Questioning Andrew Soncrant's Pedestrian Explanation of the First Article of Faith

 

 Andrew Soncrant is part of the Reformed Baptist Church Plant, Apologia Church of Utah. This Church and ministry appear to be engaged in toxic apologetics where they manipulate and use deceptive strategies to discredit the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This particular ministry appears to have an active YouTube channel where videos are posted of conversations, interactions, and brief "challenges" against the LDS Christian Faith. The following is my comment that has gone unresponsive to the apparent and blatant false claims made regarding the first article of faith.  

1) Claim made: LDS article of Faith number one says "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost". Sounds good right? But the truth is that the LDS organization teaches their people to speak "christianese". They say the same words, but they have totally different meanings.

Response to Claim: The idea and belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches members to speak "Christianese" is a belief among the more recent evangelical apologists. This is a misnomer by the person speaking.

The first article of faith establishes scriptural truth that we accept and believe in who God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are. This is articulated in our understanding that they make up the Godhead - united in purpose and will regarding the plan of salvation. There is no "Christianese" or "mormonese" - except in an irrational and manipulative mindset and belief. 

2) Claim made: "What we should first understand is that when they say God the Eternal Father, they don't mean that he has existed from Everlasting into Everlasting - like it says in Psalm 90."

Response to Claim: Psalm 90 is called the Prayer of Moses and the term Lord in Hebrew is Yahweh. The transliteration of this verse is that Moses is praying to Yahweh - who is Elohim (which has various meanings, one of them referring to royalty or plurality). Yahweh is Jesus Christ. So, what we should first understand is this: we need to properly interpret scripture from an Exegesis standpoint and not an Eisegesis Standpoint. It is Christ who is from everlasting to everlasting. This is what we accept and believe regarding the son. It is also what we accept and believe concerning the father. The term in Psalm 90 "everlasting to everlasting" in Hebrew is olam and means "long duration, antiquity, futurity" and also means something that is perpetual. To this, Latter-day Saints agree. Yahweh - Christ is perpetual, his existence is also of a long duration. 

Also, Psalm 90 coincides with authoritative Jewish understanding of the eternal and pre-existence of things prior to creation. This includes Torah, Repentance, Israel, and God's throne and glory (Bereshit Rabbah 1): 

"In the beginning of God's creating..." - Six things preceded the creation of the world; some of them were created and some of them were decided to be created. The Torah and the Throne of Glory were created. How do we know the Torah was? As it says (Proverbs 8:22): "God made me at the beginning of his way." How do we know the Throne of Glory was? As it says (Psalms 93:2): "Your throne is established as of old etc." The Patriarchs, Israel, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah were decided to be created. How do we know the Patriarchs were? As it says (Hosea 9:10): "Like grapes in the wilderness etc." How do we know Israel was? As it says (Psalms 74:2): "Remember your congregation, whom you purchased from old." How do we know the Temple was? As it says (Jeremiah 17:12): "Your throne of glory, on high from the beginning etc." How do we know the name of the Messiah was? As it says (Psalms 72:17): "May his name exist forever etc. [his name shall be Yinnon as long as the sun]." Rabbi Ahavah said in the name of Rabbi Ze'ira: Even repentance was, as it says (Psalms 90:2): "Before the mountains were birthed," and at the same time (Psalms 90:3), "You turned man to contrition etc." However, I do not know which was first--if the Torah preceded the Throne of Glory or the Throne of Glory preceded the Torah. Rabbi Abba Bar Cahana said: The Torah preceded the Throne of Glory, as it says (Proverbs 8:22): "God made me at the beginning of his way, the first of his works of old." This is before that of which it is written (Psalms 93:2): "Your throne is established as of old." 

So, if you are going to call attention to the fact that we need to understand Psalm 90 - we need to understand it in proper context - not an eisegesis and flippant pedestrian way to disprove the first article of faith. 

3) Claim made: "no, they believe that he was once a man like you, and I are. Someone who sinned, right, but then was obedient to the gospel ordinances and principles that was exalted into Godhood." 

Response to claim: This statement is mere speculation and manipulation of what statements were made. Much of this comes from the couplet of Lorenzo Snow - "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become". There is not much information concerning the details of God's mortal existence. The reality is - and the point that needs to be made - is that it does not matter. God is our Heavenly Father who sent His son to redeem us so that we are able to be (as the Apostle Paul said) Heirs and Joint heirs with Christ. (See this response)

4) Claim made: "When they say Jesus, they don't mean the eternal God who took on flesh and died on the cross for our sins. Instead, they mean the offspring of Heavenly Father and one of his goddess wives and the brother of lucifer." 

Response: Again, a statement that is not only a strawman fallacy, but also mere speculative and irrational. Latter-day Saints actually do believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God who did come down and live a mortal life, suffered, died on the cross, was buried, and then rose the third day with a resurrected body of flesh and bone. 

Also, what the individual is teaching here is something that is known as modalism. This doctrine specifically teaches that the persons of the Trinity are merely represented by three modes or aspects of the Divine Being. It denies any distinct or coexisting persons in the divine nature of the Godhead. 

Concerning Christ as being the spirit brother of Lucifer - well.... hmmm let us see.... Scripture refers to Christ as the Morning Star. Scripture also refers to Lucifer as the Morning Star. Scripture calls Christ as a Lion. Scripture also says that Satan is also a Lion. Do we then conclude that Christ is Satan? No, we do not ever dare say such a thing because we understand that these symbolisms are referring to a contrast of two different aspects of the same symbolism. Christ is the morning star as he is the First of all things. Satan is the morning star in that he is a fallen being. Christ is the Lion of Judah whereas Satan is a lion roaring and devouring. 

The fact of the matter is this: the speaker is settling his teaching on a well-known Sabellianism unorthodox teaching as a means to challenge and refute the LDS First Article of Faith. 

5) Claim made: "They also deny the fact that the Holy Ghost is eternally God". 

Response to the Claim: Again, this is mere speculation and faulty assumption devised as a means to deceive and mislead people. Here is a great article regarding the Holy Spirit: 

6) Claim made: "This is a big issue if you do not have Jesus Christ, the Eternal God, is your sacrifice for your sins - you don't have an atonement that actually has any effect on you. That's why the organization says you need to make up those works yourself. You need to do x, y, and z in order to reach a level of exaltation in Godhood. It's not biblical. We must reject it. We must see the Christians for what it is and correct it for the truth." 

Response to the claim: This is a very vague and ambiguous conclusion. What works are you referring to where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach that they need to replace the atonement with? Maybe provide some clarification here. As it is, sounds like you are attempting to shoot blindfolded from the hip without ever hitting the target. Again, deceptive, manipulative, and misleading statements. 

As for the latter statement - yes, we need to correct what someone says and teachings for the sake of Truth. This means correcting your statements and showing how they are in error and the danger you are in for promoting and teaching such things. Are you willing to correct your statements? Are you willing to repent of your deception and manipulation of the teachings of the LDS Faith? Or are you merely another arrogant ignoramus blowhard illiterate scriptorian with pedestrian and flinstonian views that want to garner a following of blind faithful disciples?

Questioning Pastor Wade: Defending the Second Article of Faith with Scripture and Sound Theology

Critiques of Latter-day Saint beliefs often misunderstand or oversimplify the theology behind the Articles of Faith. Pastor Wade's recent criticism of the Second Article of Faith follows this pattern, challenging core doctrines about individual accountability, original sin, and the Godhead. For Latter-day Saint Christians, responding to such claims isn’t just about defending doctrine—it’s about clarifying truths that define our relationship with God. By grounding this discussion in scripture and sound theology, we can address his arguments directly while reaffirming the inspired foundation of our faith. Let's unpack why his assertions miss the mark.

Understanding the Second Article of Faith

The Second Article of Faith is a cornerstone declaration found in the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It succinctly states: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." While Pastor Wade's criticisms seem to focus on misinterpreting its core meaning, this article encapsulates a profound and straightforward concept of personal responsibility before God. Let’s explore its origins and central message.

Origins of the Second Article of Faith

The Articles of Faith first appeared publicly in 1842, written by Joseph Smith in response to a request from a Chicago newspaper editor, John Wentworth. Joseph Smith summarized fundamental Latter-day Saint beliefs to offer clarity to a public often misinformed about the Church. These statements were later included in The Pearl of Great Price in 1851, a collection of sacred writings that remains significant today.

While not an all-encompassing theological document, the Articles of Faith were intended as a missionary tool—a concise introduction to Latter-day Saint doctrine. The Second Article of Faith itself, however, stands apart by rejecting the traditional Christian doctrine of original sin as taught in many other denominations. This was a bold clarification, especially during a time when most contemporary churches attributed humanity's flawed nature directly to Adam's fall.

It also aligns with a broader emphasis within the Latter-day Saint tradition on the Plan of Salvation, where moral agency plays a pivotal role. By rejecting the inherited guilt of Adam’s transgression, this Article highlights the fairness and justice of God. Every individual stands accountable to God for their own sins, a principle deeply rooted in scripture and revealed doctrine.

Core Message: Moral Accountability

The Second Article of Faith addresses one of the most basic theological questions: Are human beings inherently guilty because of Adam's choices? The Latter-day Saint answer is a resounding "no." Unlike many interpretations of the Trinity or God's role in original sin that might confound believers, this doctrine simplifies the relationship between humanity and divinity.

This principle of moral accountability ensures that each of us is judged based on our own actions—not on ancestral or inherited fault. A person isn’t considered spiritually tarnished simply by entering mortality. God is just, and His judgment transcends human biases and traditions.

The distinction also carries significant implications for understanding the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The Savior’s sacrifice is not merely about redeeming humanity from Adam's fall; it’s also about empowering us to repent, grow, and transcend our individual sins. The teachings of prophets in both ancient and modern scripture reinforce this understanding:

• Ezekiel 18:20: "The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."
• 2 Nephi 2:27: "Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death."

The Second Article of Faith brings clarity to the justice of God’s plan: we are moral agents, free to act and accountable for those actions. It dismisses the notion that humanity labors under inherited guilt, allowing for a clearer, hopeful view of divine mercy and individual responsibility. This teaching elevates the believer's trust in the fairness of God, while also encouraging personal repentance and growth.

By anchoring this doctrine with scripture and divinely revealed truths, it remains both timeless and applicable. Pastor Wade’s criticisms seem to miss this entirely—possibly because they overlook the harmony of this belief with basic Christian doctrines.

Romans 5 and the Doctrine of Federal Headship

The concept of federal headship, rooted in Romans 5, serves as a key framework for understanding how Adam and Christ function as representatives for humanity. This theological interpretation sheds light on essential doctrines such as mortality, redemption, and individual accountability. Let’s break this down further.

Adam and Mortality’s Introduction

In Romans 5:12, Paul writes, “Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all sinned.” This verse outlines Adam’s role in introducing mortality to humankind. However, it’s important to note that mortality—our condition of being subject to death—does not equate to inherited guilt.

Adam, as the "federal head" of humanity, acted as our representative. His transgression brought mortality and a fallen world; these became the shared conditions of human life. To many, this concept might sound unfair. Why should all suffer due to one man's choice? However, think of it like inheriting a polluted environment—it’s the consequence of past actions, but not necessarily your fault. Latter-day Saint doctrine reinforces this idea with the Second Article of Faith: while we inherit temporal death through Adam, we are not held guilty before God for his sin. This distinction is critical.

Christ and Spiritual Redemption

If Adam’s actions cast humanity into mortality, Christ’s role as the federal head leads us to redemption. Romans 5:18-19 explains, "As through one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also through one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.”

Christ represents humanity in the same way Adam once did, yet His actions bring life instead of death. Through His Atonement, Jesus provided not only forgiveness for individual sins but also escape from the consequences of Adam’s transgression—this is the gift of resurrection. Christ’s federal headship ensures that the conditions imposed by Adam are reversed.

Imagine two captains: one steers a ship into treacherous waters, endangering everyone onboard. The other steps in and navigates it safely back to shore. Christ’s work doesn’t merely nullify Adam's mistake—it transforms and elevates humanity. This universal redemption provided by Christ ensures that no one is condemned by Adam’s fall alone.

Clarifying Paul’s Teachings on Sin and Guilt

Romans 5 is often misunderstood, leading critics to argue that Paul teaches the transmission of guilt. However, a closer reading clarifies that Paul is emphasizing mortality, not inherited sin. Verse 12 explicitly states that death spread to all because “all sinned.” The emphasis here is on personal accountability under God's law.

Paul’s writings, when taken as a whole, make it clear that guilt is tied to one’s own choices. Ezekiel 18:20 reinforces this principle, stating: "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father." Latter-day Saint beliefs align perfectly with this understanding. We are answerable for our own actions, not for Adam’s misstep.

Pastor Wade’s criticism of Latter-day Saint theology often hinges on conflating the effects of sin with its penalties. God’s plan, as revealed through scripture, is just. It allows for both agency and accountability. Interpreting Romans 5 without this context risks missing Paul’s broader message: that Christ’s grace allows every individual to rise above the limitations of mortality and sin.

Ultimately, the doctrines surrounding Adam and Christ’s federal headship testify of a loving God. They harmonize perfectly with both ancient scripture and living revelation.

Distinguishing Sin from Transgression

Latter-day Saint theology offers a nuanced understanding of sin and transgression, making distinctions that are both scriptural and deeply meaningful. Understanding these differences clarifies doctrines like the Second Article of Faith and helps respond to theological misunderstandings, such as those presented by critics like Pastor Wade. Here’s a closer look at how these concepts are defined, why Adam's transgression was essential for God’s plan, and how the principle of personal accountability is firmly rooted in scripture.

Biblical Definitions of Sin and Transgression

In the scriptures, the terms “sin” and “transgression” have distinct meanings, although they're sometimes treated interchangeably. To truly grasp the difference, it helps to look at the original Hebrew and Greek terms:

• Sin (Hebrew: chata חָטָא, Greek: hamartia ἁμαρτία) means “to miss the mark.” Sin refers to any deliberate violation of divine law. It's inherently wrong and often involves moral intent, such as deceit, harm to others, or rebellion against God.
• Transgression (Hebrew: pesha פֶּשַׁע, Greek: parabasis παράβασις) literally means “to cross a boundary.” A transgression typically refers to breaking a specific law or commandment, which might not inherently be evil but involves violating set rules.

To put it simply, think of “sin” as an intentional moral wrong—it’s about the “why.” Meanwhile, “transgression” is about the “what”: crossing a line, whether or not immoral intent exists. For example, Adam and Eve’s partaking of the forbidden fruit is described as a transgression, not a sin, because their action—though contrary to God’s specific command—was necessary and served a higher purpose in God’s eternal plan.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks once explained it this way: “The contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the Second Article of Faith.” This careful distinction underlines God’s justice and mercy, acknowledging differences in intent, knowledge, and circumstance.

Adam’s Transgression as a Necessary Step

Adam and Eve’s decision to partake of the fruit was, by definition, a transgression. In breaking God’s commandment to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, they brought mortality and the capacity for human growth to the world. But was it a “sin” in the sense of deliberate rebellion against God’s will? Latter-day Saint doctrine says no.

The Fall wasn’t a mistake or a failure but a necessary step in God’s plan of salvation. As stated in 2 Nephi 2:25, “Adam fell that men might be and men are, that they might have joy.” This verse captures the essential teaching that without the Fall, humanity wouldn’t experience mortality, agency, or the opportunity to progress through Christ's Atonement.

Critics like Pastor Wade often miss this theological nuance. The Second Article of Faith explicitly emphasizes, “Men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” This is key: Adam’s choice introduced mortality, a condition we all inherit, but not guilt. Imagine a family inheriting a house with structural damage—it’s not their fault, but they must live with the consequences. Similarly, we inherit the mortal condition but remain personally accountable for our own choices.

Through the Atonement, Jesus Christ addressed the consequences of Adam’s transgression. As Romans 5:18 states, “By the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came unto all men unto justification of life.” Christ reverses Adam’s temporal and eternal effects, ensuring no one carries blame for the Fall itself.

Personal Accountability in Scripture

One of the central messages of the Second Article of Faith is individual accountability. We are responsible for our own sins, not for Adam’s transgression or anyone else’s choices. This principle is foundational to both ancient scripture and modern revelation:

• Ezekiel 18:20: “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” This verse is unequivocal: each person stands accountable for their own actions.
• 2 Nephi 2:27: “Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh… they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death.” This verse highlights moral agency as a divine gift, placing responsibility for choices squarely in our hands.
• Mosiah 3:19: “The natural man is an enemy to God… unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit.” While our mortal condition often inclines us toward sin, accountability begins the moment we consciously act against God’s will.

These verses reinforce the justice and mercy of God. God doesn’t punish us for conditions beyond our control, like mortality or Adam’s choice. Instead, we are judged on the basis of knowledge, intent, and our willingness to repent.

Picture an athlete starting a race. The playing field might be uneven (mortality), but their ranking depends on their individual effort and decisions. Similarly, God provides the guiding principles and opportunities we need to succeed spiritually—ultimately, the outcome rests in our hands.

By anchoring the difference between sin and transgression in scripture and revealed doctrine, we can respond to criticisms of Latter-day Saint beliefs with clarity. These teachings are neither contradictory nor unjust. Instead, they provide hope, fairness, and an enhanced understanding of the Atonement’s role in enabling our progress.

The Typology of Adam and Christ

The connection between Adam and Christ in theology offers a profound lens through which we understand the Plan of Salvation. Often referred to as a typology, this parallel draws comparisons between Adam's introduction of mortality and Christ's triumph over it. Let’s delve into their distinct yet interconnected roles and how they reveal God’s justice and grace.

Adam’s Role in the Plan of Salvation

Adam’s role in the Plan of Salvation is foundational. Far from being merely a narrative about the first man, Adam's actions initiated crucial aspects of God’s design for humanity. Through Adam's decision to partake of the forbidden fruit, mortality entered the world, enabling human agency and growth.

When Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit, they became subject to physical death and were separated from God's immediate presence, a condition referred to as spiritual death. This event, often called the Fall, set the stage for everything that follows in God’s plan. Importantly, Latter-day Saint doctrine clarifies that this was not a tragic error but an essential step for humanity's progression. As stated in 2 Nephi 2:25, "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

By bringing mortality, Adam and Eve unlocked the opportunity for agency—a gift central to God’s plan. Without mortality, human beings would remain in a static state, unable to grow, make choices, or experience opposition. Imagine trying to learn the value of light without experiencing darkness. Mortality serves as the proving ground where we face challenges, gain understanding, and prepare for eternal life.

However, Adam’s Fall introduced not only the necessity of agency but also its consequences. Mortality subjects us to pain, illness, and eventually death. It also creates an environment where sin becomes possible, as we learn to choose between good and evil. But here’s the key: while Adam introduced the conditions of mortality, each individual bears responsibility for their own sins. As the Second Article of Faith declares, “Men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.”

In this way, Adam’s role is both profound and paradoxical. By transgressing, he brought to pass a condition of life where human beings could exercise their divine potential. Yet these conditions also necessitate a Savior to overcome the effects of mortality, which leads us to Christ.

Christ’s Role in Overcoming Sin and Death

If Adam initiated mortality, Christ provides the solution to its challenges. Through His divine role as the Savior, Jesus Christ counters the effects of Adam's transgression by offering grace, redemption, and resurrection to all.

One of Christ’s central missions was to overcome both physical and spiritual death. Physical death, the separation of spirit and body, came into the world through Adam. Christ’s Resurrection ensures that “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). This universal gift overrides the inevitability of mortality, guaranteeing that every person will be resurrected.

Yet physical death wasn’t the only challenge Adam’s Fall introduced. Spiritual death, or separation from God due to sin, is a burden we each bear individually. Christ’s Atonement provides the path to reconciliation with God by paying the price for sin on our behalf. His suffering in Gethsemane and sacrifice on the cross were acts of infinite love that satisfy the demands of both justice and mercy. As explained in Alma 42:15, “Justice claims the creature and executes the law… mercy claimeth the penitent.”

Picture Adam’s Fall as a canyon separating humanity from God. Mortality placed us on one side, with eternal life and divine perfection on the other. On our own, the gap would be impossible to cross. Christ built the bridge, offering us the opportunity to repent, improve, and return to God’s presence. But here’s the catch: while Christ’s grace is infinite, it requires our active participation. Agency—a gift enabled by Adam—remains central in choosing whether to accept His offering.

This typology between Adam and Christ highlights the intentional design of God’s plan. Adam’s actions introduced conditions essential for growth, while Christ provides the solution to mortality’s limitations. Together, their roles testify of a just God who offers both the freedom to choose and the means to overcome mistakes. Understanding this relationship deepens our appreciation of divine grace and our responsibility as moral agents.

Pastor Wade’s Misinterpretations and Errors

Pastor Wade’s approach to the Second Article of Faith reflects a series of misinterpretations that distort its meaning and intent. As a foundational teaching in Latter-day Saint theology, this Article upholds the principle of personal accountability, rejecting the concept of inherited guilt. Wade’s criticism not only misrepresents its language but also overlooks key scriptural and doctrinal nuances. Let’s take a closer look at where his missteps occur.

Misquoting the Second Article of Faith: 

One of Pastor Wade’s most glaring errors is substituting “punished” with “pay” when referencing the Second Article of Faith. The original declaration states, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." The distinction between “punished” and “pay” isn’t trivial—it’s essential.

To “pay” implies a form of transaction or compensation. This interpretation falsely suggests that individuals can somehow repay a debt for their sins through personal efforts. Latter-day Saint doctrine is clear: salvation comes only through the grace and Atonement of Jesus Christ, not through human payment or merit. In contrast, “punished” emphasizes the administration of divine justice. This wording highlights God’s role as the ultimate judge, holding individuals accountable for their deeds rather than imposing collective guilt.

Misquoting this single word shifts the doctrine’s entire framework. It undermines the Second Article’s core teaching: that each person is accountable for their own sins, not Adam’s. By reframing it as a transactional concept, Wade misrepresents the fairness and justice of God’s plan. This misstep shows either a misunderstanding or deliberate mischaracterization of the doctrine.

Ignoring Federal Headship Nuances

Another critical point where Wade’s argument falters is his misunderstanding of federal headship as outlined in Romans 5. In this chapter, Paul describes Adam and Christ as archetypal figures representing humanity. Adam introduced mortality and a fallen state, while Christ brought redemption and eternal life. However, Wade conflates these distinctions, missing the broader theological implications.

Federal headship isn’t about the transmission of guilt but about the conditions we inherit. Adam’s transgression brought mortality, meaning we experience physical death and a fallen world. However, nowhere does Paul suggest that Adam’s guilt is passed to his descendants. Instead, Romans 5:12 clarifies, "Death spread to all men because all sinned." The responsibility for sin lies with individual choices, not Adam’s original act.

Wade’s oversight likely stems from a rigid interpretation of inherited guilt—a concept the Second Article of Faith explicitly rejects. Imagine Adam as a corporate manager whose decisions affect company policy. Employees work under the conditions he sets (mortality), but they’re judged on their individual performance, not on his mistakes. Similarly, Paul’s teachings about Adam emphasize the consequences of his actions, not the imposition of his guilt.

Christ’s federal headship further dismantles Wade’s position. Just as Adam’s actions affected humanity, Christ’s Atonement offers universal grace. Romans 5:18 explains, “As through one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also through one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” While Adam’s choices introduced mortality, Christ provides the opportunity for redemption—removing any notion of inherited sin.

Contradicting Biblical Teachings on Moral Agency

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Wade’s criticism is how it conflicts with scripture on moral agency and accountability. The Bible consistently teaches that individuals are judged for their own actions, not the deeds of others. Examples of this principle appear throughout scripture:

• Ezekiel 18:20: “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son.”
• 2 Nephi 2:27: “Men are free … to choose liberty and eternal life … or to choose captivity and death.”
• Mosiah 3:19: Humankind must choose to yield to the “enticings of the Holy Spirit” to overcome sin.

These verses reinforce a fundamental truth: every person is responsible for their own choices. Wade’s interpretation, which frames humanity as inherently guilty due to Adam’s actions, contradicts this principle. It paints a picture of God as unjust, punishing innocent individuals for a decision they didn’t make. This view is inconsistent with scripture and undermines the Second Article of Faith’s affirmations of justice and mercy.

Instead, Latter-day Saint doctrine offers a hopeful perspective. While we inherit the consequences of mortality, we aren’t condemned by them. Think of life as a game where everyone begins on the same chessboard: each piece is subject to the same rules, but the outcome depends on individual moves. God’s commandments, coupled with Christ’s Atonement, provide the tools we need to succeed. Wade’s approach dismisses this personal opportunity for growth and accountability.

By disregarding the Bible’s teachings on moral agency, Wade’s arguments fail to accurately critique the Second Article of Faith. Instead, they misrepresent its doctrines and diminish God’s fair, loving justice.

The Harmony of Adam’s Role and Christ’s Redemption

Understanding the interconnected roles of Adam and Christ is key to explaining the theological foundation of mortality and redemption within Latter-day Saint beliefs. While critics like Pastor Wade often mischaracterize these principles, the harmony between Adam's role in introducing mortality and Christ's role in offering redemption highlights God's plan for humanity's growth, accountability, and ultimate joy.

The Need for Mortality and Agency

The introduction of mortality, initiated by Adam's action in the Garden of Eden, wasn’t a cosmic mistake; it was a deliberate step in God's eternal plan. Without mortality, human beings would remain in a static, unchanging state, unable to progress, make choices, or experience joy. As 2 Nephi 2:25 declares, "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

Adam and Eve's decision to partake of the forbidden fruit brought mortality and opposition into the world. Through this, humanity gained the gift of agency—the ability to choose between good and evil. Imagine living in perpetual stasis without challenges or growth opportunities; it would be like reading a story without conflict or resolution. Mortality creates the conditions where we can exercise our divine potential, learn from our experiences, and shape our eternal destinies.

Latter-day Saint theology makes it clear that Adam’s transgression introduced death and hardship, not inherited guilt. Just as children are born innocent, free of sin, our accountability begins only when we make our own choices. Mortality, therefore, becomes a proving ground for character, moral agency, and faith.

This doctrine contrasts sharply with the notion of original sin found in many Christian denominations. Instead of viewing Adam’s role as a source of collective guilt, Latter-day Saint teachings see it as a necessary and even fortunate step toward the possibility of eternal life. God’s justice ensures that while we inherit the conditions of mortality, we are judged purely on our own actions and intentions.

Christ’s Universal Redemption

While Adam's actions introduced mortality, Christ's mission was to provide redemption for all its effects. Every person who has lived or will live benefits from His infinite Atonement. Through His grace, we escape spiritual and physical death, receiving the gift of resurrection and the opportunity to repent of personal sins.

Imagine Adam's Fall opening a door to a room filled with challenges, and Christ providing the key to exit that same room, enabling us to move forward. This is precisely the balance struck by the roles of Adam and Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:22 explains it beautifully: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Christ’s atonement ensures that physical death, which came into the world through Adam, is overcome universally. This means that everyone—regardless of their choices—will experience resurrection. But the Atonement does not stop at universal effects. Through repentance, it addresses our personal sins, allowing each of us to reconcile with God. Alma 42:15 states, "Mercy claimeth the penitent," underscoring the requirement of individual effort and change in accessing this divine gift.

Unlike Adam's actions, which imposed certain universal conditions, Christ's Atonement restores opportunity and freedom. It’s worth reflecting: how would it feel to navigate mortality's challenges without hope for redemption or resurrection? Christ removes that hopelessness, offering infinite grace and a path to eternal life.

Through the interplay of Adam's and Christ's roles, we see the full spectrum of God’s justice and mercy. Mortality and agency open the door to growth, while Christ ensures that our mistakes and circumstances do not define our eternal potential. The harmony between these roles underscores a fundamental truth: God’s plan is designed for our progress, joy, and ultimate redemption.

Conclusion

Pastor Wade's critique of the Second Article of Faith fails to grasp its foundational principles of accountability and justice. His arguments mischaracterize the doctrine, overlook scriptural foundations, and ignore key nuances like the rejection of inherited guilt and the emphasis on agency. These errors not only distort Latter-day Saint theology but also contradict biblical teachings on moral responsibility.

The Second Article of Faith resonates because of its clarity: God is just, and every individual answers for their own actions. This teaching strengthens our understanding of divine grace, the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and the fairness of God’s plan.

I invite you to explore the Articles of Faith in their full context. By studying scripture and restored truths, we gain a deeper appreciation for doctrines that affirm individual worth while pointing us toward Christ's infinite mercy. Share your insights and continue the dialogue in defending timeless principles of faith and accountability.

Questioning Andrew Soncrant's Pedestrian Explanation of the First Article of Faith

Andrew Soncrants recently offered a critique of the LDS First Article of Faith, focusing on his interpretation of the Godhead and its supposed contradictions with biblical teachings. His argument suggests that Joseph Smith's revelations in the Book of Mormon conflict with traditional Christian views of God's eternal nature. This raises critical questions about LDS theology and how it compares to mainstream Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity. Addressing these misunderstandings is essential—not just to clarify LDS beliefs, but to ensure that God's character, as understood in the Restored Gospel, is properly represented. This discussion will unpack the errors in Soncrants' claims, relying on scripture and sound reasoning to set the record straight.

Understanding the LDS First Article of Faith

The First Article of Faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes a bold and clear declaration: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” This foundational statement sets the tone for understanding who God is in LDS theology. It also offers a distinctive contrast to traditional Christian beliefs about the nature of God, particularly as seen in concepts like the Trinity.

A Declaration of Belief in the Godhead

In LDS theology, the Godhead consists of three distinct beings: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Unlike the concept of the Trinity in traditional Christianity, where God is regarded as one essence in three persons, the LDS understanding emphasizes their individuality and separate natures, while maintaining their unity in purpose.

• God, the Eternal Father: He is the literal Heavenly Father, a glorified and perfected being with a tangible body of flesh and bone. As the Creator of humanity, He is the central being of worship.
• Jesus Christ: He is God's Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. He shares the Father's divine mission and acts as an intercessor for humanity.
• The Holy Ghost: A personage of spirit with no physical body, the Holy Ghost’s role is to testify of truth, guide individuals to Christ, and provide comfort and inspiration.

What unites these distinct beings? Their oneness in purpose, not substance. Their mission is singular: to bring about the immortality and eternal life of God’s children. Each contributes uniquely but harmoniously to the eternal plan of salvation, offering a cooperative model of divinity that is relational, accessible, and deeply personal to believers.

The LDS perspective on the Godhead is grounded in scriptural accounts like the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17), where the Father speaks from heaven, the Son is baptized, and the Holy Ghost descends like a dove. These scriptures highlight the distinct roles of each member of the Godhead.

Comparison with Traditional Trinity Doctrine

A major point of critique from people like Andrew Soncrants lies in the difference between the LDS Godhead and the traditional Christian Trinity. While the Trinity teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal persons of one indivisible substance, the LDS doctrine maintains a clear distinction between these beings. Here’s a simple breakdown of the differences:

• Nature of God: LDS theology teaches that the Father and the Son have physical bodies (see Doctrine and Covenants 130:22), while the Holy Ghost is a spirit. Traditional Christianity asserts that God exists as a single, immaterial essence.
• Oneness: For Latter-day Saints, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one" in purpose. Traditional Trinity doctrine teaches that they are one in being, often described as a mystery beyond human comprehension.
• Human connection: The LDS belief holds that men and women are literal spirit children of God with the potential to become like Him (Romans 8:17; Doctrine and Covenants 93:29), while traditional Christianity typically emphasizes God’s complete transcendence.

Latter-day Saints find their understanding of the Godhead supported in events like Joseph Smith’s First Vision, where he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as two distinct individuals. This powerful, personal revelation set a theological framework that redefined Christian doctrine for believers in the Restoration.

Furthermore, LDS theology looks to biblical texts (like John 17:20-22), where Jesus prays for His disciples to be “one” as He and the Father are one. This unity is not about fusing into a single being but working in perfect harmony.

For critics like Soncrants, the LDS emphasis on the individuality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost may feel foreign or even heretical—but the LDS perspective seeks to restore a plain and direct understanding of divinity, as revealed in scripture and modern revelation. This approach allows believers to see God not as an abstract, unknowable force but as loving, approachable, and deeply involved in the salvation of all humankind.

Addressing Misrepresentation of LDS Theology

Misrepresentation often stems from misunderstanding or deliberate oversimplification. Critics of Latter-day Saint doctrine, like Andrew Soncrants, frequently frame LDS teachings as deceptive or incompatible with Christianity’s foundation. To address such concerns, we must lean on scripture, historical context, and rational discussion to clarify what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually believes and teaches about God, the Godhead, and faith.

The 'Christianese' Fallacy

Some critics argue that Latter-day Saints co-opt “Christianese” — the common terminologies of Christian belief — to mask doctrinal differences. They claim LDS usage of terms like “Godhead” or “Eternal Father” is designed to sound mainstream while hiding significant theological deviations. But this argument fails to account for the scriptural basis and doctrinal clarity behind LDS teachings.

The LDS Church teaches about God using plain, meaningful language, grounded in scripture. For instance, the term "Godhead" reflects a biblical reality rather than an attempt to align superficially with Trinitarian Christians. Genesis 1:26 states, "Let us make man in our image," implying a collaborative plurality in the Godhead. Similarly, at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17), we see the Father speaking from heaven, the Son being baptized, and the Holy Ghost descending like a dove. The LDS interpretation directly respects these scriptural events without overcomplicating or abstracting their meaning.

Far from misleading, LDS teachings emphasize clarity and accessibility. Critics often cite Joseph Smith’s revelations as proof of deviation, but his goal was to restore truths from early Christianity, not invent new theology. By "restoration," the Church means returning to practices and beliefs found in scripture and the Savior’s ministry, not reinventing them.

What about accusations of twisting terms? Terms like salvation, atonement, and revelation may carry unique LDS nuances, but this doesn’t make them deceptive. Think of it like regional accents; the words are the same, but pronunciation or emphasis changes. The Church embraces a scripturally based understanding that may differ from traditional interpretations, but it is neither insincere nor designed to mislead.

Unity in the Godhead: The Biblical Context

At the heart of the LDS doctrine is the Godhead: God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. They are separate and distinct beings, united in purpose and glory. Critics such as Soncrants propose this idea of "unity in purpose" deviates too far from the traditional Christian Trinity. But does it, really?

Let’s examine Jesus’s words in John 17:21-22. He prayed that His disciples “may be one, even as we are one.” It’s clear that Christ was talking about unity in intention and effort, not merging into one essence. Similarly, the LDS concept of the Godhead respects each member’s individual personhood while honoring their complete harmony in will and purpose.

Scripturally, the notion of distinct roles is evident. Consider Acts 7:55-56—Stephen sees both God the Father and Jesus Christ standing at His right hand. If they were one indivisible substance, why not present as such? The LDS view aligns more literally with these accounts, making the relationships tangible and relatable for believers.

Here’s a helpful analogy: consider a family with a shared goal to create a nurturing home. Each member has unique roles but works in synchronization toward that common mission. The LDS version of the Godhead offers the same relatable dynamic—distinct, yet perfectly united.

For critics, the physicality of God is another sticking point. Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 explains that the Father and Son have tangible, glorified bodies, while the Holy Ghost is a being of spirit. This teaching resonates with the idea of a relational, personable God who can interact with His children. It may contrast with the Trinity’s immaterial essence, but it doesn’t compromise God's divinity or infinite power. It simply makes Him more approachable and comprehensible.

In the end, the LDS doctrine underscores a thoroughly biblical principle: individuality can enhance harmony. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are united in achieving God’s work of bringing "to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). What better representation of divine love and cooperation could there be?

The Eternal Nature of God the Father

Understanding the eternal nature of our Heavenly Father is central to responding to criticisms and misconceptions about LDS theology. By grounding our beliefs in scripture and focusing on the unique revelations of the Restoration, we can see how the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints harmonize with God’s eternal essence while providing clarity on misunderstood doctrines.

Psalm 90 and God's Eternal Purpose

Psalm 90:2 declares, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." This verse affirms God's timeless existence and majestic sovereignty. Critics, including Andrew Soncrants, argue that Latter-day Saint theology somehow denies or diminishes this eternal reality, but the truth couldn’t be more different.

In LDS theology, God is recognized as an eternal, unchanging being with a divine purpose. The phrase "from everlasting to everlasting" reflects God's infinite presence—not bound by time or space, but existing beyond the confines of creation. For Latter-day Saints, this scripture underscores the foundational belief that God the Father is the same yesterday, today, and forever (see Doctrine and Covenants 20:12). It emphasizes the eternal consistency of His character.

Some might point to the LDS concept of eternal progression or statements like Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse to question God's constancy. However, these teachings do not conflict with Psalm 90. Instead, they enrich our understanding of God's nature, offering us a perspective that He operates within an eternal framework that is far beyond human comprehension. His purpose—bringing "to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39)—and His attributes are unchanging. Just as Psalm 90 contrasts mortal life’s brevity with God’s immortality, LDS teachings emphasize that humankind's opportunity for exaltation exists within God's timeless plan.

For believers, this concept is not abstract but deeply personal. How does God's eternal nature affect our lives? It provides a foundation of trust. Knowing that we worship a God who is constant, eternal, and deeply invested in His children allows us to face the uncertainties of mortality with faith and hope.

Clarifying the Concept of Exaltation

The doctrine of exaltation is one of the most misunderstood aspects of LDS theology. Critics like Soncrants often portray it as a fringe belief, suggesting that humans somehow "replace" God or diminish His eternal role. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Exaltation, as taught in the Restored Gospel, does not change or lessen God's eternal nature. It is a manifestation of His love. God’s eternal purpose is to guide His children toward a fullness of joy, which includes the opportunity to become like Him. This concept is grounded in biblical principles. Romans 8:17 teaches that we are "heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ," while 1 John 3:2 declares, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him."

Does the possibility of human exaltation suggest that God becomes irrelevant? Not at all. God remains sovereign, omnipotent, and central to the eternal plan. Latter-day Saints do not believe in dethroning God or diminishing His divinity. Instead, exaltation reflects His infinite love and generosity. Consider it like a flame that ignites other flames; sharing His divine attributes does not reduce His light but increases it.

A key misunderstanding often arises from discussions of "eternal progression.” Some critics equate this teaching with the idea of the Father "progressing" in a way that implies imperfection. However, Latter-day Saints understand that eternal progression applies not to God’s divine nature but to His ongoing work in bringing to pass humanity's eternal exaltation. Exaltation is not about overthrowing God but participating in His eternal work and joy.

The doctrine of exaltation helps us grasp the familial nature of God's plan. He is literally our Father, and our progression reflects His desire for us to grow eternally. It’s not a competition but a collaboration, grounded in love. Far from being incompatible with God's eternal nature, exaltation reveals just how profound and unchanging His purpose is.

Mischaracterizations of Jesus Christ in LDS Belief

Andrew Soncrants' critiques of Latter-day Saint theology include challenging the portrayal of Jesus Christ and His role within the Godhead. These criticisms often reflect a lack of understanding or a deliberate misrepresentation of LDS doctrine. It’s vital to address these points, particularly how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints views Jesus as the Savior and His pre-mortal role in God’s plan.

Jesus Christ: The Eternal Savior

Latter-day Saints firmly accept Jesus Christ as the Eternal Savior and the Only Begotten Son of God. This belief is foundational to the doctrine of the Church, shaping how members see themselves in relation to God and understand their eternal purpose. Jesus Christ is not merely a moral teacher or prophet; He is the divine Redeemer, chosen by the Father to atone for humanity's sins.

Critics often mischaracterize the LDS view of Christ, accusing the Church of presenting Him as subordinate to God the Father in a way that diminishes His divinity. However, this perspective oversimplifies LDS theology.

In LDS belief:

• Jesus is co-eternal with God the Father, meaning He existed with God before the foundation of the world (John 1:1–3).
• He is fully divine, possessing attributes of Godhood, yet distinct as a personage from the Father. This distinction reflects the same oneness in purpose that Jesus Himself emphasized in John 17.
• Jesus is the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, meaning His mortal life was uniquely initiated by a divine conception.

This clear distinction highlights a personal, relational Savior—one who advocates on behalf of humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). Unlike many interpretations of the Trinity, where Jesus and the Father are seen as one substance, LDS doctrine emphasizes their profound love and unity in carrying out God’s eternal plan of salvation.

Soncrants' remarks fail to grasp the harmonious relationship presented in the LDS view of the Godhead. Jesus Christ is neither an abstract deity nor a secondary figure but the central figure in Heavenly Father’s plan. His atonement in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross underscores Latter-day Saints’ belief in a deeply compassionate and approachable Savior.

Pre-Mortal Existence and the Savior's Role

A unique aspect of Latter-day Saint theology, often misunderstood, is the doctrine of pre-mortal existence. This teaching fundamentally shapes the LDS understanding of Jesus Christ’s divine role and mission.

Before coming to earth, all human beings, including Jesus, lived in a pre-mortal state as spirit children of God the Father (Jeremiah 1:5). Jesus, as the firstborn spirit, held a preeminent position: He was chosen in the grand council in heaven to carry out the Father’s plan. His role as Savior was determined long before the creation of the world.

Here’s what this means:

• In LDS belief, Jesus Christ volunteered to be the Redeemer, offering Himself to fulfill the demands of justice and bring mercy to humankind.
• His decision contrasts with Lucifer, who sought to coerce humanity and take God’s glory for himself.
• This choice established Christ’s role as the embodiment of perfect love, selflessness, and obedience to the Father’s will.

When critics like Soncrants dismiss LDS teachings on pre-mortal existence, they fail to grasp the depth it adds to the Savior’s mission. The pre-mortal Jesus was a willing participant in Heavenly Father’s plan, not a detached or impersonal force. This doctrine illuminates why Jesus Christ was uniquely qualified to atone for our sins. He knew the Father’s will intimately, having existed alongside Him for eternity.

This teaching also answers a profound question: Why was Jesus Christ chosen? While all spirits are beloved children of God, Jesus was the only one capable of carrying out the infinite atonement. As the Only Begotten Son, He had the divine attributes necessary to bridge the gap between mortal imperfection and God’s perfect justice.

For Latter-day Saints, understanding Jesus’ pre-mortal role enriches their relationship with Him. He isn’t just a historical figure or a symbol; He’s a brother, a Redeemer who has loved humanity from the very beginning. This deeply personalized view stands in contrast to critics’ accusations of detachment or inconsistency in LDS Christology.

To dismiss or distort these teachings, as Soncrants has done, is to misrepresent the love and hope central to the gospel of Jesus Christ. By understanding His divine mission—both in pre-mortality and in mortality—it becomes clear that the LDS portrayal of Christ is consistent with biblical accounts and offers profound spiritual insights.

The Holy Ghost in LDS Theology

The Holy Ghost holds a unique and sacred role in the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). As the third member of the Godhead, He is central to God’s plan for humanity, yet distinct in His divine mission. His presence offers a deeply personal connection between individuals and the divine, testifying of truth and guiding believers to Jesus Christ. However, the Holy Ghost’s divine identity is often misunderstood or misrepresented by critics. Addressing these misconceptions is essential to understanding LDS teachings.

The Holy Ghost as a Member of the Godhead

In LDS theology, the Holy Ghost is a distinct personage of spirit and a fully divine being. Unlike God the Father and Jesus Christ, who have glorified physical bodies, the Holy Ghost exists as a spirit, enabling Him to fulfill His crucial role as a constant companion, teacher, and witness of truth. He serves as a direct link between God and His children, guiding them toward salvation.

The unique responsibilities of the Holy Ghost include:

• Testifying of the Father and the Son: The Holy Ghost confirms the reality of God the Father and Jesus Christ to believers (John 15:26).
• Revealing truth: He enables individuals to discern spiritual truths, illuminating the scriptures and providing personal revelation (Moroni 10:5).
• Sanctifying: The Holy Ghost cleanses and refines individuals as they repent and turn to Christ, preparing them for eternal life.
• Comforting: As the “Comforter” (John 14:26), the Holy Ghost provides solace and strength during trials.

This sacred role is amplified in the LDS doctrine of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, a blessing that allows baptized members to receive His constant companionship, contingent upon their worthiness. Through this gift, believers gain a more profound guidance in their daily lives, something described as “the still small voice” (1 Kings 19:12).

The Holy Ghost is not independent or detached from the rest of the Godhead. Instead, He works in perfect unity with the Father and the Son to fulfill God’s eternal purpose: “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). His role is indispensable in helping individuals navigate the path of salvation and align their lives with divine principles.

Refuting Claims of Diminished Divinity

Critics sometimes assert that the LDS depiction of the Holy Ghost diminishes His divine status, suggesting that His lack of a physical body or different role implies subordination or limitations within the Godhead. This perspective misinterprets LDS doctrine and fails to account for scriptural evidence.

Far from being lesser in divinity, LDS teachings affirm that the Holy Ghost is co-equal with God the Father and Jesus Christ in power, knowledge, and purpose. His spiritual nature does not detract from His godhood; rather, it equips Him to fulfill specific aspects of the divine plan that require His unique attributes. For example, His ability to dwell within and testify to all people simultaneously is a manifestation of perfect omnipresence achieved through His spirit form. In John 16:7-13, Jesus emphasizes the necessity of the Holy Ghost’s role, referring to Him as the “Spirit of truth” who will guide believers into all truth.

It’s also worth noting the LDS belief that the members of the Godhead voluntarily assume their roles within God’s plan. The Holy Ghost’s work is deeply complimentary to that of the Father and the Son, not inferior. Just as Jesus Christ is the Savior and Mediator while the Father oversees the plan of salvation, the Holy Ghost’s role as a witness and sanctifier is uniquely his. These roles do not imply difference in divine worth but reflect the harmonious division of responsibilities within the Godhead.

Additionally, LDS scripture confirms that the Holy Ghost possesses attributes characteristic of divinity:

• Omniscience: He knows the thoughts and intents of the heart, as seen in Alma 37:6.
• Omnipresence: His spiritual nature allows Him to reach all of God’s children simultaneously.
• Eternality: The Holy Ghost, like the Father and the Son, is eternal, without beginning or end.

Critics like Andrew Soncrants may argue that the individuality of the Godhead undermines their unity and equality. However, LDS theology highlights that unity doesn’t require sameness. Just as a symphony achieves harmony with distinct instruments contributing their unique sounds, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost maintain their individuality while working in perfect concert to accomplish God’s will.

To say the Holy Ghost lacks divinity is to disregard His role in scripture, His attributes, and His power. As part of the Godhead, He exemplifies divine love and cooperation, tirelessly guiding and uplifting God’s children on their journey back to Him. For Latter-day Saints, learning to recognize and respond to the Holy Ghost is a sacred part of developing faith and drawing nearer to God.

Grace, Works, and the Path to Exaltation

The profound relationship between grace, works, and humanity’s eternal potential stands at the center of Latter-day Saint theology. For those of us who seek to reconcile faith and obedience in our daily lives, understanding this dynamic is crucial. Exaltation, or eternal life in God’s presence, depends on both the grace of Jesus Christ and our willingness to live His teachings. Let’s explore how these principles function together in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Faith, Obedience, and Christ’s Atonement

Faith in Jesus Christ is the foundation for both salvation and exaltation. Through His atoning sacrifice, Christ made it possible for everyone to overcome sin and death. But here’s the key: faith isn’t passive. It propels us to action. If grace is the seed, works are the nurturing hands that cultivate it to grow into eternal blessings.

Many critics mistake the Latter-day Saint perspective on grace as placing undue emphasis on works. This isn’t true. We believe salvation begins with Christ. His grace is the enabling power that allows us to overcome our shortcomings. But salvation, particularly exaltation, requires that we also act. In James 2:17, we’re reminded that “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” This does not diminish grace; it magnifies it.

Obedience to the commandments is how we show our love for God. As Christ taught in John 14:15, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." These aren’t arbitrary rules but the divine pathway to transform us. It’s like learning to play a musical instrument. Grace is the instructor that makes it possible, but practice—the “work”—is what enables us to become proficient. Together, grace and effort lead to spiritual harmony.

Critics often argue that salvation should be freely given. And it is! Everyone will receive resurrection through Christ’s grace. But exaltation—becoming like God and enjoying eternal family relationships—requires us to do more. This is not because God demands payment but because becoming like Him requires us to stretch and grow spiritually. Without obedience, we can’t become the kind of beings capable of living in His presence.

Biblical Foundations for Obedience and Discipleship

Scripture is filled with clear teachings that obedience is an inseparable companion to faith. Throughout the Bible, we see examples of individuals who showed their devotion to God through their actions. Let’s explore some of these together:

1. The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Builders (Matthew 7:24-27)
   Jesus Himself explained that hearing His words isn’t enough. He said, “Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.” Obedience anchors us to Christ, the unshakable foundation.

2. Abraham’s Willingness to Sacrifice Isaac (Genesis 22)
   Abraham didn’t just believe God’s promises; he acted on them. His willingness to obey God, even in an almost unimaginable trial, demonstrated his faith. Through this obedience, we see a model of trust and discipleship.

3. Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10:17-22)
   The Savior Himself taught the importance of obedience when He invited the rich young man to sell all he had, give to the poor, and follow Him. The young man believed in Christ but struggled to act, showcasing the difference between passive belief and active discipleship.

Obedience isn’t about earning salvation; it’s about aligning our actions with God’s will. Christ didn’t just teach us to believe in Him; He taught us to become like Him. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) reminds us to teach others to observe all that Christ has commanded. This isn’t just doctrinal—it’s deeply personal. Obedience refines our hearts and builds trust in God’s plan.

Finally, 1 John 2:3-6 lays it out plainly: “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” Obedience has never been a checklist; it’s a reflection of our faith and love.

As we walk this path of faith and discipleship, we need both grace and works to guide us toward exaltation. Think about it like climbing a mountain. Grace is the safety rope that protects us and provides a way, but we’ve got to make the climb. Together, this partnership with God allows us to become more than we ever could on our own. God’s plan isn’t just about saving us—it’s about preparing us to stand in His presence and continue to grow for eternity.

The Need for Respectful Dialogue in Religious Discourse

In religious discussions, emotions often run high. Faith is personal, deeply tied to identity, and discussions about it can feel like navigating a minefield. But meaningful dialogue isn't about proving who's right—it's about understanding, learning, and connecting. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, respectful engagement is not just courteous; it's foundational to defending the Restored Gospel and promoting Christlike love.

Avoiding Toxic Apologetics

Religious debates often fall into the trap of toxic apologetics, where the goal shifts from understanding to "winning" at any cost. This leads to strawman arguments and misrepresentations instead of meaningful discussion. When critics like Andrew Soncrants misrepresent LDS beliefs, such as the nature of the Godhead, it twists the conversation into something counterproductive.

What’s a strawman argument? Picture a scarecrow—it doesn’t represent a real person, just an imitation. Critics build these “scarecrows” of LDS theology by distorting teachings to make them easier to tear down. For example:

• Claiming Latter-day Saints worship “a different God” because they reject the Trinity’s philosophical underpinnings.
• Accusing LDS teachings of polytheism when the belief clearly defines a unified Godhead with distinct roles.

This approach fuels division, not understanding. It’s like arguing with a caricature instead of the real person standing in front of you. We’ve all seen or engaged in debates where emotions rule and genuine understanding takes a backseat. But toxic tactics only polarize and confirm stereotypes.

The antidote? Accuracy and fairness. Quoting scripture directly, like Matthew 3:16-17, which shows the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, shifts the focus back to truth. Every faithful discussion must begin here: letting scriptures and doctrines speak for themselves without distortion. Misrepresentation isn’t harmless banter—it builds walls that prevent real conversations.

A Call for Constructive Engagement

What if we approached theological differences like learning a new language instead of preparing for a courtroom debate? Constructive engagement invites open dialogue where mutual respect and a shared desire to understand take precedence over defensiveness. LDS theology thrives in settings where beliefs can be openly explained without contention.

Is it possible to discuss heated topics and still remain respectful? Absolutely. It’s about creating space for curiosity and humility. Here are three steps I value when engaging in discussions about faith:

1. Ask questions, don’t just argue.
   Instead of assuming someone misunderstands LDS beliefs intentionally, ask what they’ve learned and where their knowledge comes from. Questions like, “What do you think LDS doctrine teaches about God?” open doors to clarification.

2. Separate belief from intent.
   Even if someone disagrees, their goal may not be to ridicule or attack. Assuming goodwill encourages a more inclusive tone. Remember, Christ taught, “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44), so surely, we can respect those who merely disagree.

3. Look for common ground.
   Whether it’s shared admiration for Christ’s sacrifice or agreement on the need for devotion, find a foundation for connection. This humanizes the dialogue and reminds both parties of shared spiritual goals.

For example, when discussing the Godhead versus the Trinity with mainstream Christians, I’ve found it useful to focus on the shared belief in Christ’s divinity. From there, I can explain why LDS doctrine emphasizes their distinct roles. It’s not about “us versus them” but about clarifying how LDS teachings enrich this understanding.

Ultimately, the most Christlike discussions are those committed to both truth and love. In John 13:34-35, Christ said, “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” Respectful dialogue isn’t just practical—it’s evidence of discipleship. If we lose sight of love in defending our faith, we miss the true purpose of the gospel.

Faith discussions don’t require everyone to leave agreeing—but they should leave understanding. Clear, respectful dialogue plants seed of insight, even when immediate agreement isn’t achieved. That’s the goal worth pursuing.

Conclusion

The First Article of Faith is far more than a doctrinal statement; it’s a declaration of understanding about God’s nature. Misinterpretations often reduce its profound meaning into oversimplified arguments, as seen in Andrew Soncrants' critique. However, addressing these misrepresentations provides an opportunity to clarify and strengthen shared faith in God, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Rather than fostering division, discussions like this should focus on mutual respect and shared beliefs in Christ’s divine role, providing common ground for productive dialogue. The distinctions between the LDS understanding of the Godhead and traditional Christian dogmas like the Trinity serve not to divide believers but to deepen our collective quest to comprehend God’s eternal purpose.

By grounding explanations in scripture and speaking with love, we create opportunities for understanding while defending the truths of the Restored Gospel. Ultimately, our faith compels us to extend Christlike love when engaging with critics. God's plan is one of unity, purpose, and salvation—and that is the shared immovable truth that should guide our discussions.