LDS General Authority Jeffrey Holland on the Trinity with a Point-by-Point Rebuttal

Paul Derengowski, ThM

General Conference
October 6, 2007

 

On October 6, 2007, Elder Jeffrey Holland gave a scathing lecture denouncing Trinitarianism during the semi-annual General Conference of the Mormon Church. The following is an “unofficial” transcript of his lecture (which is in black), along with a rebuttal to his comments (in italics).

As Elder Ballard noted earlier in this session, various crosscurrents of our times have brought increasing public attention the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Lord told the ancients this latter-day work would be a marvelous work and a wonder. And it is. But even as we invite one and all to examine closely the marvel of it, there is one thing we would not like anyone to wonder about. That is whether or not we are Christians.

By and large any controversy in this matter has swirled around two doctrinal issues: our view of the Godhead and our belief in the principle of continuing revelation, leading to an open, scriptural canon.

Rebuttal: Actually, in matters of determining whether or not the Mormon Church is Christian or not involves all of the major doctrines that biblical Christianity has taught over the centuries. And in each instance the Mormon Church has espoused a contrary doctrine concerning not only the Godhead and the Bible, but other doctrines as well concerning Sin, Salvation, Humanity, and Last Things. So, while Mr. Holland might have picked two doctrines that definitely set Mormonism outside the realm of biblical Christianity, there is much, much more going on within Mormonism that make it the anti-Christian church that it is than just Theology and Bibliology.

In addressing this we do not need to be apologists for our faith, but we would like not to be misunderstood. So, with a desire to increase understanding, and unequivocally declare our Christianity, I speak today on the first of those two doctrinal issues just mentioned.

Rebuttal: It is interesting that Holland says that the Mormon does not need to be an apologist, when that is exactly what he is trying to be in his little speech denigrating the Trinity. The fact of the matter is, the Christian is commanded to be an apologist in 1 Peter 3:15, particularly when someone asks why the Christian believes what he does. Yet, Holland is telling the Mormon faithful at General Conference not to be apologetic, but he wants to make sure the outside world understands that Mormonism is Christianity. So, by telling the faithful something that is contrary to what Scripture says, is Holland acting the part of a Christian?

Our first and foremost article of faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is we believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. We believe these three divine persons, constituting a single Godhead, are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it’s accurate to say we believe they are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable, except believing them to be three persons combined in one substance: a trinitarian notion never set forth in the Scriptures, because it is not true.

Rebuttal: It is always interesting to read what Mormons claim to believe apart from what the rest of Mormonism manages to tell us otherwise. It is as if the typical Mormon apologist is embarrassed to admit what it is that he really believes. For amid all the nice sounding Christian buzzwords and distortions, Holland conveniently leaves out just who this “Eternal Father” is to a Mormon, as well as Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. For the Eternal Father was not always the Eternal Father, and neither was Jesus Christ who Mormons claim that he was, nor the Holy Ghost. In Mormonism all three have been in a constant state of flux, changing forms and progressing up the divine scale to become what they are. And what is equally obtuse is to tell people how these three are united, yet completely contradict the godly unity of the three by saying that the one, true God is not one substance. Moreover, to be stating with such confidence that the triune nature of God is not set forth in the Scriptures borders on incredulity, if not just plain intellectual ignorance and dishonesty. For although only hints of the plural nature of God are set forth in the Old Testament, it is there nonetheless, and when one turns to the New Testament, the Trinitarian nature of God is so obvious that one would have to be completely blind not to see it.

Indeed, no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that “The formal doctrine of the Trinity, as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”

Rebuttal: Holland continues to mislead his audience by making this claim. For while the formal doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the NT, as proclaimed by the church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries, it was not the NT writers object to write such a defined statement in the first place. The NT writers were not dealing with the same heretical attacks that later Christians had to deal with. Therefore, in order to counter those attacks, those same later Christians, in accord with biblical revelation, had to formulate responses to heretics such as Arius, in order to preserve the integrity of biblical truth and Christian thought, and help prevent Christians from being led astray into error. Yet, what Holland, and others like him, continuously do is ignore the historical circumstances for the progressive understanding of biblical doctrine by engaging in intellectual dishonesty to bolster his otherwise ill-conceived theology that he wants to foist upon the Scriptures.

Holland also misleads his audience by misrepresenting what the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary has to say about the Trinity. Although it does say, “The word [trinity] itself does not occur in the Bible. It is generally acknowledged that the church father Tertullian (ca. A.D. 145-220) either coined the term or was the first to use it with reference to God. The explicit doctrine was thus formulated in the post-biblical period, although the early stages of its development can be seen in the NT. Attempts to trace the origins still earlier (to the OT literature) cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be understood as retrospective interpretations of this earlier corpus of Scripture in light of later theological developments” (1178). It goes on to include Holland’s quote above, but then adds, “Nevertheless, the discussion above and especially the presence of trinitarian formulas in 2 Cor. 13:13 (which is strikingly early) and Matt. 28:19 indicate that the origin of this mode of thought may be found very early in Christian history” (1179). So, while Holland would wish that his audience believe that the Trinity is purely the product of late council decision-making, and citing “the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary” for support, it is quite evident that Holland is perpetuating the same deception that all anti-Trinitarians do by ignoring real history and biblical exegesis, and then misquoting Christian references by cherry-picking comments to support their deception, that they also hope no one will take the time to look up.

So any criticism that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, is not a comment about our commitment to Christ, but rather a recognition—accurate I might add—that our view of the Godhead breaks with post-New Testament Christian history, and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus himself.

Rebuttal: In actuality, the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, as guided by the same through divine revelation, is an indictment of the Mormon commitment to a foreign Christ, since the Mormon Jesus has absolutely no affinity with the Jesus of Scripture, nor later pronouncements by the Christian church, as it did battle with those attempting to subvert not only biblical revelation, but demean and denigrate both the persons of Jesus and God. Hence, whatever criticism that Holland is speaking about in terms of returning to the doctrine taught by Jesus himself is delusional at best.

Now a word about that post-New Testament history might be helpful.

In the year 325 A.D. the Roman Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address, among other things, the growing issue of God’s alleged trinity in unity. What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known—after another 125 years, and three more major councils—as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations, such as the Athanasian Creed.

Rebuttal: The fact of the matter is the Council of Nicaea was convened to discuss the nature of the Son, Jesus Christ, and his relationship to the Father. Very little is said about the Holy Spirit. In fact, it would not be until later that the Trinitarian controversy would be fully dealt with at the Council of Constantinople. At Nicaea, however, it was determined that the Son was as much God as God the Father was which is completely consistent with what the Scriptures had revealed. Moreover, heretical teaching espoused by persons such as Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, and Arius were condemned; the same teaching that later neo-Arian groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, Unitarians, and Mormons would drudge up and regurgitate as legitimate, thereby demeaning the persons of God and Jesus all over again.

These various evolutions and iterations of creeds, and others to come over the centuries, declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, imminent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable; without body, parts, or passions, and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three persons are separate persons, but they are a single being; the oft-noted mystery of the Trinity. They are three distinct persons, yet not three gods, but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible. Now we agree with our critics on at least that point. That such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible.

Rebuttal: Here Holland is being unfairly sarcastic, given that he fails to address the context in which the early Christians came to the conclusions that they did in an effort to finitely describe the infinite God. Therefore, what Holland ends up doing is misleading his audience once again by not providing explanations of why the Christian Church thought the way it did as it responded to the heretics of the church, as the heretics attempted to separate the persons of the Godhead into a paganistic mix of polytheistic, tritheistic, and Modalistic belief. Yet, it is quite apparent that Holland, as most Mormons are, is not interested in an accurate presentation of the truth, but in merely making light of it in an arrogant and smug manner, which is ultimately fueled by a humanistic understanding of God, which the Mormon believes he can attain a similar status with, if he will simply try hard enough.

With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, and I know not whom to adore, or to address.”

Rebuttal: It never ceases to amaze the objective observer of Mormon apologetic strategy the lengths such apologists go to try and justify their arguments. Here, Holland fails to inform his audience of just who this monk was, or the circumstances surrounding his utterance. For the fourth century monk was the heretic Serapion, and the reason why he cried out was that he discovered that the “Anthropomorphite” god that he had been worshiping turned out to be a false god. The Anthropomorphites were a band of Egyptian monks that held a similar corporeal view of God that the Mormons currently do, and when Serapion is confronted with the error of his thinking, according the Early Church Father, John Cassian, Serapion “was drawn to the faith of the Catholic tradition.” During a prayer of thanksgiving Serapion was so emotionally overcome that “he burst into a flood of bitter tears and continual sobs, and cast himself down on the ground and exclaimed with strong groanings” his woeful statement. Therefore, a little context always helps to understand just what is going on, rather than a mere emotional special pleading, and misleading people into thinking something that is contrary to fact.

How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing to strive to be like, one who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’ prayer to his Father in heaven, that this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ who Thou has sent?

Rebuttal: Here Holland continues to mislead his audience by failing to tell them just what is meant by the term “incomprehensible,” as well as by including a term that no Christian would use in the manner that he wants his audience to envisage. For a Christian believes that the person of God is incomprehensible only in the sense that God is infinite, while the Christian, who is a creature, is finite. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to state that God is incomprehensible, simply because of the distinction that exists between the nature of God and the nature of His creation. Moreover, God is knowable only in the sense that He is willing to reveal Himself. Anything more than that and the creature knows absolutely nothing about God. Lastly, Holland contradicts himself by quoting Jesus as alluding to the “only true God,” since Jesus’ statement clearly contradicts Mormon theology which espouses a polytheism that only the Greek pantheon of gods and goddesses and the Hindu religion could possibly rival. Yet, the Mormon wants everyone to believe his religion represents true Christianity?

It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief, nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. That too is an article of our faith. But if one says that we are not Christians, because we do not hold a fourth or fifth century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?

Rebuttal: The parade of untrue and misleading statements continues by Holland claiming that it isn’t the purpose of a Mormon to demean any person’s belief, nor the doctrine of any religion. From the inception of Mormonism, when Joseph Smith was leading his organization, all Mormons have done is demean those, and their beliefs, that are contrary to the eccentricities of Mormon thought. In fact, the Mormon Church has maintained Smith’s scathing accusation that the creeds, professors, and doctrines of the Christians in his day were an “abomination” by leaving his comments in the history section of the Book of Mormon. And all Holland does it perpetuate the same demeaning attack by attempting to mock the Trinity here at General Conference. For him to say that he respects doctrines contrary to the Mormon cult is about as untrue as an untruth can be told. Nevertheless, to answer Holland’s question, those first Christian saints knew, first hand, who Jesus was, which is why they would later write what they did to inform subsequent Christians concerning the person of Jesus. Moreover, once again, it would not be until later, when the heretical attacks upon Jesus’ revelation came to the forefront of the Christian church’s attention that what was known first-hand had to be clarified for those who did not have Jesus walking in their midst, and ultimately counter the heretical claims.

We declare it is self-evident from the Scriptures, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons; three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great intercessory prayer, just mentioned, his baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen, to name just four.

Rebuttal: Here the tritheistic and polytheistic nature of Mormon theology begins to blossom. For God cannot be separated, yet according to a Mormon such as Jeffrey Holland, he thinks that God can be separated. It’s self-evident to him. God, according to Holland, is not only broken into bits and pieces, none of those bits and pieces share the same constitution. They are three separate gods that supposedly share the same will and so forth, yet he fails to explain how this accords with what he just previously said about there being only “one true God.” In other words, if there is only “one true God,” as Jesus said, and Holland quotes, then how can he exist in harmony with those that amount to false gods, or demigods, by definition? Clearly, a Mormon discussing theology, and more particularly the nature of God, is perhaps the worst thing he can do. Because as soon as he starts talking, his whole theology immediately starts to unravel in a hodge-podge of loose-ended bits and pieces.

With these New Testament sources, and more ringing in our ears, it may be redundant to ask what Jesus meant when he said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.”

On another occasion he said, “I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.”

Of his antagonists he said, “They have seen and hated both me and my Father.”

And there is, of course, that always deferential subordination to his Father that had Jesus say, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one. That is God. My Father is greater than I.”

To whom was Jesus so fervently all those years, including in such anguished cries as, “Oh my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” and “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”

Rebuttal: Holland’s attempt to show separation between the Son and the Father is frivolous at best. For no Christian that knows his Bible would argue that the Son and the Father are not distinct persons. But, distinction in the Godhead is not the same thing as saying that God is separated into various parts, nor that that distinction entails a belief that three separate gods exist. It merely means what those at Nicaea and Constantinople were conveying, when countering the claims of the heretics, who wanted to either strip Jesus of his deity, or subordinate Jesus to the level of a creature. And the latter is the exact result if one follows Mormon thought to its logical end; it subordinates Jesus to the level of a creature, or false god, as already mentioned.

To acknowledge the Scriptural evidence, that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings, is not to be guilty of polytheism. It is rather part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said it best: “Christ Jesus, being the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”

Rebuttal: One has to wonder whether Holland ever took the time to actually study definitions or the Bible by making such a comment. For if one states that there are three gods in the Godhead, all of which are separate beings, and all of which are composed of different substances, then one is automatically admitting to believing a theology that is polytheistic. Polytheism is a compound Greek word, from polus, meaning “many,” and theoi, meaning “gods.” And when one looks at the rest of Mormon belief, including the comments of founder Joseph Smith, who claimed that “the doctrine of the plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine,” then it is beyond dispute that Mormonism is a polytheistic religion, and to deny it is to simply engage in intellectual dishonesty and deception.

A related reason why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is excluded from the Christian category by some is because we believe, as the ancient prophets and apostles, in embodied, but certainly glorified God. To those who criticize this scripturally based belief I ask, at least rhetorically, “If the idea of embodied God is repugnant, why are the central doctrines and singularly most distinguishing characteristics of all Christianity the incarnation, the atonement, and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?”

Rebuttal: Holland is equivocating by assuming that just because Jesus was incarnate, that God the Father must have a body as well. To answer his question, though, is quite simple: Jesus was incarnated for the express purposes of identifying with the human predicament and bridging the chasm that was created when sin separated humanity from God. And since Jesus performed his role perfectly, there was no need for anyone else to do it. Not Joseph Smith, not Sun Myung Moon, not God the Father, nobody. Nevertheless, while Jesus was performing his role perfectly in the redemption of humanity, so was God the Father and the Holy Spirit, as God would later begin to draw unto Himself a people He desired to receive salvation, and the Spirit would do the convicting and regenerating of their otherwise dead spirits. Perhaps if Mr. Holland and the Mormons would quit their equivocating, and start begging for God’s forgiveness, for constant and idolatrous attacks upon Him, He just might redeem them as well.

If having a body is not only not needed, but not desirable by deity, why did the redeemer of mankind redeem his body, redeeming it from the grasp of death, and from the grave, guaranteeing that it would never again be separated from his spirit in time or eternity?

Rebuttal: Here, once again, the answer is simple: it’s called, identification with humankind. Jesus Christ’s constitution prior to coming to earth was not physically oriented. It was purely spirit, as his Father is presently and only purely spirit. Jesus took on a physical nature because humans consist, in part, of a physical nature. By doing so he identified with humanity, perfectly, and in the same sinless manner that humans enjoyed prior to falling into sin. Since humans will always have a physical aspect to them, whereby even after the resurrection everyone will be reunited with their physical bodies, whether for glory or damnation, Jesus will retain his physical constitution as well, to forever identify with those whom he created in the image of God, which by the way, the Mormons have misunderstood to mean physically.

Any who dismiss the concept of an embodied God dismiss both the mortal and the resurrected Christ. No one, claiming to be a true Christian, will want to do that.

Rebuttal: Actually, any who dismiss the concept of an embodied God by refusing to also confuse God the Father with God the Son, and their express purposes for doing the things that they do in behalf of humanity, is doing not only themselves a favor, but those who they have the opportunity to discuss such things with, since it removes a cloud of confusion, and assures the listener that God himself is someone special and worthy of adoration, and not just another human being out to stroke his ego.

Now, to anyone within the sound of my voice, who has wondered concerning our Christianity, I bear this witness. I testify that Jesus Christ is the literal living son of our literal living god. This Jesus is our savior and redeemer, who under the guidance of the father, was the creator of heaven and earth, and all things in them are.

Rebuttal: Not long after Holland begins his attack, he’s ready to turn to the emotional appeal. Unfortunately for him, though, such an appeal does nothing to make his case, for he continues to mislead in his statements, particularly those not wary of what Mormons believe about Jesus, God, and creation. For instance, Holland fails to define just what he means by “literal son of our literal god.” Why? Because he knows that as soon as he starts to elaborate on just what it means to be literally the son of the Mormon god, his non-Mormon audience will become nauseated. Who could ever believe that God would visit His daughter, to “literally” sire and conceive the person of Jesus? That’s just plain disgusting, if not immoral. And why would anyone want to follow Jesus, especially after they found out that he was not only Satan’s brother, but that he was not always God, who is not to be credited with the creation of all things? It is things like this that make a person wonder about Mormon claims of Christianity: not the sweet-sounding nothings that tickle the ears, which Mormons are famous for, and also lack substance that would otherwise cause people to doubt.

I bear witness that he was born of a virgin mother; that in his lifetime he performed mighty miracles, observed by legions of his disciples and by his enemies as well.

Rebuttal: Let’s see, God is the “literal” father of Jesus, and Mary is the “literal” mother, and Jesus is the “literal” son. And according to at least one high-profile Mormon authority, namely Brigham Young, God would not allow any other man to do “it” naturally with Mary, since God wanted to do “it” Himself. Yet, Holland wants everyone to believe that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth? Who is Holland trying to kid here besides himself, and those too naïve to actually take the time to look up just what it is that these Mormon leaders have said about the siring and conception of Jesus? Besides, how could Holland bear witness of something that he was not privy to be in the presence of when it happened?

I testify that he had power over death, because he was divine. But that he willingly subjected himself to death for our sake, because for a period of time he was also mortal.

Rebuttal: Holland pays a backhanded compliment to Jesus, and then turns right around and insults him, all in back-to-back statements. Indeed, Jesus has power over death because of his divinity. The problem, though, with this statement, is that nasty little doctrine distinct in Mormondom called the Law of Eternal Progression. Hence, the Mormon Jesus was not always a god, but became a god through an evolutionary process that all worthy Mormons think they are involved, with the express hope of attaining godhood themselves one day. Holland’s insult comes by way of telling everyone that the purpose Jesus died for was because he was a mortal too, which is a complete falsehood as well. Jesus willingly died, not because he was a mortal, but because he loved humanity, and knew that apart from his atoning death, God’s wrath would not be appeased, and that everyone would be subject to an eternal death penalty. But, when one is a Mormon, and is working to merit one’s salvation, little things like that often get overlooked, if not ignored altogether.

I declare in his willing submission to death he took upon himself the sins of the world, paying an infinite price for every sorrow and sickness, every heartache and unhappiness, from Adam to the end of the world. In doing so he conquered both the grave, physically, and hell, spiritually, and set the human family free.

Rebuttal: Curiously missing from Holland’s statement is the ultimate payment made, and that was for sin. Sin is the cause of every sorrow and sickness, ultimately. Sin is at the heart of every heartache and unhappiness. Yet, Holland fails to mentions this, probably because he does not want to discuss the inherent Pelagianism that runs rampant throughout Mormonism’s teaching. Pelagius was an ancient heretic who denied the reality of original sin, and thought that human beings were actually better off than what the Bible said that they were. That humans could refrain from sinning by merely working at it. It was a matter of the will and human decision, much like the doctrine of “Free Agency” that Mormons find so endearing. Unfortunately, to ignore the reality of sin, or to fail to discuss it in the context of Christ’s atonement is to merely perpetuate the same error that Pelagius did, and then delude oneself into believing that one is not as sinful and depraved as God says that he is, and then to trust in one’s works instead of the person of God to redeem him.

I bear witness that he was literally resurrected from the tomb, and after ascending to his father, to complete the process of that resurrection, he appeared, repeatedly, to hundreds of disciples in the old world and in the new. I know he is the holy one of Israel, the messiah, who will one day come again in final glory, to reign on earth as Lord of lords and King of kings. I know there is no other name given under heaven whereby a man can be saved, and that only by relying wholly upon his merits, mercy, and everlasting grace, can we gain eternal life.

Rebuttal: Again, Holland adds fluff to his otherwise disingenuous lecture, coupled with more untruths and distortions. For if a Mormon actually believed that Jesus’ name was the only one under heaven by which a person can be saved, then the rest of Mormonism would fold like a cheap house of cards. Why? Because in Mormonism, Jesus is a buzzword; the mention of his name is similar to when the Atonement is mentioned. He means nothing apart from religious chatter. For in Mormonism there are two levels of salvation, with one being General and the other Individual. General Salvation is a universalistic belief that regardless of what one believes, a person can enjoy a salvific kingdom somewhere in the afterlife. That includes atheists, Satan worshipers, et cetera. Individual Salvation is for the diligent Mormon who really wants to “merit” “true” salvation, and go on to rule over his own planet one day as a god, with one of his goddess wives. Therefore, for anyone to claim that Jesus is the only name under heaven whereby a person can be saved is just plain poppycock. If one truly believes what Mormonism has to teach, and logically follows what Mormonism is saying, then Jesus doesn’t mean anything, and the only saviors under heaven whereby anyone is saved are the names of the persons working the hardest to abide by the precepts and prerequisites of the Mormon Church to gain what they’re attempting to earn.

My additional testimony, regarding this resplendent doctrine, is that in preparation for his millennial latter-day reign, Jesus has already come, more than once, in embodied, majestic glory.

In the Spring of 1820, a 14 year-old boy, confused by many of these very doctrines, that still confuse much of Christendom, went into a grove of trees to pray. In answer to that earnest prayer, offered at such a tender age, the father and the son appeared as embodied, glorified beings to this, the boy prophet Joseph Smith. That day marked the beginning of the return of the true New Testament gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the restoration of other prophetic truths offered from Adam down to the present day.

Rebuttal: Holland’s comments are so misguided as to defy comment. For not only does he exclude Joseph Smith’s misinterpretation of James 1:5, which is the same verse that all subsequent Mormons misinterpret to justify their existential claims on truth, he fails to address the multiple “visions” that Joseph allegedly had, none of which have any continuity with each other, as well as the fact that the “official” version did not come along until years later, when a more Spic-n-Span version became necessary. Moreover, Holland makes God and Jesus out to be liars, again, by asserting the fallacious restoration idea, which is coupled along with a claim concerning “prophetic truths,” that really amount to nothing more than regurgitated heretical doctrines from a variety of sources, many of which stem from Joseph Smith’s involvement in Free Masonry.

I testify that my witness of these things is true, and that the heavens are open to all who seek the same confirmation. Through the holy spirit of truth may we all know the only true god, and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent. Then, may we live their teachings and be true Christians in deed, as well as in word.

Rebuttal: Jeffrey Holland may testify all he wants, but given the multiple misleading and untrue statements that he has made thus far, there is no reason to believe that he is telling the truth now. Clearly, Jeffrey Holland is a lost soul in need of redemption, and is no more a Christian than are the rest of the Mormon hierarchy, starting with deceptive false prophet of contemporary Mormonism, Gordon B. Hinckley himself.

I pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Rebuttal: Yes, Jeffrey prays in the name of the person who was not always God, very God; who was born to a mother that was God’s daughter in the pre-existence, and sired by God with his daughter on earth; that was the brother of Satan, and subsequently died a substitutionary death, partly on the cross, partly in the Garden of Gethsemane, and yet was totally imperfect, due to the fact that he had yet progressed unto godhood. That’s the Jesus Jeffrey and the Mormons pray to, meaning that his prayer never cleared the ceiling of the Conference center in Salt Lake City when he uttered it.

God have mercy on the Mormons. May one day they know the truth and be set free from such heinous and diabolical teaching. Amen.