Evangelical Ministry Methods on Mormons—Tested by a Mormon
.png)
Local anti-Mormon polemics consistently suffer from a lack of academic rigor and a failure to engage honestly with contemporary Mormon Studies and scripture. This carelessness is evident at the most basic level; the author fails to accurately identify the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr., misnaming him “Joseph F. Smith.” In the context of 19th-century American naming conventions, the “F.” belongs to Joseph's nephew (the son of Hyrum Smith), while Joseph Smith Jr.’s maternal lineage traces back to Lucy Mack Smith.
Since Justyn’s resource on ministry methods on Latter-day Saints is given in a mock-dialogue format, I will then follow and join his discussion.
When an evangelical wants to evangelize to a Latter-day Saint baptismal candidate and wants to trap young missionaries with his tactics, another Latter-day Saint, brother Nathan—walks in.
Evangelical: Since you are a Latter-day Saint, I have prepared some specific questions pertaining to your history and beliefs. These will challenge you to research and study the Bible alone by your own standard. Let's begin with your founder, Joseph F. Smith Jr. [literally written in Justyn’s resource]
Latter-day Saint: Before we look at any scriptural text, we have to address a fundamental deficit in your historical literacy. You just referred to the Prophet as “Joseph F. Smith Jr.” In 19th-century American naming conventions, the Middle initial “F.” belongs to his nephew—the son of Hyrum Smith. The Prophet’s name was Joseph Smith Jr., and his mother was Lucy Mack Smith. If your ministry cannot master basic historical facts, why should we trust your interpretation of the Bible?
Evangelical: That is a minor clerical detail. What matters is that our ministry methods are designed to witness the truth of the Bible to everyday Mormons.
Latter-day Saint: Your methods are designed to target uninitiated or uninformed Church members using rehearsed, asymmetrical scripts. Yet, when highly educated Latter-day Saint scholars call you out, your ministry routinely disengages. For instance, when theologian and biblical scholar Robert Boylan published an exhaustive refutation of Jeff Durbin’s video “The Gospel for Mormons”—completely dismantling his strawman arguments regarding the Trinity, Apostasy, Soteriology, and Christology—Durbin offered no defense. Boylan similarly challenged Calvinist apologist James R. White to a formal debate on Baptismal Regeneration, and White refused. Your apologists love to pick on the uninformed, but when challenged at an equal or higher intellectual level, you make excuses and decline the interaction.
Evangelical: We rely strictly on Sola Scriptura. The Bible alone is our final, inerrant authority for all truth. Whether those apologists face your scholars or not, the Bible is still the final authority.
Latter-day Saint: Sola Scriptura relies entirely on circular reasoning. For our discussion, I will only use the Bible that I have with me. If a paradigm demands that the Bible is the sole final authority, then that dogma must be explicitly taught within the biblical text itself. Where is it found? You will likely misinterpret 2 Timothy 3:16-17, claiming that because scripture is θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) is God-breathed instead of life-giving. The Greek text contains no clue of sufficiency; it states strictly that scripture is profitable (ὠφέλιμος, ophelimos) for equipping the man of God. Latter-day Saints believe God is the final authority for all truth. We refuse to arbitrarily confine His voice to a single, closed volume.
Evangelical: Let’s look at your pamphlet. It quotes Genesis 1:26-27, Acts 17:29, and Romans 8:16-17 to claim we are all children of God. But John 1:12 clearly tells us that only those who receive Jesus in their heart can become a child of God. The verses you quoted are out of context because Genesis is just about physical creation, and Paul was speaking strictly to people who were already Christians. Why do you still suppose all men are children of God?
Latter-day Saint: Your objection relies on a strawman that confuses ontological sonship with covenantal adoption. LDS theology teaches that in our pre-mortal existence, human spirits existed literally as the offspring of our Heavenly Father. Evangelicals reject the universal pre-existence of humanity, but it remains a Christological necessity.
Evangelical: But John 1:12 says we must become children through Christ!
Latter-day Saint: Exactly. Because of the Fall of Adam, humanity became spiritually estranged and separated from God (Rom. 3:23, 6:23; D&C 19:2-3; Moses 4:21). Reconciliation is mandatory, and it is achieved exclusively through the Atonement of Jesus Christ (John 3:14-17; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; 1 Tim. 2:5-6). The Atonement legally adopts us back into God’s covenant family.
Your error is anachronistic. You are reading the word “adoption (υἱοθεσία, uiothesia) through a modern, Western lens—imagining a stranger with no biological connection being placed into a family. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, uiothesia routinely entailed a biological father legally adopting his own biological child (often born to a slave or concubine) to elevate them to the status of an adult son with full rights of inheritance (cf. BDAG; Irenaeus, Haereses 5.12.2). As non-Latter-day Saint theologian Alva G. Huffer correctly explains:
"Today, when one speaks of adoption, he refers to the legal process whereby a stranger becomes a member of the family. In Paul’s time, however, adoptions referred to that legal process whereby a parent placed his own child in the legal position of an adult son, with all the privileges of inheritance. Someone may question why adoption was required when the child was already a son by birth. It must be remembered that in pagan Rome, a citizen often had many wives and many children. Some of the wives may have been concubines and slaves. The citizen may not have wanted the offspring of his slave wives to receive his titles, position in society, and inheritance. The legal procedure of adoption, therefore, provided a means whereby the citizen could designate those children which he wished to be considered his legal sons and heirs. Through receiving newness of life, believers become children of God. Through adoption, the children of God are declared to be His sons, who have all the privileges and inheritance of sonship." (Alva G. Huffer, Systematic Theology [Oregon, IL: The Restitution Herald, 1960]: 390.)
Evangelical: What about Acts 17:28-29? That doesn't prove literal parentage.
Latter-day Saint: It absolutely does. When Paul stood on Mars Hill, he quoted the Stoic poem of Aratus to declare that we are the offspring (γένος genos) of God. Standard Greek lexicons used in New Testament scholarship (BDAG, Louw-Nida, TDNT) define genos as “ancestral stock,” “lineage,” or “descendant”—the exact same word used to describe Jesus being from the physical “lineage of David” (Rev. 22:16). The word genos is cognate with the Latin genus and the English word kin. Paul was explicitly stating that human beings are of the same genus as God. Therefore, biblical adoption does not contradict our pre-mortal spiritual relationship; it explains how literal spirit children are legally restored to their divine inheritance.
Evangelical: Let me ask you this: Which of the four books—the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, or the Doctrine and Covenants—is the first revelation of God?
Latter-day Saint: Chronologically, the texts that make up the Bible contain the earliest written historical records of our current canon.
Evangelical: Right! And the remaining three books contain new revelations. Since God does not contradict Himself, it is only proper to judge and reject any new revelation by the standard of the older revelation, correct?
Latter-day Saint: The Pharisees did the same with the things that Christ said, thinking that their understanding of the “old revelations” are correct, when in fact they are not. The idea that the Bible alone is the final authority is not apostolic, it's not ancient, nor is it taught in the Bible. The same refusal to receive new revelation is like putting new wine to old wineskins (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37-39). Your argument operates on a flawed understanding of scriptural chronology and a complete misunderstanding of how revelation works. You are falsely assuming that the Book of Mormon is a chronological “sequel” to the Bible. In reality, the Book of Mormon takes place simultaneously within the exact same time periods as the Bible. The Brother of Jared received revelations during the era of the Tower of Babel, and Lehi's family left Jerusalem during the reign of King Zedekiah, right before the Babylonian exile.
Furthermore, you are confusing a bound text with divine revelation. Revelation existed long before the Bible was written or canonized. God gave direct, unwritten revelations to Adam as the first prophet, outlining prophetic instructions and the plan of salvation (Gen. 3:15). Scripture is merely a written history of revelation; it is not synonymous with the total scope of God’s speech. You assume a level of biblical univocality (a single, uniform voice) that simply does not exist when the texts are read in their proper historical and literary contexts. Ultimately, Jesus Christ—not a compiled book—is God’s final, ultimate revelation to humanity (Jn. 1:1-18; Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 1:1-3).
Evangelical: Let's pivot to ecclesiology. Do you believe that in every generation there have been no true churches on earth to glorify God until Joseph Smith established the LDS Church?
Latter-day Saint: We teach that there was a total structural and authority-based falling away—a Great Apostasy—following the deaths of the original Apostles.
Evangelical: Then how can you explain Ephesians 3:21? It says: Unto him be glory in the church throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. If God was able to preserve 7,000 prophets in Israel who never bowed their knees to Baal (1 Kings 19:18), can He not consistently preserve His earthly Church throughout all generations? Joseph Smith must have been lying when he claimed all creeds were an abomination!
Latter-day Saint: You are engaging in deliberate eisegesis and ignoring basic grammar. First, your appeal to 1 Kings 19:18 actually backfires on your position. Widespread apostasy and Baal worship did consume the Northern Kingdom of Israel, resulting in their complete military defeat and Assyrian captivity. The preservation of a localized, historical remnant in Elijah's era did not prevent institutional collapse.
Regarding Ephesians 3:21, you are misidentifying the grammatical subject. As Robert Boylan notes, Paul is not saying that the physical organization of the earthly Church will remain intact without interruption. Paul is expressing a doxological desire that the glory generated by Christ's sacrifice extend through all ages. I will quote Alan Denison and D. Lawrence Barksdale to clarify this exact point:
"Paul is explaining the wonderful state of this glory, not the survival of the Church. It is this glory that is the subject, and not the church. In dealing with anti-Mormons, one must be careful about such subtle changes of subject." (Guess Who Wants to Have you for Lunch?, 2002, 30.)
Evangelical: But what about textual clarity? The verse clearly couples the Church and Christ!
Latter-day Saint: Textual variants actually complicate your rigid reading. I have here my copy of the Nestle-Aland 28 Greek New Testament. As you notice here in the apparatus, some manuscripts omit the word “and” between the words “the church” and “Christ” in this passage—reading “in the church through Christ.” This is argued by scholars such as Markus Barth. The Latin Vulgate even places a comma after “the church,” (ipsi gloria in Ecclesia, et in Christo Jesu) suggesting that temporal praise is given in the visible church, while eternal praise is offered in Christ. Paul was offering a prayer of praise to close his third chapter; he was not making a dogmatic prophecy about the structural survival of the earthly church—a survival that he explicitly warns against in his other letters.
Evangelical: Matthew 28:20 explicitly says Christ will be with us always, even unto the end of the world. That guarantees institutional survival.
Latter-day Saint: Christ's promises are strictly conditional upon the commitment and obedience of His followers. Look at Revelation 2:5: Christ explicitly warns the church leaders at Ephesus that if they do not repent, He will "remove their candle out of its place."
Furthermore, the concept of a total institutional apostasy is completely mainstream within your own Protestant tradition. Your own Reformer, John Calvin, explicitly invoked 2 Thessalonians 2:3 to justify his break from the Catholic Church, writing:
"Paul, therefore, predicts a certain general revolt of the visible Church... ‘The Church must be reduced to an unsightly and dreadful state of ruin, before its full restoration be effected.’" (Calvin's Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:3)
If Jude 24 says God is able to keep you from falling, it operates under a synergistic model. As Jerome H. Neyrey notes in his commentary on Jude, while God is able to guard, the saints are explicitly commanded to "keep themselves in God's favor" (v. 21). Once Saved, Always Saved (Eternal Security) is a false doctrine; human agency allows for collective apostasy.
Evangelical: History does not show a total apostasy of early Christian doctrine.
Latter-day Saint: If you believe the early Church survived without an apostasy, then you must accept the universal teachings of the pre-Nicene Church. Yet, historical patristic evidence demonstrates that for the first 300 years, early Christians universally believed in doctrines that modern Protestants condemn as apostate heretical errors:
They universally taught that good works are necessary for salvation.
They universally taught Baptismal Regeneration (the absolute necessity of water baptism for salvation).
They universally rejected eternal security and taught that a believer can lose their salvation.
They universally taught that the souls of the dead reside in an intermediate state rather than going straight to heaven.
They universally believed that Christ delivered salvation to those residing in that intermediate spirit world.
They universally held a Subordinationist view of the Trinity.
You cannot logically argue that the early Church remained uncorrupted while simultaneously rejecting the universal doctrines of the first three centuries of Christian history.
Evangelical: All of this intellectual gymnastics is just a smoke screen to hide the fact that your entire religion relies on a subjective "feeling" or an emotional "burning in the bosom" via Moroni’s promise. Feelings are unreliable and susceptible to self-deception. We are like the Bereans; we search the scriptures.
Latter-day Saint: Your critique demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Latter-day Saint revelatory model. You are projecting a fractured Western view that carves human experience into rigid, separate compartments labeled “intellectual,” “physical,” and “emotional.” LDS scripture explicitly rejects this, stating that "the spirit and the body are the soul of man" (D&C 88:15). Our approach to truth is entirely holistic.
A genuine spiritual experience contains rich intellectual data alongside emotional fruits of peace or joy. Look at Doctrine and Covenants 6:22-23: when Oliver Cowdery sought a witness, the Lord did not tell him to rely on blind emotion; He said, "Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter?" The information is given to the intellect, and peace accompanies it. This is explicitly systematized in Doctrine and Covenants 9:7-9, where the Lord commands:
“But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you...”
Evangelical: But why use terms like “burning in the bosom” if it isn't just being emotional?
Latter-day Saint: Because spiritual experiences are ultimately ineffable. Since the average person lacks the poetic mastery of Isaiah or John, we use secular metaphors to describe a profound, otherworldly sensation. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks clarifies, this feeling of a burning heart signifies a feeling of comfort and serenity, not caloric heat.
Furthermore, you are displaying a massive double standard. If you apply your skepticism consistently, you must dismiss the Bible itself. In Luke 24:32, when the disciples unknowingly walked with the resurrected Christ on the road to Emmaus, they later recounted: "Did not our heart burn within us... while he opened to us the scriptures?" If an inner burning heart is a valid spiritual witness for Luke, Peter, and John, you cannot dismiss it as an "emotional rush" when experienced by a Latter-day Saint. If we then use the same standard, should we dismiss that Christ was resurrected because they knew it was Jesus who talked to them based on the burning feeling they had in their hearts?
Even the early Church Fathers describe their conversions in these exact non-rational, sensory terms. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr states that after learning of the prophets, "a flame was enkindled in my heart." The Shepherd of Hermas gives explicit instructions on how to discern the Angel of Righteousness based entirely on holistic internal sensations:
“When he ascends into your heart, he speaks to you of righteousness, purity, chastity, contentment... When all of these things come into your heart, know that the angel of righteousness is with you.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:24)
We thoroughly investigate truth just as the Bereans did. Your assumption that the compiled biblical text is the only valid lens to identify light and truth is a false and unbiblical teaching. Your witnessing tactics are intellectually dishonest, built upon biased scripts and lousy exegesis.
