A precarious house of cards teeters on the edge, adorned with iconic LDS symbols—Joseph Smith’s portrait, the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon, and the golden plates—each card representing an aspect of a faith that claims to restore divine truth. Yet, beneath the surface, this fragile structure reveals a legacy built on shaky foundations, leaving its followers to navigate a theological edifice that crumbles under the weight of historical scrutiny and doctrinal contradictions.
A Faith Under Scrutiny: A Historical Divide Deepens
For nearly 200 years, a theological rift has separated fundamental Christians from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), known by its outsiders as Mormonism, a divide that remains stark in 2025. Fundamental Christians, who adhere strictly to the Bible as the sole authority for faith, view Mormonism as a profound departure from orthodox Christianity, a critique that began with the religion’s founding by Joseph Smith in 1830. Smith asserted he received divine visions and discovered golden plates, which he translated into the Book of Mormon, positioning himself as a prophet tasked with restoring the “true” church lost after the apostles’ deaths. This narrative has long drawn criticism from fundamental Christians, who argue that Mormonism’s foundational claims undermine the Bible’s authority as the complete word of God. As of this moment in 2025, this tension is evident in evangelical conferences, online forums, and local church teachings, where leaders caution their congregations against Mormonism’s deceptive allure, pointing to its expanding influence in states like Utah and Arizona as a pressing call to action.
Latter-day Saints frequently profess a deep reverence for the Bible, publicly affirming its value as scripture and often citing it in their teachings and missionary efforts, while in the same unspoken breath casting aspersions on its history of translation and interpretation, asserting that it has been corrupted over centuries due to a “great apostasy” following the death of the original apostles. They point to their Eighth Article of Faith, which states that they believe the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly,” implying that errors introduced by scribes, translators, and early church leaders have obscured its original meaning—a claim that allows them to elevate their own scriptures, like the Book of Mormon, as purer revelations. This dual stance has been a point of contention since the church’s founding in 1830, with Joseph Smith suggesting that “many plain and precious things” were lost from the Bible, a belief reinforced in their scripture, 1 Nephi 13:26-28, which describes a deliberate removal of truths by a “great and abominable church.” Critics argue this narrative undermines the Bible’s reliability, positioning Mormonism as the sole restorer of truth, a perspective that continues to fuel theological debate.
In his book, Letters to a Mormon Elder, James White addresses this point intensely … Chapter 2, “But it IS Translated Correctly!“:
Most Mormons assume Scripture is corrupted wherever it contradicts LDS teaching. The Bible, then, always functionally stands under the church’s teaching and the other LDS scriptures. Mormons embrace the Bible as God’s Word only when it can be reinterpreted to support their theological agenda. Your objections to the accuracy of the Bible, Elder Hahn, are “common” in my experience, and I will do my best to answer them.
There are two Scriptures that clearly present my belief in the nature of the Bible as God’s Word. The first is 2 Timothy 3:1-17, and the second is 2 Peter 1:20-21. Let me briefly review these passages with you.
Paul wrote to Timothy, “All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work.” Yes, I know, that is not the King James translation — it is my own translation of the Greek in which Paul wrote to Timothy in the first place. I will discuss the topic of “translation” a little later if I might ask your indulgence till then.
Paul describes the Scriptures as “God-breathed.” The term itself that is commonly translated as “inspired” literally means that the Scriptures find their origin, their source, in God Himself. They are like the breath of God Himself, coming forth from His mouth. Note, too, that the Bible is not here speaking of how the writers were led by God to write what they did, but that what they wrote was “inspired” or “God-breathed.” God used men to write His Word, but He did so in such a way as to ensure that what was written was word-for-word what He had intended from eternity past. The God of the Bible is big enough to use men to write His message, yet at the same time see to it that the resultant revelation is not mixed with error or untruth.
You might be willing to say “Yes, as the Bible was originally written it was the perfect and complete Word of God.” But, then you’d be quick to add, “Things have changed — the Bible has been changed, things have been lost. We can no longer say that the Bible is fully and completely the Word of God.” That really seems to be your main objection if I am interpreting your last letter correctly. If so, you seem to be in line with a majority of LDS today. However, you might note that one of your own LDS scholars, James Talmage, was not quite as strident in his criticism of the Bible. Rather, he knew enough of the Bible itself to be much more moderate in his words:
The Latter-day Saints believe the original records to be the word of God unto man, and, as far as these records have been translated correctly, the translators are regarded as equally authentic. The English Bible professes to be a translation made through the wisdom of man; In its preparation, the most scholarly men have been enlisted, yet not a version has been published in which errors are not admitted. However, an impartial investigator has cause to wonder more at the paucity of errors than that mistakes are to be found at all (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, pp. 236-237)
He also noted,
The New Testament must be accepted for what it claims to be; and though, perhaps, many precious parts have been suppressed or lost, while some corruptions of the texts may have crept in, and errors have been inadvertently introduced through the incapacity of translators, the volume as a whole must be admitted as authentic and credible, and as an essential part of the Holy Scriptures (Articles of Faith, p. 248).
It is clear that the all churches other than the LDS Church must be actively “keeping back” many “plain and precious truths” of the Bible. How this is done is not stated by the Book of Mormon; but, popular belief amongst Latter-day Saints says that the Catholic Church removed whole sections of the Bible during the Middle Ages.
When we speak of the history of the Bible, and how it came to us, we are speaking of the transmission of the text over time. For the first fifteen hundred years of the “Christian era,” the text of the Bible was transmitted by hand copying, from one manuscript to another. We have today over 25,000 hand-written manuscripts of the New Testament alone, and over 5,000 of these are written in the original language of the New Testament, Greek. Most of the time, when Mormons speak of the Bible being “mistranslated” in terms of the 6th Article of Faith, they are not referring to its actual translation, but rather they are alleging that there have been errors made in the transmission of the text. Normally it is believed that passages, and even whole books, have been “lost” in the process of transmission, not in translation.
You said that the Bible had been “translated over and over again.” Yes, that is true in the sense that each time I open my Greek New Testament, I am “translating” it over again. But, I don’t believe you meant it in that way. Rather, you seem to be saying that the Bible has gone through a process where it has been translated from one language into another, sort of like this:
Hebrew to Greek to Latin to French to German to Spanish to English
Obviously, if that is how it happened, you would be right in saying that by the time it got to English, a great deal of what it originally said would have been lost in translation. But, that is not how it happened. 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.
I have often had LDS people say, when confronted with a passage that contradicted their own beliefs, “Well, that must be mistranslated.” I ask, “Do you know what the correct translation is, then?”“No,” they reply. “Have you examined this passage in the original Hebrew or Greek?” “No, I have not,” they say. “Then how do you know it is mistranslated?” I ask. “Because it contradicts what the LDS Church teaches,” they reply. Only a handful of times have I met anyone who had done even a small amount of study on a passage that they alleged to be “mistranslated.” If you ask me, Elder Hahn, James Talmage knew that the Bible was translated accurately in the English versions, and he also knew that the charges of gross corruption of the Biblical text, made so often by Latter-day Saints, have no basis in fact. That is why he was so reticent in his statements which I cited above.
So the next question, obviously, is this: has the text of the Bible been changed and corrupted, as many allege? Or do we know what the original authors of the Scriptures wrote? We can speak all we wish of being able to translate the texts of the Bible accurately (and we can do so), but if the text has not been transmitted correctly over time, what does it matter?
It is impossible, of course, for me to attempt a full discussion of the history of the text of the Bible in a letter. Besides, many fine scholars have put pen to paper in the description of this very thing. Two fine, more basic works come to mind that I would like to recommend to you. F.F. Bruce’s The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and J. Harold Greenlee’s Scribes, Scrolls and Scripture. Both should be readily available to you. But I shall not simply direct you to others without giving you a basic reply to your contentions.
In our blog post, “How We Got Our Bible – The Story of Canonization,” we explain how canonization enhances modern confidence in the Bible by revealing a historically reliable text, theologically affirmed as God’s Word, and practically equipped to withstand scrutiny. It transforms the canon from a static relic into a living testament, meticulously preserved and providentially shaped. In 2025’s context—marked by information overload, mistranslations, and religious pluralism—this insight anchors trust in the Bible’s authority, inviting both study and faith with renewed conviction.
From Treasure Digger to Polygamous Prophet: The Shady Origins of Joseph Smith’s Ministry
Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, remains a deeply polarizing figure nearly two centuries after establishing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1830, with a litany of controversies casting a long shadow over his legacy, particularly his secretive and extensive practice of polygamy. In the early 1840s, while leading the church in Nauvoo, Illinois, Smith introduced the doctrine of plural marriage, claiming it was a divine revelation recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132, which instructed him to take multiple wives to fulfill God’s command—yet he publicly denied the practice, creating a web of deception that alienated many.
Historical records confirm he married at least 34 women, including teenagers as young as 14, such as Helen Mar Kimball, and even the wives of other men, like Zina Huntington Jacobs, who was already married to Henry Jacobs, a loyal follower. Smith’s secrecy—lying to his wife Emma, who vehemently opposed polygamy, and concealing the marriages from the broader church membership—has been widely criticized as a profound betrayal of trust, with Emma reportedly burning the original revelation document in a fit of rage. This scandal drove a wedge through the early Mormon community, prompting key figures like Oliver Cowdery, Smith’s close associate and scribe for the Book of Mormon, to leave the church in 1838, publicly accusing Smith of moral corruption and labeling his actions as adulterous, a rift that underscored the deep divisions Smith’s polygamous practices created.
Another controversy centers on Smith’s early involvement in treasure digging and folk magic, practices that undermine his prophetic claims for many critics. In 1826, at age 20, Smith was arrested in Bainbridge, New York, and charged as a “disorderly person” for using a seer stone to find buried treasure, a skill he later repurposed to translate the Book of Mormon from golden plates. Court records from the time describe him as “Joseph the glasslooker,” and his conviction for “glass-looking” has been cited as evidence of fraudulent behavior, with detractors arguing that his treasure-digging past reveals a pattern of deception. These controversies, combined with multiple arrests for charges ranging from fraud to treason, paint a picture of a man whose charisma and claims of divine revelation were matched by a life of legal and ethical turmoil, fueling ongoing debates about his legitimacy as a prophet. While the exact number of arrests is not documented, the Joseph Smith Papers Project documents his involvement in approximately 200 legal cases, highlighting his frequent interactions with the legal system.
The modern LDS Church has often been accused of whitewashing the controversial history of its founder, Joseph Smith, to present a more sanitized image that aligns with its contemporary values and missionary goals. For decades, the church downplayed or omitted Smith’s practice of polygamy—particularly his marriages to over 30 women, including teenagers and already-married women—from official narratives, focusing instead on his role as a divinely inspired prophet who translated the Book of Mormon and restored the “true” church. Official church publications and Sunday school manuals historically avoided mentioning Smith’s 1826 arrest for “glass-looking” as a treasure digger, a charge that casts doubt on his credibility, instead emphasizing his First Vision as a sacred encounter with God and Jesus. Critics argue this selective storytelling, which persisted well into the late 20th century, was a deliberate effort to shield members from uncomfortable truths, with the church only recently acknowledging these aspects in essays published on its website starting in 2013, a move seen as a response to growing scrutiny in the internet age.
Emma Smith’s Refusal and the Whitewashing of Her Role
The modern LDS Church’s whitewashing of its history extends to the portrayal of Emma Smith, Joseph Smith’s widow, whose refusal to join Brigham Young’s westward trek in 1846 has been downplayed in official narratives. Emma, frustrated by tensions with Young and the church’s embrace of polygamy—a practice she fiercely opposed—chose to remain in Nauvoo, Illinois, after Joseph’s murder in 1844, rejecting Young’s leadership and the migration to Utah. Young later accused her of disloyalty, even claiming she attempted to poison Joseph, interpreting her silence as guilt, a narrative that painted her as a traitor in Utah’s anti-Emma atmosphere. The church has since minimized this rift, often presenting Emma as a faithful supporter of Joseph while glossing over her opposition to polygamy and her decision to stay behind, aligning with the broader pattern of sanitizing controversial aspects of early Mormon history to maintain a unified image.
Competing Claims to Leadership: James Strang’s Monarchial Vision
The succession crisis following Joseph Smith’s death in 1844 also saw competing claims to leadership, with self-proclaimed monarch James Strang emerging as a significant rival to Brigham Young. Strang, who claimed to be Smith’s divinely appointed successor through a “Letter of Appointment,” founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) and declared himself a king, establishing a spiritual kingdom on Beaver Island, Michigan. He attracted followers, including Joseph’s brother William Smith, by mirroring Smith’s practices—claiming to translate ancient metal plates and commune with angels—yet his monarchial vision starkly contrasted with Young’s theocratic governance. Strang’s refusal to name a successor after his 1856 assassination led to the dissolution of his movement, but his brief prominence underscores the fractured nature of early Mormonism, a complexity often overshadowed by the LDS Church’s focus on Young’s leadership as the sole legitimate path forward. In his book, The King of Confidence: A Tale of Utopian Dreamers, Frontier Schemers, True Believers, False Prophets, and the Murder of an American Monarch, journalist and author Miles Harvey explores the enigmatic life of James Strang, unraveling the complex narrative of a self-proclaimed monarch amidst a backdrop of utopian ideals, frontier deception, and religious fervor.
Theological Divergence: A Different God, Salvation, and Afterlife
Fundamental Christians assert that Mormonism’s core doctrines fundamentally contradict Biblical theology, starting with its concept of God. They point to Mormon teachings that God the Father was once a man who progressed to godhood, a belief articulated by Joseph Smith in his 1844 King Follett Discourse, where he declared that “God himself was once as we are now.” This doctrine, coupled with the idea that humans can become gods through exaltation, starkly contrasts with the Bible’s depiction of an eternal, unchanging God who declares, “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” (Isaiah 43:10). Fundamental Christians also reject Mormonism’s view of the Trinity, noting that LDS theology treats the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three separate gods, with Jesus as “God the Second,” a derivative deity born of the Father like all spirit children, rather than the co-eternal, co-equal person of the Triune Godhead described in John 1:1.1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Salvation further divides the two faiths. Mormonism claims that a “Great Apostasy” occurred after the apostles’ deaths, necessitating a restoration through Smith’s 1820 vision, where God and Jesus allegedly appeared to him in a grove in Palmyra, New York. This narrative dismisses the continuity of the early Church, as evidenced by writings from early Christian leaders like Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome, who showed no trace of Mormon-specific doctrines such as celestial marriage or the idea of humans becoming gods. Fundamental Christians argue that Mormonism’s “fullness of the gospel” requires works-based ordinances—like temple ceremonies and adherence to the Word of Wisdom (a health code)—to achieve exaltation, a process they see as undermining the Bible’s teaching of salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-92For 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.). Additionally, the Mormon belief in a multi-tiered afterlife, with three kingdoms of glory and the potential for eternal progression, clashes with the Biblical binary of heaven and hell, further highlighting the theological chasm.
Historical and Scriptural Concerns: A Question of Authenticity
The Book of Mormon, presented by Smith as a historical record of ancient American civilizations, is a major point of contention for fundamental Christians. They argue that the text lacks archaeological support, with no evidence of the vast Nephite and Lamanite civilizations it describes, despite extensive digs in North and Central America. For example, the book claims the use of steel swords and horses in pre-Columbian America, yet no such artifacts have been found, contradicting well-established historical timelines that place horses in the Americas only after European contact in the 1500s. Moreover, early Church writers like Irenaeus and Tertullian, who documented Christian beliefs in the second century, knew nothing of a “great apostasy” or Mormon doctrines, instead affirming the continuity of apostolic teaching. Fundamental Christians also reject the Book of Mormon’s status as scripture, viewing the Bible as the complete and inerrant word of God, closed with the Book of Revelation’s warning against adding to its words (Revelation 22:183For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:). In contrast, Mormons believe in continuing revelation through modern prophets, a practice fundamental Christians see as a dangerous departure that elevates human authority over divine scripture.
In a previous blog post titled “Mapping the Unknown: Exploring the Geographical Enigma of the Book of Mormon,” we delved into the historical accuracy, timeline, and archaeological challenges surrounding the Book of Mormon, a foundational text of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The post examined the book’s narrative of ancient American civilizations—spanning from 2500 BC to 400 AD—and highlighted the lack of corroborating archaeological evidence, such as the absence of artifacts supporting the existence of the Nephite and Lamanite cultures, despite extensive searches in proposed settings like Mesoamerica and the Great Lakes region. It also critiqued the timeline’s inconsistencies with established historical records, noting that mainstream scholars, including the National Geographic Society, have found no substantiation for the Book of Mormon’s claims, raising significant questions about its historical validity.
Rewriting the Bible: How Mormon Apologists Bend Scripture to Fit Doctrine
LDS apologists often face criticism from fundamental Christians for twisting Biblical theology by taking scriptures out of context (at least the ones they claim as authoritative) to support Mormon doctrines, a practice that hinges on selective interpretation to align with the teachings of Joseph Smith. One prominent example is their use of 1 Corinthians 15:29, which mentions “baptism for the dead,” a practice Paul references in passing while discussing the resurrection. LDS apologists seize on this single verse to justify their extensive temple ritual of proxy baptisms, claiming it proves the early Church performed such ordinances for deceased relatives, a cornerstone of Mormon theology that promises salvation for ancestors. However, fundamental Christians argue that Paul’s mention is descriptive, not prescriptive—he neither endorses nor commands the practice, and no other New Testament passage supports it, suggesting it may have been a localized, non-standard custom among some early Christians which the Apostle was critical of, not a divine mandate.
LDS theologians often interpret John 3:3-7, the “Born Again” discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus, as evidence that baptism is a requirement for salvation, focusing on Jesus’ statement, “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). They argue that “born of water” directly refers to water baptism, a physical ordinance necessary for entry into God’s kingdom, aligning with Mormon doctrine that emphasizes baptism as an essential covenant, as taught in their Articles of Faith, which state that baptism by immersion is for the remission of sins. However, this interpretation is refuted by the passage’s context: Nicodemus’ question in verse 4—“How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”—reveals his confusion about physical rebirth, not baptism. Jesus’ response, “born of water and the Spirit,” directly addresses Nicodemus’ misunderstanding by contrasting natural birth (water, as in amniotic fluid) with spiritual rebirth (the Spirit), not prescribing a ritual. Nicodemus did not understand spiritual birth, but he could understand physical birth so that was where Jesus took him. Fundamental Christians, noting the article at GotQuestions.org, argue that if baptism were required, Jesus would have elaborated on it further, especially since baptism isn’t mentioned in the Old Testament, and which Nicodemus, a Pharisee, would have known—underscoring that the focus is on spiritual regeneration, not a physical ordinance.
Another instance of this interpretive approach is the Mormon reliance on Ezekiel 37:16-174Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand., the “stick of Judah” and “stick of Joseph,” to validate the Book of Mormon as scripture alongside the Bible. LDS apologists assert that the “stick of Judah” refers to the Bible and the “stick of Joseph” to the Book of Mormon, claiming the verse prophesies their union as dual testaments of God’s word. Fundamental Christians counter that this interpretation is a gross misreading, as the passage, in context, describes the reunification of the divided kingdoms of Israel (Judah and Ephraim) after the Babylonian exile, with “sticks” symbolizing the two nations, not books. By hinging a major theological claim on this single verse while ignoring its historical and literary context, LDS apologists are accused of distorting Biblical theology to retrofit Mormon beliefs, a practice that fundamental Christians see as undermining the integrity of scripture.
LDS theologians frequently bend scripture to fit their doctrine, often misinterpreting key Biblical passages to support unique Mormon beliefs, a practice that fundamental Christians argue distorts the original meaning. For instance, they cite Psalm 82:6—“You are gods”—to bolster their doctrine of exaltation, claiming it proves humans can become gods, as taught in their concept of eternal progression. However, the context of Psalm 82 reveals God addressing unjust human judges, sarcastically calling them “gods” to highlight their failure to uphold divine justice, not endorsing their divinity (John 10:34-36, where Jesus quotes this verse, further clarifies this as a metaphor). Additionally, Mormons point to Revelation 14:6—“an angel… having the everlasting gospel to preach”—as evidence of the Book of Mormon’s divine origin, claiming the angel is Moroni, who delivered the golden plates to Joseph Smith, yet the verse, in context, describes an angelic proclamation during the end times, not a new scripture, highlighting another instance of LDS theology stretching Biblical text to fit their narrative. Another misinterpretation is their use of James 2:17—“Faith without works is dead”—to argue that works, such as temple ordinances, are necessary for salvation, ignoring the broader context of James 2, which emphasizes that genuine faith naturally produces good works, not that works earn salvation (Ephesians 2:8-95For 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.).
Again, James White squeezes every last ounce of juice from the “Faith vs Works” debate in Chapter 5 of Letters To A Mormon Elder. Faith, Works, Justification:
So the “highest” form of salvation in Mormon thought is not based solely on God’s grace but instead requires works of law — continued obedience to the “laws and ordinances of the gospel” (whatever they might be).
Back when I was talking about the theological errors in the Book of Mormon, I cited 2 Nephi 25:23 as an example of this, for it contains the phrase, “for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” At the time I said that we are not saved by grace after all we can do, but that we are saved by grace in spite of all we have done! But the terrible misunderstanding of what grace is can be seen most clearly in what must be the saddest statement I think I have ever read in LDS literature. It again comes from Bruce R. McConkie:
Grace is granted to men proportionately as they conform to the standards of personal righteousness that are part of the gospel plan. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 339)
Here a Mormon apostle tells us that grace is granted to men in proportion to their personal righteousness — the more “righteous” you are, the more grace you receive. I admit that McConkie was just following Joseph Smith’s own views, as seen in the Book of Mormon:
Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace we may be perfect in Christ. (Moroni 10:32)
Please note that this passage teaches that one must first deny oneself of all ungodliness, and love God with all of one’s might, mind, and strength so that the grace of God can become effective. I hope, Steve, that you really do not believe that. Nothing could be further from the biblical truth. “But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound,” Paul taught (Romans 5:20). I cannot deny myself of ungodliness and love God truly without God’s grace. If God’s grace is dependent upon man’s actions as Moroni 10:32 teaches, we are all lost, without hope.
The first and most foundational concept to grasp here is that by deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in the sight of God. The law, Paul teaches, was not meant to provide a way of salvation — instead, it was meant to give us a knowledge of our sin and point out to us our need of a Savior (Galatians 3:10-116For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith., 197For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith., 22-248But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.). So no amount of legalistic keeping of rules and regulations can possibly bring about our justification. The law cannot mend our broken relationship with God, for it only shows us how far short we are of being truly righteous. A person can perform good deeds (“deeds of the law”) forever and still not be righteous with God, for those deeds have no merit in God’s sight. So what are we to do? How can we be made righteous? Paul continues:
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. (Romans 3: 21-24)
What is this righteousness of God that is apart from the law? It is the righteousness God gives men by faith in Jesus Christ. God does not give men righteousness because of works, or on the basis of works. God gives men righteousness on the basis of their faith in Christ Jesus. Yes, God gives them this faith, and on the basis of that faith He justifies those who believe in Christ. All men have sinned. All men have come short of the glory of God. There is no difference between one man and another with respect to the fact that all are sinners. So the way of salvation is the same for all as well — anyone who will ever stand in the Kingdom of God will stand there on the same ground. Each and every one will have been “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Not justified because they believed, repented, were baptized, did good works, tithed to their church, were married in a temple, served a mission, or remained faithful to the end of their mortal probation — no, they are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus! Not as a result of works, not as a result of merit — freely. Is this what the LDS Church teaches? Not if the following quotation from an LDS tract entitled “Your Pre-Earth Life” means anything:
By revelation, our Savior made known again the plan of salvation and exaltation. Resurrection comes as a gift to every man through Jesus Christ, but the reward of the highest eternal opportunities you must earn. It is not enough just to believe in Jesus Christ. You must work and learn, search and pray, repent and improve, know his laws and live them (p. 10).
NOTE: the rest of this chapter in James White’s book is a MUST READ!
LDS Church members are often strongly discouraged from engaging with anti-Mormon literature, a practice that isolates them from external critiques and limits their ability to provide an intellectual supplement to their theology. Unlike early Christian theologians who drew on Greek philosophy, or medieval scholars like Aquinas who integrated Aristotelian logic to defend their faith, Mormons are cautioned against reading materials that challenge their beliefs, such as historical accounts questioning Joseph Smith’s character or theological critiques of the Book of Mormon or The Book of Abraham. This discouragement, often framed as protecting spiritual purity, prevents members from grappling with opposing viewpoints that could refine their understanding, as Reformation thinkers did with Roman legal texts or modern theologians do with archaeological findings like the Dead Sea Scrolls. By avoiding such intellectual engagement, LDS members are distanced from a broader dialogue that could strengthen, or challenge for that matter, their theological framework, leaving their faith more insular and less equipped to address external scrutiny.
NOTE: The Book of Abraham, allegedly translated by Joseph Smith from Egyptian hieroglyphs, is a key scripture in the LDS Church, published as part of the Pearl of Great Price. However, its origins are steeped in controversy, as modern Egyptology has shown the papyri to be unrelated to Abraham, revealing them as standard funerary texts from a much later period. This discrepancy, documented as early as 1912 and confirmed by 1967 analyses, has led to significant debate, with critics viewing it as evidence of Smith’s fraudulent claims, while LDS apologists defend it through alternative theories of inspiration.
Psychological Critiques and Modern Tensions: A Battle for Hearts and Minds
Fundamental Christians often frame Mormonism’s appeal through a psychological lens, accusing the LDS Church of using emotional manipulation to sustain belief. They point to the concept of “cognitive dissonance,” suggesting that intelligent Mormons cling to their faith despite historical and theological inconsistencies due to the power of spiritual “testimonies”—personal experiences of divine confirmation often shared in LDS meetings. Critics argue that this creates a culture where members are either naive followers or cynical exploiters, a harsh judgment that fuels distrust.
In a thought-provoking blog post titled “Think for Yourself or Not – That is the Question: Cognitive Dissonance 1,” published on January 9, 2010, at mormonmatters.org, the author explores the intense pressure within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to conform to ecclesiastical authority, harshly discouraging members from thinking for themselves. The post highlights the cultural expectation to “fall in line with every little micromanaged detail” dictated by church leaders, such as dress codes—down to wearing a blue shirt or multiple earrings—under threat of judgment or the need to repent, illustrating a broader tension between personal revelation and obedience. This dynamic creates a paradox where members are encouraged to ponder and pray, yet expected to arrive at predetermined answers, fostering cognitive dissonance and stifling independent thought, as the author grapples with the fear of being labeled apostate for questioning the church’s rigid framework.
Examples presented by the “Authorities”…
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”
Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945
Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945 (which was the official church magazine before the Ensign)“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”
LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant “Conference Report” Oct. 1960 p. 78“Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.”
Boyd K. Packer (General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”
President Wilford Woodruff (considered scripture as it is canonized at the end of the D&C)
But then, other “Authorities” seem to differ in their opinions…
President Joseph F. Smith said, “We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never.” (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248)
Brigham Young said:
“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (JD 9:150)“How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.” (JD 4:368)
“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied…Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (JD 3:45)
George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;” (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)
If ever there was a “Houston, we have a problem” moment in religious discourse, the contradictory statements above epitomize it with striking clarity.
The LDS Church’s simultaneous encouragement of personal revelation through pondering and prayer, juxtaposed against the expectation that members arrive at preordained conclusions dictated by ecclesiastical authority, reveals a profound tension that undermines genuine spiritual autonomy. This paradox not only fosters cognitive dissonance but also exposes a systemic flaw: a faith that claims to value individual connection with the divine while enforcing conformity, leaving members caught between the promise of personal insight and the fear of being branded apostate for daring to think independently.
These tensions continue to fuel a deep divide, as evangelical ministries intensify their efforts to “debunk” Mormonism, hosting seminars in cities like Salt Lake City—the heart of LDS headquarters—and other strongholds like Provo and Boise, where they educate Christians on what they see as Mormonism’s theological errors, often distributing pamphlets that contrast Biblical teachings with LDS doctrines. Meanwhile, LDS apologists push back, arguing that such critiques misrepresent their faith, emphasizing their devotion to Jesus Christ as the Savior and their commitment to living Christlike lives through service and family values, though fundamental Christians counter that this Jesus is a distorted version, shaped by differing doctrines on His divinity, pre-mortal existence, and role as a created being rather than the eternal God of John 1:1.9In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The chasm between the two groups remains seemingly unbridgeable, with fundamental Christians unwavering in their belief that Mormonism’s divergence from Biblical theology—coupled with its reliance on extra-biblical scriptures and a history marred by Joseph Smith’s controversies—marks it as a separate religion, not a branch of Christianity. Nearly two centuries after Smith’s first vision in 1820, this debate not only shows no signs of resolution but also underscores a troubling reality: a faith that claims to restore truth has instead built a legacy on shaky foundations, leaving its followers to navigate a theological house of cards that crumbles under scrutiny.
Is there a “De-militarized Zone” between these two religious camps?
Amid the deep rift between traditional Christians and Latter-day Saints, where theological divides often lead to mutual resignation or hostility, the Truth in Love Ministry offers a compelling alternative, fostering dialogue rooted in compassion and understanding. Founded in a small church in Nampa, Idaho, by Pastor Mark Cares, this ministry has grown into a global movement dedicated to proclaiming Christ to Mormons while empowering Christians to witness effectively, as detailed on their website, tilm.org. While steadfastly holding to the theological distinctions between Mormonism and traditional Christianity—such as differing views on the nature of God, the Trinity, and salvation—Truth in Love Ministry adopts a kind and educational format to present these differences, fostering understanding rather than division. Rejecting confrontational tactics, the ministry focuses on a relational approach, equipping believers with training, mentoring, and resources like the Witnessing Christ Podcast to share the gospel with Mormons in a compassionate way, planting gospel seeds through love and dialogue to bridge divides rather than perpetuate conflict.
Truth in Love Ministry
We are a Christian ministry devoted to proclaiming Christ to Mormons and empowering Christians to witness. In addition to offering time-tested training, we provide ongoing encouragement. This includes individualized support as well as websites with pages of practical tips, strategies, and witness stories.
We sincerely believe that the most loving thing we can do for you is to express our grave concerns that the teachings of Mormonism are not only leading you on a path away from God, but on a path leading you to outer darkness forever.
Our Invitation
We ask you to not just take our word for it, but take God at His Word. The Bereans were praised for investigating the truth by studying the Bible (Acts 17:1110These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.). We invite you to read the Bible as if reading it for the first time through the eyes of a child. Let God simply and clearly speak to your heart.Consider its beautiful good news message. Jesus was born for you. He lived perfectly for you. He died for you. He rose for you. Jesus is your perfect substitute. There is nothing more for you to add. Jesus is enough!
Those who trust only in the perfect work of Jesus:
- Are enough in God’s sight right now.
- Are forgiven of all their sins right now.
- Are perfect in Christ right now.
- Will live eternally with Heaven Father forever!
“You that believe on the name of the Son of God know that ye have eternal life” (1 John 5:13).
This is a transformational message!
The certainty of knowing how our story ends—especially knowing it doesn’t depend on us—completely transforms our lives right now. Instead of burdens, we find rest (Matthew 11:2811Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.). Instead of guilt, we discover grace and peace (1 Peter 1:212Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.).Is it your desire to live eternally with Heavenly Father? Would you like to better understand Jesus’ words so you can receive the full assurance and confidence of his promises? That is the Good News of Jesus Christ we desire you to know. More importantly, it is a message God wants you to know.
We would encourage you to discover what God says about sin and forgiveness, worthiness and perfection, grace and Jesus, along with the certainty of God’s promises and eternal life. You can learn more at BeYePerfect.org.
Is Mormonism a Christian religion?
The Mormon (or LDS) church strenuously claims to be Christian.
This sentiment is echoed by members and missionaries alike. However, claiming to be Christian doesn’t automatically make Mormonism a Christian religion. Nor does including Jesus’ name in their church name. Many other people and churches make this claim but are not recognized as Christian by traditional Christian churches.
Let’s take a look at some of the teachings of the Bible and compare them with LDS doctrine.
This valuable resource from Truth in Love Ministry explains the terminology, compares the teachings, and offers an extensive outline of distinctions that separate the LDS faith from Christianity.