Deconstructing the Fallacies: A Steelman Review of Bill Young’s Critique of Timothy Berman

 

Is it "lying for the Lord" to say that Latter-day Saint theology is biblical? Bill Young from Truth to Mormons thinks so, and he’s not holding back.

In his recent video critique of apologist Timothy Berman, Young claims that the LDS faith is intentionally deceptive, hiding "deep doctrines" behind Christian-sounding language. He argues that concepts like the plurality of gods and the divine council are fundamentally unbiblical and that relying on modern prophets over the "plain reading" of scripture is a soul-crushing mistake. But does his argument actually hold water when we look at the scholarship he cites?

As someone who values both biblical integrity and honest dialogue, I’ve spent years analyzing these exact theological friction points. In this post, we’re going to strip away the "gotcha" tactics and ad hominem attacks to see if Young’s claims can actually survive a steelman test—and what the Bible really says about the Divine Council.

1. Summary of the Video and Assertions

The Video Content: The video is a critique by Bill Young of an interaction between LDS apologist Timothy Berman and Evangelical pastor Jeff Durbin (Apologia Studios). Young frames the video as a "clinic" on how LDS apologists allegedly "dissemble," "equivocate," and "fog up" Mormon doctrine rather than owning it.

Bill Young’s Main Criticisms & Assertions:

• Deception & Lack of Candor: Young asserts that LDS apologists like Berman intentionally hide "deep" doctrines (like the King Follett discourse, God having a father, and plurality of gods) from the public to appear more "Christian." He calls this "lying for the Lord."

• The Theological Contradiction: Young endorses Jeff Durbin’s argument that Joseph Smith’s later theology (God was once a man) contradicts the Bible (specifically Isaiah 43:10-11) and the Book of Mormon’s earlier "monotheistic" descriptions.

• Misuse of Scholarship: Young accuses Berman of dishonestly citing the late scholar Dr. Michael Heiser. He argues that while Heiser believed in a "Divine Council," he was a Trinitarian who rejected the LDS view that these beings are gods in the same ontological sense as Yahweh.

• Biblical Illiteracy: Young claims that because LDS bishops are lay ministers without seminary degrees, the general LDS membership is "biblically illiterate."

• Salvation is Bible-Exclusive: He asserts that salvation comes strictly through the Bible ("hearing by the word of God") and that relying on modern prophets or "extra-biblical" journals leads to a "soul-crushing mistake."

2. Logical Fallacies Employed by Bill Young

Bill Young relies on several logical fallacies to strengthen his critique while undermining the LDS position:

• Ad Hominem (Abusive): Rather than sticking strictly to the arguments, Young attacks Berman’s character. He calls him "dangerous," claims he lacks "self-awareness," accuses him of having a "big ego," and labels his defense as a "train wreck" and "dissembling."

• Bulverism (Appeal to Motive): Young assumes he knows why Berman argues the way he does—claiming the motive is deception ("milk before meat") or a desire to be accepted by mainstream Christians—rather than engaging the possibility that Berman genuinely sees nuance in the theology.

• Confirmation Bias / Special Pleading: Young praises Jeff Durbin as "winsome," "respectful," and "loving" despite Durbin’s aggressive interruption and "gotcha" style tactics. Conversely, he frames Berman’s attempts to explain context as "rabbit trails" and "evasion." He judges similar behaviors differently based on who is doing them.

• Appeal to Authority (Genetic Fallacy): Young uses Dr. Michael Heiser as a cudgel. He appeals to Heiser's authority to debunk LDS views on the Divine Council but then dismisses Heiser’s authority ("Heiser is not an authority over us") when Berman tries to use Heiser's scholarship to support a point about the text.

• False Dichotomy: He presents a choice between "The Bible" and "Scholars/Journals," implying one cannot value biblical scholarship and the text simultaneously. He also sets up a false binary between "Monotheism" and "Mormonism," ignoring the biblical category of Monolatry (worship of one God among divine beings) which many scholars see in the Old Testament.

3. Steelman of Bill Young’s Position

To "steelman" is to present the opponent's argument in its strongest, most charitable form:

• The Argument for Strict Monotheism: The Bible, particularly in Isaiah 40-55, contains strong statements where Yahweh declares, "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." A plain reading of these texts suggests that Yahweh is the only being in existence who possesses the nature of Deity.

• The Contradiction of Nature: Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse teaches that God the Father was once a mortal man who progressed to Godhood, and that we can do the same. This implies an infinite regress of Gods. This seems to fundamentally conflict with the idea of God as the Uncaused First Cause and the "One True God" described in Christian orthodoxy.

• The Integrity of Apologetics: When engaging with Evangelicals, LDS apologists should be upfront about these distinctives (Theosis, God's embodiment) rather than using language that obfuscates these differences to sound Trinitarian. If the doctrine is true, it should be defended boldly, not minimized. Misusing scholars like Heiser—who explicitly rejected LDS theology—to support LDS theology is intellectually dishonest.

4. Logical and Scriptural Rebuttals

Here are rebuttals anchored in scripture and scholarship, addressing the "Steelman" points directly:

A. Rebuttal to "Strict Monotheism" & Isaiah 43:10

• Context is King: Biblical scholars (LDS and non-LDS) acknowledge that the monotheism of Isaiah is often rhetorical, not metaphysical. In Isaiah 43-44, God is contrasting Himself with idols of wood and stone that cannot save, speak, or prophesy.

  • Scripture: In 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, Paul acknowledges that "there be gods many, and lords many," yet "to us there is but one God, the Father." This aligns with the LDS view: We worship one God (Monolatry) within a family of divine beings (Theosis), rather than asserting no other divine beings exist.

• The Word "God" (Elohim): Psalm 82:6 says, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Jesus quotes this in John 10:34 to defend His own divinity. If Jesus uses the term "gods" to refer to others, Bill Young’s definition of "god" is more restrictive than Jesus’s.

B. Rebuttal to the "Heiser/Divine Council" Critique

• Nuance vs. Deception: It is not deceptive to cite a scholar’s data even if you disagree with their conclusion. Dr. Heiser proved that the "Divine Council" is biblical and that Elohim is a "place of residence" term (spirit world), not just a title for Yahweh.

• LDS Valid Usage: LDS apologists use Heiser to show that the concept of a plurality of divine beings is biblical, destroying the "strict monotheism" (only one divine being exists) argument. We can agree with Heiser on the structure of the cosmos (a council of gods) while disagreeing on the ontology (LDS believe we are the same species as God; Heiser did not).

C. Rebuttal to "Biblical Illiteracy" & Lay Ministry

• Scriptural Precedent: In Acts 4:13, the religious elites (Pharisees/Sadducees) perceived Peter and John as "unlearned and ignorant men." God has essentially always called laymen—shepherds, fishermen, and farmers—rather than professional theologians to lead His people.

• The Fruit of Study: The assumption that a paid clergy guarantees biblical literacy is false. The LDS tradition emphasizes personal revelation and study (D&C 88:118 "seek learning even by study and also by faith").

D. Rebuttal on Theosis (Becoming like God)

• Joint-Heirs: Romans 8:17 calls us "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." A "joint-heir" inherits everything the Father has.

• Partakers of Divine Nature: 2 Peter 1:4 states we can become "partakers of the divine nature."

• Early Christian History: St. Athanasius, a pillar of orthodoxy, famously said, "God became man so that man might become God." The doctrine of Theosis is not a Mormon invention; it is a restoration of ancient Christian hope.

5. Insights on Healthy Engagement (Strategic Apologetics)

Bill Young’s video is an example of "gotcha" apologetics. Here is how to engage differently:

• Avoid "Bible Bashing": Do not fall into the trap of throwing verses back and forth like rocks. The Bible is complex and can be used to support various views. Instead of trying to "win," try to clarify.

  • Example: Instead of debating the definition of Elohim endlessly, say: "I see that you prioritize God's uniqueness (Isaiah). I prioritize God's desire to share His nature with His children (Romans 8). Can you see why I find hope in that?"

• Own the Differences (Don't Equivocate): Young is right about one thing: dodging doctrine looks suspicious. Be mindful and confident.

  • Say this: "Yes, we believe God the Father is an exalted Man. We believe this makes Him more relatable and loving, not less divine. I understand that is different from the creedal view, but it is central to our understanding of 'Father'."

• Validate the Critic’s Intent: Steelman them to their face.

  • Say this: "I can see you are deeply protective of God's glory and don't want anyone to worship a false god. I admire your zeal for truth. My intent is to worship the Jesus of the New Testament who called us His 'brethren'."

• Focus on the Savior: Toxic apologetics focuses on Joseph Smith, polygamy, or obscure quotes. Healthy apologetics anchors in Christ. Always bring the conversation back to: How does this doctrine help me follow Jesus better?

  • Insight: If the debate isn't increasing charity (the pure love of Christ), it has ceased to be Christian apologetics and has become an ego battle. It is okay to walk away.