The following was first published in the Mormonism Researched in May/June 2026. This is a free publication produced by Mormonism Research Ministry. To get a free subscription of the bimonthly newsletter, visit the website here.
Converse with Latter-day Saints in recent years and you will very likely be told how they ought to be considered Christian. This is true, they say, because they hold Christ as their Savior. They may also claim to believe in salvation by grace and other doctrines accepted by Evangelical Christians. This type of rationale can be very confusing.
If you keep pressing, they might bring up the idea that modern-day prophets guide this church. Without saying it out loud, holding to the authority of their leaders—from Joseph Smith, Jr. through current President Dallin H. Oaks and other general authorities—is tied to the LDS doctrine of the “Great Apostasy,” or the idea that Christianity needed to be restored from false teachings originating soon after the death of the biblical apostles.
Whether or not the Latter-day Saint believes it, the LDS leadership teaches that its leaders are just like the apostles of the Bible.
What do modern “prophets” bring to the table?
In the January-February 2026 edition of Mormonism Researched, I discussed two different general conference talks given in October 2025 that claimed how the LDS Church membership should seek a testimony of their general authorities.
Now, in the recent April 2026 edition of the official church magazine Liahona, author DB Troester—an employee of the LDS Church magazine department—claims that the modern leaders ought to be compared to the apostle Peter.
He began the article:
“Following the Lord’s Resurrection, Peter became the chief Apostle to preside over the affairs of Christ’s Church. He expanded the gospel’s reach and set a path of faith and action spurred by revelation” (“Peter: Setting a Path for Modern Prophets,” 22).
I agree with this assessment. However, he adds this caveat:
“Prophets in this dispensation have paralleled this path. . .. Like Peter, they receive revelations to guide Church growth and witness that Jesus is the Christ. They work to gather all God’s children and to establish His kingdom on both sides of the veil” (22. Ellipsis mine).
According to Troester, then, the role of LDS Church leaders can be compared to the apostle Peter. For one, he explians how Peter’s decision to meet with the Roman centurion Cornelius in Acts 10:19-20 “defiled himself according to Jewish law.” Yet Peter did this so “that redemption was available to all, not only to the Israelites” (22).
Troester points to 16th President Thomas S. Monson who had been “hastening the work in 2012 by lowering the age that missionaries can serve.”
At that time, male missionaries were given permission to serve at the age of 18 instead of 19 and females at 19 instead of 20. (Today females are allowed to serve at age 18 as well.) Also commended was 17th President Russell M. Nelson who “announced a new and improved version of [missionary manual] Preach My Gospel to better guide missionary work” (22)
The examples concerning the two modern leaders are nothing more than administrative decisions made to better distribute the unique LDS gospel message to the masses. Peter’s stand on disregarding ceremonial law was not an administrative decision.
The next paragraph stretches credulity:
“Other inspired advancements include that beginning in 2019, missionaries were allowed to communicate with their families on their weekly preparation day, and in 2020, President Nelson authorized every missionary in the Church to have access to a smartphone, helping to expand digital proselyting as the COVID-19 pandemic spread worldwide” (23).
Is Troester suggesting that because his church’s leaders made some decisions about technology to improve conversion rates around the world that, somehow, this should be compared to the situation of Peter and the apostles? I don’t think the author would similarly compare Christian pastors and administrators who make decisions about cell phone usage plans to the biblical apostles!
Perhaps Troester should reference Acts 6 that documents a dispute between the Hellenistic and Hebraic Jews concerning the distribution of food to the widows. Notice the statement made in verse 2 by the apostles: “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.”
The apostles then authorized seven men to take care of this administrative issue. It seems curious that authorizing missionaries to use cell phones to communicate their message or allowing them to contact their parents more frequently should be compared to Peter’s example in Caesarea.
It should be noted that Nelson—a prophet at the time—appeared befuddled in his opening conference address back in April 2020 after COVID forced a private gathering at the spring general conference. He said,
“I stand before you in an empty auditorium! Little did I know, when I promised you at the October 2019 general conference that this April conference would be ‘memor-able’ and ‘unforgettable,’ that speaking to a visible congregation of fewer than 10 people would make this conference so memorable and unforgettable for me!” (Ensign, May 2020, 6).
Imagine that a “prophet” of God should have been blindsided concerning the pandemic! In addition, the church shut down all local church services in early 2020 for many months while encouraging families to meet on their own. This lack of church foresight was the impetus for some members to search out the services of other churches, whether in person or online, while others just stopped attending any service at all.
It seemed the church’s leaders missed a perfect opportunity to electronically connect members each Sunday; after all, couldn’t the church leadership have orchestrated official weekly services from Salt Lake City? Or authorize local wards to put their weekly services on Zoom as did many Christian congregations?
No doubt the ball was dropped. The result was that many members left Mormonism. I’m sure there is great regret today by LDS leaders for this lack of attention during an unprecedented time in modern history.
Integrity to God
Troester’s next example is that the biblical apostles had integrity in Acts 11:17 when Peter dealt with opposition from fellow believers for seemingly disregarding the law of circumcision.
He wrote, “Joseph Smith did the same when faced with external opposition after telling others about the First Vision” (22). Joseph Smith-History 1:25 in the Pearl of Great Price is cited to show how Smith “knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it.”
What is interesting is that the First Vision is supposed to have taken place in 1820 when Smith claimed to see God the Father and Jesus. Yet it wasn’t until nearly two decades later (1838) that Smith first makes such a pronouncement.
If you saw God the Father and Jesus, wouldn’t you have told others at that time? This should have been an obvious cornerstone event celebrated at the founding of the church in 1830. Yet there is no mention made by either Smith or, more importantly, the enemies of Mormonism who consistently criticized the Book of Mormon story but never attempted to refute a “First Vision” account they knew nothing about.
When Smith does write about the event in 1832 in his personal journal and later began telling people about it in 1835, he relates a variety of versions that differ in such important details as to who appeared to Smith (i.e., the Lord? an angel? the Father and the Son?), the reason why Smith went into the Sacred Grove, and whether or not there was a revival in that day, among other inconsistencies.
As far as Smith’s integrity, did Peter ever get accused of getting married to multiple women? After all, the LDS Church historians admit in a 2013 Gospel Topic Essay that Smith had married 30-40 females, a third of whom were teens (when he was in his mid-30s) and another third who were married to living husbands. No appeal to the Bible can justify such immoral behavior.
Verses used out of context
Troester makes two additional points by pointing to the epistle of 1 Peter. For one, he says that 1 Peter chapters 3 and 4 describe how “the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison.” Sixth President Joseph F. Smith claimed that he had a vision as recorded in D&C 138 and explained what Peter really meant.
Meanwhile, 1 Peter 4:6 has been cited by LDS leaders to show how work for the dead is somehow efficacious. This, according to Troester, coincides with Nelson’s words that “temple work makes these exquisite blessings available to all of God’s children” (24, italics in original). Peter’s words are simply taken out of context. (For more on the proper interpretation of these verses, see chapter 22 in our book Answering Mormons’ Questions.)
How should a wrong interpretation given by two different LDS leaders lend church leadership any credence?
A Living Church?
Finally, the author of the Liahona article writes, “Like Peter, prophets in Christ’s restored Church continue to institute changes as directed by the Lord” (24).
What evidence is given for support? For one, the policy instituted by Nelson that young men and women are allowed to serve as witnesses in temple baptistries and sealing ordinances. Another is that the words “Mormon,” “Mormonism,” and “LDS” were condemned by Nelson. A third example is that the Young Men presidencies were discontinued.
These are all procedural, administrative changes. Peter’s awakening moment was not the cause but rather the result of God’s new covenant. Peter merely accepted what God had already put into place.
As the apostle later acknowledged in 1 Peter 3:18a, “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.” He finally understood that salvation is not based on the ceremonial law but is found only through personal faith (1 Peter 1:5).
The conclusion of Troester’s article states:
“As Peter did in ancient times, prophets and apostles today continue to follow Jesus Christ and lead His Church through revelation” (24).
What is most interesting is that the four examples of LDS leaders used in the article are deceased: Joseph Smith, Joseph F. Smith, Monson, and Nelson. No example is used of living leaders, whether Dallin H. Oaks or any current apostle. This seems like a giant omission. Isn’t the church supposed to be led by living prophets?
Indeed, many LDS discount the teachings of some deceased leaders. For example, Brigham Young’s teaching of the Adam-God doctrine is denied by most LDS. (See mrm.org/adam-god.) The doctrines expounded on by Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Spencer W. Kimball are often dismissed even though these leaders believed what they taught while serving as general authorities.
To answer the question posed in the title of this article, the leaders of Mormonism—whether living or dead—should not be compared to Peter or any other apostle, for that matter. They are light years apart from each other. The rationale as presented in this official church magazine is simply not convincing.