The following was first published in the Mormonism Researched in January/February 2026. This is a free publication produced by Mormonism Research Ministry. To get a free subscription of the bimonthly newsletter, visit the website here.
Evangelical Bible-believing Christians agree that receiving Jesus through faith alone, not by one’s perceived “good” works, is what is required for justification and the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 5:1, Eph. 2:8-9). Salvation in this sense is about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Not needed is one’s testimony or commitment to any person or organization.
In the October 2025 general conference, several speakers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—including two general authorities—emphasized the efficacy of placing complete trust in the church’s leaders.
A good example is the talk titled “Prophets of God” given by Andrea Muñoz Spannaus, who serves as the second counselor in the Young Women General Presidency. On Sunday morning she declared,
“We too can receive a personal testimony of God’s prophets today and open our hearts and minds—our house—to the message that our Heavenly Father has for us in these latter days. Dear youth, I invite you to ask yourself this question. “Do I have a personal testimony of God’s living prophets?” (Liahona, November 2025, 91. Italics in original).
Such language ought to be shocking to Bible-believing Christians! Nowhere does the Bible emphasize having a “testimony” in the leaders of a particular church. Instead, believers are warned more than once to watch out for teachers who bear false doctrine. Consider:
· Galatians 1:8-9 exhorts believers not to accept a false gospel even if “we or an angel from heaven” gives it. The apostle Paul called this “really no gospel at all” in verse 7.
· 2 Corinthians 11:1-15, Paul warned the Corinthians about accepting the message of false teachers who present a “different spirit” and a “different gospel.”
· 1 John 4:1 says that it is imperative to “test the spirits” because “many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
What is Christianity’s litmus test to determine if a teacher ought to be believed? The answer is as simple as taking out the Bible and comparing the teachings.
Spannaus went on to teach,
“Prophets are seers and revelators. That means they can see what others cannot see, and they can prophesy of future events. They can also prepare us for calamities. Prophets receive commandments and revelation from the Lord.”
I, for one, would like to know which “future events” have been predicted in history by LDS leaders. For one, these leaders totally missed telling anyone about the Covid pandemic that started in early 2020! (Just read the opening conference talk in April 2020 given by 17th President Russell M. Nelson.) The proverbial cart is put before the horse when she explains who it is that ought to be believed:
Each member of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is a prophet, seer, and revelator. Serving as a council under the Lord’s direction, they have the authority to declare and interpret doctrine and establish policy for the Church. They carefully pray and deliberate, for the decisions of these quorums must be unanimous. In this way, the Lord assures us that His will will be done.
According to Spannaus, one’s presuppositions in the trustworthiness of the church leadership is a crucial element. This means you need to believe that the leaders of the “one true church” are both authoritative and right merely because they are “modern-day” prophets and apostles. This circular reasoning will make it easy for a member to accept their teachings at face value!
Now, mind you, Spannaus is not a general authority herself. She is required to defer to the leaders. However, just the fact that she can give this teaching from a general conference pulpit gives her implied authority. Her teaching certainly must have had the backing of church leaders since all talks are vetted by the leadership.
Her words were supported at this same conference by several general authorities. In the first talk on Sunday morning titled “And Now I See,” Jeffrey R. Holland—the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—took a swipe at Christian clergy who have Bible college or seminary backgrounds by minimizing their credibility and saying they do not have divine authority.
He said,
“In documenting the organization of the meridian Church, Luke’s first line reads, ‘Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority,’ gifts not granted on the basis of impressive credentials nor determined by tradition or birthright. They are not bestowed by a divinity school or a theological seminary. They are conferred only by the laying on of hands by one who has had authorized hands laid on him in an unbroken sequence back to the source of all divine authority, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Liahona, November 2025, 75).
Referring to the work done in temples for both the living and the dead, Holland unabashedly boasted, “To my knowledge, this particular evidence of God’s truth, His universal love for the living and the dead, is not seen elsewhere in the world—except in one church that demonstrates truth in this particular regard: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
Instead of trying to provide evidence possibly given in the Bible, Holland pointed to the most important of Mormonism’s Standard Works by saying how “…the instrument of truth that brought me healing from the Lord came as pages in a book, yes, the Book of Mormon.”
Pointing to his personal testimony in the Book of Mormon, Holland said, “It has been, for me, a rod of safety for my soul.”
What about the reasons why many of us would disagree that the Book of Mormon is an “instrument of truth”? Indeed, are we supposed to kowtow to his testimony filled with hyperbole just because of the position this man holds in his church?
Holland is strong in his verbiage, but he really is not very convincing once his position of authority is discounted by those who do not think he is a modern-day apostle.
There is one additional talk at this conference that touted the LDS Church’s superior authority. Apostle Ronald Rasband spoke on “The Family Proclamation—Words from God” in reference to the 1995 edict given by that First Presidency. For those who might assume the proclamation is not “doctrine,” Rasband made it very clear the proclamation came from God. He said,
“I love the family proclamation. I have testified across the world from Africa to Australia and everywhere in between of the role of the family of God’s eternal plan. The proclamation has a divine origin, so we must treat it with the reverence deserving words of God” (Liahona, 26).
He added,
“The proclamation on the family is, as President Hinckley stated, doctrine. . . The teachings of the proclamation were revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ to His Apostles then and now. This is His Church. He has established the truths by which we live” (27, ellipsis mine).
The Family Proclamation begins by saying that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God,” yet, ironically, the first eight Presidents of the church all had plural wives.
Morally, I have no problem with the guidelines given in the proclamation, as Bible-believing Christians certainly uphold the marriage of one man and one woman as well as the structure of the nuclear family. But this isn’t the point. Rather, it’s the appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, that is concerning.
Should this teaching be considered authoritative because it was given by church leaders from the “restored” church? It is telling that only one scriptural passage is even mentioned in the proclamation (Psalm 127:3), with not even one supporting reference cited by Rasband.
Going back to the teachings of Spannaus, towards the end of her talk, she encouraged young members to “kneel, open your hearts, and pray with faith to Heavenly Faither, asking Him to confirm to you that His chosen prophet and apostles are His voice on the earth today.” In doing so, she promised them
“that once we know they are God’s anointed ones, our lives will be easier in spite of our ongoing challenges, as we will obey their voices with trust, faith, and hope. To listen to and obey the voice of the prophet is crucial to holding on to every good thing until the Second Coming of our Savior” (92, italics in original).
In her concluding statement she said:
“I am grateful for the guidance and consecrated efforts of the living prophets. I give you my solemn testimony that they are called by God to carry forth, establish, and lead His kingdom on earth today. And it will always be so. It will always be the Lord who chooses His servants” (92).
This epitomizes one of the biggest differences between Mormonism and Christianity. In Mormonism, leaders teach that following the teachings of the prophet—even if they might contradict the teachings found in God’s special revelation, the Bible—is the way to determine truth.
Such thinking requires putting one’s complete trust in fallible men who feel they can teach whatever they want and not have it double-checked. This is a dangerous philosophy.
Conclusion
What do we take away from these three talks? Quite clearly they show us that Latter-day Saints are implored to accept the teachings of their leaders as doctrinal and true, no matter what!
Yet for the Christian, authority does not originate with the teacher(s) but with God’s eternal Word. Christians don’t accept the words of mortal men unless they resonate with the Word of God. That is our testimony.