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.
Speaking in general conference in 1961, Gordon B. Hinckley, the man who would eventually become the 15th president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, told his audience,
“I would like to say that this cause is either true or false. Either this is the kingdom of God, or it is a sham and a delusion. Either Joseph talked with the Father and the Son, or he did not. If he did not, we are engaged in blasphemy” (Conference Reports, October 1961, 116).
It is no secret that Hinckley often spoke on the importance of the First Vision. More than once he made it clear that, if this event did not happen, the “Restored” church that Joseph Smith began in 1830 is false.
“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. . . upon that unique and wonderful experience stands the validity of this church.” (“The Marvelous Foundation of our Faith,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 2002, 80).
“That becomes the hinge pin on which this whole cause turns. If the First Vision was true, if it actually happened, then the Book of Mormon is true. Then we have the priesthood. Then we have the Church organization and all of the other keys and blessings of authority which we say we have. If the First Vision did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is just that simple” (Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, 227).
I think it is safe to say that most members of the LDS Church believe, as did Hinckley, that the First Vision story “is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life” (“What are people asking about us?” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1998, 71).
What I find personally interesting is Hinckley’s use of the word blasphemy. Why did he use such a strong word in his speech back in 1961? I have no doubt that he understood quite clearly what that word means; if Latter-day Saints are wrong when it comes to the First Vision, they should rightly be accused of this. Hinckley believed that Smith’s understanding of God was formed as a result of what he claimed he saw and heard in this vision. He said,
“I submit that in the short time of that remarkable vision Joseph learned more concerning Deity than all of the scholars and clerics of the past” (“The Great Things Which God has Revealed,” Ensign (Conference Edition), May 2005, 81).
Though hardly a theologian, Hinckley was very familiar with how Joseph Smith described God and was obviously familiar with how Christianity had, for centuries, described God. Otherwise his use of the word blasphemy makes no sense.
When Smith claimed that he saw the Father and the Son, this has been taken to mean they are separate entities. Even though the Mormon “Holy Ghost” did not appear, it is assumed that he is one of three gods that make up the Mormon godhead.
Whereas Christianity has been historically monotheistic, Smith’s encounter is interpreted to mean there is within the godhead three separate gods who are merely one in purpose. Smith described the Trinitarian understanding of God to be that of a “giant or a monster” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 372).
This, however, has not stopped LDS leaders from attempting to use the word Trinity to describe Joseph Smith’s deity, though they often misapply that term.
For example, on page 58 of his book Evidences and Reconciliations, Apostle John Widtsoe wrote, “The Bible, if read fully and intelligently, teaches that the Holy Trinity is composed of individual Gods.” Meanwhile, Hugh B. Brown, a member of the First Presidency, said,
“In our Articles of Faith we declare our belief in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost—in other words, the Trinity. We accept the scriptural doctrine that they are separate and distinct personages” (The Abundant Life, 312).
Both of these descriptions are factually untrue.
Officially, the LDS Church does not hide the fact that the God of Mormonism is not the God of biblical Christianity. On its official Newsroom website, it states that
“the true doctrine of the Godhead was lost in the apostasy that followed the Savior’s mortal ministry and the deaths of His Apostles. This doctrine began to be restored when 14-year-old Joseph Smith received his First Vision. From the Prophet’s account of the First Vision and from his other teachings, we know that the members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.” Source
These and numerous other citations from LDS leaders and manuals confirm that the God of Mormonism is not the God believed in and cherished by millions of professing Christians worldwide. If so, how can it be said that Mormonism should be included under the umbrella of Christianity?
Gordon B. Hinckley himself admitted his church’s view of God is so radically different from the rest of professing Christianity that if he is wrong, his (and the beliefs of fellow members) fall under the category of blasphemy.
Ironically, there are professing Christians who do not believe the First Vision took place while at the same time insisting Latter-day Saints should be considered Christian. How in the name of consistency can you have it both ways in light of Hinckley’s comments?
When I hear professing Christians minimize these distinctions, I have to ask myself if they ignorant of what LDS leaders like Hinckley have said? Are they ignorant of what the Bible teaches about God? Or do they feel that holding a blasphemous understanding of God is of little consequence?
Answering yes to any of these three questions is problematic.