When Disagreement Becomes “Persecution”

Religious disagreement becomes difficult when criticism of a belief system is treated as an attack on the people who hold those beliefs. That distinction is especially important when discussing Mormonism, its claims of exclusive priesthood authority, its history of polygamy, and its differences with biblical Christianity.

I recently encountered a Mormon who told me that I have “no priesthood nor authority to teach,” citing Galatians 1:8 as though that passage somehow gives the Mormon Church exclusive authority to teach religious truth or prevents me, as a Christian, from examining and challenging Mormon doctrine.

The same person invoked the persecution of Mormons in the 1800s, claimed that Mormons were driven from Illinois for the “legal and constitutional” practice of polygamy, and compared that history with modern disputes involving same-sex marriage and Mormon temples.

Each of those claims deserves an answer. And whenever someone tells me what I, as a Christian, supposedly can or cannot do, I believe the proper response is to go directly to Scripture.

“You Have No Priesthood Nor Authority to Teach”

The first claim is that I have no priesthood authority and therefore no authority to teach or challenge Mormon doctrine.

But as a Christian, I do not need Mormon priesthood authority to read Scripture, speak about the Gospel, defend my faith, or test religious claims against the Word of God.

In fact, the New Testament specifically describes believers in Jesus Christ in priestly terms.

Peter writes:

> “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” — 1 Peter 2:5

And just a few verses later:

> “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” — 1 Peter 2:9

That is important because the New Testament does not teach that Christians need to receive authority from a religious organization established nearly eighteen centuries after Christ in order to speak about the Gospel.

When Peter calls believers a “royal priesthood,” he is describing the privileged relationship Christians have with God through Jesus Christ. Under the Old Covenant, priests served in a special ministry before God and offered sacrifices. Under the New Covenant, Jesus Christ is our perfect and eternal High Priest, and believers have direct access to God through Him.

Hebrews 4:14 identifies Jesus as our High Priest:

> “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God.”

Hebrews 4:16 then explains what that means for believers:

> “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace.”

Christians therefore do not need a Mormon priesthood holder to stand between themselves and God. Our access to God is through Jesus Christ.

First Timothy 2:5 makes that especially clear:

> “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

This does not mean that every Christian automatically holds every leadership or teaching office within a local church. The New Testament establishes qualifications and responsibilities for pastors, elders, and teachers. But it does mean that Mormonism cannot claim that I lack the right to speak about biblical truth simply because I have not received Mormon priesthood authority.

As a believer in Jesus Christ, I am part of the “royal priesthood” described in Scripture. My relationship with God and my ability to proclaim and defend the Gospel do not depend upon ordination into the Mormon priesthood.

Furthermore, Peter tells Christians:

> “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” — 1 Peter 3:15

Paul likewise tells believers:

> “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21

John gives Christians an equally direct command:

> “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” — 1 John 4:1

And the Bereans were praised for examining Paul's teaching rather than simply accepting someone's claim to religious authority:

> “They received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” — Acts 17:11

So when someone tells me, “You have no priesthood nor authority to teach,” my answer is biblical:

Jesus Christ is my High Priest. He is my mediator before God. Scripture describes believers in Christ as a “holy priesthood” and a “royal priesthood.” And the Bible itself commands me to test religious claims, search the Scriptures, defend the faith, and be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is within me.

I do not need Mormon priesthood authority—or permission from the Mormon Church—to do what the Bible itself tells Christians to do.

Galatians 1:8 Actually Creates a Problem for Mormonism

The verse cited against me was Galatians 1:8. But that passage does not establish Mormon priesthood authority. If anything, it raises a serious question about Mormonism itself.

Paul writes:

> “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” — Galatians 1:8

Paul continues:

> “As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” — Galatians 1:9

That is an extraordinarily strong warning.

Paul does not tell Christians to accept a later message simply because the person delivering it claims divine authority. He says the opposite. Even if the message supposedly comes from an angel from heaven, the message must still be judged according to the Gospel that had already been received.

That creates an obvious biblical test for Joseph Smith's claims.

The question is not merely whether Joseph Smith claimed that heavenly messengers appeared to him.

The question is not merely whether Joseph Smith claimed to restore priesthood authority.

The question is whether the religion Joseph Smith introduced teaches the same Gospel already proclaimed by Jesus Christ and His apostles.

Paul himself provides the standard by which that claim should be tested.

“You Cannot Challenge Our Religious Authority”

If the argument is that Mormon priesthood authority places Mormon doctrine beyond my examination, Scripture again says otherwise.

Jesus warned:

> “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” — Matthew 7:15

Jesus then gave a standard for evaluating them:

> “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” — Matthew 7:20

Paul also warned:

> “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.” — 2 Corinthians 11:13

The biblical pattern is therefore not blind submission to someone claiming religious authority.

The biblical pattern is examination.

If someone claims to be a prophet, that claim can be examined.

If someone claims to possess restored priesthood authority, that claim can be examined.

If someone claims that an angel delivered a message, that message can be examined.

If someone introduces additional scriptures or revelations, those teachings can be compared with the Gospel already delivered.

That is not persecution.

That is biblical discernment.

“You Persecuted Us and Drove Us Out”

Another claim directed toward me is that “you” drove Mormons from Illinois approximately 180 years ago.

That accusation has an obvious problem.

I did no such thing.

I was not alive.

The people participating in this discussion today were not responsible for events that occurred in Illinois during the 1840s.

The Bible itself rejects the idea of automatically assigning personal guilt to one person for the actions of another.

Ezekiel says:

> “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.” — Ezekiel 18:20

Deuteronomy similarly states:

> “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” — Deuteronomy 24:16

That does not erase history or mean historical injustice should be forgotten. It means personal responsibility belongs to the people who committed the acts.

Mormons unquestionably experienced genuine persecution, mob violence, threats, destruction of property, and forced displacement during the 19th century. Joseph Smith was killed by a mob in Carthage, Illinois, in 1844, and Mormons began leaving Nauvoo in large numbers in 1846 under tremendous pressure and threats of further violence.

Those events were wrong.

But I cannot reasonably be accused of committing them simply because I challenge Mormon theology today.

Disagreement Is Not Persecution

If I criticize Mormon theology, that is not the same thing as persecuting Mormons.

If I question Joseph Smith's claims, that is not persecution.

If I compare the Book of Mormon or other Mormon teachings with the Bible, that is not persecution.

If I reject Mormon claims of exclusive priesthood authority, that is not persecution.

The New Testament itself records extensive religious debate and disagreement.

Acts 17:2 says of Paul:

> “And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.”

Acts 18:28 describes Apollos:

> “For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.”

Christians are commanded to speak truth:

> “Speaking the truth in love.” — Ephesians 4:15

Therefore, disagreement over religious doctrine cannot automatically be labeled persecution. Christians have a biblical responsibility to speak truth, reason from Scripture, and defend the Gospel.

A persecution complex weakens the argument because it turns theological criticism into supposed victimization rather than answering the theological criticism itself.

Was Mormon Polygamy Really “Legal and Constitutional”?

The claim that Mormons were driven from Illinois because they practiced the “legal and constitutional” practice of polygamy also requires historical correction.

Plural marriage was not a legally recognized form of marriage under Illinois law during Joseph Smith's lifetime. Illinois had laws prohibiting bigamy. Joseph Smith also faced an 1844 indictment on adultery and fornication charges involving Maria Lawrence, whom Mormon historical sources later identified as one of his plural wives. The case was never resolved because Smith died before it could reach a conclusion.

There was also no established constitutional right guaranteeing the practice of polygamy.

Congress later enacted the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in 1862, prohibiting bigamy in U.S. territories. When the constitutional question eventually reached the United States Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States in 1879, the Court rejected the argument that religious belief provided a constitutional exemption from federal laws prohibiting polygamy.

That does not justify the persecution Mormons experienced.

The Bible condemns lawless violence and personal vengeance:

> “Recompense to no man evil for evil.” — Romans 12:17

And:

> “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves.” — Romans 12:19

Christians therefore should have no difficulty condemning mob violence against Mormons while simultaneously correcting inaccurate claims about the legal status of polygamy.

Those are separate issues.

Mormons suffered genuine persecution.

That does not mean polygamy was constitutionally protected.

Both facts can be acknowledged at the same time.

“You Want to Run Us Back Where We Came From”

The suggestion that challenging Mormon beliefs today somehow means wanting to drive Mormons away is another example of turning disagreement into persecution.

I am not trying to drive anyone anywhere.

Biblically, Christians are commanded to live peacefully with others:

> “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” — Romans 12:18

Peter writes:

> “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.” — 1 Peter 2:17

I can therefore support the right of Mormons to live peacefully, worship freely, own property, build temples, and practice their religion within the law while simultaneously believing that Mormon theology is false.

Those positions are not contradictory.

Religious liberty protects a person's right to believe something.

It does not require everyone else to agree that the belief is true.

“You Want to Force Us to Perform Same-Sex Marriages in Our Temples”

If the claim is that I want Mormon temples forced to perform same-sex marriages, that claim is also incorrect.

No religious institution should be forced by the government to perform a religious ceremony that violates its doctrines.

From a Christian perspective, government and religious authority have distinct roles. Jesus said:

> “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” — Matthew 22:21

The fact that the government legally recognizes a marriage does not automatically mean every religious institution must be compelled to solemnize that marriage according to its religious rites.

I can disagree strongly with Mormon theology while still supporting the religious liberty of Mormons.

Again, disagreement is not persecution.

The Real Issue Is the Gospel

Ultimately, all these side arguments distract from the central theological question.

The issue is not whether Mormons suffered persecution. They did.

The issue is not whether Mormons should have religious liberty. They should.

The issue is not whether Mormon temples should be forced to perform religious ceremonies contrary to Mormon doctrine. They should not.

The issue is whether Mormonism teaches the same Gospel delivered by Jesus Christ and His apostles.

Scripture tells Christians exactly what to do with religious claims.

Test them.

> “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Examine them against Scripture.

> “They...searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” — Acts 17:11

Test those claiming spiritual authority.

> “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God.” — 1 John 4:1

Beware of false prophets.

> “Beware of false prophets.” — Matthew 7:15

Reject another gospel—even if its claimed source is an angel.

> “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you...let him be accursed.” — Galatians 1:8

So when someone tells me that I have no authority to question Mormonism, the Bible tells me to test religious claims.

When someone tells me that I cannot challenge claimed prophets or priesthood authority, the Bible tells me to beware of false prophets and test the spirits.

When someone attempts to make me personally responsible for persecution committed generations before I was born, the Bible teaches individual moral responsibility.

When someone treats theological disagreement as persecution, the Bible itself provides numerous examples of believers publicly reasoning, debating, and defending the truth.

And when someone invokes Galatians 1:8 to silence criticism of Mormonism, I return directly to what Galatians 1:8 actually says:

Even if an angel from heaven brings another gospel, reject it.

That is the standard.

Historical persecution cannot answer that challenge.

Claims of exclusive priesthood authority cannot silence it.

Accusations of religious intolerance cannot make it disappear.

The central question remains:

Does Mormonism teach the Gospel that Jesus Christ and His apostles delivered, or does it teach another gospel?

As a Christian, I not only have the right to ask that question.

According to the Bible, I have a responsibility to ask it.