Why Mormonism Is Not Christianity — and Why That Matters Now

 

Introduction: Grief Without Confusion

On September 28, 2025, a horrific act of violence struck a congregation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) in Grand Blanc, Michigan. A gunman drove his vehicle into the building, opened fire on worshipers, and set the church ablaze, leaving multiple dead and many more injured. (1, 2) Families are shattered, lives have been lost, and a community is reeling. As Christians, our first response must be grief, prayer, and compassion for the victims and their families. Violence in any house of worship is an abomination, and we mourn with those who mourn.

Yet in the wake of tragedy, public voices have rushed to interpret the meaning of this event. Former President Donald Trump called it “another targeted attack on Christians.” (3) Brilyn Hollyhand—hailed by many conservatives as Charlie Kirk’s heir-apparent—declared:

“I just left church and now I'm sitting at lunch watching a Michigan church shot up and set on fire. Christianity is under attack. The devil feels threatened by this revival and is working harder than ever. These aren't coincidences. This is spiritual warfare. Wake up!” (4)

Such statements, though passionate, confuse categories at a moment when clarity is desperately needed. The LDS church is not a Christian church in the historic, biblical sense. To conflate Mormonism with Christianity risks misleading new believers—especially those recently touched by the gospel at events like Charlie Kirk’s memorial service, where the true Jesus was proclaimed.

The devil is indeed at work, but his strategy here is subtler and far more insidious than Hollyhand suggests: he is using careless words and theological imprecision to blur the line between the gospel of Jesus Christ and a radically different religion born in 19th-century America.

The Rise of the LDS Church: A 19th-Century Movement

The LDS church emerged in the 1830s under Joseph Smith, during a period of intense religious fervor in America known as the Second Great Awakening. (5) Many were spiritually hungry but biblically illiterate, making them vulnerable to new theologies. Smith claimed to receive golden plates from an angel, which he then translated into what became known as The Book of Mormon. (6)

From its inception, Mormonism defined itself against Christianity. Joseph Smith declared:

“All their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19). (6)

In other words, Smith and his successors originally taught that Christians were apostates following a false religion. Only in recent decades—starting in the 1980s and 1990s—has the LDS church sought to rebrand itself as “Christian” for cultural acceptance.

Key Doctrinal Differences Between LDS Teaching and Historic Christianity

1. The Nature of God

• LDS Teaching: God the Father—whom they call Elohim—was once a mortal man who progressed to godhood. He is not unique, but one in an infinite succession of exalted men who themselves became gods. Lorenzo Snow, fifth LDS president, famously said: “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, ch. 5). (7) Moreover, the Father is said to possess a tangible, physical body: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) (8)
  
  

• Biblical Christianity: God is eternal, uncreated, and unchanging. “Before the mountains were born, before you gave birth to the earth and the world, from eternity to eternity, you are God” (Psalm 90:2). Scripture also teaches that God utterly unique: “Before me no god was formed, and there will be none after me” (Isaiah 43:10). He is spirit, not flesh (John 4:24), and “God is not a man, that he might lie, or a son of man, that he might change his mind” (Numbers 23:19). The wonder of the gospel is not that the Father already had a body, but that the eternal Son uniquely took on flesh in the incarnation: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

2. The Person of Jesus Christ

• LDS Teaching: Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, the firstborn of Heavenly Father and one of his goddess wives (Gospel Principles, ch. 2). (9)
  
  

• Biblical Christianity: Jesus is the eternal Son of God, not a created being, and is eternally co-equal in his divine essence with the Father and Holy Spirit. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
  
  

3. The Preexistence of Humanity

• LDS Teaching: All humans existed as spirit children of Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother before birth. In this premortal life, spirits were tested. Those who were more valiant were rewarded with favorable circumstances on earth; those less valiant were marked with limitations. “Before they were born, they, with many others, received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the due time of the Lord” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:56). (10)
  
  

• Biblical Christianity: Scripture never teaches that humans existed before conception. Instead, God alone is eternal, and human life begins in the womb. “For it was you who created my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13).

4. Teachings on Race

• LDS Teaching: Building on the doctrine of preexistence, LDS leaders historically taught that Black people were “less valiant” in the premortal life and therefore cursed in mortality. This belief undergirded the priesthood and temple ban that lasted until 1978 (Official Declaration 2). (11)
  
  

• Biblical Christianity: The gospel proclaims that all people are equally fallen in Adam and equally redeemed in Christ. “There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; since you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

5. Salvation

• LDS Teaching: Salvation is a combination of grace and works, with exaltation (godhood) reserved for the faithful who keep LDS ordinances. “We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). (12)
  
  

• Biblical Christianity: Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. “For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift—not from works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9).

6. The Afterlife

• LDS Teaching: The afterlife consists of three “degrees of glory” (celestial, terrestrial, telestial), with exalted Mormons becoming gods and ruling over their own planets (Doctrine and Covenants 76). (13)
  
  

• Biblical Christianity: There are only two eternal destinies: eternal life with God or eternal separation from Him. “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46).

The Danger of Confusion

When leaders like Trump and Hollyhand call the LDS church “Christian,” they unintentionally blur the gospel. Paul warned with sobering clarity:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, a curse be on him!” (Galatians 1:8).

The LDS gospel is precisely such a “different gospel.” It is not a minor denominational difference but a fundamentally different religion. To call Mormonism “Christianity” is to risk leading seekers astray.

Conclusion: Truth in Love

We must hold two truths together. First, we grieve deeply with those who lost loved ones in Grand Blanc. Violence against any worshiping community is evil, and Christians should be the first to extend compassion, prayer, and tangible support.

Second, we must not allow tragedy to blur theological lines. The LDS church preaches a different gospel, one born of 19th‑century American culture, not the eternal Word of God. Only eighteen days before this senseless act of violence, Charlie Kirk was killed—and his memorial service became the single largest gospel presentation in history, reaching well over one hundred million people around the world. Many heard, perhaps for the first time, the true Jesus: the eternal Son of God who saves by grace alone. That moment may well prove to be the spark of a new great awakening. And the devil does not want revival. He wants to kill it in the cradle.

This is why precision matters: if revival is stirring, the enemy will do everything he can to redirect hearts toward a counterfeit gospel—just as he did in the 19th Century. In moments of sorrow, the devil seeks to sow confusion. Let us resist him by speaking with both compassion and clarity: mourning with the grieving, while pointing seekers to the true Christ who alone is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

And here is where precision matters most: Mormonism is not Christianity. It is a different religion, with a different gospel and a different cosmology. To call it Christian is as mistaken as calling an attack on a cathedral an attack on Muslims, or an attack on a synagogue an attack on Hindus. Different religion. Different theology. Different cosmology. They are not the same. To confuse them is to risk leading souls away from the only Savior who can truly save.

See Also:

Who is Jesus?

Divine Complexity: A Historical Challenge to Oneness Theology

 

Introduction

The Christian doctrine of God’s unity has long inspired both profound revelation and heated debate. While oneness theology insists on a singular, undifferentiated divine manifestation, early Christian controversies over Modalism, later labeled Sabellianism, reveal a more nuanced engagement with the nature of divine personhood. In recent decades, scholar Michael Heiser’s work on the Two Powers in Heaven has underscored an important dimension of Second Temple Jewish thought—a binitarian portrayal of the one God, wherein two distinct manifestations were acknowledged without compromising monotheism. This article explores how these historical and theological reflections offer a rigorous critique of oneness theology.

The Origins of Modalism and Sabellianism

In the first few centuries after Christ, Church leaders struggled to articulate how the one God revealed in Scripture could be confessed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Modalism emerged as an attempt to safeguard absolute unity by asserting that God appeared in different “modes” or manifestations rather than as distinct, eternal persons. Early proponents, later labeled Sabellians after the priest Sabellius, contended that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were successive expressions of one impersonal divine reality. This interpretation, however, came under scrutiny because it failed to accommodate the interpersonal dialogue and mutual indwelling observed in texts such as the baptism of Jesus, where the distinct voices of Father and Son suggest relational, not merely sequential, dynamics. (1, 2, 3)

By denying the enduring distinction within the Godhead, modalistic interpretations reduce the richness of divine relationality to mere functions or roles. Early Christian critics, notably Tertullian in Against Praxeas, argued that a proper theology of God must sustain both oneness and distinction—a tension that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity sought to resolve by affirming a God who is “one in essence and three in persons.” 

The Theological Challenge: Relationality Versus Modal Appearance

At the heart of the modalist error lies a misunderstanding of the biblical portrayal of divine interaction. Writers of the New Testament record a God who speaks in distinct voices and acts in relational communion with His creation. The modalistic reduction of these events to mere “modes” undermines the scriptural evidence for eternal, interpersonal relationships within the Godhead. For example:

• Divine Dialogue: Consider the baptism scene where the Father’s voice pronounces, “This is my beloved Son!” while the Son is visibly present—a dynamic impossibility if both were simply different modes of the same person.

• Patripassian Pitfall: Modalism’s implication that the Father suffered on the cross (a view labeled patripassianism) disrupts the biblical commitment to an impassible, sovereign Father distinct from the suffering Son.

• Reductionism of Divine Mystery: By treating divine personhood as a set of transient functions, modalism strips the doctrine of the Trinity of its ability to speak to the eternal exchange of love and authority that defines true divine life.

These concerns were not merely abstract; they impelled early theologians to seek a more sophisticated account that preserved both the oneness of God and the authentic relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Michael Heiser and the Two Powers in Heaven in Second Temple Judaism

Michael Heiser’s groundbreaking work on the "Two Powers in Heaven" offers crucial insight into how early Jewish thought navigated the complexities of divine unity. Heiser demonstrates that during the Second Temple period, ancient Israelites comfortably held a binitarian view of Yahweh. (4) This perspective, far from suggesting polytheism, recognized two distinct manifestations of the one God:

• The Invisible and the Visible: According to Heiser, the ancient Israelite understanding involved an invisible, transcendent aspect of Yahweh and a visible, often anthropomorphic manifestation. Biblical passages—such as certain exodus narratives and visionary texts like Daniel—support this bifurcation. In this schema, the invisible Yahweh was the sovereign ruler of the cosmos, while His visible manifestation acted as a vice-regent within the divine council. (5)

• Integrated Monotheism: Importantly, the binitarian portrayal did not contradict monotheism. For early Jews, both the invisible and visible Yahweh were not separate gods but complementary expressions of the same divine essence. The relational dynamics inherent in this duality underscore that God’s unity and internal diversity are not opposed but are mutually illuminating.

• The Christological Connection: Later, this ancient conceptual framework proved fertile ground for the early Christian identification of Jesus with the incarnate second Yahweh. While modalists would later collapse this identity into a single, shifting persona, Heiser’s research reminds us that the Second Temple world embraced a complex, relational model of divine manifestation—one that acknowledged both distinction and unity without diluting either.

Through his careful exegesis and historical contextualization, Heiser provides a robust framework for understanding how early Jews could—and did—affirm two “persons” or manifestations in one God without lapsing into polytheism. This insight challenges modern oneness propositions that attempt to simplify divine internality into a single, monolithic expression.

Implications for Refuting Oneness Theology

The historical interplay between Modalism, Sabellianism, and the Two Powers framework illuminates several critical shortcomings of oneness theology:

1. Loss of Relational Complexity: Oneness theology’s insistence on a single, undifferentiated divine personality overlooks the rich, relational depth of the biblical revelation. Early criticisms of modalism—and the corrective insight provided by the Two Powers in Heaven model—demonstrate that a framework recognizing internal divine relations is crucial to a faithful theological account.

2. Historical and Scriptural Inconsistencies: By collapsing the dynamic interplay between the invisible and visible manifestations of Yahweh, oneness theology runs contrary to the lived religious experience of Second Temple Judaism. The ancient binitarian vision, as elucidated by Heiser, allowed for the simultaneous worship of the transcendent God and His appointed vice-regent, a nuance lost in modalistic simplifications.

3. Avenues for a Fuller Christology: The early Jewish acceptance of dual manifestations in God paved the way for a more compelling understanding of Christ’s identity. Rather than reducing Christ to a mere mode of the divine, acknowledging the two powers model supports the view that Jesus—the incarnate second Yahweh—participates in the ancient, orthodox understanding of divine relationality. This reinvigorates the Christological debates by framing the incarnation as the fulfillment of a long-held Jewish insight, not as an aberration to be subsumed under an overly rigid oneness paradigm.

Conclusion

The evolution of early Christian thought—from the controversies of Modalism and Sabellianism to the nuanced binitarian ideas circulating in Second Temple Judaism—provides a compelling critique of oneness theology. Michael Heiser’s work on the Two Powers in Heaven reveals that early Jews embraced a complex but coherent understanding of divine unity and diversity. They saw in the one God a duality: an invisible, sovereign deity and His visible, vice-regent manifestation, both integral to the full expression of divine life.

This historical reflection not only refutes the simplistic premises of oneness theology but also invites contemporary theologians to resurrect a richer, relational understanding of the divine. In embracing both the unity and the interpersonal dimensions of God, modern doctrine can more faithfully reflect the dynamic mystery at the heart of Scripture—a mystery that continues to challenge and inspire believers today.

Echoes of the Trinity: The Holy Spirit as God in the Old Testament

 

Introduction: The Hidden Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures

The doctrine of the Trinity—the belief in one God existing in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—is often associated with the New Testament. However, careful examination of the Old Testament reveals significant indications of a triune God. While the concept of the Trinity was not explicitly formulated in ancient Israelite theology, the presence of multiple divine figures within the Hebrew Scriptures suggests an early foundation for Trinitarian thought. Among these figures, the Holy Spirit emerges as a distinct yet fully divine presence, interacting with both Yahweh and the "second Yahweh figure" discussed in Second Temple Jewish literature.

Michael Heiser, in his work on the "Two Powers in Heaven," highlights how ancient Jewish texts recognized a second divine figure alongside Yahweh, a concept that was later deemed heretical in rabbinic Judaism. This article examines how the Old Testament reveals the Holy Spirit as God, highlighting His role within the Trinitarian framework.

The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament: A Divine Person

The Holy Spirit is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, often in ways that suggest both personhood and divinity. Unlike mere metaphors for God's power, the Spirit exhibits attributes of intelligence, will, and relational interaction.

1. The Spirit as Creator

The Holy Spirit is active in creation, demonstrating divine agency. Genesis 1:2 states, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." This passage suggests that the Spirit was not merely an impersonal force but an active participant in creation, mirroring the creative work attributed to Yahweh.

2. The Spirit as the Presence of God

The Spirit is often associated with God's presence among His people. In Isaiah 63:10, the Israelites are said to have rebelled against and grieved the Holy Spirit: "But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; so he became their enemy and fought against them." (Isaiah 63:10) This passage parallels Psalm 78:40, which describes rebellion against God Himself, suggesting an overlap between Yahweh and His Spirit. (1)

Heiser notes that such passages blur the distinction between God and His Spirit, reinforcing the idea that the Spirit is not merely an extension of Yahweh but a distinct divine person. (2)

3. The Spirit as the Source of Prophecy and Wisdom

The Holy Spirit is also depicted as the source of divine wisdom and prophecy. In Numbers 11:25, the Spirit of God descends upon the elders of Israel, enabling them to prophesy: "Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke to him. He took some of the Spirit who was on Moses and placed the Spirit on the seventy elders. As the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but they never did it again." (Numbers 11:25) This passage demonstrates the Spirit’s role in divine communication, a function later attributed to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.

4. Paul’s Use of Old Testament Themes in 2 Corinthians 3:17

Paul’s declaration that "the Lord is the Spirit" in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is not an arbitrary theological statement but rather a reflection of Old Testament concepts regarding the Spirit of God. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, the Spirit is depicted as the active presence of Yahweh, guiding, empowering, and liberating His people.

1. The Spirit as the Presence of Yahweh

In the Old Testament, the Spirit of God is often associated with divine presence and leadership. For example, in Isaiah 63:10-11, the Spirit is grieved when Israel rebels, paralleling Yahweh’s own sorrow over His people’s disobedience. This suggests an intrinsic unity between Yahweh and His Spirit, reinforcing the idea that the Spirit is not merely an extension of God but fully divine.

Paul builds on this Old Testament foundation by equating the Spirit with the Lord Himself. His statement in 2 Corinthians 3:17 aligns with passages like Exodus 33:14, where Yahweh promises Moses, "My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest." The Spirit, as the presence of God, brings freedom—just as Yahweh’s presence liberated Israel from Egypt.

2. The Spirit and the New Covenant

Paul’s discussion in 2 Corinthians 3 contrasts the old covenant, written on stone, with the new covenant, written on hearts through the Spirit (Jeremiah 31:33). This echoes Ezekiel 36:26-27, where God promises to put His Spirit within His people, enabling them to follow His statutes. By identifying the Spirit as the Lord, Paul emphasizes that the transformative power of the new covenant comes directly from God Himself.

3. The Spirit as the Source of Freedom

Paul’s assertion that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom" (2 Corinthians 3:17) draws from Old Testament themes of divine liberation. The Spirit empowered leaders like Moses, David, and the prophets, bringing deliverance and wisdom. In Judges 6:34, "The Spirit of the Lord enveloped Gideon," enabling him to lead Israel to victory. Similarly, Isaiah prophesied that the Spirit would bring freedom to captives (Isaiah 61:1), a passage Jesus later applied to Himself in Luke 4:18.

Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 3:17 is thus a continuation of this Old Testament theme: the Spirit of Yahweh is the agent of divine liberation, freeing believers from the condemnation of the Law and empowering them to live in righteousness.

The Two Powers in Heaven and the Trinitarian Framework

Michael Heiser’s research on the "Two Powers in Heaven" provides further insight into the plurality within the Godhead. Heiser argues that ancient Jewish texts recognized two distinct Yahweh figures—one visible and one invisible—who interacted with humanity. (3)  This concept aligns with Old Testament passages where Yahweh appears in human form (e.g., Genesis 18) while another Yahweh figure remains unseen.

While Heiser primarily focuses on the second Yahweh figure, his analysis indirectly supports the Trinitarian model by demonstrating that ancient Jewish thought was not strictly unitarian. The presence of the Holy Spirit alongside these two figures further strengthens the case for a triune God.

Conclusion: The Old Testament’s Trinitarian Echoes

The Old Testament, often perceived as strictly monotheistic in its portrayal of God, contains profound theological depth that hints at the plurality within the Godhead. The Holy Spirit, far from being a mere force or metaphor, emerges as a distinct divine person—active in creation, intimately involved in guiding Israel, and the source of prophetic revelation. These roles align seamlessly with the Trinitarian framework later fully revealed in the New Testament.

Paul’s declaration in 2 Corinthians 3:17—"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."—is not a theological innovation but rather a continuation of Old Testament themes. The Spirit, as the presence of Yahweh, brings liberation, wisdom, and divine guidance, echoing passages such as Isaiah 63:10, Exodus 33:14, and Ezekiel 36:26-27. Paul’s insight reinforces the idea that the Spirit is not merely an agent of God but God Himself.

Michael Heiser’s research on the "Two Powers in Heaven" further supports the notion that ancient Jewish thought was not strictly unitarian. The recognition of multiple divine figures—Yahweh, the second Yahweh figure, and the Spirit—suggests that the foundations of Trinitarian theology were present long before the New Testament era. The Spirit’s role in creation, prophecy, and divine presence aligns with the functions attributed to both Yahweh and the second Yahweh figure, reinforcing the idea that the Spirit is fully God.

This realization challenges us to reconsider the depth of Old Testament theology. The Trinity is not a doctrine imposed upon the Hebrew Scriptures but rather one that emerges organically from them. The Spirit’s presence in the Old Testament is not a shadowy precursor to His New Testament role but a fully divine reality that has always been at work.

As we reflect on these truths, we are invited into a deeper appreciation of God’s nature—a God who is relational, dynamic, and eternally present. The Spirit, as God, is not confined to the pages of Scripture but continues to work in the lives of believers today, bringing wisdom, transformation, and freedom. Recognizing the Spirit’s divinity in the Old Testament enriches our understanding of the Trinity, reminding us that God’s self-revelation has always been unfolding, inviting us into His divine mystery.