Upon This Rock I Will Build My Church!

Nothing upsets Christians of other faiths more than the LDS doctrine of the Apostasy! One of the commonest scriptures they quote to argue against it is Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” They say that that means that God would not allow the church to apostatize!

But that scripture is misunderstood. If it is analyzed a bit more carefully, it will be seen that it doesn’t mean what they assume it means. The first thing to note is that God did not build His Church on Peter. God does not build His church on a mortal man. If the Church had been built on Peter, then when Peter died the church must have died with him, because there has been no Peter on earth for the past nearly 2,000 years for him to be the rock on which the church is built. If the church was built on Peter, then where there is no Peter, there could be no church. So the first thing to understand is what the Lord meant when He told Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church”.

The Lord made that comment to Peter after He had asked His disciples the question, “Who do you think I am” (Matthew 16:15); to which Peter had replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). In other words, he bore his testimony that he knew that Jesus was the Son of God. This is confirmed by the fact that Jesus afterwards told him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). In other words, he had gained a testimony of the Holy Ghost that Jesus was the Son of God. When the Lord told Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church,” the “rock” He was referring to was the rock of testimony, meaning the testimony of the Holy Ghost, which is a personal revelation that Jesus is the Christ. The Lord was saying to Peter that He would build His church on the solid rock of personal revelation—the testimony of the Holy Ghost; and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. That is of course entirely true. That is why the LDS Church puts so much emphasis on personal testimonies, because once someone has obtained that testimony, it is difficult to shake them from the faith. That is why many LDS remain strong and faithful to the Church, even in the face of strong adversity and criticism from the opponents of the Church—because they know; they aren’t just guessing. So that is the first point one needs to note.

The second point is what the Lord meant by “church”. The word “church” has more than one definition or meaning. It can mean just a house of worship, the place where people get together to worship God. It can mean a local branch of a particular church or denomination; or all of that denomination. Or it can mean the complete body of the saints or believers in Christ, which constitute His church in the widest sense of the term—His spiritual Church. It can also mean the organizational structure of the church. The true church of God has also a distinct organizational structure. Paul compared it to a house, with foundations, walls, and everything else:

Ephesians 2:

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

When the Lord told Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church,” He was using the word in the wider sense of “the body of His true believers,” or His saints. And that is of course entirely correct. When we say that the church apostatized, we don’t mean that there were no more true believers in Christ left in the world. What we mean is that the organizational structure (as originally devised) was destroyed. The priesthood authority, hence the ability to lead and guide the church by revelation from the Lord was lost. The power to perform valid sacraments acceptable before God was lost. That is what we mean by the Apostasy of the church. We don’t mean that there were no more good Christians left in the world. On the contrary, modern scripture clearly states that there were many good, believing Christians left in the world, who had the Holy Ghost and a testimony of Jesus:

3 Nephi:

6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

What the Lord is saying in this passage is that in the last days (our day), He is going to restore His gospel (the LDS Church) among the Gentiles rather than among the Jews, because the Gentiles believe in Him and the Jews don’t! Well, those who believed in Him constituted His church, which already existed in the world at the time of the Restoration. This is further explained and amplified in the following verses:

D&C 10:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church (i.e. the church which already exists in the world, before the organization of the LDS Church), but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church (which already existed) need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

This revelation was received at a time when the LDS Church had not yet been organized, therefore the “church” that is being referred to is not the LDS Church, but the true church of God which at that time already existed in the world. So the word church has more than one definition and meaning, and that is what that scripture (Mark 16:18) is referring to. It does not mean that the organized church cannot apostatize. It means that those who gain the divine testimony of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Christ will not easily fall away from it, unless they willfully rebel against it. That is the correct interpretation of that scripture.

Revelation 14:6 confirms the Apostasy: “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people”.

If the fullness of the gospel was already on earth (i.e. if there had been no Apostasy) why would there be a need for an angel to come down from heaven to restore it in the latter days? Therefore it must have been lost from the earth at some point through an apostasy for a restoration to be made necessary.

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

One fashionable criticism of the Book of Mormon has been that there are no archaeological evidences to support its claims. There are several answers to that criticism. Firstly, I don’t accept that there are no such evidences. We believe that the archaeological remains of ancient American civilizations, such as those of the Aztec and Inca empires, are those of the Book of Mormon people; but a clear link between them and the Book of Mormon has not yet been established; which is understandable, given that their languages have not been deciphered well enough to identify places and place names.

Secondly, Archaeology and paleontology are not exact sciences. The absence of archaeological evidence for something is not the same as evidence against it. The “archaeological” arguments against the Book of Mormon have always consisted of the absence of something, rather than the proof of the existence of something—i.e. there are no archaeological evidences that something existed, therefore it couldn’t have existed. That argument is logically flawed. It may have existed, but the archaeological evidence for it has yet to been discovered. The absence of “horses” in ancient America is a case in point. For a long time the argument went that the Book of Mormon cannot be true because it talks about horses in ancient America, whereas there are no archaeological evidences that they existed. Then archaeological evidence of horses in ancient America appeared!:

We know that the prehistoric horse came over from North America at the time of the last Ice Age, and soon after that time, four types of horse are noted in the fossil record. Whether the types split from one archaic Horse which left North America, or four types of horse came from there is unknown. The horse or horses seem to, for the most part, have followed the margin of the ice sheets across Eurasia, each becoming more specialized for the environment into which it settled as the ages passed.

Two basic kinds arose—the pony, suited to a wet, cold climate, and the horse, suited to a warmer, dry climate. While ponies were built to dodge a predator in swampy and forested areas until a hiding place could be found, horses were built to run, to run fast, and to run far—hiding was not an option. Source.

Most of the evolutionary development of the horse (54 million years ago to about 10,000 years ago) actually took place in North America, where they developed the very successful strategy of grazing (eating grass) rather than browsing (eating softer succulent leaves). These grazers had evolved specialized teeth for processing the stiff and coarse grass that was at that time becoming very plentiful on the Great Plains of North America. The sketch below, from Prehistoric Mammals by Jan Sovak, is the artist’s visualization of Pliohippus, the first primitive horse that had a single toe and hoof on each leg, like our modern horses. These small horses lived in North America some 6 million years ago, when they might have been preyed upon by Borophagus, the large, hyena-like dog shown in the sketch. Source.

Spearhead discovery puts horse on prehistoric menu

Site yields ancient mammoth, horse, and camel footprints and emerges as one of North America’s richest archaeological fields

“This site is one of the best preserved areas of ancient animal tracks in North America – possibly the world. It’s providing us with an astonishingly detailed picture of what the New World was like during the late Pleistocene Era. We can’t believe how lucky we are.”

University of Calgary archaeologist Dr. Brian Kooyman

Canadian scientists have uncovered the first unequivocal evidence that prehistoric North Americans hunted and butchered now-extinct pony-sized horses. The discovery adds weight to the theory that overhunting may have played a significant role in the extinction of ancient horses on the continent around 10,000 years ago. (Source no longer available on the Internet.)

Now that such evidence has been discovered, the critics have sifted their argument to something else. They say that horses disappeared 10,000 years ago! But archaeological dating is not that accurate. Archaeological and paleontological dates and timelines have at times proved to be off, or have been revised by thousands, and sometimes hundreds of thousands of years. Every once in a while something new is discovered in those fields of study which makes scientist revise their estimates by a couple of thousands or millions of years. This link is a typical example.

Archaeology is not the kind of science that can actually “contradict” or “disprove the existence of” anything. The Book of Mormon is a lot more convincing than its critics think it is, even on archaeological grounds. The last of the three quotes given above mentions the discovery of something it calls the “mammoth” (an elephant like creature) as well as camels. The Book of Mormon also mentions, apart from horses and asses, the existence of “elephants;” as well as unknown creatures which it calls “cureloms” and “cumoms”. So what if we have discovered the evidence of “cureloms” and “cumoms;” would that prove that the Book of Mormon is true?

Thirdly, religion is a matter of faith, not of science or archaeology. We accept things on faith, even though there may not be a rational justification to support it. That applies to all true religions, in all ages of the world. Where is the archaeological evidence that Jesus Christ was the Son of God? There isn’t, and in fact there cannot be any. If we are lucky, we may be able to find some independent corroborative evidence from history or archaeology that a historical figure by the name of Jesus Christ actually existed, and that He even performed miracles; but that does not prove that He was the Son of God—and that is what makes religion. Where is the archaeological evidence that Elijah was a prophet of God? There isn’t, and cannot be any. If we are lucky, we may find some independent historical or archaeological evidence that somebody by the name of King Ahab existed; but it does not prove to us the words that Elijah spoke to him came from God—and that is what makes religion. How do I know that Jesus was the Son of God? In the same way that Peter did—by the testimony of the Holy Ghost: “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). That is the only way that I or anyone else ever could know. How do I know that the Bible is the word of God? In the same way that I know that the Book of Mormon is—by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. There is no other way.

Faith and archaeological/scientific evidence do not go together. Faith comes by “hearing the word of God” (Romans 10:17); and especially as that “word” is preached by the power of the Holy Ghost through a great prophet of God such as Moses, or Peter, or Joseph Smith. It does not come by scientific, historical, or archaeological evidence. If faith is based on archaeological or historical evidence, than it is not true faith.

Genuine faith never comes by signs or by scientific evidence. The Jews had many signs and miracles wrought among them, but still they did not believe. To the unbelieving Jews the Lord said: “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; . . .” (Matthew 16:4). And to the doubting Thomas the Lord said, “. . . because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29). The Book of Mormon clarifies it further as follows:

Alma 32:

17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

And the Book of Ether further adds:

Ether 12:

6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.

I believe that the Book of Mormon deliberately comes without a lot of external evidence because it is intended as a test of our faith. It is a great sifter. It is designed to separate the sheep from the goats; the chaff from the wheat; the true believers in God, and those “sign seekers” who merely bring excuses, but do not really want to believe, and would not in fact believe even if convincing evidence was presented to them. This is made clear in the Book of Mormon:

1 Nephi 14:

7 For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.

This “marvellous work” refers to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. In other words, the Book of Mormon is designed to either “convince people of peace and eternal life,” or else to “deliver them to the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds,” to their ultimate destruction. And it accomplishes that by demanding faith without evidence. You either believe it or you don’t. There is no “proof” about it.

Fourthly, the same reasoning from “archaeology” that is used against the Book of Mormon would undermine the truth of the Bible. Although there are some archaeological evidences in support of secular aspects of the Bible, there are also many more important events for which there is no archaeological evidence. There is no archaeological evidence that the Israelites ever lived in Egypt, or even that they were led into it in the first place. According to the Bible, the Israelites lived in Egypt for 400 years; and when they left, they were around two million strong. They provided slave labor for Pharaoh, and the Bible tells us that they “built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses” (Exodus 1:11). Yet there is not a scrap of archaeological evidence that the Israelites ever lived in Egypt. The Egyptians were very meticulous in recording their history in stone carvings and papyri, large numbers of which have been preserved in the dry atmosphere of the Sahara desert, and have been uncovered in great numbers. Almost the entire history of Egypt has been reconstructed from these manuscripts and inscriptions. Yet there is not a single reference to the Israelites—not even a graffiti on the wall by a disgruntled Israeli slave—to prove that they ever existed, or of their exodus out of it, or even of the plagues that Moses brought on Egypt. The Bible tells us that Moses practically destroyed the land of Egypt with his mighty plagues; slew the entire firstborn of the Egyptians, “from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon...” (Ex. 12:29); and finally drowned Pharaoh and the entire Egyptian army in the waters of the Red sea. Yet there is absolutely no evidence in Egyptian historical monuments and inscriptions that any of this ever happened.

There is no evidence that the Israelites wondered in Sinai for 40 years. They were around two million strong, and they wondered in Sinai for 40 years, and at times they encamped in one place for more than a year before moving on to somewhere else. Such large encampments always leave behind a lot of debris and environmental changes that can be identified centuries afterwards. Yet there is no such evidence found in the Sinai Peninsula. The Israelites were made to wander in the wilderness for 40 years so that those Israelites who were numbered to go and fight, but refused to do so because of their unbelief, had died. They were numbered to be “six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty” (Numbers 1:46). If you assume that an equal number of women and old people died also, that would make the total number of those who died in Sinai, before the 40 years were ended, to nearly 2 million. Where are their graves? Similarly, there is no evidence that the Israelites ever conquered the land of Palestine in the way that the Bible says they did.

There is no historical or archeological evidence that such a being as Darius the Mede (king of Babylon after the death of Belshazzar mentioned in Daniel 5:31; 6:9, 25-28; 9:1; 11:1; not to be confused with Darius the son of Hystaspes and founder of the Persian dynasty, mentioned in Ezra 4:5, 24; Ezra 5:5-7; Ezra 6:1-15; Haggai 1:1, 15; 2:10; Zechariah 1:1, 7; 7:1; or with Darius Codomannus, called Darius the Persian in Nehemiah 12: 22; the last king of Persia) ever existed. So, shall we disbelieve in the book of Daniel because it appears to contradict history or archaeology?

There are many archaeologists who use archaeological evidence against the Bible. Here is a typical example.

If that argument is valid against the Book of Mormon, than so is this argument against the Bible. Therefore those who claim belief in the Bible, but at the same time attack the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds, stand on very shaky ground themselves

What Constitutes Official LDS Doctrine

The leadership of the LDS church has always made it clear that what officially defines LDS doctrine is the scriptural canon of the LDS Church—the standard works. That becomes the measuring yardstick by which everyone’s doctrine is to be judged, be they high or low in the Church. Here are some relevant quotes:

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, pp. 203-04)

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973)

“If it is not in the standard works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” (Harold B. Lee, 11th President, Improvement Era, January 1969 p.13)

“The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” (B. H. Roberts, Deseret News (23 July 1921) sec. 4:7.)

“One of the reasons we call our scriptures The Standard Works [is that] they are the standard of judgement and the measuring rod against which doctrines and views are weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are involved. The scriptures always take precedence.” (Bruce R McConkie, “Finding Answers to Gospel Questions,” an open letter to all “honest truth seekers,” dated 30 October 1980, [quoted in Michael Hicks, “Do You Preach the Orthodox Religion: Thoughts on the Idea of Heresy in the Church,” Sunstone v6:5 (Sept./Oct. 1981), 32].)

The fiery Brigham young has also expressed the same views:

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world . . . to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied . . . Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (Journal of Discourses, 3:5.)

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are lead by him. . . . Let every man and woman know themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not.” (Journal of Discourses, 9:150.)

And LDS scripture likewise confirms that doctrine:

D&C 33:16: “And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things.”

D&C 42:12: “And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.”

D&C 42:59: “Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law [i.e. understood in its widest sense, includes doctrine], to be my law to govern my church;”

The only person who is authorized to introduce new doctrine into the Church is the President of the Church, who will do so following the procedure outlined by Harold B. Lee in the quote given above. (I emphasize new doctrine, because it involves more than just “receiving revelation”. Prophets can teach and preach by inspiration and revelation without introducing new doctrine into the Church—which is what they do at every general conference.) J. Reuben Clark has expressed it as follows:

“Here we must have in mind—must know—that only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretations of scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church. He is God’s sole mouthpiece on earth for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the only true Church. He alone may declare the mind and will of God to his people. No officer of any other Church in the world had this high right and lofty prerogative.” (Church News, July 31, 1954, p. 2ff; quoted in Cowan [1985], 452.) [Richard O. Cowan, The Church in the Twentieth Century (SLC: Bookcraft, 1985).]

We sustain the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators to the Church; but we do not consider them to be infallible. No prophet has ever been infallible, in any age of the world, nor claimed to be. A prophet is a prophet when he is acting as such, and speaks by the inspiration of heaven, as taught in this verse:

D&C 68:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

The question that then arises, and is often asked is, how do we know when someone who speaks is “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”? How do we know when a prophet is acting as a prophet? The answer to that question was given by President J. Reuben Clark, counsellor in the First Presidency, as follows:

“There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’

“. . . To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of Johnson’s Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk.

“I do not know if this ever happened, but I say it illustrates a principle—that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’” (J. Reuben Clark Jr, “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?”)

In other words, the membership of the Church will know within themselves, if they have the Holy Ghost as they should, whether the speaker speaks by the Holy Ghost or not, as Clark again explains:

“I have given some thought to this question, and the answer thereto so far as I can determine, is: We can tell when the speakers are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost” only when we, ourselves, are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.” (Ibid., 68-9.) [J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “When are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?” speech given at BYU, July 7, 1954, published in the Church News, July 31, 1954; reprinted in Dialogue, 12:2.)]

In closing I should like to add that the number of occasions when the leadership of the Church in addressing the people has not been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost” has been extremely rare. No one need suppose, from presenting the above argument, that that is a frequent occurrence. It is the principle of it that is being discussed here, not the frequency of its occurrence.
________________________
In preparing the above material I have in part made use of this article, which is gratefully acknowledged.
.

Why No LDS Catechism?

 

 

A frequent question that is asked by non-LDS (especially Catholics) is why the LDS Church does not have an officially approved Catechism, wherein the doctrine of the Church can be systematically and formally defined. They say that that is because LDS doctrine is subject to frequent change! That is certainly not true. LDS doctrine is eternally fixed and defined in the scriptural canon of the Church, known among us as the standard works (i.e. the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). We do not have a catechism because we prefer to let the word of God to speak for itself, rather than let someone else tell us what it should say. It is the policy of the Church to encourage Church members to learn to extract true doctrine directly from the scriptures, rather than indirectly through some other source. We believe that no one can do better than what God Himself has done, in defining the doctrines of the Church in His own revelations and scripture that He has given to the Church. That is why they are given. There is nothing that man can do that can improve on what God has done.

Having a catechism does not mean that doctrine cannot change. It is more likely to change! It is scripture that does not change. Catechisms can and do change. Has the catechism of the Catholic Church always been the same? Has the Catholic Church always had a catechism? When was it written? Has it never been revised or changed? Has it evolved? What is the history of it? According to an article in the Wikipedia on the Catechism, “The current Catechism of the Catholic Church [is] the first complete rewrite since the Council of Trent in 1566.” So it looks like the Catechism of the Catholic Church has not always been the same. Maybe Catholic doctrine is not so “unchanging” after all! But scripture dose not change. The word of God is unchanging and eternally true. That is the ultimate, authoritative source of LDS theology and doctrine.

I am sure that if an official “Catechism” was published by the Church, it would prove very popular among a segment of the LDS community. The reason why the Church does not want to publish one is that, firstly, no such book written by man will ever be perfect. One would always be able to find flaws in it; whereas the word of God is perfect. The doctrine of the LDS Church is ultimately that which is revealed in LDS scripture. Such a book could not “add” anything to what the Lord has already revealed in scripture; neither could it “express” it any more correctly and accurately. It would always be something less perfect than the word of God itself, and you would always be able to discover flaws in it. I like what the Psalmist has written about the virtues of the word of God:

Psalms 19:

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.

8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.

9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.

10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.

That is the sentiment about the word of God that the LDS Church adheres to. We don’t want to supplant the word of God with man a made catechism.

Secondly, a catechism, no matter how well prepared, can never provide an answer to every conceivable or unexpected doctrinal, theological, procedural or moral question that can arise in the Church. The word of God, however, always seems to have an ability to give us answers to every unexpected theological or moral question, or an unexpected situation we may find ourselves in life.

Thirdly, the Church wants its members to become authoritative interpreters of scripture so that they can find for themselves the answer to any such question that may arise in their lives, as directed by the Spirit of the Lord, rather than some imperfect man-made catechism. A catechism if published would tend to replace the scriptures in the minds of many Church members as the primary source of LDS theology and doctrine, which would not be a desirable situation from an LDS perspective. It is the will of the Lord that LDS should familiarise themselves with the revelations of God, and develop the love for and the ability to extract correct doctrine directly from them, rather than relying on secondary, imperfect, man-made sources. The scriptures too seem to be of this opinion. In the Old Testament we read:

Deuteronomy 30:

10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day [i.e. scripture], it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.

12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?

14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

Moses seems to be very emphatic. He is not commanding the Jews to create a “catechism,” and then hearken to the catechism. He is commanding them to hearken directly to the word of God itself, as preserved in its purity, in its original form as penned by the prophet; and in order that they may not misunderstand, he emphasizes it by saying: “But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” That is what the Lord wants all mankind to do with the word of God, not to replace it with some catechism. He wants us to read the scriptures themselves, and learn to understand them, extract our doctrine directly from them, and then follow them. In the New Testament Paul gives a similar counsel to Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I don’t see any room here for creating a catechism, and relying on the catechism instead of the word of God. The reliance is solely on the word of God, without an intermediate “catechism” coming in between. The Book of Mormon too gives us good counsel in that regard:

2 Nephi 32:

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

To sum it up, the catechism of the LDS Church it is the standard works! There is no need to write another.

One sources of confusion when discussion this subject with Catholics is that the Catechism has two different meanings in the minds of a Catholic. The role of the Catechism of the Catholic Church initially was simply to provide basic instructional material for use by new members, or those being instructed to become members of the church—hence the meaning of the words “catechize,” “catechist,” and “catechumen”. In that sense of the term, there is no objection to a catechism. The LDS Church too has special instructional materials intended for use by new converts and investigators. There is a book called Gospel Principles that is used to teach investigators and new members the basic doctrines of the Church. It is used as a textbook to teach new members, for the first year after they join, the basic doctrines of the Church. After that they graduate to the Sunday School Gospel Doctrine class, where the textbook of study is the scriptures themselves. There are even online resources for people who want to familiarize themselves with the basic beliefs and doctrines of the Church. They can be seen here, and here. In that sense of the term, I have no objection to a catechism, and I don’t believe the LDS Church would object either. But the Catechism over the centuries has acquired a different significance in the Catholic Church. As the Catholic Church has over many centuries drifted away from its original shores, and wandered off into uncertain waters, the Catechism has acquired a significance that it originally did not have—it has become a standard document to officially and authoritatively define the doctrine of the Catholic Church. That is a role which we are not prepared to give it. To LDS the scriptures (the standard works) are, and can ever be, the only source that authoritatively defines Church doctrine. There is nothing else that can ever assume that role. When Catholics talk about the Catechism, they usually have both these two different meanings in mind, and unconsciously switch between the two in their thoughts. It is important to point out to them that LDS have no objection to a catechism as originally intended and used in the early Christian church—i.e. as instructional materials for new converts. It is only in the second meaning it has acquired in the Catholic Church that the LDS Church would object to. To sum it up, the catechism of the LDS Church is the standard works! There is not need to write another.

The LDS Church does not have a Catechism for more or less the same reasons that it does not have a written liturgy. The traditional established churches, such and Catholic and Orthodox, have huge liturgical volumes in which every aspect of every church service for every Sunday of the year in prescribed in minute detail. The nearest thing that we have to a written liturgy is the two sacramental prayers that are offered over the bread and water (which are prescribed by revelation), and which can be written on half a sheet of paper. We don’t have anything comparable to the massive liturgies of the established churches, and I am convinced never will. In modern LDS scripture that is forbidden. The Church is commanded to conduct its services as moved upon by the Holy Ghost:

Moroni 6:

9 And their meetings were conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost; for as the power of the Holy Ghost led them whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing, even so it was done.

D&C 20:

45 The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy Ghost, according to the commandments and revelations of God.

D&C 46:

2 But notwithstanding those things which are written, it always has been given to the elders of my church from the beginning, and ever shall be, to conduct all meetings as they are directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.