Scriptural Canon-Open or Closed

Volume Four—Chapter Seven SCRIPTURAL CANON—SHOULD IT BE OPEN OR CLOSED?

When a book of scripture is officially accepted by a church as being genuine and inspired it is said to be canonized by the church. The scripture so accepted is then the church’s canonized scripture or simple its canon. If one book alone is accepted by a religion as canon and, by the church’s decree, no other book can be accepted, the canon is said to be closed. A church with the policy of open canon maintains the possibility that other books of scripture may be included in its canon.

Evangelical view. Evangelicals believe the canon of scripture is closed and includes only the Bible. They believe the sixty-six books of the Bible contain all the truths necessary to bring individuals to salvation and enable them to live godly lives. During the time of the Reformation, when the Reformers were struggling against the claims of authority in the Roman Catholic Church, they often used the terms sola scriptura (“the scriptures alone”) and ad fontes (“to the sources”). The first term was shorthand for the doctrine that the scriptures alone, God’s written word, were authoritative for the declaration and definition of doctrine. The second was directed to Christians wanting to understand the gospel. They should turn back from the traditions of the Roman Church to the scriptures, the real sources of doctrine.

LDS view. The LDS position on the scriptures is simple. We accept as true both ancient and modern scripture, including the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. We regard all these to be canonized scripture. They are the word of God to the Church and the world. English-speaking members of the Church use largely the King James Bible, though members are free to use any translation of the Bible they wish. Most members live outside the United States and use non-English versions. We do not regard the Book of Mormon as a substitute for the Bible. Rather, we fully accept both.

For us, the question of a closed canon, after the Bible, is not a question at all. The canon has never been closed and is not now closed. We acknowledge our prophets as divinely authorized to yet give us more if God so chooses.

We accept the moral and ethical teachings in the scriptures as valid and binding. We are inclined to minimize symbolic or figurative interpretations and accept the miraculous events in the scriptures at face value.

As we discuss the issue of open or closed canon, we believe the real question for the Evangelicals ought to be whether or not our scripture is authentic and true.

#No Individual or Body Can Make Proclamations that Have the Authority of Scripture

Evangelical view. Blomberg writes: “Most Evangelicals would agree that no church hierarchy, pope, or anyone else has the right to add to, supersede, or contradict the written word of God as contained in the Old and New Testaments” (HWD, 33).

LDS view. Hamblin and Peterson point out what they call a “rich irony” in Blomberg’s statement. It was precisely the Roman Catholic Church (including the “pope”) that established the canon Blomberg now finds uniquely authoritative. Blomberg, of course, rejects the Catholic Church’s authority. Hamblin and Peterson also sees a parallel between the evangelicals’ rejecting our modern revelation and the attitude of the Pharisees living in Palestine at the time of Christ’s ministry. They rejected Christ and his apostles, claiming that no one had the right to add to the canon of the Old Testament scripture.

Hamblin and Peterson write further:

From the Latter-day Saint perspective, the heart of the matter is that, although Blomberg is correct in saying that “no ecclesiastical body or individual Christian can make proclamations that are on a par with the authority of Scripture,” this does not imply that God cannot make such proclamations. Joseph Smith’s message was that God is revealing new scripture, not that any man or church hierarchy is. If applied consistently, the rejection of Joseph’s revelations because they are the words of a man requires an a priori assumption that precludes the possibility of ever accepting any new revelation from God, including that of the New Testament, since God’s word has always been revealed through human beings (FRB, 189-90).

#The Argument of Revelation 22:18-19

Evangelical view. In arguing for a closed canon, some in the Protestant churches may still bring up the old argument of Revelation 22:18-19 which threatens plagues and divine invalidation of the scripture for those who would add or take away from the words of “this book”: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

LDS view. Most Protestants have come to realize with us that John’s words at the end of Revelation refer only to that book and not to the Bible as a whole. Another biblical example of a similar divine pronouncement is in the book of Deuteronomy: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2).

Also, the whole Bible as we know it did not exist when Revelation 22:18-19 was written. For centuries after John wrote Revelation, the individual books of the New Testament were in circulation singly or perhaps in combination with a few other texts, but almost never as a complete collection.

#Canon Closed by Councils or Divine Edict?

Evangelical view. Another evangelical argument for a closed canon centers on the fourth-century ecumenical Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397) in North Africa. These ratified the increasing agreement among Christians from the late second century onward that the twenty-seven books now included in the New Testament were the only books to be added to the Old Testament.

Evangelicals are aware that we reject the authority of these councils. We would expect that only the Lord himself could authorize such a policy. The Bible, of course, contains no such edict. We point out the absence of a biblical pronouncement as evidence against the validity of a closed canon. Evangelicals correctly point out that our argument is an “argument from silence.” The Bible is silent on the issue of closed canon, so we feel the canon is not closed. We also admit that, generally, arguments from silence are not strong arguments. The Protestants actually make their own “argument from silence”: Since there is no biblical passage that makes it clear the canon should not be closed, it should be closed. Hence, some Evangelicals have suggested we must declare a stalemate on the Bible’s position on open or closed canon.

LDS view. God has spoken to his people on earth in the past. Sometimes his words are recorded by prophets. We expect him to continue to speak. We believe he will continue to communicate with his children. The canon was open for all the centuries of the biblical record. Why would it suddenly cease to be open? Why would he want to arbitrarily limit his ability to speak to mankind? We have every reason to believe God might still want to speak to us. After all, has he lost his ability to speak? Has he already said everything? Does he no longer love us? Could it be in these times of great strife, uncertainty, controversy, and wickedness we don’t need his direction and counsel? If God, for reasons of his own, decided that mankind should never receive any further revelation, wouldn’t you think he might have told us that prior to his “closing the canon”? The presumption is in favor of an open canon. Thus, we place the burden of proof on the Evangelicals.

Clearly, the notion of a closed canon is a human deduction. It is a theory, a tradition, a hypothesis, a decision of councils. Again, the criteria Evangelicals espouse to justify their belief in a closed canon evolved in a church (Roman Catholic) “in which living prophecy was dead (as we charge and they admit)” (Daniel C. Peterson in FRB, 307-08).

Is our argument against a closed canon really an argument from silence? Is the Bible really silent on the subject? Paulsen and Potter argue that John 14:26 may suggest otherwise. The verse reads: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”:

On its face, this passage indicates that even after Jesus is gone the Comforter will come to teach the saints “all things” and also bring to their remembrances all that Christ said to them. This would seem to indicate that revelation will continue, even after the ascension of Christ. A closer look at this verse suggests that the Comforter’s bringing to the saints’ remembrance all that Christ has taught them is not the equivalent of his teaching them “all things.” Note that the relevant clauses in this verse are conjoined by and, and not that is or some similar expression. The Lord intended that the Spirit would both teach them all things, and the Spirit would bring to their minds all the teachings of the mortal Christ.

Of course, this is not how believers in a closed canon read this passage. They go out of their way to make the point that this passage does not support the idea of continuing new revelation. For example, a Protestant apologist says, “The teaching which Jesus has given during his ministry on earth is to be continued by the Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) sent in his name (i.e. as his representative) who will guarantee that it is remembered and understood, but will not add any new revelation of his own, since that given in Jesus is complete” (Joseph N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to John, ed. B. S. Mastin, 333).

Strictly speaking, John 14:26 says the Spirit will not teach anything of his own accord—it will all come from Christ. It implies that the Spirit will not teach anything new only if Christ has nothing new to teach us. And it is this very assumption that is in question in the debate about the open canon. Without this assumption . . . this scripture seems to imply that new revelation is possible (FRB, 229-30).

Some Evangelicals do sense that the burden of proof for a closed scriptural canon lies with them. They have provided additional reasons for their belief in a closed canon. These follow.

#Beware of “False Prophets”

Evangelical view. Evangelicals point to New Testament warnings that we should “try [test] the spirits” and beware of “false prophets”: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1; see also Matthew 7:15-20). These verses add to their apprehension about any new scripture.

LDS view. We would agree wholeheartedly with the Evangelicals that any self professed prophet must be tested. Has Joseph Smith been tested? Matthew 7:15-20 reads: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

What of the fruits of Joseph Smith’s ministry? I will only touch the highlights. A complete itemizing of the church’s progress and accomplishments would require far more space than is available here.

Consider the Book of Mormon. In the past two decades the scholarly support and confirmation of the authenticity of this book has become undeniable. I believe, even if one were to leave out the blessing of available spiritual confirmation of this record, those today who suggest that the book is not authentic invariably have insufficient knowledge of it.

Consider also a Church that is over thirteen million strong worldwide and growing rapidly with a continual missionary force now in excess of fifty thousand volunteer missionaries.

Consider a plethora of highly qualified multidisciplinary LDS Scholars whose research and writing on literally every aspect of the restored Church (history, scripture, theology) has served unfailingly to corroborate the Church’s divine authenticity.

Consider the truly noble and distinguished general authorities of the Church, including those fifteen who are apostles and prophets, who teach and testify and strengthen us. They assure us unambiguously of their wholehearted divine witness that we belong to the Savior’s one true and restored Church.

And finally, consider the vast majority of active members of the Church who are willing to assure anyone, as I am personally willing, that the Spirit of the Lord has born a sure witness of the truth and divine authenticity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints to their souls.1

We aver that Joseph Smith Jr. has been tested and retested, and he was, indeed, a prophet of God. We further testify that since the Church was organized in 1830 the Lord has maintained and communicated with a continuous sequence of prophet/presidents of the Church, as the Lord has always been wont to do since the time of Adam.

#Apostolicity

Evangelical view. Blomberg argues all current New Testament books were produced during the apostolic era by someone closely associated with Jesus or the apostles. Any materials otherwise produced should not be added to the canon. Evangelicals generally believe the era for scripture writing passed with the death of the apostles (HWD, 41-43). They call this argument “apostolicity.” When Evangelicals speak of an apostolic person or writing, they are referring to the foundational apostles of the first century. These are the only apostles they know about. They acknowledge no others. Owen and Mosser reason: “The further removed a writing is from the context of the first century, the greater the likelihood of discontinuity between it and the original message. It is because Evangelicals are very much concerned with the preservation and promulgation of the original message that they insist on apostolicity” (FRB, 11).

Indeed, this justification for protecting the canon in the first few centuries after Christ was important in order to protect the scripture from Greek and early Catholic church philosophical influences.

LDS View. The Evangelicals’ argument continues to be valid unless, of course, the Lord appoints other apostles and prophets. Hamblin and Peterson respond to the evangelical concept of apostolicity: “This hardly helps to settle the question of how the canon of scripture is to be determined and whether the Latter-day Saint scriptures can be admitted to the canon, since it begs the question” (FRB, 206). To “beg the question” means to use the matter to be proved as part of your argument. In other words, apostolicity is assumed to be a valid concept by the Evangelicals. They also assume the only apostles are Christ’s ancient ones. But the real issue is whether the Lord will ever call new apostles and prophets and provide revelation to them. “Begging the question” often comes across as a way to evade the issue or avoid a straightforward answer. “Begging the question” may also mean “avoiding the question.” Hamblin and Peterson continue: “Those who rejected non-apostolic revelation [no further revelation after the time of the ancient apostles] won the ecclesiastical debates and became the imperial [Roman Catholic] church, but it is precisely their legitimacy, and their authority to do so, that the Latter-day Saint notion of the ‘Great Apostasy’ casts into doubt” (Ibid., 206).

Another irony rears its head. While the concept of a closed canon might have theoretically protected the Bible against intrusion by Greek philosophy, those most anxious to see the canon closed are the very ones who have accepted the interpretations influenced by the notions of Greek philosophy. This is especially obvious

in the Evangelicals’ doctrine of the Godhead.

#Widespread Usage

Evangelical view. Evangelicals argue that only the present New Testament books were widely used among the Christian churches in the first and second centuries

AD. Blomberg writes: “The third major criterion employed by the earliest church was widespread usage as a divinely authoritative source of doctrine. . . . No work of any Jewish or Christian pedigree, however authentic, that was hidden from the world at large for centuries should ever qualify as Scripture” (HWD, 44). Any book not widely and generally utilized was not deemed significant enough for inclusion in the canon. If God felt a book to be worthy of being called scripture, he would never allow it to be hidden from the world. Evangelicals defend their view by pointing to “all kinds of New Age movements.” These claim to have uncovered hidden documents that would change the history and doctrines of early Christianity. They therefore see wisdom in the early church’s refusal to treat as scripture any book that God has not deemed worthy to preserve and to make accessible to people throughout the entire period from its original writing onward. They conclude that the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants, even if they are authentic, could never have been intended by God to be scripture since they were not available until the nineteenth century.

LDS view. This evangelical view is “pure assertion” (an “assertion” is a positive declaration without evidence or reason). It is purely arbitrary and self-validating. It logically and automatically precludes any new document from ever being considered scripture. This assertion is backed by no good reason over and above the assertion itself.

Hamblin and Peterson observe:

If Professor Blomberg wishes to apply this principle consistently to scripture he must necessarily excise the books of Daniel and Deuteronomy from the Bible. For the Lord ordered Daniel to “seal the book, even to the time of the end” (Daniel 12:4; cf. 9:24, 12:9). If the book of Daniel we now have is this sealed book, it was apparently sealed and hidden away for at least three hundred years (until the second century BC when we have the earliest evidence of the text). On the other hand, if Daniel’s sealed book is still to come forth in the last days, Blomberg will be ill-advised to ignore its contents merely because it has been “hidden from the world at large for centuries,” for that is precisely what the Lord commanded Daniel to do. Likewise, it appears that at least a substantial part of the book of Deuteronomy was sealed in a chamber in the Temple of Solomon for centuries and was revealed to the people only around 620 BC (see 2 Kings 22:3-20; 2 Chronicles 34:3-18). Yet Deuteronomy is accepted by Jews and Christians as divinely inspired and binding on the community, and quoted by Christ himself as authoritative (Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament, 745-47, provides a complete list of allusions or quotations from Deuteronomy in the New Testament).

There are also a large number of lost texts referred to in the Old Testament as authoritative. See, for example book of the wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14); book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41); book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19); book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29; 15:7); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chronicles 29:29); book of Shemaiah the prophet (2 Chronicles 12:15); book of Iddo the seer (2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15); book of Jehu the son of Hanani (2 Chronicles 20:34); book of the kings of Israel (2 Chronicles 20:34; 33:18); lament for Josiah (2 Chronicles 25:25). If a manuscript of one or more of such texts were to be found, would we be obliged to reject it out of hand simply because, for several millennia, it had been lost? Blomberg should not be allowed to indulge in the double standard of permitting Daniel and Deuteronomy to remain in his biblical canon, while rejecting the Book of Mormon on the grounds that it—like Deuteronomy and Daniel—was sealed and hidden away for centuries. It should be noted that the other major reference to a sealed book in the Bible is Isaiah 29:11, which Latter-day Saint scripture sees as a prophecy of the Book of Mormon itself (2 Nephi 27) (FRB, 201-02).

#Does the Bible Contain the “Fulness of God’s Revelations in Christ”?

Evangelical view. Evangelicals argue that their belief in a closed canon acknowledges the “fulness of God’s revelations in Christ.” They claim they are not trying to limit God’s interactions with humankind. Once God revealed himself in Jesus, they conclude, what need is there for further revelation? What could God possibly have to say to the world that would not be anticlimactic? They claim the evangelical aversion to admitting any new revelation to the canon, therefore, is justified because to do so would diminish Christ (HWD, 45).

LDS view. Hamblin and Peterson respond: “We cannot see . . . why additional communication from God (including the personal guidance many Christians often seek, and find, in prayer) should be seen in any way as “diminish[ing] Christ.” . . . We can only say, Ask the early Christians! For the New Testament is replete with revelations granted after the life, death, and resurrection of the Savior—Paul’s writings, for example” (FRB, 206).

Daniel Peterson adds:

I can see no compelling reason why the expression of God’s concern for his children should be governed by anybody else’s sense of proper dramatic unfolding or of what might be “anticlimactic.” The Lord is not subject to the rules of Aristotle’s Poetics. If he cared enough to specify, by revelation, that the ark of Moses should be constructed of shittim wood and measure 2½ by 1½ by 1½ cubits (see Exodus 25:10)—which, by the way, scarcely seems essential to salvation—isn’t he likely to be at least as concerned about the divisions rending Christendom at the end of the second millennium?

The fact is that the Bible contains several clear instances of revelation after the incarnation and, indeed, after the ascension of Christ. One good example of this would be the Revelation of John, which is surely as dramatic as any revelation could hope to be. Another is the vision granted to Peter in Acts 10, which, against powerful Jewish tradition, opened the door of salvation to the gentiles (FRB, 306-07).

And, besides, it is probable that the epistles of John were written after the book of Revelation (see Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 1177, 1179).

#The “Advent” Argument

Evangelical view. Owen and Mosser discern in the Bible a pattern of God’s revelation they call the “advent argument” (FRB, 14-16). The Old Testament period was a time of revelation. This was completed by the prophet Malachi. Before he closed the Old Testament dispensation, he pointed to the next era of revelation and gave definite markers by which it would be recognized. He prophesied of the first advent—the birth and mortal ministry of the Savior (see Malachi 3:1; 4:1-2, 5-6). Similarly, Owen and Mosser point to the closure of the New Testament dispensation by John the Revelator. He gives the signs of Christ’s second advent, his second coming (Revelation 22:12, 20). They conclude that if God is consistent in his pattern, they expect no new scriptural revelation during the time between Revelation and the second coming of the Lord. Further, they conclude that since Jesus has not returned, they believe the canon remains closed.

LDS view. We now live in the final dispensation, the dispensation of the fulness of times. It began with the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in 1830. The exciting denouement of this dispensation will be the second coming, the second advent, of the Savior. This final preparatory period is one of proclamation of the gospel and gathering of scattered Israel. Certainly one might expect it to be a dispensation of revelation. And it is. We know also that there was revelation prior to the Lord’s first advent (e.g., the annunciation). It was preparatory to his coming. Modern-day revelation is similarly preparatory for Jesus’s second coming or advent. Is this so surprising?

#Does the Bible Lack for Anything?

Evangelical view. The LDS third and fourth articles of faith read:

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Owen and Mosser argue that the Bible contains all that we LDS need for salvation, according to our own third and fourth articles of faith. They point to the following facts: (1) We believe we are saved by obedience to the “laws and ordinances” of the Gospel. (2) Our fourth article of faith mentions faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost and identifies these as the “first principles and ordinances of the gospel.” (3) All four of these principles and ordinances are discussed in the Bible. Therefore, Owen and Mosser conclude: “According to the third Article of Faith, salvation is available to all who comply with these laws and ordinances.” Since the Bible contains all that is needed, even according to Latter-day Saint understanding, we have no real need for additional revelation or scripture (FRB, 10).

Perhaps the Evangelicals’ most cogent argument for the sufficiency of the Bible lies in their reasoning that if the Bible contains a sufficient body of information for the establishment and continuing proclamation of the Christian gospel, then no more scripture is necessary. Any additional revelation would be superfluous. Owen and Mosser ask, “What aspects of God’s self-revelation in Christ that are necessary for salvation in the kingdom of God have been restored through the uniquely Latter-day Saint canonical additions?” (FRB, 13).

An evangelical author, Wayne Grudem offered a definition for the sufficiency of scripture: “The sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contains all the words of God which he intends his people to have at each stage of redemptive history, and that it contains everything we need God to tell us for salvation, for trusting him perfectly, and for obeying him perfectly” (Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 127). Owen and Mosser add, “Another way of putting this would be that from an evangelical perspective, the Bible contains all the truth “necessary” to get a person into the kingdom and keep him or her there. That is the view to which anyone who would seek to show the inadequacies of a closed canon must respond” (FRB, 10).

LDS view. Daniel Peterson points out that Owen and Mosser mistakenly assume that the “laws and ordinances” of the gospel mentioned in the third article of faith consist of only the four “principles and ordinances” mentioned in the fourth. Note that in their statement above, Owen and Mosser refer to the four items in the fourth article of faith and say, “According to the third Article of Faith, salvation is available to all who comply with these laws and ordinances” (italics added). Peterson makes the point that the word these is Owen and Mosser’s and is not found in the articles of faith. Also he notes that the “laws and ordinances of the Gospel” (mentioned in the third article of faith) include more than the “principles and ordinances” mentioned in the fourth. The fourth article of faith was not intended to provide an exhaustive list of all our “laws and ordinances”:

They [Owen and Mosser] seem to be misreading the texts. The third Article of Faith can hardly be referring to “these laws and ordinances” (i.e., to the four explicitly mentioned catalogues in the fourth Article of Faith), because, at that point [at the point of the third article of faith], they have not yet been mentioned. Moreover, the demonstrative pronoun these does not occur in the third article, but only in Owen and Mosser’s summary of it. The third Article of Faith simply declares that obedience to “the laws and ordinances of the Gospel” is a necessary element in salvation; the four article specifies faith, repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands as “the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel” (emphasis added). It does not say that the four enumerated items exhaust the [laws and] ordinances. And, anyway, faith and repentance are not “ordinances” at all in Latter-day Saint understanding, nor are they “laws” (FRB, 305).

The only “laws and ordinances” mentioned in Article of Faith 4 are baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. These are important, fundamental, and basic, but do not complete the list of the Lord’s commandments or laws.

Daniel Peterson comments further on whether or not the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation:

If the Bible contains sufficient information for salvation, write Owen and Mosser, no further scripture is necessary. Thus Evangelicals and others are right to be skeptical of Latter-day Saint claims to additional revelation.

But do we really need all four Gospels? Is the book of Jude necessary for salvation? Is it really essential that we know the number of the beast, or that we have the book of Revelation at all? Surely we could dispense with Ecclesiastes, or Obadiah, or, for that matter, with Leviticus. Indeed, from some of my conversations with Evangelicals, it would almost seem that the basic essence of the gospel can be located in, at most, a handful of verses from Paul.

Owen and Mosser’s principle, were it consistently adopted, could justify us in jettisoning virtually the entire biblical canon. But if it cannot be used to justify abandoning vast sections of the Bible, it is not clear how it can be used to argue for scrapping the scriptures peculiar to the Latter-

day Saints (FRB, 304).

Let us consider a few inadequacies of biblical scripture:

1. All orthodox Christian churches lack the revelation of God’s priesthood authority. This authority, by biblical precedent (Mark 3:14; John 15:16; 1 Timothy 2:7;

Titus 1:5), must be passed along by someone holding that divine authority by ordination by the laying on of hands. It is the authority to perform saving ordinances for the living and the dead and to administer the affairs of the Lord’s church on earth. Jesus ordained his apostles. They ordained others. By the time of the Protestant Reformation, that authority had been long since lost through apostasy. It was not to be found in the Catholic Church. Since the Reformation, no one in the Protestant movement has received this divine priesthood. Thus, no one is authorized to organize a church, to preach his gospel, or to administer any of the saving ordinances of his gospel. This divine authority was not restored to the earth until 1829 when it was given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery—the lesser Aaronic priesthood by John the Baptist and the higher Melchizedek by Peter, James, and John.

Paulsen and Potter write:

Even if we supposed that all the information that is necessary for salvation is included in the Bible, it does not follow that the canon must be closed. First, one might think that the Bible tells us what must be done and not how it should be done. For example, let us suppose that the Bible clearly affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation. This information alone would not suffice to make it clear how baptism must be performed and who has the authority to perform it. And even if the Bible contained information relevant to the resolution of these two matters, it wouldn’t necessarily follow that at some given time someone possessed the requisite authority (FRB, 226).

The same authors write:

There is a tacit assumption at work in this line of thinking that might be questioned. The assumption is that it is information alone that is necessary for salvation—i.e., once one has all the information that is necessary for salvation then nothing else is necessary. But this is questionable. Latter-day Saints claim that even if we know the “what” and “how” of salvation we still need the proper authority. Authority itself comes from God and so it would seem to require some kind of revelation. Of course, this kind of revelation is not propositional (i.e., informational) but rather performative, and hence would not be included in a canon (FRB, 226, n. 13).

2. A study of the Bible alone is an exciting spiritual exercise but often leaves the student wanting. Its ambiguities, incomplete and therefore inconclusive discussions, omissions, and inconsistencies (compare, for example, Acts 9:7 with Acts 22:9; Matthew 19:9 with Mark 10:11) all whet one’s appetites for further knowledge. The Bible, by itself, creates a hunger for more knowledge, clarity, and precision. This view needs little defense. One only need look about to observe the many Christian churches that study the Bible, yet find many ways to differ in their doctrinal interpretations and perceptions. We believe the Lord has mercifully provided us with corroborative witnesses of him and his gospel in the form of additional scripture. None of these contradicts the Bible. They only clarify and enrich.

Paulsen and Potter again:

Even if the Bible contained all the knowledge that one must have in order to be saved, it doesn’t follow that every sincere student of the Bible would interpret this potentially saving information in the same way. For, notoriously, the Bible admits of different plausible interpretations. Yet, to the extent that these interpretations conflict, at most one of them can be correct. Finding the correct interpretation is, no doubt, a difficult task, but only that interpretation will enable us to be saved. So, God would want to make it possible for us to ascertain the correct interpretation. One way that he could do this is to give us further revelation (which might subsequently be canonized as new scripture) that could help us to know the correct interpretations (e.g., that to be salvifically efficacious baptism must be by immersion and must be performed by someone with the proper authority).

To be sure, new scripture itself might require interpretation. Hence, we see the need for a living prophet and, as needed, ongoing revelation. Otherwise, our scriptural understanding becomes merely scribal and without authority. Joseph Smith’s first vision came in response to his prayerful petition for divine help when he found he could not settle opposing doctrinal claims by an appeal to the Bible, since proponents of the opposing claims all professed biblical warrant for their position, but each understood the same verses differently. A striking case in point is the failure of biblical scholars to come to consensus on the meaning of Paul’s reference to baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29. According to B. M. Foschini there are at least forty different interpretations of this verse (“‘Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead,’ 1 Cor. 15:29; An Exegetical Historical Dissertation,” Catholic Bible Quarterly, volume 12). How great the need then for a living prophet who can authoritatively declare, “Thus saith the Lord” (FRB, 226-27).

Does the Bible contain all information necessary for salvation? We contend it does not, at least as the Bible is interpreted by various schools of Evangelicals.

3. We believe the Bible hints at the existence of an additional ancient text to be created by prophets among another society of people (John 10:14-16; Genesis 49:22; Isaiah 29:4, 11-12; Ezekiel 37:16-17). But these allusions are not sufficiently clear for all to acknowledge and seek for this record. This additional scripture is, we believe, the Book of Mormon which tells the story of the resurrected Christ’s visiting his people in the

New World. It is another testament of him. Surely he would want the world to know about this vital record.

4. God has restored to the earth the ancient temple ordinances through which we make most sacred covenants with him for ourselves and for our dead ancestors, including the covenant of eternal marriage. Eternal marriage is essential if one is to receive the highest degree of salvation available to mankind. Yet there is no explanation in the Bible of temple covenants, eternal marriage, vicarious work for the dead, and how these ordinances should be carried out.

We Latter-day Saints unquestionably believe temple ordinances to be required for exaltation in the celestial kingdom. It is simply not our understanding that everything we need is in the Bible. Further, we see no reason why we should believe it is.

5. The fate of the “unevangelized dead.” Owen and Mosser suggest that no important principle relating to human salvation is lacking from the Bible as we have it. But surely the salvation of billions of the unevangelized dead is a subject worthy of revealed guidance. Daniel Peterson points out:

A modern issue that agitates more than a few thinkers—even among evangelical Protestants—and that is, in some ways, analogous to that facing Peter and the ancient church, is the question of salvation for those who did not hear the gospel during their mortal lives.3 Latter-day revelation and modern prophets and apostles have shed marvelous and satisfying light on this vexing matter, which receives at most ambiguous treatment within the Bible (FRB, 307).

6. Fundamental to salvation is to know God (John 17:3) and to know about God. The LDS believe that God and Jesus Christ are two separate anthropomorphic individuals. Both have bodies of flesh and blood. While we view several biblical scriptures as compatible with this concept, it is not there in precise and unmistakable form. It seems to us that Evangelicals misinterpret and look beyond the most fundamental facts about God and Jesus Christ. We fear that their creedal misinterpretations prevent them from coming to really know God. There are several New and Old Testament references that provide solid evidence of the true nature of God.4 Admittedly the physical nature of God is not presented incontrovertibly in the Bible. Our precise definition has been the result of modern revelation.

Experience with lay Protestants in the mission fields of the Church clearly indicates that most of them intuitively conceive of the Father and the Son as separate anthropomorphic individuals, though that is not the teaching of their clergy.

To know God is to know about him—his feelings, his motives, his true relationship to man. For example, is God really impersonal and without passions? Not only does he have love and concern for us, his children, but that love epitomizes is very being: “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love” (1 John 4:8). His feelings for man stem from his literal fatherhood.5

And what is God’s motivation—his purpose? Why has he placed us here? Does he care about us? Is he concerned for our eternal welfare? “For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). Eternal life means life forever in the presence of God. He yearns to live with each of us forever.

The Divine Being, that “Divine It” Evangelicals worship is formless, passionless, lacking in real concern, immutable, unresponsive, and unconnected to man. To “know” this God is not really to know God. The truth about God is ennobling. God and we are both of the same species or genus. His relationship with each of us is an intimate one. He is our literal Father.

When Christ ascended into heaven, would he simply merge into “the rest of his divine essence,” as the Evangelicals suggest? Would that loving Jesus again assume his role as the passionless, unchanging God of the early Christian creeds? The Bible makes clear that not only would he always exist as that loving warm individual that ministered selflessly to the earth, but that he would also be laboring for our welfare: “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:2-3).

7. Man has always had a deep need to discern a design, purpose, pattern, or plan regarding his existence. This has been referred to as man’s “architectonic” need. Our God is a God of order and has a well-defined plan for the redemption of his children, a “plan of happiness,” a “plan of salvation.” Nowhere in the Bible is it even mentioned that God has a plan for the salvation of his children. We know, however, that Old and New Testament authors knew about the plan of salvation. For example, in the books of Abraham and Moses in the Pearl of Great Price, we read about the pre-earth life and the Grand Council we attended there. In these books, these concepts are mentioned but briefly. Evidently they were assumed to be common knowledge among those for whom these books were originally written. Peter’s reference to Christ’s visit to the spirit world also illustrates this point: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:18-19). Peter obviously did not intend to give a discourse on the subject of Christ’s spirit ascending into the world of spirits and exactly what purpose that preaching served. His reference to spirit prison was simply used to make another point.

Elder Boyd Packer counted twelve titles for the Father’s plan used in scripture:

1. The merciful plan of the great Creator (2 Nephi 9:6).

2. The plan of mercy (see Alma 42:15, 31).

3. The great plan of redemption (see Jacob 6:8; Alma 12:25-26, 30, 32; 17:16; 18:39; 34:31; 42:11, 13).

4. The eternal plan of redemption (see Alma 34:16).

5. The plan of salvation (see Jarom 1:2; Alma 24:14; 42:5; Moses 6:62).

6. The plan of our God (see 2 Nephi 9:13).

7. The great plan of the Eternal God (see Alma 34:9).

8. The eternal plan of deliverance (see 2 Nephi 11:5).

9. The plan of happiness (see Alma 42:16).

10. The great plan of happiness (see Alma 42:8).

11. The plan of restoration (see Alma 41:2).

12. The plan of the Gods (see Abraham 4:21).

(“Great Plan of Happiness,” Address to CES Symposium, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 10 Aug. 1993).

8. To the Evangelicals, a man is either saved in the heavenly kingdom of God or he is not. They do not allow for multiple degrees of salvation. While the Bible may not provide a perfectly clear picture of celestial salvation (exaltation) and the nature the lesser degrees of salvation, it does hint of different levels of salvation. Consider, for example, 1 Corinthians 15:40-42: “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption.”

Let us be clear. We are blessed with a basic understanding of the three major degrees of eternal glory—the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. We acknowledge there are many Evangelicals who are living celestial lives, and the Lord will surely judge them accordingly. He will judge them based on the “desire of their hearts”—on who they really are (Alma 29:4; D&C 137:5-9). But there are other Evangelicals whose eternal hopes, due to a lack of understanding, are fixed on a terrestrial or lesser degree of salvation. We believe their sights are set too low. Many of these might lift themselves higher if they were to learn of and strive to develop their celestial potential. The Father and the Son yearn to live with each of them forever. And that can only occur in the celestial heaven. The “honorable men” of the earth (D&C 76:75) are good and honest, but they are living a lesser doctrine rather than the fulness of the gospel. They have confessed Christ and feel they are already “saved” by God’s foreseeing, and therefore his predestining. In most cases they are entirely correct. They will be saved to a terrestrial heaven. But the Lord would have them come to know and accept his true goal for them—celestial glory.

This will require stretching, striving, and obeying at a higher level here on earth. The Bible contains all that is necessary for terrestrial salvation. But, for exaltation in the celestial kingdom, additional divine instruction is needed.

For additional discussion of corroborative evidences of Joseph Smith’s divine calling, see volume 2, chapter 20, Joseph Smith.

See the chapters in section 2, The Nature of God.

3 See, for example, John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1992); Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response (New York: Paulist Press, 1992); Stephen T. Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1993), 159-65; Gabriel Fackre, Ronald H. Nash, and John Sanders, What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1995); Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, eds., More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995). 4 For several New and Old Testament passages that provide evidence of the Godhead’s consisting of three separate anthropomorphic individuals, see “Scriptural references to separate individuals in the Godhead” in chapter 4, Trinity Doctrine.

5 For further discussion on the Fatherhood of God, see “Conclusion” in chapter 3, Evangelicals and the Creeds; the LDS view of “How important is it to understand the true nature of God?” in chapter 4, Trinity Doctrine; and the subtitle, “The Father and His Offspring” in chapter 6, Deification.