I’ve recently had a few conversations with Latter-day Saint friends and defenders where I’ve heard some variation of the following criticisms:
- Christians have no room to criticize Latter-day Saints for believing that God added or restored covenants and ordinances in the latter days, because Christians believe something similar about Christ setting aside animal sacrifices and circumcision; and
- Christians have no room to criticize LDS interpretations of Scripture as implausible, because Christian interpretations seemed just as implausible to a Jewish audience.
Both of these arguments sound compelling on the surface, and indeed I once embraced them and found great meaning in the LDS narrative of a restoration. But they both stem from the same foundational error: Losing sight of the once-for-all significance of Christ’s death and resurrection.
The earliest Christians interpreted all scripture through a cross-shaped lens. They understood that with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, everything had changed. And they used this Christ-honoring logic to understand covenants in Scripture and Biblical history. They saw in Biblical history not changing doctrines, but a cohesive unfolding plan that pointed to Jesus Christ and towards the cross.
In this post, I want to talk about how the Bible presents the cross as the final and decisive turning point in redemptive history—one that fulfills rather than reverses God’s earlier commands. I’ll also explain why the LDS claim of a restoration lacks both the theological grounding and narrative continuity of the new covenant, and why comparisons to Christian reinterpretation of the Old Testament ultimately break down.
- The Cross Is the Turning Point of Redemptive History
The central claim of the Christian faith is that everything changed at the cross. Christ’s death on the cross led to the end of the Mosaic law and the inauguration of a Christ’s new covenant. But this was not a contradiction of God’s earlier commandments, but their consummation:
“He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:26)
“Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” (Romans 10:4)
Jesus didn’t abolish God’s promises—He fulfilled them. The sacrifices, the priesthood, the temple—all of them pointed forward to Him. With the cross and resurrection, the shadows gave way to the substance (Colossians 2:16–17).
2. One Sacrifice, One Resurrection, One New Covenant
For Christians, Jesus’s death was not merely an event, but the turning point of history. It was a singular and decisive sacrifice on our behalf.
“But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God… For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Hebrews 10:12, 14)
Jesus inaugurated a new and better covenant with His blood (Luke 22:20). Because the cross was final and complete, there is no need—and no room—for additional covenants or salvific systems
This is why there is no room for the development of new ordinances, new covenants, new temple rituals, or another new covenant.
To add another covenant after Christ is not to build on the foundation—it is to reject its sufficiency.
Moreover, Jesus lives and cannot be sacrificed or die again. This is a serious issue for the notion that Jesus inaugurated a new covenant through Joseph Smith and the restoration.
Hebrews is especially clear that covenants require death. The Mosaic covenant was inaugurated with the blood of animals (Hebrews 9:18), but the new covenant was inaugurated with the blood of Christ.
“For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death…” (Hebrews 9:16–17).
Paul makes a similar point in Romans 7, comparing our relationship to the law to a marriage covenant: only death ends the bond. And so it is through the death of Christ that we are released from the old covenant in order to belong to Him under the new (Romans 7:4).
Indeed, the new covenant was inaugurated not just with any death, but with the death of the incarnate God—the very one who made the covenant with Moses on Mount Sinai. The new covenant was inaugurated through Christ’s death. But since He died once for all (Hebrews 9:28), and now lives forever as the mediator of that covenant, there is no more death, and thus no room for a future covenantal transition.
3. Christ’s New Covenant Was Always the Plan
Christ’s new covenant was not an afterthought or contingency. From the very beginning, God promised it would come. After Adam and Eve’s sin, God promised a serpent-crushing offspring (Genesis 3:15). He later made covenantal promises to Abraham that the whole world would be blessed through “his seed.” (Genesis 12:3). At Sinai, even as the Mosaic covenant was being given, God promised a future prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15) and anticipated the day when his people would be given a new and circumcised heart (Deuteronomy 30:6).
Building on this promise, God’s prophets declared that one day the old covenant would one day be replaced with a better one:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant… not like the covenant that I made with their fathers… I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)
“I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you.” (Ezekiel 36:26).
Likewise, the Mosaic covenant—including the sacrificial system—was never a separate path to salvation. As Hebrews explains, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). The sacrifices pointed beyond themselves, functioning like IOUs that anticipated a final payment. The entire system foreshadowed the need for a better, once-for-all sacrifice. And prophets like Isaiah told the people that God himself would come and be their Savior, pointing towards the incarnation (See e.g., Isaiah 35:4–6 — “Say to those who have an anxious heart, ‘Be strong; fear not! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God. He will come and save you.’ Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped…”)
Christ’s coming and his inauguration of the new covenant was not an unexpected break from the past. It was the fulfillment of a long-promised hope, woven throughout the Old Testament.
4. The Cross at the Center of the Christian interpretation of the Bible
All of this explains why Christian interpretation of the Old Testament is not similar to how Latter-day Saints reinterpret the scriptures to fit their restoration narrative:
First, the Christian reinterpretation is grounded in the historical events of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The apostles didn’t revise Scripture arbitrarily—they re-read it in light of God’s definitive act in history. This means all prophecies, types, and promises were understood as fulfilled in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, which gave Scripture its full meaning and coherence.
Second, this mode of interpretation was specifically used and commanded by Jesus. When the risen Jesus met two discouraged disciples on the road to Emmaus, He showed them that everything written in Moses and the prophets pointed to Him—and that His death and resurrection had fulfilled it all (Luke 24:25–27). Jesus emphasized that the biblical narrative is a cohesive, Christ-centered story, validated by the empty tomb. And we trust him and interpret the scriptures just as he did.
Third, as already discussed, the New Testament authors consistently show how the Israel’s covenantal story anticipated this fulfillment all along. Jesus is the seed of Abraham, the greater Moses, the true temple, the final high priest, the once-for-all sacrifice.
Fourth, the New Testament authors understood themselves to be living in a unique moment—the time when the long-hidden mysteries of God were finally being fully revealed:
“…the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints.” (Colossians 1:26)
“In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son…” (Hebrews 1:1–2)
This awareness underscores that the Christian reading of Scripture is not a novel or arbitrary reinterpretation, but the climactic fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan. Importantly, it also leaves no room for a later period of restoration where entirely new and previously unrevealed doctrines would be introduced beyond what had already been disclosed in Christ and the apostolic teaching.
Finally, the New Testament gives a theological explanation for why so many of Jesus’ contemporaries didn’t see Him in the Scriptures:
“But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted…” (2 Corinthians 3:14)
The reason for rejection was not a lack of biblical coherence, but spiritual blindness. The gospel had come, but many hearts were veiled.
5. The “Restoration” Lacks Biblical Foundations
By contrast, the restoration lacks the same solid Biblical foundation.
a) No Redemptive Event Like the Cross
The LDS restoration is not grounded in a redemptive event like Christ’s death on the cross that ushered in Christ’s new covenant and therefore called for theological reinterpretation.
b) No Scriptural Anticipation of a Great Apostasy and Restoration
The restoration lacks a scriptural basis.
The narrative of the restoration hinges on the idea that the Church and gospel were lost and had to be restored through the inauguration of a new covenant. But that claim isn’t found in the Bible. In fact, the Bible affirms the opposite:
“I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)
“The faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3)
Some Latter-day Saints cite verses like Acts 3:21 (“restoration of all things”) or Amos 8:11 (a famine of hearing God’s word) to support the idea of an apostasy and future restoration. But in context, these verses point to fulfillment through Christ, not restoration after Christ.
But there is no scriptural anticipation of a new covenants, ordinances, and ceremonies after the coming of Christ. Christ’s once and for all sacrifice inaugurated the new covenant prophesied of by Moses and the Prophets, and the Bible does not anticipate another. There is similarly no scriptural anticipation of a post-apostolic priesthood restoration, celestial marriage covenant, or temple endowment ceremony. These are foreign to the story the Bible is telling. And as already mentioned, the biblical narrative anticipates the fullness of God’s redemptive revelation in Christ and the apostolic witness, leaving no biblical basis for the later introduction of new doctrines or covenants unknown in Scripture.
c) Built on Apostasy, Not Victory
Christ’s new covenant was birthed out of victory. Just as God triumphed over Pharaoh before bringing Israel to Sinai, Christ triumphed over sin and death before establishing the new covenant. He rose from the grave and ascended to reign. By contrast, the LDS story of the restoration begins not with triumph but with total apostasy. The entire church of Christ, His priesthood, His ordinances, and His truth allegedly vanished for over a millennium.
d) Doctrinal Reversals Undermine Coherence and Reverse the Biblical Trajectory
The arc of the LDS restoration departs from the trajectory of redemptive history. One striking example concerns race and priesthood. At Pentecost, God reversed the division of Babel, uniting people from every nation in Christ. This event marked the gospel’s universal reach—breaking down all ethnic and cultural barriers. Yet, in the LDS restoration narrative, God allegedly reimposed racial restrictions on priesthood and temple access—restrictions that run counter to the gospel’s inclusive mission.
Another example concerns temples. Jesus and His apostles emphasized a shift away from worship tied to physical locations (John 4:21–24), with believers’ bodies becoming temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). Yet LDS theology reestablishes holy sites and ritual systems bound to specific buildings—effectively undoing the new covenant’s spiritual trajectory.
The issue is not merely doctrinal change but theological instability. LDS history reveals a pattern of abrupt reversals that undercut claims to divine continuity. For example, John Taylor’s 1886 revelation declared polygamy essential for exaltation and “never to be revoked.” Yet just four years later, the 1890 Manifesto reversed course. More recently, the LDS Church introduced a 2015 policy labeling same-sex couples as apostates and restricting baptisms of their children—only to reverse that decision in 2019, with President Nelson calling both revelation. Such rapid and contradictory shifts raise serious questions about the consistency and reliability of LDS prophetic claims, especially when compared to the cross-centered coherence of biblical revelation.
Conclusion
Christians interpret the transition from the old covenant to the new not as a divine contradiction but as a glorious fulfillment. The changes centered on Christ’s death and resurrection were expected, typologically grounded, and theologically coherent. The changes introduced by the LDS restoration are none of those things.
So while from a purely secular viewpoint both Christianity and Mormonism revise earlier revelations, the internal logic and theological coherence of Christianity is centered in the cross and resurrection—a once-for-all act that the Scriptures anticipated. LDS reinterpretations lack that grounding.
The cross of Christ is solid ground. It is where the story of God’s promises finds its yes and amen (2 Corinthians 1:20). The Christian faith does not rest on the hope of a future restoration in the future, but on the decisive once and for all death and resurrection of Christ. He is the finally word (Hebrews 1:1-2), the eternal high priest, and our unshakeable foundation. And He is the reason why no restoration is needed.