My previous video critique of an “AI Pauline Style Letter to the Mormons” was to examine how a YouTube Commentator by the name of ChristAzure1624 decided to weaponize New Testament style against Latter-day Saint (LDS) beliefs. He then decided that it was okay to post a comment of a “Johannine” styled pastoral epistle to the members of the LDS Faith. Yet, all he did was provide an example where he does exactly the same thing — and it fails for the same reasons.

I am going to provide a structured analysis drawing from a peer-reviewed New Testament scholarship on Johannine rhetoric (e.g., Raymond E. Brown, Rudolf Schnackenburg, and others) and a clear-eyed look at the anti-LDS tropes it recycles. Not only will I address the rhetorical techniques employed in this letter, but I will also delve deeper into how these methods align or misalign with authentic Johannine texts.

First, I will quote each major section of the letter and indicate how it attempts (and ultimately fails) to imitate the Johannine style. For instance, the use of specific phrases and a focus on community-related themes are common in genuine Johannine literature, intended to provide warmth and fellowship. However, ChristAzure1624’s approach tends to strip away the compassionate undertones, reducing the message to mere rhetoric rather than heartfelt communication.

Next, I will steelman the underlying evangelical critique that he is trying to convey. This involves presenting the best version of his arguments to honestly assess their merits. Even while critiquing LDS beliefs, it is important to recognize the passion behind such religious discourse, and this critique will consider the historical and cultural context of these discussions.

Lastly, I will rebut the arguments with logical inconsistencies, fallacies, and scholarly context. This will include highlighting instances where his claims reflect a misunderstanding of key theological points in LDS doctrine, as well as instances where he unwittingly mirrors strawman criticisms often leveled against religious movements. By the end of this analysis, readers should have a clearer understanding of both the rhetorical shortcomings of ChristAzure1624’s missive and the deeper significance of genuine Johannine communication.

1. Title & Opening (vv. 1–2 paraphrase)

“An Epistle of John to Those Who Have Turned Aside to Another Doctrine… Beloved, I write to you not as one bringing a new word, but as one reminding you of that which was from the beginning…”

Johannine mimicry attempt: Solid on the surface. The phrase “That which was from the beginning” is not only a critical starting point in the opening of 1 John (1:1) but is also pivotal throughout the epistle. The repeated emphasis on “what you have heard from the beginning” (2:7, 24; 3:11) serves not merely as a reminder of past teachings but as an anchoring point for the community’s faith. The affectionate address of “Beloved” and the overall pastoral tone resonate deeply with the style of the Johannine epistles, which are characterized by an intimacy aimed at guiding a community amidst theological uncertainty or conflict.

How it fails stylistically (scholarship): Johannine rhetoric is distinctively cyclical and meditative, flowing in a way that invites contemplation rather than presenting a linear argument or definitive proclamation—which one might expect from a modern manifesto. Brown¹ and Schnackenburg² emphasize that the epistles are rich with parataxis: the use of simple conjunctions like “and” to create a more fluid, interspersed discourse. This method allows for an expressive weaving of themes and dualisms, such as light versus dark, truth versus lie, and the concepts of abiding and remaining, which pulse through the text. Such a style promotes reflection on the interconnectedness of these spiritual realities rather than offering a polemical stance against a specific heretical group. The imitation reads more like a disjointed compilation of keywords, borrowing phrases like “from the beginning” and “reminding you,” yet lacking the deeper spiraling structure and communal focus that defines genuine Johannine literature.

In the authentic epistles, John is not merely addressing distant heretics but grappling with schisms within his own community, focusing particularly on the implications of Christology and ethics at stake. The secessionists are not just abstract theological adversaries but are individuals within the community who deny the essential truth that Jesus “came in the flesh” (1 Jn 4:2–3). This internal discourse reflects a shared struggle rather than an external critique of a theological movement emerging much later, such as a 19th-century American context.

Steelman critics: Critics might contend that the reliance on the apostolic “deposit of faith,” as mentioned in Jude 3, assumes a standpoint that this body of doctrine is fixed, complete, and fully sufficient. The assertion that any later claims of restoration contradict the premise of “the beginning” is a significant argument put forth by those who maintain doctrinal continuity.

Rebuttal: However, this position raises fundamental questions about what constitutes “the beginning” and presumes that a Protestant closed canon, aligned with Nicene orthodoxy, is synonymous with an unchanging truth. Contemporary New Testament scholarship, including insights from Brown, reveals that Johannine literature anticipates a continuing guidance by the Spirit. Jesus Himself indicates in John 16:12–13 that there are “many things to say” that have yet to be revealed and that the Spirit of truth will provide that necessary clarification as the community progresses through time. This positions the doctrine as dynamic, accommodating spiritual growth and understanding.

The theology underpinning Restorationist perspectives, such as those held by the LDS tradition, draws on scriptural references like Acts 3:21, which speaks of the “restitution of all things,” and prophetic warnings against apostasy found in texts like 2 Thessalonians 2:3 and 1 Timothy 4:1. Such perspectives assert that these themes align with a view of history where the gospel could be obscured and subsequently restored, thus reconciling any initial perceptions of contradiction. Consequently, there is no logical inconsistency in asserting that the original teachings could have been obscured over time; rather, the fallacy lies in the anachronistic application of 4th-century creeds to 1st-century debates on faith and doctrine. This nuanced understanding calls for a reconsideration of how we interpret the transmission of theological beliefs and the continual unfolding of divine guidance throughout history.

2. The “Many Spirits / False Prophets” Section

“Many spirits have gone out into the world… teachings that promise you shall become gods; doctrines that say the Father was once as you are; voices that claim new revelation while departing from the truth once delivered.”

Johannine mimicry attempt: This phrase directly lifts from the admonition found in 1 John 4:1, where the directive to “test the spirits” serves as a safeguard against deception within the community. Additionally, the mention of false prophets resonates deeply with the epistles’ emphasis on discernment and vigilance against teachings that stray from traditional doctrine. The phrase, “You have heard,” is also reflective of the oral tradition that characterized early Christian teachings, emphasizing the continuity between the message of the apostles and the beliefs held by contemporary audiences.

How it fails stylistically & substantively: In stark contrast to authentic Johannine polemics, which often embrace a degree of vagueness and dualistic thinking—such as the concept of “antichrists” who either deny the incarnation of Christ or cause division within the community—this modern interpretation falls short. The Johannine literature is known for its nuanced approach, shying away from explicit condemnations of specific beliefs, instead opting for a deeper, more reflective discourse on faith and truth. The use of phrases like “you see this plainly” tends to resemble a rhetorical “gotcha” rather than a substantive theological critique.

Furthermore, Schnackenburg highlights that the epistles employ a subtle, repetitive dialectic of positive statements followed by negative contrasts. This sophisticated method enables readers to grapple with complex theological ideas rather than confronting them with a mere checklist of heresies. The approach taken here seems to simplify and flatten the rich theological nuances found in the original texts.

This presentation can be seen as an instance of AI pattern-matching evangelical talking points onto biblical keywords, resulting in a rendering that feels pedestrian and inauthentic. It lacks the depth, complexity, and richness of the original Johannine thought, reducing a sophisticated theological discourse to a bullet-point list of perceived threats.

Steelman critics: Critics, especially within evangelical scholarship, often highlight that certain doctrines associated with the LDS (Latter-day Saints) faith—such as exaltation, the concept of theosis, beliefs in divine progression, and ongoing revelation—are significant departures from what they regard as “the faith once delivered.” They argue that if John were to warn against anything that “does not confess Jesus Christ come in the flesh,” he would indeed find reason to reject a theological system that, in their interpretation, posits humans as co-equal with God. This concern reflects a broader evangelical commitment to safeguarding the historicity and uniqueness of Christ’s divinity, emphasizing the potential dangers they perceive in the elevation of humanity within certain religious frameworks. Thus, the critique emerges from a staunch desire to maintain fidelity to traditional Christian orthodoxy, which they feel is jeopardized by modern reinterpretations of divine and human relationships.

Rebuttal & scholarly refutations of the tropes:

“Become gods”: This phrase reflects the concept of theosis, which is discussed in various biblical contexts (see Psalms 82:6; John 10:34-35; 2 Peter 1:4; Revelation 3:21). This idea was notably supported by early Christian writers such as Irenaeus and Athanasius, who argued for the notion of deification within Christian doctrine³. Scholars from the Latter-day Saint (LDS) tradition emphasize that this concept resonates more profoundly with ancient temple practices and the motifs of the divine council than with the creedalism which developed later in Christian history. It is also significant to highlight that no peer-reviewed New Testament scholar asserts that John’s phrase “abide in the Son” inherently excludes believers from participating in divine life, further strengthening the argument for an inclusive understanding of the divine experience.

“Father was once as you are”: This phrase originates from Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse and is echoed in Lorenzo Snow’s well-known couplet. In LDS theology, it carries subtleties related to the belief in eternal progression within a framework of uncreated intelligences, as referenced in Doctrine and Covenants 93:29. Critics often oversimplify this doctrine by misrepresenting it, suggesting that it implies “God was a sinful mortal.” However, such a characterization does not reflect LDS teachings or beliefs and constitutes a strawman argument that fails to engage with the actual nuances of the theology being presented.

“New revelation” / gospel “vanished”: The assertion that Joseph Smith’s claims of new revelation are invalid hinges on the presumption that no apostasy occurred within early Christianity. However, mainstream New Testament scholarship has widely acknowledged the existence of diverse early Christian beliefs and the evolution of doctrine over time. Even within the canon, John’s own Revelation is presented as a fresh visionary insight. The inconsistency arises from a special pleading fallacy: while John’s revelations are accepted and celebrated, those of Joseph Smith face scrutiny and rejection.

The points raised serve as classic examples of confirmation bias and represent recycled arguments found in 19th and 20th-century anti-Mormon literature. These critiques have been thoroughly examined and countered in peer-reviewed LDS scholarship, as found in publications by the Interpreter Foundation and BYU Studies, along with contributions from some non-LDS scholars focusing on early Christian theosis and the embodiment of the divine. This ongoing discourse emphasizes the richness and complexity of theological interpretations across both ancient and modern contexts.

3. “Children, test the spirits… The truth does not shift”

“The Spirit of God does not contradict Himself… The truth does not shift with age…”

This statement emphasizes the constancy of divine truth, suggesting that while human interpretations and understandings may evolve, the core principles of faith remain unchanged. In the context of Johannine thought, we see this principle echoed through the call to “test the spirits” and the use of “abide” language, which are indeed significant elements of the Johannine corpus.

How it fails: When we analyze the specific teachings of the Apostle John, it’s clear that his tests are primarily christological, focusing on the confession that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, as stated in 1 John 4:2–3. Additionally, there’s a strong ethical component where love for one another is mandated. Therefore, John’s framework does not impose a blanket prohibition against any form of doctrinal development or restoration within the faith community.

The critique of the AI letter lies in its simplification of John’s teachings into a rigid “no new prophets” doctrine. This interpretation is at odds with John’s own writings, particularly the Book of Revelation, which he authored as a new revelation and which participates in the evolution of the prophetic tradition.

Steelman critics: Some conservative readings of scripture, particularly Jude 3 and Ephesians 2:20, suggest that the apostles serve as a foundational basis for the Church, implying a sense of finality to prophetic revelation.

Rebuttal: This perspective suffers from logical inconsistency—especially glaring when reflecting on the letter itself, which posits itself as a new revelation purportedly from John. If it is indeed true that “the truth does not shift,” one must question the rationale behind fabricating an epistle that claims to provide new insights.

Additionally, the argument can be further dismantled by addressing the fallacy of false dichotomy presented: the assumption that one must either adhere to rigid stasis or embrace chaotic novelty overlooks the possibility of a more nuanced understanding of revelation. The LDS view posits that there can be progressive revelation within an established covenant framework, referencing Amos 3:7 and Doctrine and Covenants 1:38 as supportive texts. Furthermore, Johannine scholarship, particularly the work of scholars like Raymond Brown, indicates that the Johannine community itself underwent significant evolution in its christological perspectives over the span of several decades, demonstrating that theological development can occur within the parameters of a shared belief system without contradicting core truths.

A robust engagement with Johannine texts reveals a dynamic interplay between enduring truth and the potential for growth in understanding, urging a reconsideration of overly simplistic interpretations that do not account for the historical and contextual developments within early Christian thought.

4. “If anyone comes… denies Christ as… eternal, uncreated… brother to Lucifer…”

“do not receive such a one. For the apostles did not proclaim a Christ who is brother to Lucifer, nor a Father who dwells in flesh…”

Johannine mimicry attempt: This phrase clearly echoes 2 John 9–11, which instructs believers not to receive anyone who comes with a different message.

How it fails: The attempt to apply this to contemporary interpretations reveals one of the most glaring anachronisms. The concept of “Lucifer as spirit brother” is entirely foreign to the 1st-century context of the Johannine writings. The Apostle John, when addressing the community in his epistles, had no conception of the 19th-century restoration movement or its theological implications regarding premortal existence. Instead, the rhetoric here collapses into a raw polemic, sacrificing nuanced theological conversations for a blunt rejection of competing narratives. In truth, the real target of 2 John is the traveling deceivers who are denying the core doctrine of the incarnation, rather than the more abstract notion of premortal spirit ontology that characterizes later Latter-day Saint (LDS) theology.

Steelman critics: When critics explore LDS doctrine concerning the premortal spirit brotherhood, they highlight a significant departure from mainstream Christian thought. The LDS belief posits that all humans are literal spirit children of God, which sounds alien when juxtaposed with traditional creedal language such as “eternally begotten, uncreated.” This contrast not only underscores the theological chasm between these belief systems but also indicates a profound misunderstanding between varying interpretations of scriptural texts. Each side often grapples with the implications of its doctrines, reflecting broader questions about the nature of divinity and the unfolding of creation in ways that can lead to fruitful dialogue, or, conversely, to entrenched divisions.

Rebuttal & fallacy check:

Strawman on “brother to Lucifer”: The assertion that Jesus is viewed as a brother to Lucifer within LDS ideology is a point of contention that merits careful examination. Within the context of LDS beliefs, Jesus is affirmed as the unique Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, as well as Jehovah and the firstborn spirit. This understanding positions Jesus as fully divine, with a unique role that is not to be diminished by the term “brother.” The language surrounding kinship here refers to a premortal existence where Jesus and Lucifer, along with other spirits, shared the same Father. This kinship language does not imply equality in role or stature, nor does it suggest that Jesus is on the same level of worship as Lucifer. Biblical parallels can be found in texts such as Job 1–2 and early Jewish divine-council literature, illustrating a complex understanding of divine relationships that goes beyond mere familial definitions. Critics often misinterpret this kinship as an indication of diminished divinity, which represents a non sequitur in theological discourse.

“Father dwells in flesh”: The doctrine outlined in D&C 130:22 supports the notion that the Father possesses a corporeal form, which aligns with Old Testament anthropomorphisms of first temple Israelite belief; as well as the doctrine of resurrection. The statement in John 4:24, asserting that “God is spirit,” does not negate the idea of embodiment; rather, it asserts a characteristic of God while still allowing for the Son’s incarnation. It’s crucial to understand that spiritual essence and physical embodiment can coexist in LDS theology without contradicting the core tenets of divine nature.

“Eternal, uncreated”: Within LDS doctrine, the concept of intelligences, which includes Christ’s essence, is recognized as eternal. This notion of intelligence suggests that while the Father is seen as the organizer of spirits, it acknowledges preexistence in a way that is more nuanced than often perceived. The phrasing in the disputes often draws assumptions based on Nicene categories that were never utilized by John himself. This nuanced understanding creates a distinction that clarifies misconceptions and highlights the depth of LDS theology regarding the nature of divinity and the preexistence of spirits.

This section ultimately reveals the underlying agenda within some critiques: it suggests a departure from authentic 1st-century rhetoric in favor of contemporary evangelical apologetics. The interpretations and assumptions made in these critiques often reflect a desire to align LDS beliefs with modern theological debates rather than ensuring an accurate representation of the original context and doctrine as understood within the tradition.

5. Closing (vv. 3–end)

“Little children, let no one deceive you… Remain in what you have heard from the beginning… the one who goes beyond the teaching of Christ does not have God… Grace and truth…”

Johannine mimicry attempt: In this passage, phrases such as “Little children,” “abides,” and “goes beyond” (2 Jn 9) are skillfully incorporated, along with the concept of “walking in the light,” which reflects the distinctive themes found throughout the Johannine writings. These motifs seek to evoke the essence of John’s message and connect it to its theological foundations.

How it fails: However, this effort ultimately falls short in capturing the authentic Johannine ethos. The epistles traditionally emphasize themes of assurance, love, and confidence before God, creating a nurturing and reassuring conclusion. Instead, this excerpt ends with a more severe warning, which feels disjointed and resembles a proof-text rather than providing a cohesive or organic closure typical of Johannine literature.

The abruptness and sternness of the warning imply a finality that is absent in the more holistic and reflective nature of genuine Johannine epistles. This mismatch invites critical reflection on the intentions behind the text’s composition and leaves the reader yearning for the richer, more reassuring themes that characterize the authentic Johannine writings. As such, while the attempt at mimicry is evident, it ultimately lacks the depth and warmth that encapsulates the genuine Johannine spirit.

Overall logical fallacies in the AI letter:

Anachronism — applying 1st-century text to 19th-century specifics. This approach fails to acknowledge the distinct historical and cultural contexts in which the original texts were produced, leading to an oversimplified understanding of their meanings and implications.

Strawman + confirmation bias — cherry-picking the most provocative LDS soundbites without providing adequate context or engaging with LDS exegesis. This selective representation distorts the arguments being made, making it easier to attack a simplified version of the ideas while neglecting a fuller, more nuanced conversation that considers the development of thought within the tradition.

Begging the question — this tactic assumes the traditional Protestant reading of “the beginning” as an authoritative interpretation without allowing for potential alternative explanations or understandings that could arise from different theological perspectives. Such an assumption undermines the complexity of scriptural interpretation and invites a reductionist view of the text.

Special pleading — while it’s acceptable to recognize the evolutionary nature of the Johannine community and accommodate differing visions presented in Revelation, it paradoxically forbids any modern parallel that could bolster contemporary interpretations. This inconsistency reveals a bias that limits theological exploration and dialogue.

False dichotomy — presenting a binary choice between “the apostles’ teaching exactly as I interpret it” or “false gospel” restricts the conversation and oversimplifies the rich diversity of early Christian thought. This either-or framework dismisses the possibility of varied interpretations that may still hold truth within them.

Bottom line: This critique serves as a competent AI pastiche of Johannine vocabulary but ultimately represents a failure of authentic rhetoric, historical context, and scholarly integrity. It exemplifies the very problem my previous video aims to highlight:

AI can imitate the biblical style and language to create a façade that smuggles in modern polemics, yet it lacks the capacity to replicate the intricate, community-rooted theology that characterizes the genuine Johannine corpus. The tropes employed are shopworn and have long been refuted in serious engagement with theological scholarship, rendering the piece superficial. Moreover, the letter itself stands as the very “new word” it feigns to condemn, underscoring an internal contradiction that diminishes its overall integrity and value in scholarly discussion. Such an approach only serves to perpetuate misunderstandings about the nature of theological discourse.

EndNotes

1. Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Anchor Bible, vol. 30, Doubleday, 1982. This foundational commentary (still the standard reference in New Testament studies) analyzes the rhetorical structure of 1–3 John as meditative, repetitive, and dualistic rather than linear or polemically titled. Brown demonstrates that Johannine rhetoric addresses internal community schism over christology and ethics (especially incarnation, 1 Jn 4:2–3) through spiraling “abide/remain” language and parataxis, not modern-style heresy catalogs or anachronistic applications to later doctrines. Directly refutes the AI letter’s linear, manifesto-like imitation by showing how real Johannine epistles avoid the very “bullet-point” false-prophet lists and static “no new revelation” rhetoric the AI fabricates. Essential for documenting the stylistic mismatch. ↩︎
2. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Johannine Epistles: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Translated by Reginald Fuller and Ilse Fuller, Crossroad, 1992. Schnackenburg’s detailed exegetical study emphasizes the Johannine epistles’ cyclical dialectic (positive affirmation followed by negative contrast) and narrow focus on ethical love and incarnational christology as the true “test of the spirits.” He highlights the absence of any blanket prohibition on ongoing revelation or doctrinal development within the Johannine community itself. This work exposes the AI letter’s anachronistic insertion of 19th–21st-century evangelical talking points (e.g., “truth does not shift with the age”) as a clear departure from authentic Johannine rhetoric, which is pastoral and internally oriented rather than externally accusatory. ↩︎
3. Russell, Norman. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Oxford UP, 2004. Russell provides the definitive historical survey of theosis (deification) from Irenaeus through the Cappadocians and beyond, demonstrating its deep biblical roots (Ps 82:6; Jn 10:34; 2 Pet 1:4) and centrality in early Christian soteriology. He shows that participation in divine life was never considered a threat to monotheism in patristic thought. This directly refutes the AI letter’s caricature of “teachings that promise you shall become gods” as a novel LDS heresy; Russell’s work (widely cited in both LDS and non-LDS scholarship) establishes theosis as an orthodox early Christian doctrine, exposing the trope as confirmation bias rather than historical scholarship. ↩︎