As Editor of The Apologia Journal a number of years ago, it was my responsiblity to respond to letters from our readers. The following is an edited version of a letter that I wrote to a reader who was concerned that The Apologia Journal may be guilty of misrepresenting the L.D.S. church and what they teach. This reader, being a former member of this church, raised some honest and fair concerns from his perspective. Hopefully, these responses will benefit not only this reader, but other readers as well.Dear Mr. ______,

Hello again. As promised, here are my responses to the issues that you raised in your letter to us. As I said before, you have raised several issues which are key to our understanding of the differences between Mormonism and historic orthodox Christianity. I am by no means an “expert” on all matters of faith, however, I have spent the last ten years or so studying and researching various faith groups. Having said that, I hope that my limited responses to your concerns will inspire you to take this information and check it out this information for yourself.

In response to “another Jesus”

This reference comes from 2 Corinthians 11:4 which reads, “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, who we have not preached, or if ye receiveth another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (KJV).

Paul here is expressing his concern that the Corinthians so willingly accepted deceptions or distortions of the truth that he has already taught them. He echoes this same sentiment to the Galatians, only more strongly in Galatians 1: 6- 9 where we read, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 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. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

To paraphrase, if I may, what Paul is saying is, “If you have the right Jesus now, you have Him for all eternity (in Heaven). But if you have the wrong Jesus now, you will have him for all eternity (somewhere else!).”

Jesus said, “not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (KJV Matthew 7:21-23).

We can see that Jesus himself is not impressed with those who use his name to justify their actions. Earlier in this passage we can see that he is referring to false prophets. As has already been demonstrated in The Apologia Journal, the Mormon church is built upon the foundation of false prophets.

According to Mormonism, Jesus is among the spirit children of Elohim, the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ, to whom all others are juniors (Smith, GD, p. 70). He is also the brother of Satan (P of GP, Abraham 3:27-28; see also Mormon Doctrine pg. 193). To suggest that Jesus was “born” is to suggest that he had a beginning and is not eternal. John 3:16 refers to Jesus as “only begotten Son.” This does not mean that Jesus had a beginning. “Only-begotten” (monogenes) means that Jesus is God’s “unique” Son. In the Greek Old Testament, Isaac is called Abraham’s “unique” son, even though Abraham had other children (Gen. 22-2). Jesus is God’s unique Son because only Jesus is fully God and eternally the Father’s Son (John 1:1-3, 14-18). This rules out any possibility of Jesus being “among the spirit children” let alone the brother of Satan. This surely is “another Jesus” than the one Paul preached about.

In Response to “no one can really understand the Trinity”

You have stated that “they (Mormons) believe the three personages of the Godhead were present and manifested themselves in different ways yet are united in heart, spirit and purpose.” There are several other groups that share this view of the Trinity. Here are some examples: Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Way International, Christadelphians, Church of God International (Armstrongism), Dawn Bible Students Assoc., and Iglesia Ni Cristo, just to name a few.

I cannot tell you where I first heard this quote or who first coined it but it bears repeating, “Every theological heresy begins with a misconception of the nature of God.” I have also heard it said that “we may not be able to comprehend the Trinity, but we can apprehend it.” That is to say, our finite human minds cannot comprehend the infinite mind of Almighty God. Why can we not comprehend the Trinity? Because we have no frame of reference of the infinite. We do however have a frame of reference for the finite, which is why we can apprehend the Trinity. Here are some classical examples of how we can apprehend the Trinity: The Shamrock: Is it one leaf or three. If one, why are there three lobes of equal size? If three, why is there only one stem? It is both 1 and 3 at the same time. Water: Is it solid (ice), liquid (water), or gas (steam)? It is 1 and 3 at the same time. Mankind: Are we bodies, mind or spirit? We are one and three at the same time. The Universe: Is it made of time? - Yes ; space? - Yes ; dimension (or matter)? - Yes. All three are distinct and individual elements yet none can exist without the other. Again, we have 3 in 1.

There are probably more examples that could be given but suffice it to say that when God made man in His image, He also gave creation as a whole as a reflection of His nature. That is One Eternal God in Three Distinct Persons. Obviously, this is a very simplistic and inadequate treatment of the subject of the Trinity. I would recommend the book called The Forgotten Trinity - Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief by James R. White (Bethany House Publishers, 1998) for a fuller and richer study of the subject.

In Response to “a universal apostasy”

I can only assume that, by your defense of the Mormon belief in “a universal apostasy,” that you hold this view as well. And you are correct in stating that the Mormons are not alone in that belief. Some of the other new religions that were also born in America early in the 19th century that hold this belief are The Christadelphians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Science and Seventh Day Adventism. All of these groups claim to have “restored” the church that was “lost as a result of the introduction into the church of false ideas; traditions and speculations; translations of scripture distorted and changed over the centuries, etc.. This time in history is known as the Restoration era where we also saw the rise of “circuit riders” (travelling preachers) and tent meetings.

These were turbulent times in America as new pilgrims were arriving daily from “the old country”and settling in America as the west was growing and new states were being born. These new settlers were gaining freedoms by shedding the restrictions imposed on them by Imperial rule. It was in this climate that they also wanted to shed what they considered “restrictions” imposed on them by the church. In so doing, they unwittingly turned away from the fundamental doctrines of the Christian Church, and searching for “new light” from the Bible given to them by over zealous charismatic preachers. All of whom, incidentally, had at one time or another been members of mainstream orthodox denominations and had either left voluntarily or were expelled due to their heretical teachings.

Sadly, we see history repeating itself in recent years with what is now known as the Renewal Movement. Leaders of this present day movement are making the same claims today that those of the Restoration Movement made over 150 years ago, namely, that they are restoring the church to its original form; restoring gifts and Bible truths that have been “lost” or “forgotten” since the first century; members of “traditional” churches that disagree with this movement are considered “satanically influenced;” “dogmatic theologians,” “divisive,” “blind,” “arrogant,” “Pharisees,” and worst of all, they are “lost and not Christian.”

Mormons will often quote 2 Peter 2:1-2, “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.” This is used as a “proof-text” to support the “universal apostasy” doctrine.

It is interesting to note in this passage the distinction made between “there were false prophets” being past tense and “there shall be false teachers” being future tense. Peter is obviously (and it was obvious to the original readers) making this distinction because, as Paul had already asserted in Ephesians 2:20, the church was “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” Notice that Paul already asserted in Ephesians 2:20, the church was “built upon the foundation” (past tense) and Peter says “there were” again past tense. We can see that prophets were replaced with teachers after the foundation of the church was laid. This nullifies Joseph Smith or anyone else from claiming to be a prophet. Quoting Scott Barbour, “In the New Testament we’re told in Luke 16:16 that John the Baptist was the last of the ‘capital P’ “Prophets.” Also in Hebrews 1:1-3 we’re told that in the past God spoke through prophets but in these last days He has spoken by his Son.” (The Apologia Journal Vol. 1 No. 1, Fall, 1999).

The use of 2 Peter 2:1-2 to support anyone’s claim of a “universal apostasy” having happened in the past so that the church must be “restored” by a new breed of “prophets” is an exercise in futility when the passage is read in context. Other verses used to support this idea are: Amos 8:11-12; Isaiah 60:2; Acts 20:29-30; Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 1:15, 3:1-5, 4:24; Revelation 3:14-17 and Revelation 13:6-7. None of these verses however say that there will be a complete or total apostasy, and some of them do not even apply to the Church. Much more could be said about this, including how Mormon scriptures themselves contradict this teaching (see BoM. III Nephi 28 and D & C Section 7) however since we know that the Bible is God’s word and trustworthy, let’s look at Matthew 16:18, “And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Now I ask; if Jesus himself denied a “universal apostasy,” who are we to tell him he’s wrong?

In response to “quoting old Journals or Church news items”

By “old Journals” I assume that you are referring to Journal of Discourses (J of D.) that has been quoted from in The Apologia Journal. Journal of Discourses is a 26 volume set of messages given by L.D.S. General Authorities. For this reason it is fair to quote from them. However, having said that, it may not seem fair to the average Mormon layman because most Mormon laymen do not have these volumes in their personal library. I have, so far, personally, only met one Mormon missionary who had them as well as the 6 volume set titled “A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (C.H.C.), and even he, when pressed, had to admit that he hadn’t read them. The only reason he had them was because he was a descendant of one of the founding families in the Mormon Church whose names appear in these books.

It is exactly for this reason that the we will continue to print articles by researchers quoting from these and other sources. We want Mormons to research the history of their church. We want followers of all new religions and world religions to research and examine their roots. Only by doing this will they get the “whole story,” because their leaders only want them to have part of it. This is not only dishonest, but this “is simply not Christian.”

The following is a list of L.D.S. publications that you can expect to see quoted in future articles so that we can help provide “the whole picture.”

A of F. = Articles of Faith by James Talmage
BoM = Book of Mormon
C.H.C. = A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints, six volumes
D & C = Doctrine and Covenants
D.H.C. = History of the Church, documentary, seven volumes
D. of S. = Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith, three volumes
E. & R. = Evidences and Reconciliations by John A. Widtsoe, 3 volumes in one
G.D. = Gospel Doctrine by Joseph F. Smith
G.T.A. = Gospel Through the Ages by Milton R. Hunter
J of D = Journal of Discourses, LDS General Authorities— messages 26 volumes
M.D. = Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie
M.W. & W. = A Marvellous Work and A Wonder by LeGrand Richards
P. of G.P. = Pearl of Great Price
T. of P.J.S. = Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith

You can find most, (if not all) of these works in used bookstores or ordered directly from the publishers online. I would encourage anyone who wants to know what Mormonism really teaches to examine these sources for themselves.

In response to “group of believers labelled as a ‘cult’ “

By your reference to “believers” I can only assume that you mean true “Christian” believers. If this is the case then of course I agree with you wholeheartedly. Throughout history the Christian Church has spread out around the globe creating new churches in many languages and cultures. With the changes of geographic locations, local customs, dress and traditions come new denominations, different styles of worship, liturgies, and variations in creeds. Exquisite works of art, architecture, timeless hymns of praise and adoration and all manner of missions that were established to feed, clothe, and minister to both the body and spirit of man, were born out of answering the call of our Lord to “go ye into all the world and preach the gospel.”

As far as new denominations arising out of disagreement over interpretation of scriptures, this is partly true. The church is not perfect because it is made up of imperfect people. In our fallen and broken natures, we have disagreed, sometimes bitterly, over non-essential issues and split to form new churches. However, having said that, we as true believers have never viewed various denominations as a weakness but rather a strength. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians show us that no matter how much they disagreed on “non-essentials,” he always referred to them as brothers.” This is because they never disagreed on the “essentials” of the historic orthodox Christian faith. I wish I could remember who first penned the phrase, but it bears repeating, “In essentials - unity, in non-essentials - liberty, and in all things -charity.”

By essentials we mean of course the short list of core doctrines that have held the church together since it’s foundation. By example you can see the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed. If you compare the statements of faith of all the different Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches, para-church organizations, mission organizations and ministries, you will find that they will all offer the same core doctrinal beliefs despite their non-essential doctrinal differences. Also compare these statements of faith with the L.D.S. Articles of Faith and you will find significant differences as far as the core-essentials are concerned.

As far as labelling a group of believers as “cult” is concerned, let me say this: Every human being on the face of the planet is a believer - in something - even if it is only a belief in oneself (atheist). We are not in the habit of “labelling” anyone. Our missions’ name is “Apologia Home Mission To New Religions” not “Apologia Home Mission To Cults.” You may occasionally find the word “cult” in the Apologia Journal, however it is used sparingly and only in reference to those groups who deny the core-essentials of our faith and yet claim to be Christian.

At Apologia, we believe that no one joins a cult. People join religious groups that meet their felt-needs, offer them answers and give them a sense of security. Sometimes, however, depending on the group, they do not meet their real need of salvation through a saving knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is our goal. This is our mission.

In response to “It is simply not Christian”

“Apologia” is the New Testament Greek word for “defense.” The Apostle Paul uses this word in Phil. 1:7,16 and Peter uses it in 1 Peter 3:15 when he urges all of us (believers) to be “ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you.” It is every Christian’s responsibility to defend the aforementioned essentials of the Christian faith.

Most of us here at the Journal have been personally affected by groups calling themselves Christians yet who deny these essentials. Those of us who have been affected have been separated from loved ones who still belong to these groups. We have no axe to grind and no labels to put on these people. We love them and want them to share in our salvation. It is out of the pain that we and they experience that we have only compassion and care for them. This mission is for the love of Christ and them. This mission is Christian.

My responses to your concerns may not be adequate, so please continue to read the Journal and never stop questioning. Even though I have believed in the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” for the past 15 years or so, I’ve never stopped questioning. I think those who stop questioning, stop growing and you Mr. ______, seem to me to be an inquisitive man.

In His Service,

David Upton