Answering Evidences For The Existence Of A Papacy In The Early Church

• Discussion:

           -This article serves as a refutation of claims made by Trent Horn in regards to the question of whether the office of pope withstands biblical and historical scrutiny. Each of the author's claims are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

           "But didn’t Peter refer to himself as a “fellow elder” and not as “pope” in 1 Peter 5:1? Yes, but in this passage Peter is demonstrating humility that he is encouraging other priests to practice. He wrote, “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another” (5:5), so exalting his status would have contradicted his message. Besides, St. Paul often referred to himself as a mere deacon (see 1 Cor. 3:5, 2 Cor. 11:23) and even said he was “the very least of all the saints” (Eph. 3:8)—but that did not take away from his authority as an apostle. Likewise, Peter’s description of himself as an elder does not take away from his authority as being “first” among the apostles (Matt 10:2)."

           The above argument rests on a few questionable presuppositions: 1.) Peter described himself in the humblest of terms in order that he set a good moral example, not that he knew nothing in regards to having been bestowed papal authority, and 2.) Peter was addressing members of an ordained ministerial priesthood. Nothing in the context of 1 Peter 5 gives credence to either of these. Further, even granting that the apostle is setting forth a model for other elders to emulate, the text still weakens the idea of Peter being first pope because it shows him putting himself on par with other elders in the church. He never indicates being in a superior position of authority. He never distinguished himself from other leaders in the church, and no one else is recorded as recognizing his special authority.

          "In regard to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor, in the first century Clement of Rome (the fourth pope) intervened in a dispute in the Church of Corinth. He warned those who disobeyed him that they would “involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger,” thus demonstrating his authority over non-Roman Christians."

           In the early Christian church, leadership roles were decentralized, with congregations often being overseen by a group of elders, also referred to as bishops (Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). These terms were used interchangeably, signifying that there was no hierarchical distinction among them. This plural leadership model stands in contrast to the later centralized authority of a singular bishop, as seen in the Roman Church's structure.

          The letter commonly attributed to Clement of Rome, written to the church in Corinth, does not explicitly claim to be authored by Clement or even by a single authoritative bishop. Instead, it appears to represent the collective voice of the Roman congregation. The letter’s tone and language suggest a communal rather than hierarchical intention, where the writer's role seems more aligned with that of a presbyter or even a secretary representing the church as a whole.

          Catholic apologists may argue that this letter demonstrates early recognition of the Bishop of Rome's authority over other churches. However, such an interpretation assumes a level of centralized power that is not evident from the text itself. The lack of a personal signature or direct reference to a reigning bishop weakens the argument for singular authority. Furthermore, the letter’s emphasis on plural eldership aligns more closely with the shared leadership model found in Scripture and other early Christian writings.

          "St. Ignatius of Antioch referred to the Roman Church as the one that teaches other churches and “presides in love” over them. In fact, the writings of Pope Clement (A.D. 92-99) and Pope Soter (A.D. 167-174) were so popular that they were read in the Church alongside Scripture (Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9)."

           The above presented information shows us, not that Rome held a position of primacy, but it was honored amongst other churches. “Presiding in love” could reflect a form of moral or ethical leadership rather than administrative supremacy. Eastern Orthodox priest Andrew Stephen Damick notes regarding the use of Ignatius to support papal authority:

           "…the modern Roman Catholic vision of Church unity being defined by subjection to a worldwide bishop in Rome is not found in Ignatius’s writings. We saw how he described his friend Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna as “one who has God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as his bishop” (To Polycarp, Salutation). He does not say that Polycarp has the bishop of Rome for his bishop nor even a regional Asian primate (i.e., a senior bishop in his area). Being a bishop, Polycarp’s bishop is God. With all that Ignatius has to say about the episcopacy and especially about unity, he had the perfect opportunity to insist on a worldwide pontificate for Rome’s bishop. Rome was certainly on his mind, since he was traveling there to be martyred as Peter and Paul had been before him. Yet in his six letters addressed to churches, it is only his letter to Rome in which he does not even mention their bishop (who was probably either St. Evaristus or St. Alexander I). In the other five letters to churches, the bishop is mentioned, and in three of them, the bishop is mentioned by name. When writing to the Roman Christians, he does mention Peter, but equally with Paul as both are apostles who could give them “orders,” while Ignatius himself would never presume to do that (Romans 4:3). In Ignatius’s writings, there is never any special role given to the Roman bishop or the Roman church, nor even to the Apostle Peter. And when he writes to Rome, he does not ask the Roman bishop to send a bishop to Antioch to replace him. Rather, he makes that request of Polycarp and his church in Smyrna (To Polycarp 7:2)."

           "In A.D. 190, Pope St. Victor I excommunicated an entire region of churches for refusing to celebrate Easter on its proper date. While St. Irenaeus thought this was not prudent, neither he nor anyone else denied that Victor had the authority to do this. Indeed, Irenaeus said, “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome] on account of its preeminent authority” (Against Heresies, 3.3.2)."

           The West and certain Eastern churches claimed to have the correct date of Easter that was delivered from the apostles. If this episode of contradictory church tradition proves anything at all, it would only be that it is unreliable as a source of dogma. Thus, what we are left with is Scripture alone as our guide in matters of faith and morals. Further, Irenaeus did not say that churches should submit to Rome due to it being higher in authority, but come together as that church was reputed for being doctrinally orthodox. His appeal for unity was not a recognition of supreme jurisdiction, but rather a call for mutual agreement to preserve harmony. This was but a call for cohesion in belief. Consider this introductory excerpt from Philip Schaaf on the translation of Irenaeus' Against Heresies:

           "After the text has been settled, according to the best judgment which can be formed, the work of translation remains; and that is, in this case, a matter of no small difficulty. Irenæus, even in the original Greek, is often a very obscure writer. At times he expresses himself with remarkable clearness and terseness; but, upon the whole, his style is very involved and prolix. And the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character. In fact, it is often necessary to make a conjectural re-translation of it into Greek, in order to obtain some inkling of what the author wrote. Dodwell supposes this Latin version to have been made about the end of the fourth century; but as Tertullian seems to have used it, we must rather place it in the beginning of the third. Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task. We have endeavoured to give as close and accurate a translation of the work as possible, but there are not a few passages in which a guess can only be made as to the probable meaning."

           Consider translator footnote 3313 from that same version of Irenaeus' Against Heresies:

           "The Latin text of this difficult but important clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Both the text and meaning have here given rise to much discussion. It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. We are far from sure that the rendering given above is correct, but we have been unable to think of anything better. [A most extraordinary confession. It would be hard to find a worse; but take the following from a candid Roman Catholic, which is better and more literal: “For to this Church, on account of more potent principality, it is necessary that every Church (that is, those who are on every side faithful) resort; in which Church ever, by those who are on every side, has been preserved that tradition which is from the apostles.” (Berington and Kirk, vol. i. p. 252.) Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus. See note at end of book iii.] A discussion of the subject may be in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome."

           "Some people object that if Peter and his successors had special authority, why didn’t Christ say so when the apostles argued about “who was the greatest” (Luke 22:24)? The reason is that Christ did not want to contribute to their misunderstanding that one of them would be a privileged king. Jesus did say, however, that among the apostles there would be a “greatest” who would rule as a humble servant (Luke 22:26). That’s why since the sixth century popes have called themselves servus servorum Dei, or “servant of the servants of God.”

            If Peter had an exalted position over the other apostles, then why did Jesus not clear up confusion on this matter by pointing to him? He could have put that matter to rest easily. Trent Horn offers us nothing but smoke and mirrors here. The pope with his kingly attire and multitudes who bow down before him in adoration does not in the slightest resemble a "humble servant."

           "Pope Gregory I used the title in his dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople John the Faster, who called himself the “Universal Bishop.” Gregory didn’t deny that one bishop had primacy over all the others, since in his twelfth epistle Gregory explcitly says Constaninople was subject to the authority of the pope. Instead, he denied that the pope was the bishop of every individual territory, since this would rob his brother bishops of their legitimate authority, even though they were still subject to him as Peter’s successor."

            That is absolutely untrue. Gregory emphatically denounced the title of universal bishop. He thought that such should be reserved for no one. The following excerpt has been taken from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia as an example:

           "a proud and profane title ... I have however taken care to admonish earnestly the same my brother and fellow-bishop that, if he desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain from the appellation of a foolish title. ... the appellation of a frivolous name. But I beseech your imperial Piety to consider that some frivolous things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful. Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others." (Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XXXIII)

Does The Bible Support The Institution Of Slavery?

          "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you." (Leviticus 25:44)

          The Old Testament's historical records include many practices that modern readers might find troubling. It is crucial to understand that these accounts do not inherently suggest divine endorsement of such practices. Instead, the biblical texts often describe the societal norms of the time rather than providing a moral treatise on these issues.

          In the ancient world, slavery was often a result of economic hardship. For instance, individuals might become slaves due to an inability to pay debts or provide for their basic needs (Genesis 47:13-19). Others entered servitude as a form of reparation for theft (Exodus 22:3). Importantly, slaves were typically set free after six years of service (Exodus 21:2), and were not to be abused or mistreated.

          Moreover, the biblical laws were quite progressive for their time in certain respects. For example, God explicitly forbade the kidnapping and selling of individuals into slavery, a practice punishable by death (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7). The Apostle Paul also condemned human trafficking, describing those who engage in such acts as ungodly and sinful (1 Timothy 1:9-11).

          This form of slavery was markedly different from the brutal and racially-based slavery that occurred in America and the African slave trade. Ancient slavery was not based on skin color. While slavery in any form is a grievous condition, it is essential to note that Moses did not express approval of slavery itself but rather provided regulations to mitigate its harshness.

          The Apostle Paul encouraged slaves to obey their masters, not as an endorsement of slavery, but as a means of serving God within their given circumstances. Christianity, at its core, is not a political movement aimed at overthrowing governments but a transformative faith addressing the sinful condition of the human heart. The true change in culture comes through the conversion of souls to Christ.

The Uniqueness Of The Bible As Literature

"The Bible is primarily a religious book and as such it is unique in the world of literature. How could uninspired man write a book that commands all duty, forbids all sin, including the sin of hypocrisy and lying, denounces all human merit as insufficient for salvation, holds out as man's only hope faith in in the atoning death, physical resurrection, and present intercession of Christ, and condemns to hell for all eternity all who reject this one way of salvation and persist in sin?"

Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 85

Made In The Image And Likeness Of God

        "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Genesis 1:27)

        God made man to be a reflection of His glory. He made us to be morally upright. He gave us reason and the ability to make our own choices. God created us to have communion with Him. Man was created with knowledge of his Creator. Animals have no such awareness and do not seek to worship a higher power.

        Mankind is the greatest of His creations. He has been given by God a conscience. With that comes the ability to make moral deliberations. Animals are not self-conscious like man. What follows from being made in the image and likeness of God is the responsibility to serve Him. Adam's fall was devastating due to him being designed to mirror the divine glory.

        The terms "image" and "likeness" are virtually synonymous. Both relate to the concept of resemblance. The idea of human life having indelible value finds its basis in having been fashioned in the image and likeness of God. It is this factor which distinguishes us from the animal kingdom. Men and women are different, but are equally created in His image. Adam Clarke once noted:

        "Gregory Nyssen has very properly observed that the superiority of man to all other parts of creation is seen in this, that all other creatures are represented as the effect of God's word, but man is represented as the work of God, according to plan and consideration: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. See his Works, vol. i., p. 52, c. 3."

        God made man to represent Him on earth and to take care of creation. The earth was meant to be the domain of man (Psalm 115:16). This is comparable in certain respects to the ancient Near Eastern idea of statues of kings or deity representing their presence. The object of emphasis was not so much physical appearance as more so one's special rights or privileges. It is in that sense we are made in the image of God.

The Application Of Biblical Principles

"...we read in 1 Thessalonians 4:7, "For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life." A principle that may be drawn from this statement, as well as Philippians 4:8, is that viewing pornographic literature or films is wrong. Obviously such media is not explicitly condemned in Scripture, but sexual purity in thought and action is a principle clearly seen in these and other passages. A personal application of this principle would be, I will not view pornographic literature or films."

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 288

Living A God Honoring Life

"It is one thing to read 2 Timothy 1:9, noting that God has "called us to a holy life," and to understand that holiness is a life of purity and godliness, made possible by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. But it is another thing to deal with sin in our lives so that we are in fact leading holy lives. It is one thing to study what the Scriptures say about the return of Christ in passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-56. But it is another thing to build on and move beyond those facts to the point of loving His appearing (2 Tim. 4:8), that is, longing for and anticipating His coming, and continuing steadfast in serving the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58)."

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 14

Correctly Handling The Word Of Truth

Observing what we see in the biblical text, we then should correctly handle it (2 Tim. 2:15). The participle “correctly handling” (incorrectly translated in the King James Version “rightly dividing”) translates the Greek word orthotomounta. This combines two words that meant “straight” (ortho) and “cut” (tomeo). One writer explains the meaning of this as follows:

Because Paul was a tentmaker, he may have been using an expression that tied in with his trade. When Paul made tents, he used certain patterns. In those days tents were made from the skins of animals in a patchwork sort of design. Every piece would have to be cut and fit together properly. Paul was simply saying, “If one doesn’t cut the pieces right, the whole won’t fit together properly.” It’s the same thing with Scripture. If one doesn’t interpret correctly the different parts, the whole message won’t come through correctly In Bible study and interpretation the Christian should cut it straight. He should be precise…and accurate.

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 12-13

A Critical Assessment Of Roman Catholic Indulgences

• Introduction:

          -Indulgences, a long-standing doctrine within Roman Catholic theology, have generated significant theological controversy, particularly regarding their compatibility with the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work. According to Catholic teaching, indulgences are granted by the church to reduce the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven. They are rooted in the belief that the Roman Catholic Church, as steward of the “treasury of merit,” can apply the spiritual benefits of Christ’s redemptive work—along with the merits of Mary and the saints—to the faithful. While this may appear to be a pious and pastoral practice, a closer examination reveals serious theological tensions and scriptural inconsistencies that challenge the legitimacy of indulgences as a Christian doctrine.

• The Historical Context Of Indulgences

          -The doctrine of indulgences, though originally intended as a pastoral tool to encourage repentance and spiritual discipline, became one of the most visibly corrupt practices in medieval Catholicism. By the late Middle Ages, indulgences were no longer confined to acts of charity or pilgrimage—they had become commodified. Clergy began offering indulgences in exchange for financial contributions, often with the promise of reduced time in purgatory for oneself or loved ones. This transactional approach to grace distorted the gospel and exploited the fears of the faithful.
          -One of the most notorious figures in this system was Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar commissioned to sell indulgences to fund the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. His infamous slogan, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs,” captured the essence of the abuse: salvation and spiritual relief were being marketed as purchasable commodities. Tetzel’s campaign was not an isolated incident—it was sanctioned by church authorities, including Pope Leo X, who authorized indulgence sales as part of a broader fundraising strategy. This institutional endorsement blurred the line between spiritual guidance and financial exploitation.
          -The corruption extended beyond Tetzel. Bishops and cardinals often received a portion of the proceeds, and indulgence preachers were known to exaggerate claims, promising full remission of sins or guaranteed salvation. In some cases, indulgences were granted for attending mass, donating to the church, or even reading specific prayers—further trivializing the gravity of sin and repentance. The system became so entrenched that indulgences were printed on official documents, complete with papal seals, and distributed en masse across Europe.
          -Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, nailed to the church door in Wittenberg in 1517, were a direct response to this abuse. While his initial concern was pastoral—protecting his flock from spiritual deception—his critique quickly evolved into a theological confrontation. Luther argued that indulgences undermined the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and the doctrine of justification by faith. He rejected the idea that the church had authority to remit temporal punishment, especially through financial means, and insisted that forgiveness was a divine act, not a clerical transaction.
          -The Council of Trent (1545–1563) eventually responded to the widespread abuses surrounding indulgences, condemning what it called the “evil traffic” and implementing stricter regulations to curb corruption. Yet notably, the council stopped short of abolishing the doctrine itself. Instead, it reaffirmed the Rome’s authority to dispense indulgences, thereby preserving the very theological framework that had enabled centuries of abuse. This decision reveals a deeper tension: the desire to restore credibility while safeguarding institutional control. Rather than reevaluating the doctrine in light of Scripture and the gospel’s sufficiency, the council chose to reform its administration without challenging its core premise.
          -This approach invites serious theological rebuttal. If the practice had been so widely abused and misunderstood, leading to spiritual manipulation and financial exploitation, then why preserve it at all? The retention of indulgences, even in a regulated form, suggests that ecclesiastical authority was prioritized over doctrinal clarity. It implies that Rome's role as dispenser of grace remained central, despite the evident harm caused by that model.
          -The indulgence controversy was not merely a historical scandal—it was a theological crisis. It exposed how easily spiritual practices can be distorted when institutional power, financial interests, and doctrinal ambiguity converge. The sale of indulgences revealed a system more invested in managing grace than proclaiming the finished work of Christ. Even today, the legacy of indulgences continues to cast a shadow over the doctrine, raising enduring questions about its biblical validity and its impact on the clarity, simplicity, and sufficiency of the gospel. Reforming the mechanics of indulgences without addressing their theological foundation is akin to treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.

• The Nature Of Forgiveness

          -At the heart of the indulgence system lies a troubling implication: that while God forgives the guilt of sin, the temporal punishment remains and must be satisfied through human effort or ecclesiastical mediation. This notion stands in stark contrast to the biblical witness. Romans 8:1 declares, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” If condemnation has been removed, what remains to be paid?
          The idea that temporal penalties persist after forgiveness suggests that Christ’s atonement is incomplete in its application. This contradicts the central message of the gospel—that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to reconcile sinners fully to God. To introduce a system of indulgences is to reintroduce a transactional element into salvation, one that Scripture consistently rejects. Grace, by definition, is unmerited and cannot be earned or supplemented.

• Repentance And Sanctification:

          -Catholic defenders of indulgences often argue that they promote repentance and spiritual growth. However, the very structure of indulgences risks reducing repentance to a mechanical process. When spiritual benefits are tied to specific actions—prayers, pilgrimages, or charitable deeds—there is a danger that believers will view forgiveness as a checklist rather than a transformative relationship with God. True repentance involves a change of heart, not merely the fulfillment of prescribed conditions.

• Indulgences And The Sufficiency Of Christ’s Atonement:

          -The most serious theological problem with indulgences is that they implicitly deny the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work. Romans 5:1–2 affirms that believers have peace with God through faith in Christ—not through additional acts or ecclesiastical mediation. Hebrews 10:14 states, “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” This verse leaves no room for further purification or merit-based supplementation. Christ’s sacrifice is not partial; it is complete.
          -The Greek term teteleiōken (“has perfected”) in Hebrews 10:14 conveys the idea of bringing something to its intended goal or completion. This same concept appears in Hebrews 7:19 and 9:9, where the inadequacy of the Old Covenant is contrasted with the finality of Christ’s work. Hebrews 10:18 reinforces this point: “Where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.” If no further sacrifice is needed, then indulgences—designed to remit remaining penalties—are rendered theologically obsolete.

• The Implications Of Purgatory:

          -Indulgences are inextricably linked to the doctrine of purgatory, a postmortem state in which souls undergo purification before entering heaven. According to Catholic teaching, indulgences can reduce the duration or intensity of this purification. However, this framework raises profound questions about the efficacy of Christ’s atonement. If Christ’s sacrifice truly cleanses us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:7), what need is there for further purification?
          -Moreover, the idea that the merits of saints can be transferred to others introduces a theological complexity that obscures the simplicity of the gospel. 1 Timothy 2:5 states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” To assign a mediatory role to Mary or the saints—however well-intentioned—is to compromise the exclusive mediatorship of Christ and to dilute the clarity of His redemptive work.

• The Gospel Of Grace, Not A Ledger Of Merits

          -When examined through the lens of Scripture and the insights of the Reformation, the doctrine of indulgences proves to be both theologically flawed and spiritually hazardous. It introduces a merit-based system that stands in direct opposition to the gospel of grace. If Christ’s sacrifice is truly sufficient—and Scripture affirms that it is—then there is no need for additional merits, no treasury to draw from, and no purgatorial debt to be paid.
          -The gospel proclaims that salvation is a gift, not a transaction. It is not parceled out through indulgences or mediated by saints, but given freely to all who trust in Christ. To return to a system of indulgences is to obscure the cross with layers of ritual and regulation. The church must recover the simplicity and power of the apostolic message: “It is finished.” (John 19:30)

Mormon Contradiction: Is There Salvation After Death Or Not?

        "Therefore, if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment." (Mosiah 2:38-39)

        This teaching is consistent with historic Christian theology concerning the human soul and divine justice. The except in question says that there are no chances for salvation after death. Much of the distinguishing tenants of Mormonism, however, are found in other standard sources used to teach Mormon dogma. This has helped missionaries for that religion to draw in converts. In contrast, the Doctrine and Covenants affirms the idea of postmortem salvation:

        "And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ’s at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh." (section 88:99)

        This goes to highlight inconsistency in Mormon revelation. It disproves any claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. One cannot be both sentenced to an eternity in hell and be given a chance to receive the gospel, which is the message of salvation from sin. One is either sentenced to eternal condemnation by God or has not been given that verdict.

Mormon Contradiction: Is The Nature Of God Changeable Or Unchangeable?

        The Book of Mormon contains a number of passages describing God as having an unchangeable nature:

        "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18)

        "Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved." (Alma 41:8)

        These passages are so clear as to require minimal exposition. They communicate themes of the immutability of God. These are words that could come from the mouth of anyone who professes faith in Him. Taken by themselves, these statements may even hoodwink one into thinking that Mormonism is thoroughly consistent with traditional Christianity. 

        "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?" (Mormon 9:9)

        This text is of interest here, especially considering how Joseph Smith took the words describing Christ in Hebrews 13:8 and applied them to God the Father. The point is not that such a description of Him is incorrect, but the verbatim words from the biblical text have been inserted into the Book of Mormon. This is arguably an instance of plagiarism.

        Official Mormon doctrine, on the other hand, affirms that God is increasing in knowledge. Consider this excerpt from the Journal of Discourses, volume 6:

        "The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth....There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven."

         If God can grow in terms of knowledge, then how can He be said to be unchangeable? If God is as man once was and man can become what God is, then He cannot have that trait applied to Him. Smith's teaching on this issue is muddled and contradictory.

         If God is able to increase in knowledge, then it follows that He can make mistakes. His judgments are liable to error. The Mormon conception of god is not a god in any meaningful sense of the term. The god of Mormonism has no power to save lost souls.