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.

DNA Evidence and the Book of Mormon

 

 

One of the hottest criticisms of the Book of Mormon that has emerged during the past decade or so has centered on the so called DNA research, supposedly disproving the claims of the Book of Mormon that the aborigines of the American Continent were of Israelite descent. There are two possible ways of answering that criticism: one is from a purely scientific angle; and the other is from a theological one. Of course, science and theology are not mutually exclusive. There is a slight overlap between the two. But the overlap is sufficiently small that it can be ignored, and the two can be regarded as two separate disciplines. To address the subject form a purely scientific point of view, one needs to be a scientist in this field of study, which I am not—and interestingly, neither are the critics! The science of genetics, from what little I have studied, is not such straightforward subject. There are some serious complexities involved that are best left to the experts to fathom. How the critics of the Book of Mormon, none of whom appear to be experts in this field of study, can feel that they can use this discipline so confidently to attack the Book of Mormon claims, is a question best left for them to answer. I have yet to see any of them actually producing a research paper written by an eminent scientist, and approved by peer groups, showing the results of serious scientific investigation intended to test the validity of a scientifically worked out hypothesis designed around validating the claims of the Book of Mormon. Luckily, however, there are good LDS scientists who are very knowledgeable, and have expertise in this field of study, and they have given their responses. Dr. Michael Whiting is a good example. You can watch his interesting video presentation here. He has also written an interesting article (PDF format) which you can read here. Jeff Lindsay seems to have read a lot of this kind of literature, and summarized his findings in a lengthy article which I haven’t read, but appears well written and interesting, which can be read here.

Unlike the critics, however, I for one don’t intend to take the risk of appearing like a fool by talking about something that I know very little about! My aim here is to address the subject from a theological point of view, and leave the scientific answers to the scientists. The critics have left themselves vulnerable to attack on two fronts: one is scientific and the other theological. On the scientific front, they have left themselves open to attack because in the main they are not scientist themselves, and basically they don’t know what they are talking about! That means that a good LDS scientist who knows his stuff can easily debunk their claims, because their science, like their theology, is badly flawed. On the other hand, their position is also a theological one. They claim to be true Christians; and the purpose of their attack, as they claim, is to expose the falsehood of the Restoration claims. But their theology is just as flawed as is their science, which leaves them equally exposed on the theological front. My aim here is to address the issue from a theological point of view—although the scientific terminology and concept to some extent necessarily enters into the equation.

The Book of Mormon is essentially the story of a miracle. It is the story of divine intervention in human history. It is the story of a group of people who under divine guidance, by miracles, heavenly visions, and angelic ministrations, were led by the Lord from their ancestral lands in Palestine to cross the ocean and come to the New World; where the history of their development likewise followed a miraculous course, filled with accounts of miracles and divine intervention. When you are faced with such a claim as the Book of Mormon presents, you have basically two choices to make: you can either reject it outright, and say that God does not intervene in human affairs in this way, and therefore the whole story is fictional and cannot be true; or else, if you are going to accept the possibility of such an intervention taking place (which the critics do accept, because that is also the story of the Bible, which they claim to believe in literally), then you must also be prepared to allow for the possibility of other unexpected events or changes to have taken place by the same process (i.e. divine intervention) which renders the experience no longer amenable to a scientific investigation.

Science assumes that natural law remains unchanged during the course of an experiment. It assumes that if you let go of a piece of stone in your hand, everything else being equal, that stone will always fall down, not go up. It cannot allow for the possibility that on occasions the stone may change its mind and decide to go up instead of falling down! If that were to be the case, then the basis of any valid scientific investigation would disappear. Similarly, in a situation where you are going to allow for divine intervention to alter or intervene in known laws of nature, then the basis of your scientific investigation disappears. That is the situation which we encounter in the Book of Mormon. For example, the Book of Mormon informs us that the Lamanites (who according to the Book of Mormon are the principal ancestors of modern American Indians) were cursed with a dark skin by an act of God—i.e. by divine intervention. Now we know that skin color is genetically determined. The only way that God could have done that would have been by altering their genetic makeup miraculously; that is, by directly intervening to alter the course of nature which otherwise would have followed a different course. That renders the process no longer amenable to a scientific investigation.

That line of attack against the Book of Mormon would equally undermine the validity of the Bible, because the Bible also follows a similar course (and more strongly so). If DNA analysis is a reliable test of determining population origins in this way, then all mankind’s DNA should be traceable to one man, Noah. According to the Bible chronology, the Flood occurred somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago, and the whole of the human race descended from one family Noah since that time. That is less than twice as long as the family of Lehi immigrated to, and began to populate the American continent. They immigrated to America in 600 BC, which is 2,600 years ago. That means that from Noah until today is less than double the length of time of from Lehi until today. So if the DNA profiles of modern day descendents of Lehi should be genetically traceable to that of the ancient Jews (or indicate descent from them), then all mankind’s DNA should equally easily indicate direct descent from Noah. But it does not! On the contrary, one observes enormous genetic diversity among human populations.

How do they account for this diversity during such a short period of time? According to modern geneticists of course that would be impossible! They believe that it occurred over millions of years of evolution. So the critics have to make up their minds on which side of the fence they want to jump, Creation or Evolution. They can’t have both hats on, and swap hats whenever it suits them. If they are going to be on the side of Evolution, then that knocks down the Bible as much as (if not more so than) the Book of Mormon. If, on the other hand, they are going to be on the side of Creation, then they have no choice but to accept that if God was able and willing to directly intervene in various human populations to cause such wide genetic variations among them (for whatever reason) in so short a time since the Flood; that He would be equally able and willing to cause the same genetic diversity (for whatever reason) among the Nephite populations that immigrated to the Americas, so as to differentiate them from their Hebrew ancestors. Here are some possible reasons why, from a theological point of view, God may have wanted to intervene directly in the genetic makeup of human populations:

1. Diversifying the gene pool to avoid genetic degradation which takes place when a small genetic population interbreed among themselves (e.g. the Tsarist royal family of Russia). Anybody who has bred animals knows the importance of that.

2. To adapt various human populations to various climatic conditions; such as the Tibetans to the high altitudes of Tibet, the Africans to the hot and humid climates of the tropics, and the Caucasians to the cold climates of northern Europe.

3. A deliberate decision to introduce genetic change for any possible specific reasons, such as giving the Lamanites a dark skin color to distinguish them from the Nephites.

Genetics may be an exact science when trying to solve a crime scene; but it is not so reliable when dealing with large population movements across continents spanning many centuries—except perhaps for making the most general of inferences. There is no reason to assume that the Israelites all had a uniform genetic profile. According to the Bible account, a lot of intermarriages took place between them and their Gentile neighbors. Ignoring what was said above for the time being, the only way that we could authenticate the genetic descent of the Lamanites back to Lehi would be if we knew exactly what Lihi’s DNA looked like; and we have no way of determining that.

Ultimately, we come back to the same principle I had mentioned in my blog on “Archaeology and the Book of Mormon”. Religion is a matter of faith, not of archeology or science. The things of God are spiritual, and they are “spiritually discerned,” as Paul has said:

1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Elsewhere Paul adds:

1 Corinthians 1:23 “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;”

Why was the doctrine of Christ “foolishness” to the Greeks? Because they had the same kind of mindset as the Book of Mormon critics do. They didn’t know anything about DNA; but they had the same kind of mentality. They were looking for some kind of a “rational argument” or “logical/scientific proof;” hence the doctrine of Christ, and “Him crucified,” appeared “foolishness” to them. Likewise the doctrine of the Book of Mormon appears “foolishness” to LDS critics. But the things of God are communicated to those who are prepared to receive it by power of the Spirit of God—the gift of the Holy Ghost. This is how Peter knew that Jesus was his Lord, not by “DNA analysis”:

Matt. 16:17: “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

And this is how God has always made Himself known to sincere seekers of truth. There is no “scientific proof” in religion. You either believe it or you don’t. It begins in faith and ends in faith, and that is all there is to it.
.

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.