RCC Decision Not to Recognize Latter-day Saint Baptism

In June of 2001 the Catholic Church issued an official statement declaring its decision not to recognize the validity of the baptisms performed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The complete text of this document, which can be seen on the Vatican website, and is as follows:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSE TO A ‘DUBIUM’
on the validity of baptism conferred by
«The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints»,
called «Mormons»

Question: Wheter the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.

From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.

+ Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER
Prefect

+ Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

This raises the obvious question of why the Catholic Church, which is a very conservative institution in maintaining its traditions and practices, has decided to go against its long held practice of recognizing the baptisms performed by other churches; and why it has made that decision, with regard to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, now?

That decision is odd, because the Catholic Church has traditionally accepted baptisms performed by other churches, such as radical Protestant churches that have broken away from it, and even called it uncomplementary names such as “Whore of Babylon,” and called the Pope the “Antichrist!” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-saints treats the Catholic Church with far more respect than the Protestant Churches have done, or still do.

Traditionally and historically, in fact, the Catholic Church has accepted baptism performed by anyone in an emergency. A Jewish Rabbi, a Muslim cleric, an atheist can perform a valid Catholic baptism in an emergency. If someone is at the point of death, and he has no recourse to a Catholic Priest, he can ask anyone at hand to perform the rite of baptism for him, and the Catholic Church recognizes that as a valid baptism. So it is indeed odd that they should single out the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at this time for an exception to this rule, which after all is a Christ-centered Church, and uses the Trinitarian formula in its baptisms.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church in its official statement does not attempt to give a reason, or a theological explanation for its decision; so that the Catholic apologists have been left to their own devices to come up with an explanation for it; and they have latched on to theological differences concerning the Godhead or the Trinity. But that only raises more awkward questions for the Catholic Church, because differences in doctrine have never been considered a justification for not acknowledging the validity of another church’s baptism. In an interesting article by Fr. Luis Ladaria, S.J., titled: “The Question Of The Validity Of Baptism Conferred In The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints,” he makes it clear that doctrinal differences have never been a justification for the Catholic Church to alter its policy of recognizing baptisms performed by other churches. Here is an extract from that article [emphasis added]:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has given a negative response to a “Dubium” regarding the validity of Baptism conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more commonly known as the Mormons. Given that this decision changes the past practice of not questioning the validity of such Baptism, it seems appropriate to explain the reasons that have led to this decision and to the resulting change of practice.

This explanation becomes even more necessary if one considers that errors of a doctrinal nature have never been considered sufficient to question the validity of the sacrament of Baptism. In fact, already in the middle of the third century Pope Stephen I, opposing the decisions of an African synod in 256 A.D., reaffirmed that the ancient practice of the imposition of hands as a sign of repentance should be maintained, but not the rebaptism of a heretic who enters the Catholic Church. In this way, the name of Christ attains great honour for faith and sanctification because whoever is baptized in the name of Christ, wherever that has taken place, has received the grace of Christ (cf. Denzinger-Hüngermann [DH] 110–111). The same principle was upheld by the Synod of Arles in 314 (cf. DH 123). Well known also is the struggle of St Augustine against the Donatists. The Bishop of Hippo affirms that the validity of the sacrament depends neither on the personal sanctity of the minister nor on his belonging to the Church.

Even non-Catholics can validly administer Baptism. In every case, however, it is the Baptism of the Catholic Church, which does not belong to those who separate themselves from her but to the Church from which they have separated themselves (cf. Augustine, On Baptism 1, 12, 9). This validity is possible because Christ is the true minister of the sacrament: Christ is the one who truly baptizes, whether it is Peter or Paul or Judas who baptizes (cf. Augustine, Treatise on the Gospel of John VI, 1,7; cf. CCC n. 1127). The Council of Trent, confirming this tradition, defined that Baptism administered by heretics in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does is true Baptism (cf. DH 1617).

The most recent documents of the Catholic Church maintain the same teaching. The Code of Canon Law prescribes that those who have been baptized in non-Catholic ecclesial communities (as long as there is no doubt regarding the matter or the form or the intention of the minister or of the person being baptized) should not be baptized again (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 869 §2), Intrinsically connected to this problem is that of who can be the minister of Baptism in the Catholic Church. According to the Code, in cases of necessity anyone can baptize, provided the intention is correct (cf. can. 861 §2). The Code of Canon Law confirms the fundamental elements of Tridentine teaching and makes more explicit what is the required correct intention: “The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation” (CCC, n. 1256. Evidently, the necessity of Baptism spoken of here is not to be understood in an absolute sense; cf. ibid., nn. 1257–1261). Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of TRINITARIAN FAITH, as for example in the case of the ARIANS.

Curiously, in this same article, Fr. Ladaria then proceeds to justify the decision of the Catholic Church precisely on the basis of the theological differences between the two religions, which negates everything he has just said above! Here is a quote [emphasis added]:

We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: “Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement.

This negates what he has said before. Either doctrinal differences are significant or they are not. At first he says that they are not, and then he says that they are. It is a self-contradictory statement.

Another (former) Catholic priest by the name of Jordan Vajda,* who writes more sympathetically of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in the introduction to his masters’ thesis: Partakers of the Divine Nature: A Comparative Analysis of the Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization, (pp. xiii–xv), has come up with a different explanation for the Catholic Church’s decision, as follows [emphasis added]:

My intuition, however, which I hope to more fully develop into an article in the near future, tells me that the decision of the Catholic Church to not recognize the validity of LDS baptism actually parallels something that the Latter-day Saints have understood since their beginning in 1830. To be specific: in April 1830, within days of the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Prophet Joseph Smith was taught by means of divine revelation that the baptismal ordinances performed by all other Christians—the current-day adherents of that era or dispensation of salvation history, which was established by Christ during his earthly ministry (and which, from an LDS perspective, has gone into apostasy)—are essentially different and invalid as compared to those performed in the LDS Church, which has ushered in the new “dispensation of the fulness of times” (Doctrine and Covenants 128:18). This divine instruction would subsequently appear in the first authorized collection of the Prophet Joseph’s revelations, The Book of Commandments (1833), and can now be found as section 22 of the Doctrine and Covenants, one of the four volumes of LDS scripture (along with the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, and the Pearl of Great Price).

The Catholic Church, albeit a bit inarticulately, has now recognized that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represents not just another development of Protestantism, but is truly a “new religious tradition” (as also noted by Professor Jan Shipps in her landmark study Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition). Thus, the Catholic Church has recognized that the baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the baptism of a different gospel dispensation; and if a person wants to “cross-over” from one gospel dispensation to another, the baptism of the other dispensation will not and cannot be regarded as valid.

This puts a much braver face on it for the Catholic Church, and is certainly the most intelligent and face-saving explanation that a Catholic could give.

Another consideration is, Why did the Catholic Church take so long to come to that momentous decision? This decision is relatively recent. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been around for 180 years. What took them so long to come to that great realization?

But since “guesswork” is now the order of the day; and the Catholic Church, which made that decision in the first place, did not venture to give an official explanation for its decision; I think that my guesswork is as good as anybody else’s; and I don’t think that either explanation is correct. I believe that there were several factors involved in that decision:

The main reason for making that decision I believe was in retaliation to the Latter-day Saint policy of not recognizing the validity their baptism. Long before the Catholic Church decided not to recognize Latter-day Saint baptism, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not acknowledge Catholic baptism. In fact, Latter-day Saints have never recognized the validity of baptisms performed by any church other than their own. That is because the Theology of the restored gospel teaches that baptism is a sacrament that needs to be performed by proper priesthood authority, and traditional Christianity has lost that ability, and no longer possesses the necessary priesthood authority to perform a valid baptism (or any other sacrament for that matter). If the Catholic Church was to recognize Latter-day Saint baptisms, that would amount to a tacit acknowledgement of the authority under which it is performed; which would in turn amount to negating their own! The theological basis of Latter-day Saint baptism would necessitate that. It is either Catholic baptism or the Latter-day Saint one. It can’t be both. The Catholic Church was faced with the dilemma of either acknowledging the authority of Latter-day Saint Baptism, and thereby negating its own; or else to reject the authenticity of Latter-day Saint baptism in order preserve its own. It is either one or the other. If they acknowledge that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the authority, that means that they don’t!

But that decision does not solve the Catholic Church’s problem. It creates more problems for them than it solves. The Catholic Church is now caught in a quandary of its own making. The reason is that their position is untenable and inconsistent. It is both theologically and historically inconsistent. It is theologically inconsistent because the necessity for priesthood or divine authority has never been a requirement for Catholic baptism; so the Catholic Church cannot now turn around and say, “We do not recognize your baptism, because we think that we have the proper authority and you don’t.” They have never acknowledged the necessity of that before; therefore they cannot do so now. If they were to make that acknowledgement now, that would mean that all the baptisms that they had previously acknowledged as valid were not!

Their position is also historically inconsistent, because the Catholic Church had traditionally accepted baptism from anyone including a non-Catholic, even by an unbeliever. So there is no valid reason why they should not accept it from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a much more viable institution than many of the radical Protestant churches that have broken away from it; and also uses the correct form and substance (i.e. the Trinitarian formula, and immersion in water). If the Catholic Church had not made that decision, nobody would have said anything or noticed. Things would have continued as they had done before. But now that they have made that decision, they have to give a justifiable explanation for it, and they don’t have one.

The Latter-day Saint position, on the other hand, has been perfectly consistent. From the day that the Church was organized it has never recognized the validity of the baptism of any church other than its own—not just of the Catholic Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not make that decision as a snub to the Catholic Church (or any other church). It was done in keeping with a commandment given to the Church in a revelation received in April 1830—which was only a few days after the Church had been organized. It constitutes section 22 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the complete text of which is as follows (including the introductory note printed in italics):

D&C 22:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Manchester, New York, April 1830. HC 1:79–80. This revelation was given to the Church in consequence of some who had previously been baptized desiring to unite with the Church without rebaptism.

1 Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.
2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.
3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.
4 Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen.

This has been the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since its inception. Latter-day Saint policies and practices are clear and transparent. The Church hasn’t “changed” its position one little bit. But the Catholic Church is all over the place. It is changing its policies and practices without knowing why it is doing it (or at least telling anybody!) One doesn’t need to be a genius to figure out who comes out better off in this exchange.

However, I believe that there is still more to this decision than what meets the eye. The curious thing is that previous to this decision being made, representation was made to the “Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith” in October 25, 1991, by a Rev. A.J.V. Adjutant Judicial Vicar, of a Mid-Western US diocese for the RCC, to not recognize the validity Latter-day Saint baptism, to which the said “Congregation” at that time gave a negative response. The text of this exchange apparently comes from pages 17–20 of ROMAN REPLIES AND CLSA ADVISORY OPINIONS 1992 (Canon Law Society of America: 1992), edited by Kevin W. Vann, J.C.D. and Lynn Jarrell, O.S.U., J.C.D. and published on the Internet. The letter is addressed to “Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Piazza del S. Uffizio, 11 00193 Rome, Italy” and begins with the following words:

Your Eminence:

I am writing regarding the question of the validity of the sacrament of baptism as practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons). ...

The rest of the letter is a long rant against the supposed doctrinal and procedural falsities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (many of which is in fact incorrect), and then proposes that the validity of the baptism of the Church not be recognized. To this the “Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith” gave the following reply in April of 1992, addressed to the Bishop of the Diocese from where the original letter was sent [emphasis added]:

March 31 1992
Prot. No. 9/90

Your Excellency:

Reverend A.J.V., the adjutant judicial vicar of your diocese had occasion to write to this Congregation last October 25th, raising certain questions regarding the validity of Mormon baptism. We would be grateful if you would pass on to Father A.J.V. the following information, conveying our regrets for the delay in response. While it would be inopportune here to go into all the counter-positions in the several arguments Father A.J.V. brings to bear against the validity of Mormon baptism, suffice it to say that all of the points he raised in his letter were taken into consideration in a recent in-depth examination undertaken by this dicastery, the outcome of which we are pleased to share with you.

On February 15, 1991, in an audience granted to the Cardinal Prefect, the Holy Father approved the conclusion of this Congregation’s study that “there are insufficient grounds to change the current practice not to contest the validity of Mormon baptism.” It might be noted that this decision does not indicate simple confirmation of the validity of Mormon baptism. Rather, it points to the lack of reasons necessary to warrant an absolute decision of its invalidity, where the proper form and matter have been used. It should be noted that it can occasionally in fact occur that a particular Mormon baptism may be certainly invalid because of a lack of proper form, for example, where two ministers have divided the words of the Trinitarian formula between them. For this reason each individual case must be examined to ascertain whether the proper form has been observed. This having been said, however, the practice followed in some regions of conditionally baptizing converts from Mormonism to Catholicism may continue.

I hope this information proves useful. Please thank Father A.J.V. for us for bringing his concerns on this topic to the attention of this Dicastery. Happy to have the opportunity to convey cordial regards, I remain,

Sincerely yours in Christ,

+ A. Bovone Secretary

So something happened between March 1992 and June 2001 that caused the Catholic Church to change its mind. What could that be? Well, since the RCC has decided to play its cards close to its chest, and chosen not to tell us anything apart from making a declaration, we have to do some detective work to figure that out for ourselves, which is not too hard to do. I think the following factors are significant in this case.

Firstly, that decision was made at the instigation of the Catholic Church in the United States, where churches tend to be more radical and hard line than elsewhere [emphasis added]:

“The ruling, made on June 5 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had been in response to a question on the validity of LDS baptisms posed by the Bishops’ Conference of the United States.” Deseret News, July 18, 2001.

Secondly, this decision came soon after the three largest Protestant denominations in the United States (Southern Baptist Convention, United Methodist Church, and Presbyterian) had made the same decision. (Salt Lake Tribune, May 11, 2000.) The United Methodist Church had made that decision a year earlier.

It is now easier to put all the pieces of the puzzle together, and see where the whole thing came from. The prime mover behind this decision was the Catholic Churches in the United States, where the Protestant Churches had already made the same decision, who then put pressure on the Catholics in the US to do the same thing. The Protestant churches probably thought that their decision wouldn’t be very effective unless the Catholic Church followed suit—who in turn relented to do as they were asked. But in so doing the Catholic Church has only harmed itself, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. With that decision the RCC has helped its enemies, not its friends. The Protestant and Evangelical churches, at whose behest the RCC has almost certainly done this, are its worst enemies, and seek its utter destruction. The Catholic Church has no greater friend than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The restored Church of Jesus Christ is not an enemy of the Catholic Church; whereas the Protestant Churches are, and have always been.

My guess is that the decision was pushed through with the help of Cardinal Ratzinger. The Vatican is usually very cautious and sensible (and very conservative) about making such decisions. They tend not to make decisions that go against their long held traditions and practices. Ratzinger, unlike JP2, has proved himself to be rather gaff prone since he became Pope. He has undone much of the good work that JP2 did to build bridges with other faiths, notably Islam. JP2 was one of the Catholic Church’s greatest Popes. Ratzinger’s performance has been mediocre by comparison.

But the ultimate question is, does anybody care? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints certainly doesn’t, and I doubt if anybody else does either. At the time that the RCC announced its decision, the Church’s official spokesman at the time gave the following response: “We are neither concerned nor offended that the Catholic Church has determined not to recognize Latter-day Saint baptisms”. Here are a couple of news clips from that time [emphasis added]:

“We are neither concerned nor offended that the Catholic Church has determined not to recognize Latter-day Saint baptisms,” church spokesman Michael Otterson said Thursday. He noted that converts to the Mormon faith must be rebaptized. Los Angeles Times, July 20, 2001.

“We are neither concerned nor offended that the Catholic Church has determined not to recognize Latter-day Saint baptisms,” Dale Bills, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said. “As a fundamental tenet of our faith, we believe that all people have a God-given right to worship how, where or what they may.” Deseret News, July 18, 2001.

I personally see in this a pretty damning and devastating response.

______________________
* Father Jordan Vajda, a Dominican Catholic Priest at the time, completed his master’s thesis, “‘Partakers of the Divine Nature’: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization,” in 1998 at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. This work was later republished under the same title as Occasional Paper No. 3 by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies FARMS (Provo, Utah, 2002, see here). The complete work can be read from this site. (Link since removed). In 2003 Father Vajda was encouraged to speak to LDS missionaries, and was later baptized a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was not able to determine the date of his baptism. It was either at the end of 2003 or in 2004.

Is Jesus the brother of Satan?

The short answer to that is No! LDS believe that the spirits of all men were created by God in the pre-existence, before they were born as mortals on earth. This is made known to us in modern LDS scripture (D&C 93:29; 138:53–55, 56; Moses 3:5; 6:51; Abraham 3:21–24.); and evidence for it also exists in the Bible (Job 38:4–7; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Jeremiah 1:4–5; John 9:1–3; Acts 17:28; Ephesians 1:3; Hebrews 12:9; Jude 1:6; Revelation 12:9). Origen and many other early Christian theologians also believed and taught it.

The spirits which God had made in the pre-existence had freewill, and were capable of following God or rejecting Him. Satan was one of the earliest and brightest of the spirit creations, or sons of God at that time, who later rebelled against God and was cast out of His presence, together with a third of the pre-existent spirits that followed him. That is how the “devil and his angels” came to be (Luke 10:18; Matthew 25:41; D&C 29:36–38; Abraham 3:27–28).

The Bible correctly identifies Satan, together with other pre-existent spirits that God had created, as “sons of God”:

Job 1:

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:

1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

Job 38:

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? . . .

* * *

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The last quote is particularly significant. The events described in this quote took place before the “foundations of the earth” was laid, that is, before the period of mortality had begun. This shows that in the spiritual (pre-existent) realm, there was more than one being who could legitimately be called “son of God;” and that Satan was one of them. Jesus was clearly one; but obviously not the only one.

Jesus, according to the Bible, was the first and greatest of the sons of God in the pre-existence, who became “heir of all things,” and who became the agent in the hand of the Father in the creation of all other things, and who was also chosen to become the Saviour and Redeemer of all things. That is what is taught in Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15–19; Hebrews 2:11–12; Revelation 3:14. However, since Satan has rebelled against God, and been cast out of His presence and become eternally lost, he is no longer the “brother of Jesus,” or of anybody else, except the evil spirits that followed him.

Spiritually speaking, we become “brothers and sisters,” and “sons and daughters,” to those whom we follow and choose to obey. For example, Jesus told the Jews who were plotting to kill Him, that if Abraham was their father (as they protested he was), they would do the “works of Abraham” (John 8:33–44). But now Satan was their father, because they did his works. Similarly, He told those who came seeking him on behalf of His mother and brothers, who had become anxious for His safety; that His mother, and brother, and sister, were those who “did the will of His Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 12:46–60). Thus, in answer to the question, Is Jesus the brother of Satan? The answer is No! Since Satan has rebelled against God, and been cast out of heaven and become lost forever, he is not the “brother” of anybody except the evil spirits which followed him, and those who will continue to follow him hereafter.

A common objection that is raised by the critics to this interpretation of scripture is that Satan is a fallen angel, and that angels are inherently a different class, or order of beings from men, or the spirits of men. Hence Satan and his crew could not have originally been men, or spirits of men; and similarly, that men, when they die, cannot become angels of God. But there is no scriptural basis for that. On the contrary, all the evidence points to the opposite.

First of all, the word “angel,” in both Hebrew and Greek, means simply “messenger”. That is the literal, etymological meaning of the word in both languages. Hence anyone who can act as a messenger of God, be they mortal or immortal beings, can be called angel.

Secondly, whenever angels have appeared to mankind, both in the Old and the New Testaments, they have appeared as men; and even mortal men have been addressed as angels. The three angels that appeared to Abraham (one of whom was apparently God in person), appeared as men (Genesis 18); and the two angels who appeared to Lot to rescue him, and destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, appeared as men—so much so, that Lot invited them to lodge with him overnight as guests; and the men of Sodom, thinking they were ordinary men, tried to abuse them (Genesis 19). The angel (or was it God himself!) that appeared to Jacob as he was on his way, and wrestled with him all through the night, appeared as a man (Genesis 32:24). The angel that appeared to Manoah and her husband appeared as a man (Judges 13:6–21); and they only realized that he had been an angel when he performed marvellous wonders before them. The two angels that appeared to the women who went looking for the body of Jesus at His tomb were men (Luke 24:4); and the two angels that appeared to the Apostles as they looked up into heaven while Jesus was taken up from them appeared as men (Acts 1:10). The angel that appeared to Cornelius when he was praying, and instructed him to send for Peter, was a man (Acts 10:30–31). Paul describes certain types of angelic beings as the “sprits of just men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:32); and in the book of Revelation, the Lord addresses the seven bishops of the seven churches (who were mortal men) as angels (Revelation 2). And finally, in Revelation 22:8–9, the angel that appeared to John and showed him the great vision that he wrote down identified himself as “thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book”.

There is not a single recorded instance in the scriptures of an angel ministering to someone that was anything other than a man. Even when it does not specifically say that he was a man, the context implies that he could not have been anything else. Thus angels are, and have always been, nothing other than men; both in their pre-mortal, mortal, and resurrected states; and they are all of the same order of beings—Jesus Himself not being an exception, as these verses testify:

Hebrews 2:

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things [i.e. the Father], in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation [i.e. Jesus] perfect through sufferings.

11 For both he that sanctifieth [i.e. Jesus] and they who are sanctified [i.e. those who believe in Him] are all of one: [i.e. of the same order of beings] for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

John 20:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Those who shout accusations that LDS believe “Jesus is the brother of Satan,” merely employ cheap sensationalism and shock tactics (in fact dishonesty and deception) to attack Mormonism; and it is unlikely to deceive anyone else but themselves. Nothing further need be said about that.

“Born of Mary, at Jerusalem”

 

One criticism that is sometimes made of the Book of Mormon relates to the following verse, which seems to be saying that Jesus will be born in Jerusalem, instead of Bethlehem, where the Bible says He was born:

Alma 7:

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

And Latter-day Saints have not always been very good at knowing how to answer it. The answer to it, however, is simple and convincing. As we study the Book of Mormon carefully, we note that the expression, “land of Jerusalem,” is initially used by Lehi and his immediate family to indeed refer to the ancient city of Jerusalem, where they had originally come from. Here is a selection, not a complete list:

1 Nephi 3:

9 And I, Nephi, and my brethren took our journey in the wilderness, with our tents, to go up to the land of Jerusalem.

1 Nephi 3:

10 And it came to pass that when we had gone up to the land of Jerusalem, I and my brethren did consult one with another.

1 Nephi 7:

2 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded him that I, Nephi, and my brethren, should again return unto the land of Jerusalem, and bring down Ishmael and his family into the wilderness.

1 Nephi 16:

35 And it came to pass that the daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly, because of the loss of their father, and because of their afflictions in the wilderness; and they did murmur against my father, because he had brought them out of the land of Jerusalem, saying: Our father is dead; yea, and we have wandered much in the wilderness, and we have suffered much affliction, hunger, thirst, and fatigue; and after all these sufferings we must perish in the wilderness with hunger.

1 Nephi 17:

14 Yea, and the Lord said also that: After ye have arrived in the promised land, ye shall know that I, the Lord, am God; and that I, the Lord, did deliver you from destruction; yea, that I did bring you out of the land of Jerusalem.

As the subsequent history of the Nephites in the New World develops, however, we find that the expression, “land of Jerusalem,” begins to be used by the Nephites idiomatically, to refer to the entire territory from which their ancestors came from, meaning the whole of Palestine. Bear in mind that the Nephites lived on a completely different continent, and had no direct contact with, nor acquaintance of the geography and topography of Palestine. The following are some typical examples, not a complete list:

1 Nephi 18:

24 And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.

2 Nephi 1:

1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of teaching my brethren, our father, Lehi, also spake many things unto them, and rehearsed unto them, how great things the Lord had done for them in bringing them out of the land of Jerusalem.

2 Nephi 1:

3 And he also spake unto them concerning the land of promise, which they had obtained—how merciful the Lord had been in warning us that we should flee out of the land of Jerusalem.

Jacob 2:

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

Mosiah 1:

11 And moreover, I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people which the Lord God hath brought out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I do because they have been a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord.

Mosiah 7:

20 And again, that same God has brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, and has kept and preserved his people even until now; and behold, it is because of our iniquities and abominations that he has brought us into bondage.

Alma 7:

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Alma 10:

3 And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren.

Alma 36:

29 Yea, and he has also brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem; and he has also, by his everlasting power, delivered them out of bondage and captivity, from time to time even down to the present day; and I have always retained in remembrance their captivity; yea, and ye also ought to retain in remembrance, as I have done, their captivity.

Helaman 16:

19 Yea, why will he [Jesus] not show himself in this land as well as in the land of Jerusalem?

3 Nephi 16:

1 And verily, verily, I say unto you that I [Jesus] have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.

Mormon 3:

18 Yea, behold, I write unto all the ends of the earth; yea, unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged according to your works by the twelve [Apostles] whom Jesus chose to be his disciples in the land of Jerusalem.

Note in particular how in the last quote, it even says that the Twelve Apostles of Jesus were chosen “in the land of Jerusalem,” thus making it clear that by that expression is meant the whole of that part of the world where their ancestors had come from, meaning the whole of Palestine, not the actual city of Jerusalem. The expression “land of Jerusalem” is used throughout idiomatically to refer to the entire Palestinian territories where their ancestors had come from, not the city of Jerusalem as such. We can dig deeper, and find that the expression “at Jerusalem,” or even just “Jerusalem,” is often used in a context implying the same thing—meaning the whole of Palestinian territories:

2 Nephi 9:

5 Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him.

2 Nephi 10:

5 But because of priestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against him, that he be crucified.

Helaman 16:

18 That it is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ shall come; if so, and he be the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, as it has been spoken, why will he not show himself unto us as well as unto them who shall be at Jerusalem?

3 Nephi 15:

14 And not at any time hath the Father given me [Jesus] commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem.

3 Nephi 16:

4 And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, . . .

3 Nephi 17:

8 For I perceive that ye desire that I should show unto you what I have done unto your brethren at Jerusalem, for I see that your faith is sufficient that I should heal you.

4 Nephi 1:

31 Nevertheless, and notwithstanding all these miracles, the people did harden their hearts, and did seek to kill them, even as the Jews at Jerusalem sought to kill Jesus, according to his word.

3 Nephi 21:

26 And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even when this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of this people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people, yea, even the tribes which have been lost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem.

In all of these expressions, the context makes it clear that by “Jerusalem” is meant the entire territory of Palestine from which their ancestors had originated, among whom Jesus had later ministered. But the last verse is the most revealing of all. It depicts all of the lost tribes of Israel as having been led away out of Jerusalem, making it clear beyond controversy that by that term is meant the whole of Palestine, not just the city of Jerusalem. Thus, far from casting doubt on the truth of the Book of Mormon, this extraordinary internal consistency is further evidence of its truth.

Evidence of Missing Scripture in the Bible

One of the objections made to LDS claims has been the “sufficiency of the Bible” theory. The idea is that the canon of the scripture is closed, and the Bible contains all revelation that is needed for our salvation, and that there will be no more need for God to add any more to it. As proof text, Revelation 22:18–19 is often quoted, ignoring the obvious fact that that passage refers to the book of Revelation itself, not to the whole of the Bible; and that a similar passage is also found in Deuteronomy 4:2, which likewise refers to that particular book only, not to the scriptural canon itself. Another scripture that is sometimes quoted in support of that theory is Hebrews 1:1, thus suggesting that there will be no more need for future “prophets,” hence additional revelations or “scripture” to add to the canon—although I fail to see how that inference could be made from that verse. The Bible itself, however, tells us a different story. There are many telltale signs and obvious references to missing scripture in the Bible itself, both in the Old and the New Testaments. The Bible as we have it today is not complete. There is an awful lot of stuff that has gone missing from it, leaving their traces in the book. Here is a selected list of examples from the Old Testament:

1 Kings 11:

41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon?

2 Chronicles 9:

29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

2 Chronicles 12:

15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

There are 6 sacred books of scripture mentioned in these verses (book of the acts of Solomon, book of Nathan the prophet, prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, visions of Iddo the seer, book of Shemaiah the prophet, book of Iddo the seer) that are no longer found in our Old Testament. In the past, when I have discussed this subject with LDS critics, their response have typically been, What evidence do we have that these books formed part of the original scriptural canon? The answer is, because there is a recognizable pattern of expressions within the Bible which describes the books which the original writers of the sacred books considered sacred, and to which they deferred. The following verses refer to sacred books that currently exist in the biblical canon. Note the common expression used in all of them:

1 Kings 14:29

29 Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

1 Kings 15:7

7 Now the rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam.

1 Kings 15:23

23 The rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Nevertheless in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet.

1 Kings 15:31

31 Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

1 Kings 16:5

5 Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

1 Kings 16:14

14 Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

1 Kings 16:20

20 Now the rest of the acts of Zimri, and his treason that he wrought, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

1 Kings 16:27

27 Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he shewed, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

1 Kings 22:39

39 Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made, and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

1 Kings 22:45

45 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might that he shewed, and how he warred, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Kings 1:18

18 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

2 Kings 8:23

23 And the rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Kings 10:34

34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

2 Kings 12:19

19 And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Kings 13:8

8 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz, and all that he did, and his might, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

2 Kings 13:12

12 And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, and his might wherewith he fought against Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

2 Kings 14:15

15 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

2 Kings 14:18

18 And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Kings 14:28

28 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

2 Kings 15:6

6 And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Kings 15:21

21 And the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel

2 Kings 15:36

36 Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Kings 16:19

19 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Kings 20:20

20 And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Kings 21:17

17 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Kings 21:25

25 Now the rest of the acts of Amon which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Kings 23:28

28 Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Kings 24:5

5 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah

2 Chronicles 25:26

26 Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, first and last, behold, are they not written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel

These verses all refer to books that currently exist in the Bible. In these verses, the authors of the sacred writings are effectively referring the reader to those other writings for a more complete account of the events described, using a standard kind of phraseology to do so. Now contrast that with the following verses where exactly the same phraseology is used, referencing books that no longer exist in our current Bible:

1 Kings 11:41

41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon

2 Chronicles 9:29

29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat

2 Chronicles 12:15

15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

We conclude that these are all sacred books which were considered by writers of the original holy writ to be inspired and canonical, or of the same standing with the rest (there was no such thing as “canon” in those days), but which no longer exist in our current Bible.

The evidence for missing scripture from within the Biblical text is pretty overwhelming. For further examples, consider briefly the following verses:

2 Chronicles 32:

32 Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, and in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.

This obviously refers to the writings of the great prophet of Israel Isaiah, whom we are familiar with. Imagine how much worse off we would have been if his book had been missing from the Bible! Now contrast that with the following:

2 Chronicles 9:

29 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat

2 Chronicles 12:

15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

These verses clearly refer to whole books or writings of equally great prophets and seers and visionary men of Israel whose complete books have perished and are no longer extant, which the sacred writer considered of equal standing with the rest. Who can doubt that these writings must have been just as inspired, scriptural, and revelatory in nature as the other prophetic books in the Bible, and therefore equally valuable to us today.

The Book of Mormon also confirms this story. 1 Nephi 13:23 informs us that the book of Old Testament scripture which Lehi and his family took with them to the promised land, known in the Book of Mormon as the “brass plates of Laban,” had a much larger content than the volume that we know today; and 1 Nephi 19:10; Alma 33:15; 34:7; Helaman 8:20; 3 Nephi 10:16; also mention three other Old Testament prophets by name (Zenos, Zenock, and Neum), and quotes from them, that are no longer found in our Bible. 2 Nephi chapter 3 also quotes from the prophecies of Joseph (son of Jacob, sold into Egypt) recorded in the brass plates that are no longer found in our Bible.

Moving on into the New Testament, there are equally compelling internal evidence that the scriptural canon of the New Testament that we have today is not as complete as it had been originally. All the four Gospels are in fact abridgements of larger records the originals of which have now perished. The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were compiled from a common set of records, which is why they are called the “Synoptic Gospels”. It is possible to create a “synopsis,” or a side-by-side comparison, of the three books which shows passages that are practically identical with each other, and which could have only been copied from a common set of records. While at the same time, there are sufficient differences between them to prove that they could not have just been copied from each other; because each contains materials that is not found in any of the others. This can only be explained on the basis that they were all copied from other larger sources the originals of which have not survived.

The Gospel of Luke is particularly interesting in this respect, because at the beginning of his gospel he actually tells us that there were other sources from which he has compiled his information. The Book of Acts is a continuation of Luke; and both contain information relevant to this subject, so I will quote them both together:

Luke 1:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2 Even as they delivered them unto us, [i.e. writing is implied] which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word [Apostles being implied];

3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order [i.e. make a compilation or abridgement], most excellent Theophilus,

4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 1:

1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

In these verses Luke is making it unmistakably clear that he is using other sources available to him at that time to write a treatise about the life of Christ. He is acting as an editor to compile a short treatise from a larger source.

John’s Gospel originates from a different source from the synoptic Gospels; but internal evidence indicates that that too is an abridgement from a larger source. That is suggested by the following verses:

John 20:

31 But these are written [i.e. the Gospel of John as we have it—being an abridgement of a larger work], that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John 21:

24 This [i.e. John] is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

From this passage we learn two things: Firstly, that the Apostle John was not the author of the Gospel of John as we now have it. Secondly, it is an abridgement of the record of John made by someone else.

The general conclusion that we arrive at from this analysis is that none of the four Gospels as we have them today are in fact the original records that were prepared by the original “eyewitnesses” of the events (i.e. the Apostles). They are abridgements of them made by others at a later period. Those original documents have not survived. Therefore what we have today is not the perfect record. They contain omissions and deletions—which is what modern LDS scripture informs us has happened.

A quick search on the Internet led to a couple of interesting articles on the Synoptic Gospels that are interesting to look at, the second of which is in fact from the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

http://www.cresourcei.org/synoptic.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14389b.htm

It is the sign of an apostate and dead religion to claim that the canon of scripture is closed, and that God will no more give us additional revelation and scripture to add to the canon. Because they do not have the divine power and authority to do so themselves, they get round the problem by declaring the canon to be closed, and claiming that it is no longer possible nor necessary to add to the canon. The truth is, however, that whenever God has had a true church and religion in the world which has been in communion with Himself, this power has always been evident and manifested itself within it, to add more scripture and revelation to the canon.