inspired it.

The Apostle Peter declared: “All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.” (1 Peter 1:24–25, ESV, quoting Isaiah 40:8). Jesus Himself affirmed the enduring nature of Scripture: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35, ESV).

The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly supports biblical preservation. We possess over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, along with approximately 20,000 manuscripts in other ancient languages. This wealth of textual evidence allows scholars to reconstruct the original text with remarkable precision. As textual critic Bruce Metzger observed, the New Testament is by far the best-attested document from antiquity.

It is crucial to distinguish between transmission and translation. Transmission refers to the copying of manuscripts over time; translation refers to rendering the text from its original languages into other languages. Modern English Bibles are translated directly from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts—not through a chain of intermediate translations. As James White explains in his response to LDS missionaries:

Each of the English versions is based directly upon the original languages, and there is but one step between the original Hebrew and Greek texts to the English translation thereof. So, as you can see, we can know what the Bible originally said with reference to its translation from the original languages into English.
(Source: Letters To A Mormon Elder, Chapter 2)

The Continuity of Christ’s Church

Against the LDS doctrine of total apostasy stands Christ’s explicit promise regarding His church: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18, ESV). This promise admits no exception and allows no interregnum. The gates of hell—whether understood as the powers of death, demonic opposition, or false teaching—will not prevail against Christ’s church.

Jesus further promised His perpetual presence with His people: “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20, ESV). The word “always” (Greek: pasas tas hēmeras, literally “all the days”) encompasses every day until Christ’s return. There is no gap, no period of absence, no era of apostasy during which Christ abandoned His church.

As noted in a critical examination of Joseph Smith’s restoration claims:

If Joseph Smith’s ‘Restoration Gospel’ had truly been the original message of Christ and His apostles, history itself would bear the scars of its loss. Yet nowhere in the record do we find even a whisper of such a disappearance… The fathers of the faith—Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athanasius—make no mention of such things. The councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon ignore them completely; creeds, liturgies, and monasteries preserve no fragments of them.
(Source: Critical Examination of Joseph Smith Restoration Claims)

Comparative Analysis

The Nature of Revelation: Finished or Continuing?

The fundamental difference between LDS and orthodox Christian positions on Scripture concerns whether divine revelation is ongoing or complete. This difference is not merely quantitative (how many books?) but qualitative (what kind of revelation do we need?).

Orthodox Christianity affirms that God’s redemptive revelation reached its climax and completion in Jesus Christ. The author of Hebrews declares: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (Hebrews 1:1–2, ESV). Christ is the final word, the ultimate revelation, the full disclosure of God’s character and purpose. To suggest that additional Scripture is necessary implies that Christ’s revelation was somehow incomplete.

The Apostle Paul pronounced the most severe warning against any alteration of the apostolic gospel: “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. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8–9, ESV).

This warning is particularly significant given Joseph Smith’s claim that the angel Moroni delivered the Book of Mormon. Paul explicitly addresses the scenario of “an angel from heaven” bringing a different gospel and pronounces it accursed. The double repetition of the anathema (“accursed”) emphasizes the gravity of the warning.

The Sufficiency of Scripture

Paul’s letter to Timothy makes a comprehensive claim regarding Scripture’s sufficiency: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16–17, ESV).

The purpose clause is crucial: Scripture exists so that the believer “may be complete, equipped for every good work.” If Scripture makes believers complete and equips them for every good work, what additional revelation could be necessary? The LDS position implicitly denies this sufficiency, suggesting that without the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, believers remain incomplete and inadequately equipped.

Similarly, Peter declares that divine power has given believers “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3, ESV). Not some things, not most things, but all things. This comprehensive provision leaves no soteriological or ethical need unaddressed. The claim that temple ordinances, celestial marriage, or proxy baptism for the dead are necessary for exaltation directly contradicts Peter’s affirmation of sufficiency.

We might pose a sincere question to our LDS friends: If the Bible alone is insufficient for salvation and godly living, what is lacking in the lives of traditional Christians who follow its teachings? Look at the countless believers across two millennia who have known nothing of temple endowments, celestial marriage sealings, or proxy baptisms—yet who have demonstrated profound faith, sacrificial love, moral transformation, and joyful hope in Christ. Consider the martyrs who died singing hymns, the missionaries who forsook everything to carry the gospel to unreached peoples, the ordinary saints who loved their neighbors, served the poor, raised godly children, and faced death with unwavering confidence in their Savior. What fruit of the Spirit is missing in their lives? What ethical deficiency mars their witness? What dimension of genuine godliness have they failed to attain? If Peter spoke truly—that believers possess all things pertaining to life and godliness—then these Christians lack nothing essential. But if LDS teaching is correct, then Peter deceived us, and countless faithful souls across the centuries lived and died in hopeless insufficiency, never knowing they needed ordinances that wouldn’t exist for another eighteen hundred years. Which picture comports with the goodness and faithfulness of God?

Historical Evidence: Apostasy or Continuity?

The LDS Great Apostasy doctrine requires believing that essential Christian truths were lost for nearly 1,800 years before Joseph Smith’s restoration. This claim can be tested against historical evidence.

If distinctive LDS doctrines—the plurality of gods, God having once been a man, humans becoming gods, the three degrees of glory, celestial marriage, temple endowments, baptism for the dead—were taught by the original apostles, we should expect to find traces of these teachings in early Christianity. Yet the historical record is silent. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp), the apologists (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus), and subsequent theologians (Athanasius, Augustine, the Cappadocians) contain no hint of these doctrines.

The ecumenical councils addressed numerous controversies—Arianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism—but never debated whether God was once a man or whether humans can become gods in the LDS sense. If these were original apostolic teachings subsequently suppressed, we should expect some record of the controversy, some dissenting voice, some fragment preserved. Instead, we find nothing.

As patristic scholar Jaroslav Pelikan observed: “What the church of the first centuries believed, taught, and confessed was, in its fundamental structure, the faith of the apostles themselves.” The continuity between apostolic teaching and early Christianity is remarkable. While heresies arose and were combated, while practices developed and changed, the core apostolic gospel was preserved and transmitted.

The Dilemma of the Original Apostles

The LDS restoration claim creates a significant theological dilemma: Why did Jesus Christ not provide His original apostles with the complete gospel? If temple ordinances, celestial marriage, and proxy baptism are truly essential for exaltation, why were Peter, James, John, and Paul not commissioned to teach and practice them?

Several responses might be offered by LDS apologists. First, they might claim these ordinances were practiced but not recorded. However, this argument from silence is extraordinarily weak given the comprehensive nature of apostolic writing. Paul, for instance, addressed every major issue facing early churches and provided detailed instruction on ordinances like baptism and the Lord’s Supper. His silence on temple endowments or celestial marriage is deafening.

Second, they might claim these teachings were removed from the biblical text. But this requires believing in a conspiracy of cosmic proportions—a coordinated effort spanning centuries, continents, and countless copyists to systematically remove all trace of these doctrines while leaving no evidence of the removal itself. Such a claim defies historical plausibility.

Third, they might claim that God chose to reveal these truths progressively, withholding them from the apostles but providing them later through Joseph Smith. But this creates insurmountable problems. It implies that the original apostles preached an incomplete gospel. It suggests that early Christians could not be fully saved or exalted. It makes God’s revelation arbitrary rather than sufficient. And it contradicts Jude’s affirmation that the faith was “once for all delivered to the saints.”

Implications for Faith and Practice

The Authority of Scripture

If the Bible is truly “breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16) and preserved by His providence, then it stands as the supreme authority for Christian faith and practice. It is not subject to correction by subsequent revelation, cannot be superseded by prophetic pronouncement, and needs no supplementation by additional Scripture.

The LDS system, by contrast, subordinates the Bible to the Book of Mormon and to continuing prophetic authority. As BYU professor Stephen Robinson acknowledges, “For Latter-day Saints the highest authority in religious matters is continuing revelation from God given through the living apostles and prophets of his Church.” When conflict arises between the Bible and LDS teaching, the Bible is assumed to be corrupt or mistranslated. This effectively places the Bible under the authority of LDS leadership rather than over it.

The Gospel Itself

The differences between LDS and orthodox Christian views of Scripture ultimately impact the gospel itself. If Scripture is sufficient and the canon is closed, then the gospel proclaimed by the apostles is the gospel we are to believe and proclaim. If Scripture requires restoration and supplementation, then the apostolic gospel was incomplete.

The apostolic gospel is clear: salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, apart from works (Ephesians 2:8–9). Justification is a gift received, not a status earned (Romans 3:24; 5:1). Believers are adopted as children of God and heirs with Christ (Romans 8:15–17). This gospel requires no temple ordinance, no celestial marriage, no proxy baptism—only repentant faith in the crucified and risen Christ.

The LDS gospel, by contrast, adds numerous requirements: temple endowments, celestial marriage sealings, keeping the Word of Wisdom, paying tithing, and various other ordinances and commandments. As Bruce McConkie wrote: “Much that is believed and taught on this subject [salvation], however, is such utter nonsense and so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one’s salvation.” This explicit rejection of salvation by grace through faith alone represents not merely a different emphasis but a different gospel.

What makes McConkie’s statement so remarkable—indeed, breathtaking in its audacity—is that Latter-day Saints profess to revere the King James Bible as scripture. This is the very Bible that declares, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9). This is the Bible that proclaims, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28). This is the Bible in which Jesus announces, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47). This is the Bible where the Philippian jailer asks, “What must I do to be saved?” and Paul answers simply, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:30–31)—not “believe, plus receive temple ordinances, plus enter celestial marriage, plus abstain from coffee, plus pay ten percent of your income.”

Yet McConkie, an LDS apostle, calls this gospel—the gospel of the very book his church distributes and studies—”utter nonsense” and “so palpably false that to believe it is to lose one’s salvation.” Ponder the weight of that claim. The grace-alone, faith-alone gospel that Latter-day Saints read in their own King James Bible is not merely incomplete in McConkie’s view; it is damning. One must ask: How can the LDS Church claim the Bible as scripture while its apostles condemn the Bible’s central message as soul-destroying error? This is not tension; it is outright contradiction. And it exposes, perhaps more clearly than any other example, the unbridgeable chasm between LDS theology and biblical Christianity.

The Nature of God

LDS Scripture and prophetic teaching present a dramatically different understanding of God than that found in biblical Christianity. The Bible reveals one God, eternally existing in three persons (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 44:6; Matthew 28:19). This God is spirit (John 4:24), unchanging (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17), and from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2).

LDS teaching presents God the Father as a glorified, exalted man with a physical body. The Doctrine and Covenants states: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (D&C 130:22). Lorenzo Snow’s famous couplet declares: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” This represents not a minor doctrinal variation but a fundamentally different deity.

Mormon Apostle Bernard Brockbank acknowledged this difference directly: “It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons.” President Gordon Hinckley similarly stated: “The traditional Christ of whom they [non-Mormons] speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.” These are not statements made by critics of Mormonism but by its own leaders.

Conclusion

This examination of LDS and orthodox Christian positions on Scripture and authority reveals differences that are not peripheral but fundamental. The issues at stake concern the nature of revelation, the reliability of Scripture, the continuity of Christ’s church, and ultimately the gospel itself.

The orthodox Christian position, grounded in Scripture and affirmed across two millennia of church history, holds that:

• The biblical canon is closed, containing all revelation necessary for salvation and godly living.
• Scripture has been providentially preserved and remains reliable as God’s word to humanity.
• Christ’s church has continued from the apostolic era to the present, never experiencing complete apostasy.
• The faith delivered once for all to the saints requires no restoration, only faithful proclamation.

The LDS position, by contrast, undermines biblical authority, questions scriptural reliability, asserts complete apostasy, and claims the necessity for a nineteenth-century restoration. These positions implicitly deny the sufficiency of Christ’s revelation to His apostles, the preservation of God’s word, the continuity of Christ’s church, and the finality of the apostolic gospel.

The implications are profound. If the LDS position is correct, then Christianity went astray shortly after its founding and remained in error for eighteen centuries. The Bible cannot be trusted, the church fathers were deceived, the Reformers were misguided, and historic Christianity in all its forms has proclaimed an incomplete gospel. Only Joseph Smith and his successors possess the truth.

If the orthodox position is correct, then the LDS movement represents not a restoration of original Christianity but a departure from it. The additional scriptures are not divine revelation but human composition. The unique doctrines are not recovered truths but theological innovations. The movement, however sincere its adherents, leads not toward the biblical God but away from Him.

Given the distortion of original biblical truth represented by LDS theology regarding Scripture and authority—and the consequent differences in the doctrines of God, Christ, salvation, and the gospel—serious questions arise about whether LDS faith can be considered authentically Christian in any historic or theological sense. The differences are not merely denominational variations within a shared faith but fundamental departures affecting the very essence of Christianity.

In the final analysis, the Book of Mormon must be recognized for what it is: a fascinating work of fiction containing some interesting religious thoughts, portions borrowed from the King James Bible, and imaginative narratives of ancient American civilizations for which no archaeological, linguistic, or genetic evidence has ever emerged. Despite its literary ambitions and sincere spiritual aspirations, it cannot bear the weight of divine authority its adherents place upon it. Its doctrinal contradictions with Scripture, its anachronistic language and theology, its complete absence from the historical record for eighteen centuries, and its emergence from the mind of a young man already known for treasure-seeking and folk magic—all point to a human origin rather than a divine one. The Book of Mormon is, in the end, the product of a creative yet profoundly deceived mind, and those who build their eternal hope upon its pages build upon sand rather than the solid rock of God’s true and preserved word.

This assessment is offered not with animosity but with genuine concern for truth. Many sincere and admirable people embrace the LDS faith. But sincerity does not determine truth, and admirable character does not validate doctrine. The question before us is not whether Latter-day Saints are good people—many clearly are—but whether LDS teaching accords with the apostolic gospel delivered once for all to the saints.

The evidence examined in this article suggests it does not. The Bible remains God’s sufficient, preserved, and final written revelation. The faith entrusted to the apostles needs no restoration. Christ’s church has endured and will endure until He returns. And the gospel—that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3–4)—remains the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.

— Soli Deo Gloria —

References

FAIR Latter-day Saints. “The Bible/Open canon vs. closed canon.” https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/The_Bible/Open_canon_vs._closed_canon

GotQuestions.org. “The closed canon—what are the implications?” https://www.gotquestions.org/closed-canon.html

Kruger, Michael J. “The Biblical Canon.” The Gospel Coalition. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-biblical-canon/

Morrison, Alexander B. “The Latter-day Saint Concept of Canon.” Religious Studies Center, BYU. https://rsc.byu.edu/historicity-latter-day-saint-scriptures/latter-day-saint-concept-canon

The Righteous Cause. “A Critical Examination of Joseph Smith Restoration Claims in Light of New Testament Theology.” https://novus2.com/righteouscause/2026/01/17/a-critical-examination-of-joseph-smith-restoration-claims-in-light-of-new-testament-theology/

White, James R. “Letters To A Mormon Elder: Chapter 2.” The Righteous Cause. https://novus2.com/righteouscause/2024/04/01/letters-to-a-mormon-elder-chapter-2/

All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version (ESV).