Chapter 4

Salvation History and Requirements

"The great plan of salvation is a theme which ought to occupy our strict attention, and be regarded as one of heaven's best gifts to mankind. No consideration whatever ought to deter us from showing ourselves approved in the sight of God, according to His divine requirement. Men not unfrequently forget that they are dependent upon heaven for every blessing which they are permitted to enjoy, and that for every opportunity granted them they are to give an account."

- Joseph Smith¹

In the previous chapter we discussed the fact that Christianity was cast in the mold of Jewish Apocalyptic thought. And according to Hennecke and Schneemelcher:

The outstanding characteristic of the apocalyptic thought-world is determinism. God has fore-ordained everything: all that happens happens precisely according to the fixed plan of God, which human plans and actions can neither advance nor hinder.²

It is not surprising, therefore, that early Christian documents such as the Epistle of the Apostles speak of "the plan of the Father."³ We have already seen that early Christianity, as well as the Prophet Joseph Smith, preached that this plan was formulated in the great councils in heaven before the creation of the world, and that the final purpose of the plan is the deification of God's children.

But it is not sufficient to know that there exists such a plan and what the end result of it will be. Of more immediate concern to those of us working out our salvation are the specifics of the plan. That is, we must know what will happen to us between birth and our final state, as well as how to make sure our final state is that which God intended for us. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter will be to map the way to salvation, as taught by Christ, as believed by the early Christians, and as restored by Joseph Smith.

Adam and the Fall

Adam and Eve--the First Members of the Human Family

Salvation history must necessarily begin with Adam, the first man, and Eve, his wife. And as it turns out, Joseph Smith restored two points⁴ of doctrine concerning the first man that are supported by early Christian evidence, but which are completely at odds with the interpretations of modern mainstream Christianity.

First, according to Joseph Smith, Adam was Michael the Archangel in the premortal existence.⁵ Even now Adam retains his authority: "The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority."⁶ Consider the similarity of the preceding statement with that about Michael in an ancient Coptic Christian document:

And I answered and said unto the Cherubim, "How doth it come to pass that the name of Michael is written upon their garments? And wherefore do they cry out?" And the Cherubim answered and said unto me, "No angel is allowed to come upon the earth unless the name of Michael is written upon his garments, for otherwise the Devil would lead them astray."⁷

Joseph Smith also taught that Adam, as Michael, helped the Father and Son in the creation. Similarly, Alan Segal reports that the ancient rabbis wrote polemics against various "Two Powers" heresies, which included Christianity, which taught that Adam had been a helper in the creation.⁸ Thus the Gnostic Christian Apocalypse of Adam taught that Adam "helps in creation and is higher in rank than the god who created him and Eve . . . ."⁹ And interestingly enough, some of these "heretics" believed that "Michael and Gabriel were associates of God in creation. "¹⁰ Therefore, while I have found no direct evidence that Adam was equated with Michael, there are some tantalizing clues that indicate this might once have been the case. At any rate, certain aspects of Joseph Smith's teaching on the matter are confirmed in the ancient literature.

Second, Adam and Eve are important figures in all of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian theology because not only were they the parents of the entire human race, but it was their sin which caused the Fall of all humankind into this sinful world of pain and sorrow. This made necessary the atonement of Jesus Christ, to bring mankind back from this sinful condition into the blessedness, immortality, and peace our first parents enjoyed before the Fall in the Garden of Eden.

But Joseph Smith took a different view of the Fall from the rest of the Christian world. Consider his doctrine of deification, for example. Certainly Adam was no "god" when he lived in innocence. It was only after the Fall that God said, "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil . . . ." (Genesis 3:22) Joseph Smith looked on the Fall as a necessary step in the process of salvation, and Adam and Eve's act of disobedience as a "transgression" of the law of the Garden rather than a "sin." Thus, the prophet Lehi in The Book of Mormon explained:

And now, Behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. (2 Nephi 2:22-25)

The writings of several early Christian writers agree with the Prophet that the Fall was "fortunate." Clement of Alexandria exclaimed: "O mystic wonder! The Lord was laid low, and man rose up; and he that fell from Paradise receives as the reward of obedience something greater [than Paradise]--namely, heaven itself."¹¹ Referring to the Fall, Irenaeus wrote:

"Thine own apostasy shall heal thee;" God thus determining all things beforehand for the bringing of man to perfection, for his edification, and for the revelation of His dispensations, that goodness may both be made apparent, and righteousness perfected, and that the Church may be fashioned after the image of His Son, and that man may finally be brought to maturity at some future time, becoming ripe through such privileges to see and comprehend God.¹²

Certain Jewish Christian documents, especially the Clementine Homilies,¹³ went even further. In the Homilies, Peter stated that Adam "was ignorant of nothing,"¹⁴ "neither was Adam a transgressor."¹⁵

But while Willis Barnstone pegs this as a major theme of Gnostic Christianity, and we have shown it to have been present in early Catholic and Jewish Christianity, later Christian mystics such as Pseudo-Dionysius (sixth century) claimed that since partaking of the tree of knowledge was what got Adam and Eve into trouble in the first place, the true Christian should actually strive for ignorance!¹⁶

Original Sin and Original Guilt

Since mainstream Christians have essentially lost the doctrine of deification, they consider the Fall a wholly unfortunate event. Likewise, the loss of the doctrine of pre-existence has allowed many of them to adopt the view that even infants, newborn into the sinful world, are guilty of Adam's sin, and may be excluded from the Kingdom of God if steps (completely beyond the infants' control) are not taken to protect them.

The mainstream doctrine of "original sin" thus includes the following elements. 1) Adam's Transgression had the effect of passing along a "sinful nature" to his posterity. 2) The "nature" spoken of includes both body and soul, so that an infant comes into the world not only with a body that is beset by animal passions, but a spirit that has a disposition to commit sin. 3) Not only is everyone affected by Adam's transgression, but they are guilty of it since they were present "in Adam" when he sinned. 4) Some churches, notably those with a Calvinist background, actually believe that the fall of human nature has been so complete that humans are incapable of truly righteous actions without the aid of the grace of Jesus Christ.

Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, reject this doctrine of "original sin" as it is taught by the churches and proclaim that the atonement of Christ automatically pays for those effects of the Fall that are beyond our individual control. "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." (Articles of Faith 2)¹⁷ However, the Fall did have an effect. Mankind has inherited a "fallen nature," but that is not to imply the "total depravity" of the Calvinists because while the human body is subject to animal passions, the immortal soul comes from God pure and righteous. Thus, all people are innocent from birth, and (except for those with diminished intellectual and moral capacity) are equipped with the moral agency for choosing between good and evil..

Paul spoke of the effects of the Fall in three closely related passages in Romans 5. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (Romans 5:12) "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression . . . ." (Romans 5:14) "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Romans 5:19) It is clear from these passages that Paul believed that somehow Adam brought sin and death into the world, but it is not clear exactly what he believed was passed from Adam to his descendants. Elsewhere Paul explained, "Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." (Romans 7:20) Therefore, it seems obvious that Adam was not just the first example of a transgressor, but his transgression actually had the effect of passing a fallen nature to his descendants. We shall see that the New Testament gives some clues about what exactly fallen nature is, but it must be admitted that it is not really explicit about the matter. In spite of this, it can easily be shown that the LDS view of original sin was in harmony with the earliest known Christian teachings.

What exactly is the sinful nature of mankind? For Latter-day Saints it is closely linked to the mortal body. Thus the prophet Nephi lamented, "And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh?" (2 Nephi 4:27) The immortal soul is basically good¹⁸ and mortal life is a constant struggle between the desires of the flesh and spirit. However, the spirit can be marred and transformed as the desires of the flesh prevail, and indeed, all human souls except that of Jesus have sustained the damage of personal sin. In addition, the very environment of the fallen world and the temptations of the Devil and his angels combine with the flesh in its war against the soul. Bible-believing Christians have always believed in the fallen nature of the world and the reality of the devil, but they do not agree with the Latter-day Saints about the initial purity of the souls that come from God.

But Paul at least hinted that he held a view similar to that of the Latter-day Saints. For instance, in several passages he spoke of the war between the flesh and the soul. "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." (Galatians 5:17; cf. Romans 8:1-4) "Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24) Peter spoke of "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." (1 Peter 2:11)¹⁹ And little children were certainly considered innocent by Jesus, who told his disciples to let the children come to him, for "of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14) Many of the early Fathers were even more explicit in their beliefs.

For example, the Epistle to Diognetus asserted that "The flesh hates the soul, and wars against it . . . ."²⁰ Clement of Alexandria elaborated:

This is the true athlete--he who in the great stadium, the fair world, is crowned for the true victory over all the passions. For He who prescribes the contest is the Almighty God, and He who awards the prize is the only-begotten: Son of God. Angels and gods are spectators; and the contest, embracing all the varied exercises, is "not against flesh and blood," but against the spiritual powers of inordinate passions that work through the flesh.²¹

And the Clementine Recognitions preached the same doctrine:

For it is his duty to examine with just judgment the things which we say, and to understand that we speak the words of truth, that, knowing how things are, and directing his life in good actions, he may be found a partaker of the kingdom of heaven, subjecting to himself the desires of the flesh, and becoming lord of them, that so at length he himself also may become the pleasant possession of the Ruler of all.²²

Barnabas preached that the new birth heals the spirit so that it can become as it was in childhood: "He hath made us after another pattern, [it is His purpose] that we should possess the soul of children, inasmuch as He has created us anew by His Spirit."²³ Papias wrote that the early Christians "called those who practised a godly guilelessness, children . . . ."²⁴ Finally, the undeniably orthodox Pastor of Hermas taught that it is impossible for evil to originate in the heart of an infant:

And they who believed from the twelfth mountain, which was white, are the following: they are as infant children, in whose hearts no evil originates; nor did they know what wickedness is, but always remained as children. Such accordingly, without doubt, dwell in the kingdom of God, because they defiled in nothing the commandments of God; but they remained like children all the days of their life in the same mind. All of you, then, who shall remain stedfast, and be as children, without doing evil, will be more honoured than all who have been previously mentioned; for all infants are honourable before God, and are the first persons with Him.²⁵

From these early witnesses we can infer that Christianity originally did not believe that the soul came from God already tainted by "original sin." However, as the second century drew to a close, and the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls began to be lost, the situation changed. The great theologian, Tertullian, was the major player in this shift.

Tertullian believed a theory of the soul's origin known as "traducianism," which teaches that both the bodies and souls of all humans were contained in embryo within Adam, and new souls are created by the "psychic copulation" of the souls of the parents. Thus, when Adam's soul was tainted with sin, so were ours, and so no human soul comes into the world in purity.²⁶ Tertullian dismissed the passages in the New Testament that speak of the war between the flesh and spirit by saying that the flesh is merely an instrument that does the bidding of the soul:

Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame. Now although the flesh is sinful, and we are forbidden to walk in accordance with it, and its works are condemned as lusting against the spirit, and men on its account are censured as carnal, yet the flesh has not such ignominy on its own account. For it is not of itself that it thinks anything or feels anything for the purpose of advising or commanding sin. How should it, indeed? It is only a ministering thing, and its ministration is not like that of a servant or familiar friend--animated and human beings; but rather that of a vessel, or something of that kind: it is body, not soul.²⁷

Tertullian also explained the end result of the contamination of the soul:

All these endowments of the soul which are bestowed on it at birth are still obscured and depraved by the malignant being who, in the beginning, regarded them with envious eye, so that they are never seen in their spontaneous action, nor are they administered as they ought to be.²⁸

It is interesting to note that even though Origen believed in the pre-existence of the soul, he still accepted the doctrine that the soul is tainted at birth.²⁹ Origen was a Platonist who believed that immortal souls would not have voluntarily associated themselves with matter, so he reasoned that they must have had a "pre-cosmic Fall" where, because of various degrees of rebellion, they were thrust down into the material world.³⁰

Throughout the various arguments associated with this doctrine, it was recognized by all that the question of original sin was intimately tied to the question of the soul's origin.³¹ As was discussed above, this question was not a settled matter even as late as the fifth century, and Augustine himself was baffled by it to the end of his life. Augustine wrote in a letter to Jerome that the chief reason he could not decide between the various theories of the soul's origin was that none of them really explained the transmission of "original sin":

Some years ago, when I wrote certain books concerning Free Will, which have gone forth into the hands of many, and are now in the possession of very many readers, after referring to these four opinions as to the manner of the soul's incarnation,--(1) that all other souls are derived from the one which was given to the first man [i.e. traducianism]; (2) that for each individual a new soul is made; (3) that souls already in existence somewhere are sent by divine act into the bodies; or (4) glide into them of their own accord . . . . Leaving, therefore, out of the question this heretical error, I desire to know which of the other four opinions we ought to choose. For whichever of them may justly claim our preference, far be it from us to assail this article of faith, about which we have no uncertainty, that every soul, even the soul of an infant, requires to be delivered from the binding guilt of sin, and that there is no deliverance except through Jesus Christ and Him crucified.³²

Note that by this time Augustine could call the doctrine of the tainted nature of the soul an "article of faith." Eventually, Augustine leaned toward traducianism, but he was still uncomfortable with this solution since it implied Tertullian's belief in the corporeality of the soul.³³

Whether they believed in the effect of original sin on the soul or not, Christians since the earliest times have maintained that human nature has elements of both good and evil, and hence people are capable of choosing either path. However, some theologians, notably the Reformer John Calvin and his followers, adopted the doctrine of "total depravity." That is, the fallen nature is such that humans are not even capable of choosing good. John Calvin admitted that his doctrine was not preached by the Fathers, but he still claimed support from the Bible:

For under the second head, where [the early Fathers] treat of Original Sin, they declare that free-will, though impaired in its powers and biased, is not however extinguished. I will not dispute about a name, but since they contend that liberty has by no means been extinguished, they certainly understand that the human will has still some power left to choose good . . . . Therefore, if we believe them, Original Sin has weakened us, so that the defect of our will is not pravity but weakness. For if the will were wholly depraved, its health would not only be impaired but lost until it were renewed. The latter, however, is uniformly the doctrine of Scripture. To omit innumerable passages where Paul discourses on the nature of the human race, he does not charge free-will with weakness, but declares all men to be useless, alienated from God, and enslaved to the tyranny of sin; so much so, that he says they are unfit to think a good thought. (Rom. 3:12; 2 Cor. 3:5)³⁴

But Calvin mischaracterized Paul's teachings. Note the following passage: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts . . . ." (Romans 2:14-15) Now, if men can obey the law of God "by nature," then it seems certain that their "nature" is not entirely depraved.

Since Calvin himself admitted that the writings of the early Fathers did not support his arguments, the matter is not in dispute, but we will examine a portion of this evidence, anyway. In the second century we have the testimony of the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and the Clementine Recognitions, (presented below, respectively) among others:

He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God.³⁵

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be.³⁶

For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves . . . . But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally].³⁷

For believing and obeying are in our own power.³⁸

Whether any one, truly hearing the word of the true Prophet; is willing or unwilling to receive it, and to embrace His burden, that is, the precepts of life, he has either in his power, for we are free in will. For if it were so, that those who hear had it not in their power to do otherwise than they had heard, there were some power of nature in virtue of which it were not free to him to pass over to another opinion. Or if, again, no one of the hearers could at all receive it, this also were a power of nature which should compel the doing of some one thing, and should leave no place for the other course. But now, since it is free for the mind to turn its judgment to which side it pleases, and to choose the way which it approves, it is clearly manifest that there is in men a liberty of choice.³⁹

The following statement by Lactantius is representative of the attitude of the third-century theologians:

He devised an unspeakable work, in what manner He might create an infinite multitude of souls, which being at first united with frail and feeble bodies, He might place in the midst between good and evil, that He might set virtue before them composed as they were of both natures; that they might not attain to immortality by a delicate and easy course of life, but might arrive at that unspeakable reward of eternal life with the utmost difficulty and great labours.⁴⁰

In the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus and Cyril of Jerusalem made the following comments:

For there are people so evilly disposed as to think that some men are of an utterly ruined nature, and some of a nature which is saved, and that others are of such a disposition as their will may lead them to, either to the better, or to the worse. For that men may have a certain aptitude, one more, another less, I too admit; but not that this aptitude alone suffices for perfection, but that it is reason which calls this out, that nature may proceed to action, just as fire is produced when a flint is struck with iron.⁴¹

The soul is self-governed: and though the devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will. He pictures to thee the thought of fornication: if thou wilt, thou acceptest it; if thou wilt not, thou rejectest. For if thou were a fornicator by necessity, then for what cause did God prepare hell? If thou were a doer of righteousness by nature and not by will, wherefore did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but never was it crowned for its gentleness: since its gentle quality belongs to it not from choice but by nature.⁴²

Although Gregory indicated that by his time there were some heretics who entertained such notions, the majority of church thinkers rejected them. However, one later mainstream theologian, Augustine, did go beyond his forbears in this respect. He taught that while it is true that God's grace can strengthen our will to do the right, we are utterly incapable of even willing to do good without the grace of Jesus Christ:

He operates, therefore, without us, in order that we may will; but when we will, and so will that we may act, He co-operates with us. We can, however, ourselves do nothing to effect good works of piety without Him either working that we may will, or co-working when we will. Now, concerning His working that we may will, it is said: "It is God which worketh in you, even to will." [Phil. 2:13] While of His co-working with us, when we will and act by willing, the Apostle says, "We know that in all things there is co-working for good to them that love God." [Rom. 8:28]⁴³

But if so, then how can anyone be saved? Augustine, having lost the true knowledge of the preexistence, appealed to Paul's references to "predestination" or "foreordination." In his view, these passages implied that God predestines certain people to be saved and others to be damned, and therefore gives the grace necessary to accept Christ to those in the "saved" category. What about those who would never even hear the gospel in their lifetimes? Augustine reasoned that anyone who was predestined for grace would be given that chance:

Whosoever, then, are made to differ from that original condemnation by such bounty of divine grace, there is no doubt but that for such it is provided that they should hear the gospel, and when they hear they believe, and in the faith which worketh by love they persevere unto the end . . . .⁴⁴

Against the charge that such a thing would make God unjust, Augustine defended his doctrine by saying that God's election was based on some sort of "secret justice," known only to God.⁴⁵ And what about Paul's assertion that Jesus wills "all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth"? (1 Timothy 2:3-4; cf. 2 Peter 3:9) Of course, Augustine reasoned, Paul was only speaking of "all men" who had been elected:

And what is written, that "He wills all men' to be saved," while yet all men are not saved, may be understood in many ways, some of which I have mentioned in other writings of mine; but here I will say one thing: "He wills all men to be saved," is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is among them.⁴⁶

The fundamental issue for Augustine was that if God "elected" someone to salvation before the foundation of the world, how could God's election come to nothing as a result of human sin?

Those, then, are elected, as has often been said, who are called according to the purpose, who also are predestinated and foreknown. If any one of these perishes, God is mistaken; but none of them perishes, because God is not mistaken. If any one of these perish, God is overcome by human sin; but none of them perishes, because God is overcome by nothing.⁴⁷

This interpretation was never accepted generally by Christianity, but centuries later John Calvin adopted the same belief.⁴⁸ However, consider the logic of this position. If God creates all men out of nothing and if God has elected certain people to salvation by grace and others to condemnation, wouldn't everything happen exactly according to His plan? If it all originated from God in the first place, how can His purposes be frustrated? Thus, strict Calvinism is logically consistent only if one ignores the belief that God wills all men to be saved. On the other hand, other mainstream Christian churches are consistent on this issue only if they ignore or water down the idea of "predestination" or "foreordination," which is clearly taught in the Bible. Therefore, we can easily see how confusion arose during the early centuries of Christianity after the doctrine of the preexistence of man came into question and as the doctrine of creation out of nothing was adopted.

Mainstream Christianity has traditionally believed that not only are all human souls tainted by "original sin," but as a consequence, they are also guilty of Adam's transgression. Consequently, this has led those who believe in the absolute necessity of baptism to preach that infants who die without receiving the grace of baptism will be excluded from the kingdom of God.⁴⁹ On the contrary, Latter-day Saints have been taught that "the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world." (Moses 6:54) Therefore, "all little children" and "those who are without the law" are "alive in Christ." (Moroni 8:22) That is, any sins that are committed solely because of the negative effects of the transgression of Adam are automatically atoned for by Jesus Christ. Therefore, little children need no baptism to be redeemed, and neither do the mentally deficient who sin in ignorance.⁵⁰

We have seen that Jesus preached the innocence of little children, for "of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:14) And early writers like Barnabas and Hermas could not have believed in original guilt, for they believed that "all infants are honourable before God, and are the first persons with Him."⁵¹ The Apologists of the second century concurred in this belief.⁵² Similarly, Clement of Alexandria specifically stated that we come into the world without sin:

The righteous Job says: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there;" not naked of possessions, for that were a trivial and common thing; but, as a just man, he departs naked of evil and sin, and of the unsightly shape which follows those who have led bad lives.⁵³

It is interesting to note that in Clement's time the proponents of "original guilt" were the Gnostics⁵⁴, and he argued strenuously against them:

It is for them to tell us how the newly born child could commit fornication or in what way the child who has never done anything at all has fallen under Adam's curse. The only thing left for them to say and still be consistent, I suppose, is that birth is evil not just for the body but for the soul for which the body exists.⁵⁵

We have seen that around the turn of the third century Tertullian did preach that the birth of the soul is tainted, but he did not preach "original guilt," even though he approved of the practice of infant baptism:

The father should not bear the iniquity of the son, nor the son the iniquity of the father, but that every man should be chargeable with his own sin; so that the harshness of the law having been reduced after the hardness of the people, justice was no longer to judge the race, but individuals.⁵⁶

The situation changed further as the third century progressed. For example, C.P. Bammel notes that the notion of the succession of original guilt is to be found in Origen's Commentary on Romans⁵⁷, yet Origen still did not believe that infants would be condemned because of it:

The words "I once lived without the law" in Romans 7:9 are explained as referring to the fact that every man lives without the natural law until he reaches the age of reason. During this time sin is dormant, but when he reaches the age to be able to distinguish right and wrong sin revives.⁵⁸

By the middle of the third century, however, Cyprian connected the practice of infant baptism with the regeneration from original guilt:

But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted--and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace--how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins--that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.⁵⁹

This doctrine didn't become general for some time, however, and in the fourth century Cyril of Jerusalem was still preaching the original dogma:

And learn this also, that the soul, before it came into this world, had committed no sin, but having come in sinless, we now sin of our free-will . . . . Remember also the Scripture, which saith, even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge: and, That which may be known of God is manifest in them; and again, their eyes they have closed.⁶⁰

By the time Augustine wrote in the fifth century, the practice of infant baptism had become so commonplace that he could use it as proof positive that infants were born with the contagion of "original guilt." According to him "the practice of infant baptism tells us that the infant soul, not merely its flesh, stands in need of cleansing."⁶¹

Certainly there have been many different opinions within Christianity about the effects of Adam's transgression, many of which with the Latter-day Saint and early Church belief that unbaptized infants would not be condemned.⁶² However, it should be clear by now that Joseph Smith's doctrine of the preexistence of souls restored a crucial piece of the puzzle by showing what exactly is inherited from Adam. And the Prophet was in line with the early Church, as well as the more enlightened mainstream Christians⁶³, when he preached that the effects of the Fall are freely atoned for by Jesus Christ.

The Road to Salvation in Mortality

Dispensations--a Gospel for All Ages

Whether one believes in "original guilt" or not, all Christians agree that there is only one way to undo the effects of the Fall, as well as save mankind from their own sins, and that is through the atonement of Jesus Christ. This is true for people who lived before the advent of Christ, as well as those who lived after, but mainstream Christianity has no consistent answer to the question of how those who lived before Jesus could take advantage of His atonement. For, if those before Christ could be saved by the law they knew, why was Jesus' atonement needed?

Joseph Smith provided a novel answer: The gospel has been preached on earth since the beginning, starting with Adam and Eve. Thus, Adam could be termed the first Christian. (See Moses 6:52-60) Whenever the gospel has been preached, however, and the priesthood given, sooner or later apostasy has occurred and the authority and truth of God removed. Therefore, in periods of apostasy men were left with as much or as little truth for which, in God's view, they could be morally responsible. As we are told in the Book of Mormon: "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have . . . ." (Alma 29:8) But when a people is ready, God plants again the seed of the true gospel and Priesthood. As Joseph Smith stated, "It is in the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood . . . ."⁶⁴

The dispensation inaugurated by the revelations and ordination of Joseph Smith is the last dispensation before the Second Coming of Christ, and is termed the "dispensation of the fulness of times" because it will "bring to light the things that have been revealed in all former dispensations; also other things that have not been before revealed."⁶⁵

According to non-Mormon scholar Heikke Raisanen wrote that the Prophet's doctrine was to him a thing of "pure logic and downright beauty," and he noted that similar concepts may be found in Clement of Rome's (ca. 96 A.D.) letter and in the Pseudepigrapha.⁶⁶ Indeed, Joseph Smith's doctrine agrees with many early Christian writings. Paul insisted that the Lord had "preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." (Galatians 3:8) And Ignatius of Antioch agreed that the prophets knew of and preached Christ:

For the divinest prophets lived according to Jesus Christ. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word, not spoken, but essential.⁶⁷

Tatian, Theophilus, and Eusebius all agreed that the gospel was no recent invention, but, in fact, very ancient. "Let us, then, institute a comparison between them; and we shall find that our doctrines are older, not only than those of the Greeks, but than the invention of letters."⁶⁸

These periods, then, and all the above-mentioned facts, being viewed collectively, one can see the antiquity of the prophetical writings and the divinity of our doctrine, that the doctrine is not recent, nor our tenets mythical and false, as some think, but very ancient and true.⁶⁹

If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth . . . . So that it is clearly necessary to consider that religion, which has lately been preached to all nations through the teaching of Christ, the first and most ancient of all religions, and the one discovered by those divinely favored men in the age of Abraham.⁷⁰

Cardinal Daniélou mentions some of these early authors and admits that this was the position of "the earliest Christian theologians."⁷¹

Clement of Alexandria's belief coincides with the philosophy found in The Book of Mormon that God gives as much wisdom and knowledge to a nation as it is capable of receiving:

It is He who also gave philosophy to the Greeks by means of the inferior angels. For by an ancient and divine order the angels are distributed among the nations. But the glory of those who believe is "the Lord's portion." For either the Lord does not care for all men; and this is the case either because He is unable (which is not to be thought, for it would be a proof of weakness), or because He is unwilling, which is not the attribute of a good being . . . . But in proportion to the adaptation possessed by each, He has dispensed His beneficence both to Greeks and Barbarians, even to those of them that were predestinated, and in due time called, the faithful and elect.⁷²

And Eusebius taught that those who were not ready to accept the one true God were allowed to worship the heavenly bodies as a substitute:

There was but one way for those who failed of the highest religion of the Almighty to prosper, namely to choose the best of things visible in heaven . . . . So all the most beautiful visible created things were delivered to them who yearned for nothing better, since to some extent the vision of the unseen shone in them, reflected as in a mirror.⁷³

Paul preached that the Law of Moses was a lesser or preparatory law, designed to lead Israel to Christ, added because of their transgression. "Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." (Galatians 3:19) But Paul also insisted that the gospel was preached to the Israelites. "For unto us was the Gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith." (Hebrews 4:2)

Joseph Smith not only accepted Paul's teachings on these matters⁷⁴, he added a striking twist. According to a revelation the Prophet received as an inspired addition to the Bible, Moses received the full gospel law on the first set of stone tablets, but then received the lower law on the next set after he broke the first when he saw the Children of Israel had reverted to idolatry.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them. But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment." (JST Exodus 34:1-2)

Consider the similarity of the preceding passage with this next one from the second-century Epistle of Barnabas, a thoroughly orthodox Christian work:

Yes [it is even so]; but let us inquire if the Lord has really given that testament which He swore to the fathers that He would give to the people. He did give it; but they were not worthy to receive it, on account of their sins. For the prophet declares, "And Moses was fasting forty days and forty nights on Mount Sinai, that he might receive the testament of the Lord for the people." And he received from the Lord two tables, written in the spirit by the finger of the hand of the Lord. And Moses having received them, carried them down to give to the people. And the Lord said to Moses, "Moses, Moses, go down quickly; for thy people hath sinned, whom thou didst bring out of the land of Egypt." And Moses understood that they had again made molten images; and he threw the tables out of his hands, and the tables of the testament of the Lord were broken. Moses then received it, but they proved themselves unworthy. Learn how we have received it. Moses, as a servant, received it; but the Lord himself, having suffered in our behalf, hath given it to us, that we should be the people of inheritance.⁷⁵

At first the question of why Christianity abandoned this enlightening doctrine might seem baffling, considering how widespread it was in the first few centuries after Christ. However, since the doctrine of dispensations opened up the disconcerting possibility that the gospel may have been lost once again through all their innovations, it is understandable why later churchmen would reject it in favor of the theory of a "once for all" revelation in Christ, which affirmed their authority.⁷⁶

Faith, Grace, and Works

When a person has the gospel of Christ preached to him, he alone has the responsibility to accept it in faith or reject it. Jesus preached that "whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) But what does this "saving belief or faith" imply? Conversations on this subject between Mormons and others, especially Protestants, often end up being futile exercises because many Protestants mistakenly think that Mormons believe in salvation by good works, rather than grace through faith, and many Mormons mistakenly think that all Protestants believe good works are completely unnecessary and superfluous to one's salvation. Therefore, in this section we will carefully describe the interplay of faith, grace, and works as seen by Mormons, Protestants, and the earliest Christians. (The Mormon position essentially indistinguishable from the Catholic and Orthodox doctrines on this subject, so they need not be discussed in the context of this book.)

The scriptures make absolutely clear several facts about this subject. First, every person is a sinner, and therefore cannot by his own merits attain the glory of heaven. "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of god" (Romans 3:23), said Paul. Similarly, John indicated that, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8) And The Book of Mormon informs us that "if ye would serve [God] with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants." (Mosiah 2:21)

Consequently, all are in need of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ to bring them back to the presence of God and cleanse them of their transgressions. This freely given gift of Christ Jesus is part of his "grace" or divine assistance, and no amount of good works on our part can save us without Christ's help. Paul preached that, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9) And Nephi wrote, "We labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23)

Third, this saving grace is accessed by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul told the Galatians that,

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16)

Fourth, saving faith is not mere belief or intellectual assent. True faith in Christ requires a change of heart--and a change of lifestyle. We must not only believe in Christ, but believe Christ concerning all the blessings promised the righteous. "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (James 2:19-20) Therefore, true faith carries with it the motivation to do good works. Such "good works" are not to be compared to the "dead works" Paul spoke of (Hebrews 6:1), any more than living faith is to be compared to the "dead faith" James preached against.

In the late first century, Clement of Rome illustrated the difficulty in expressing the relationship between faith and works when he exhorted the Corinthians to be justified by faith rather than works, and in another passage, by works rather than words:

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men . . . .⁷⁷

Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.⁷⁸

So far, Mormons and most Protestants would agree. While there are a few Protestants who believe faith does not entail any moral responsibility, nearly all of them consider good works as an essential product of faith. For instance Henry Halley:

Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, and James' doctrine of justification by works, are supplementary, not contradictory . . . . Paul preached faith as the basis of justification before God, but insisted that it must issue in the right kind of Life. James was writing to those who had accepted the doctrine of justification by faith but were not living right, telling them that such faith was no faith at all.⁷⁹

Where do we differ? For one thing, many Protestants believe in "eternal security." That is, after one truly accepts Christ into his life, one is saved and cannot ever become "unsaved." Misinterpreting Paul's assertion that no outside force "shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:39), they are persuaded that not even they themselves can reject God once they have accepted Him. Not only is this doctrine contrary to the New Testament, it was not taught in the early Church. No Christian writers can be found advocating it for centuries after the Apostolic era.

Paul insisted that salvation could be lost:

If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries . . . . Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)

Also,

It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Paul entreated the Philippians to "work out [their] own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12), and Peter exhorted the Saints to "give diligence to make [their] calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall." (2 Peter 1:10) Peter also criticized certain Christians who had forsaken the faith: "They had once escaped the world's defilements through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; yet if they have entangled themselves in these all over again, and are mastered by them, their plight in the end is worse than before." (2 Peter 2:20 NEB) Paul counseled Timothy to "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." (1 Timothy 4:16) Indeed, Paul did not consider himself to be automatically saved:

It is not to be thought that I have already achieved all this. I have not yet reached perfection, but I press on, hoping to take hold of that for which Christ once took hold of me. My friends, I do not reckon myself to have got hold of it yet. All I can say is this: forgetting what is behind me, and reaching out for that which lies ahead, I press towards the goal to win the prize which is God's call to the life above, in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 3:12-14 NEB)

Similarly, the Church Fathers of the second century with one accord proclaimed that one must continue in righteousness or be condemned. Clement of Rome, for example, told the Corinthians:

Take heed, beloved, lest His many kindnesses lead to the condemnation of us all. [For thus it must be] unless we walk worthy of Him, and with one mind do those things which are good and well-pleasing in His sight.⁸⁰

Later he asked: "For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?"⁸¹ Likewise, Ignatius of Antioch entreated the Magnesians:

Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted.⁸²

And Polycarp instructed the Philippians: "If a man does not keep himself from covetousness, he shall be defiled by idolatry, and shall be judged as one of the heathen."⁸³

Barnabas also exhorted the Church: "Be ye taught of God, inquiring diligently what the Lord asks from you; and do it that ye may be safe in the day of judgment."⁸⁴ He also added: "The way of light, then, is as follows. If any one desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works."⁸⁵ The author of 2 Clement made the same point:

But in what way shall we confess Him? By doing what He says, and not transgressing His commandments, and by honouring Him not with our lips only, but with all our heart and all our mind. For He says in Isaiah, "This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me." Let us, then, not only call Him Lord, for that will not save us. For He saith, "Not every one that saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that worketh righteousness." Wherefore, brethren, let us confess Him by our works . . . .⁸⁶

The angel in Hermas's vision explained that he must "endure to the end" to sit at the right hand of God:

While I was thinking about this, and feeling vexed that she did not let me sit on the right, she said, "Are you vexed, Hermas? The place to the right is for others who have already pleased God, and have suffered for His name's sake; and you have yet much to accomplish before you can sit with them. But abide as you now do in your simplicity, and you will sit with them, and with all who do their deeds and bear what they have borne."⁸⁷

Paul made the same point in the apocryphal Acts of Paul: "Blessed are they who have kept their baptism pure, for they shall rest with the Father and with the Son."⁸⁸ Irenaeus quoted the "elders who knew the Apostles" as saying that Christians should watch themselves so as not to lose their salvation: "Therefore we should . . . ourselves fear lest, after the recognition of Christ, we should do something displeasing to God, and, no longer having remission of sins, be excluded from his kingdom."⁸⁹ And Jesus, in the Epistle of the Apostles, proclaimed that:

If any man believe on me and do not my commandments, although he have confessed my name, he hath no profit therefrom but runneth a vain race: for such will find themselves in perdition and destruction, because they have despised my commandments.⁹⁰

This unanimous testimony of the early Church continued for centuries, and it appears the only ones who were preaching salvation by grace alone and eternal security in the early centuries of Christianity were the Gnostics.⁹¹ Therefore, it is perfectly clear that when Joseph Smith laid out the doctrines of faith, grace, and works, he was restoring the beliefs of the earliest Christians.

Baptism

Beyond the generality of "good works," Joseph Smith preached that there are certain ordinances or sacraments necessary for salvation. That is, certain rites must be performed wherein one makes covenants with God. Keeping these covenants entitles one to the grace of Jesus Christ, and hence, salvation. "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."⁹² First on the list of essential ordinances is baptism, and Joseph Smith accordingly affirmed Jesus' teaching that one must be baptized to enter the Kingdom of God.

In contrast, most Protestants have given up the idea that baptism is strictly "necessary" for salvation. For, although true faith carries with it the desire to perform good works, no particular good work, such as baptism, is necessarily required to show one's faith. A minister representing the Presbyterian Church explained:

While baptism is urgently recommended in the Presbyterian Church, and while its omission is regarded as a grave fault, it is not held to be necessary for salvation. The Confession of Faith declares: "Grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it that no person can be regenerated or saved without it."⁹³

It must be admitted that the question of whether baptism is strictly "necessary" for salvation is not clearly answered in the Bible. Although there are two passages in the New Testament where Jesus seems to give baptism as a requirement, many Protestants feel that they can legitimately interpret them otherwise.

When the resurrected Lord appeared to the disciples in Mark's account He announced: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16) But Protestants who deny the necessity of baptism point out that Jesus never said that he who believes and is not baptized will be damned. To them, belief, not baptism, is the defining characteristic of the saved person, as opposed to the damned.

Likewise, Mormons see Jesus' statement to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5), as a proclamation that one must be baptized and sanctified by the Holy Spirit to be saved. On the other hand, many Protestants contend the "born of water" clause refers to birth from the water of the mother's womb. Indeed, Jesus' proclamation came in response to Nicodemus's question: "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)

Who is right? From a historical perspective, perhaps the only way to settle the question of how Jesus and the Apostles interpreted these statements is to discover how the early post-Apostolic Christian writers interpreted them. This method carries with it no guarantee, but one must grant that Christians who lived at times when there were still church members who had heard the Apostles speak, would be more likely to preserve the original teaching than some Reformer thirteen or fourteen hundred years later. And, indeed, we find that the early Christian writers unanimously insisted that to be "born of water" was to be baptized. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Clementine Homilies, and the Apostolic Constitutions all testified of this fact, and the Constitutions also considered Jesus' statement at the end of Mark to be a command that everyone must be baptized:

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."⁹⁴

"And dipped himself," says [the Scripture], "seven times in Jordan." It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."⁹⁵

And do not think, though you were more pious than all the pious that ever were, but if you be unbaptized, that you shall ever obtain hope. For all the more, on this account, you shall endure the greater punishment, because you have done excellent works not excellently. For well-doing is excellent when it is done as God has commanded. But if you will not be baptized according to His pleasure, you serve your own will and oppose His counsel. But perhaps some one will say, What does it contribute to piety to be baptized with water? In the first place, because you do that which is pleasing to God; and in the second place, being born again to God of water, by reason of fear you change your first generation, which is of lust, and thus you are able to obtain salvation. But otherwise it is impossible. For thus the prophet has sworn to us, saying, "Verily I say to you, Unless ye be regenerated by living water into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven."⁹⁶

Nay, he that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says: "Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven." And again: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."⁹⁷

Therefore, it is certain that baptism was considered essential by the earliest Christians, but how was it done? Jesus commanded the disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19), and in general the Christian world has continued this practice. However, controversy has arisen over whether one is to be baptized by immersion or by pouring or sprinkling.

When John the Baptist restored the authority to baptize to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, he specified that baptism was to be by immersion. (D&C 13:1) And, it is clear that baptism in the New Testament was by immersion. After Jesus was baptized he "went up straightway out of the water" (Matthew 3:16), and John baptized in Aenon "because there was much water there." (John 3:23) Paul also indicated that we are "buried with [Jesus] by baptism into death." (Romans 6:4) The symbolism of the rite is clearly incomplete when pouring or sprinkling replaces immersion.

The rite of baptism began to be changed early on. Even in the first century certain communities had adopted the practice of pouring, but only when it was not possible to find enough water to immerse in. The Didache , which probably originated in Syria, suggests that one should be baptized in running water, but if none can be found, in still. Also, cold water is preferred over hot. "But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."⁹⁸ Perhaps in certain desert communities this eventuality was sometimes faced, and in time it became the practice of the Church in general to sprinkle or pour, especially when infants were baptized.

But the whole idea of baptizing infants, by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, is seriously in question given the teachings of Christ about the innocence of children. And In fact, one could argue that such a practice betrays the very idea of the atonement. The prophet Mormon explained:

For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism . . . . Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy. (Moroni 8:15,19)

And indeed, there is significant evidence that it was not the original practice of the Church to baptize infants. Not only were no infants recorded to have been baptized in the New Testament, but Jesus commanded his disciples: "Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence." (Matthew 19:14-15) Thus, Jesus merely blessed the children, and did not command them to be baptized, as he did adults. Mormon's contention that children cannot be baptized because they cannot repent is significant, as well, because the way to baptism is always paved with repentance. "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38), Peter commanded.

Clement of Alexandria recorded a very ancient story about John the Apostle, where John entrusted a young boy to the care of a certain local Church leader: "[John] then departed for Ephesus. But the presbyter, taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him."⁹⁹ If infants were to be baptized at that time, why did the cleric wait to baptize the child? Certainly he would not have neglected his duty toward this child, who had been entrusted to him by an Apostle of Jesus Christ!

The earliest reference to the practice of infant baptism was by Tertullian (ca. A.D. 200).¹⁰⁰ But although Tertullian gave witness to this practice among Christians, he still insisted that it was preferable to wait for baptism:

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary--if (baptism itself) is not so necessary--that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? . . . If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.¹⁰¹

For centuries, believer baptism appears to have been the norm, even though infant baptism was practiced. For example, in the late fourth century Gregory of Nazianzus argued that baptism should be delayed until a child is accountable for his actions:

For this is how the matter stands; at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, when reason is matured, and they learn the mystery of life (for of sins of ignorance owing to their tender years they have no account to give), and it is far more profitable on all accounts to be fortified by the Font, because of the sudden assaults of danger that befall us, stronger than our helpers.¹⁰²

The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity notes that the inscriptions from this early time period which mention infant baptism place the date of baptism very close to the death of the children in question, therefore, "The principal impetus for the rise and spread of infant baptism may have been the desire that the child not depart life without the safeguard of baptism."¹⁰³ But this did not necessarily imply that unbaptized infants would be damned. For instance, in the fourth century an unimpeachably "orthodox" theologian such as John Chrysostom could say that "We do baptize infants, although they are not guilty of any sins."¹⁰⁴

By the fifth century, however, the rationale for infant baptism had changed. For example, Augustine saw its very existence as proof of his doctrine of original sin. But although he claimed all the unbaptized would be damned, he generously allowed that the damnation of unbaptized infants would be "the mildest punishment of all . . . ."¹⁰⁵ Therefore, Catholic belief from Augustine onward has been that not only may infants be baptized, but if they die without baptism they will be denied the glory of the Kingdom of God.

One more issue needs to be addressed in connection with baptism. Namely, the ordinance of baptism was not originally just a dunking. At first it included both immersion and the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost, and only later did baptism become two separate rites. Likewise, Joseph Smith preached: "Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half--that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost."¹⁰⁶

Laying on of hands always accompanied baptism in the New Testament. For example, after Philip preached to the Samaritans and baptized quite a number of them, the Apostles came and conferred the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:14-17)

Certain post-Apostolic writers were anxious to preserve the form and meaning of these rites. Tertullian, for example, both confirmed that baptism was necessary and clearly defined the two parts of the ordinance:

When, however, the prescript is laid down that "without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life"), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some . . . . Not that in the waters we obtain the Holy Spirit; but in the water, under (the witness of) the angel, we are cleansed, and prepared for the Holy Spirit . . . . In the next place the hand is laid on us, invoking and inviting the Holy Spirit through benediction.¹⁰⁷

Cyprian not only recorded the form of the rites, he identified baptism and the laying on of hands with being "born of water and the Spirit":

[After the baptisms by Philip in Samaria] that which was needed was performed by Peter and John; viz., that prayer being made for them, and hands being imposed, the Holy Spirit should be invoked and poured out upon them, which now too is done among us, so that they who are baptized in the Church are brought to the prelates of the Church, and by our prayers and by the imposition of hands obtain the Holy Spirit, and are perfected with the Lord's seal.¹⁰⁸

For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, "Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."¹⁰⁹

And Bishop Cornelius of Rome disapproved of the practice of baptizing without laying on hands, for without it, how could one receive the Holy Ghost? It would only be "half a baptism," as Joseph Smith said.

Being delivered by the exorcists, he fell into a severe sickness; and as he seemed about to die, he received baptism by affusion, on the bed where he lay; if indeed we can say that such a one did receive it. And when he was healed of his sickness he did not receive the other things which it is necessary to have according to the canon of the Church, even the being sealed [laid hands on] by the bishop. And as he did not receive this, how could he receive the Holy Spirit? . . .¹¹⁰

Baptism and the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Ghost are necessary to enter the Kingdom of God. Joseph Smith not only got the concept right, however, he also restored the proper forms of the ordinances and the knowledge that a merciful and just God would never condemn little children for sins they never committed.

From Death to the Resurrection

The World of Spirits

If one were to ask a mainstream Christian what happens to our spirits after death, most would probably say that they go directly either to heaven or hell, even though the Bible clearly teaches the final judgment will not occur until after the millennial reign of Christ. (See Revelation 20:7-13) However, Christ taught that there is an intermediate state of the soul between death and the resurrection. In this state of action there are two main divisions, which He called Paradise, or "Abraham's bosom," and hell. For example, "Jesus said unto [the thief], Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) The parable of Lazarus and the rich man makes clear that the gulf between the two divisions was impassable:

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom . . . . [Abraham says to the rich man] And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. (Luke 16:22,23,26)

But paradise, or "Abraham's bosom," cannot be equated with the kingdom of God, for at his resurrection Jesus told Mary: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." (John 20:17)

Joseph Smith not only restored this distinction, he added many other important elements about the world of spirits, which are not clearly taught in the Bible. The Book of Mormon teaches that the world of spirits is divided into two parts: paradise, which is where the righteous dwell, and hell, which is where the wicked receive punishment. (Alma 40:11-14) And yet, it is all one world of spirits. As Joseph Smith taught, "Hades, sheol, paradise, spirits in prison, are all one: it is a world of spirits. The righteous and the wicked all go to the same world of spirits until the resurrection."¹¹¹ Those who enter the spirit world are capable of being instructed, and great progress may be made there toward perfection.¹¹² The punishment the wicked receive in hell, by which they may be purified of their sins, will have an end (D&C 19), though not until the wicked have "paid the uttermost farthing" (Matthew 5:26), as Jesus said. This world is located right here on the earth, according to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.¹¹³ The "great gulf" between hell and paradise was destroyed by Jesus Christ, who made it possible for the gospel to be preached to the spirits in hell, so that they may advance to paradise. (1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6; D&C 138) Finally, when Christ was resurrected, the bodies of many of the righteous dead who had gone before were resurrected as well. (Matthew 27:52, Alma 40:20)

Several early Christian writers preached strikingly similar doctrines to the Prophet's. For example, Justin Martyr held to the belief in the two-fold division of the world of spirits:

The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but others are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished.¹¹⁴

Irenaeus was emphatic that even believers must be taken to the underworld:

For as the Lord "went away in the midst of the shadow of death," where the souls of the dead were, yet afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up [into heaven], it is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away into the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event.¹¹⁵

Tertullian not only preached that everyone must serve a term in the underworld, but he also taught that the spirit world is under the earth, and the fact that the souls of the wicked are punished there proves that the soul is material. He taught that the punishments in spirit hell will have an end, as well:

By ourselves the lower regions (of Hades) are not supposed to be a bare cavity, nor some subterranean sewer of the world, but a vast deep space in the interior of the earth, and a concealed recess in its very bowels; inasmuch as we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth . . . . Now although Christ is God, yet, being also man, "He died according to the Scriptures," and "according to the same Scriptures was buried." With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. (This being the case), you must suppose Hades to be a subterranean region, and keep at arm's length those who are too proud to believe that the souls of the faithful deserve a place in the lower regions.¹¹⁶

Therefore, whatever amount of punishment or refreshment the soul tastes in Hades, in its prison or lodging, in the fire or in Abraham's bosom, it gives proof thereby of its own corporeality. For an incorporeal thing suffers nothing, not having that which makes it capable of suffering; else, if it has such capacity, it must be a bodily substance. For in as far as every corporeal thing is capable of suffering, in so far is that which is capable of suffering also corporeal.¹¹⁷

All souls, therefore; are shut up within Hades: do you admit this? (It is true, whether) you say yes or no . . . . Why, then, cannot you suppose that the soul undergoes punishment and consolation in Hades in the interval, while it awaits its alternative of judgment, in a certain anticipation either of gloom or of glory? . . . What, then, is to take place in that interval? Shall we sleep? But souls do not sleep . . . . Or will you have it, that nothing is there done whither the whole human race is attracted, and whither all man's expectation is postponed for safe keeping? . . . Now really, would it not be the highest possible injustice, even in Hades, if all were to be still well with the guilty even there, and not well with the righteous even yet? . . . In short, inasmuch as we understand "the prison" pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, and as we also interpret "the uttermost farthing" to mean the very smallest offence which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides.¹¹⁸

Origen not only taught about the division in the spirit world, but called it both a place of learning and of punishment, and indicated that it was located on the earth. The inhabitants of Paradise will receive instruction, while the inmates of hell will be punished to purify them from their sins. And if their souls can be purified, this punishment must have an end, just as Joseph Smith said.

Those who, departing this world in virtue of that death which is common to all, are arranged, in conformity with their actions and deserts--according as they shall be deemed worthy--some in the place which is called "hell," others in the bosom of Abraham, and in different localities or mansions.¹¹⁹

I think, therefore, that all the saints who depart from this life will remain in some place situated on the earth, which holy Scripture calls paradise, as in some place of instruction, and, so to speak, class-room or school of souls, in which they are to be instructed regarding all the things which they had seen on earth, and are to receive also some information respecting things that are to follow in the future . . . .¹²⁰

We find a certain confirmation of what is said regarding the place of punishment, intended for the purification of such souls as are to be purified by torments, agreeably to the saying: "The Lord cometh like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver and of gold."¹²¹

Jerome quoted a passage from Origen wherein he more specifically stated that hellfire would have an end, and that afterward any further punishment would consist of remorse over lost opportunities:

Hellfire, moreover, and the torments with which holy scripture threatens sinners he explains not as external punishments but as the pangs of guilty consciences when by God's power the memory of our transgressions is set before our eyes. "The whole crop of our sins grows up afresh from seeds which remain in the soul, and all our dishonourable and undutiful acts are again pictured before our gaze. Thus it is the fire of conscience and the stings of remorse which torture the mind as it looks back on former self-indulgence."¹²²

Origen's teacher, Clement of Alexandria, apparently taught exactly the same doctrine in the second century:

For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness.¹²³

This belief seems to have died out slowly. For example, J.N.D. Kelly reports that although Basil of Caesarea (late fourth century) himself believed in the eternity of hell, he lamented that "most ordinary Christians" did not, and indeed his colleagues Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa were among them.¹²⁴

By the early fifth century a wide variety of opinions seems to have been in vogue. While some believed in an everlasting hell, others believed it would have an end, and still others believed that it could have an end if a saint interceded on one's behalf. And while some believed that all who had ever partaken of the Catholic sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist would be saved no matter what, others believed that only those who actually remained Catholics would be saved, even if they had lived a morally despicable life.¹²⁵ However, by the end of the fifth century, probably due to the influence of Augustine, nearly everyone had accepted the stern doctrine that hell would have no end.¹²⁶

As was mentioned above, Jesus indicated that there was an inseparable gulf fixed between the two regions of the spirit world. However, according to both LDS and some early Christian teachings, Jesus broke down those barriers when he entered the world of spirits. For example, Ignatius taught that when Christ descended to the spirit world, he tore down the wall separating its two regions and arose from the dead accompanied by a multitude:

"Many bodies of the saints that slept arose," their graves being opened. He descended, indeed, into Hades alone, but He arose accompanied by a multitude and rent asunder that means [lit. "fence" or "hedge'] of separation which had existed from the beginning of the world, and cast down its partition wall.¹²⁷

This type of imagery is common in early Christian descriptions of Christ's descent into the spirit world. The descent is always represented as an utter sacking of the place where Christ rips apart the gates, throws down the partition walls, and leaves with the righteous dead. Thus Athanasius:

He burst open the gates of brass, He broke through the bolts of iron, and He took the souls which were in Amente [the Egyptian name for the underworld] and carried them to His Father . . . . Now the souls He brought out of Amente, but the bodies He raised up on the earth . . . . And the Lord died on behalf of every one, in order that every one should rise from the dead with Him.¹²⁸

A Coptic apocryphal document attributed to Bartholomew, as well as the apocryphal Gospel of Bartholomew , the Letter of Jesus to King Abgar, and the Gospel of Nicodemus describe the descent in nearly identical terms:

He broke in pieces the doors, and smashed their bolts, and dragged away and destroyed the door-posts and frames. He overthrew the blazing furnaces of brass and extinguished their fires, and, removing everything from Amente, left it like a desert . . . . So Jesus went down [into Amente, and] scattered [the fiends], and cast chains on the Devil, and redeemed Adam and all his sons; He delivered man, and He shewed compassion upon His own image; He set free all creation, and all the world, and He treated with healing medicine the wound which the Enemy had inflicted on His Son. He brought back into His fold the sheep which had gone astray--He the holy and faithful Shepherd.¹²⁹

Then did I enter in and scourged [Hades] and bound him with chains that cannot be loosed, and brought forth thence all the patriarchs . . . .¹³⁰

He humbled himself, and died and debased his divinity and was crucified, and descended into Hades, and burst the bars which from eternity had not been broken, and raised the dead; for he descended alone, but rose with many, and thus ascended to his Father.¹³¹

There came, then, again a voice saying: Lift up the gates. Hades, hearing the voice the second time, answered as if forsooth he did not know, and says: Who is this King of glory? The angels of the Lord say: The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle. And immediately with these words the brazen gates were shattered, and the iron bars broken, and all the dead who had been bound came out of the prisons, and we with them. And the King of glory came in the form of a man, and all the dark places of Hades were lighted up.¹³²

And we shall see that Joseph Smith's doctrine that the gospel is now being preached to the spirits in hell was widespread in early Christianity, as well.

The Preaching to the Spirits in Prison

Peter, in his first general epistle, made some very strange remarks about Christ's descent to the spirit world which have haunted the Christian world for centuries:

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; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah . . . . (1 Peter 3:18-20)

For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6)

Most commentators admit the plain meaning of these passages is that after Christ died, but before He was resurrected, He visited the spirits of the disobedient of Noah's day in hell and preached the gospel to them. He did this so that they could be judged like other men who had heard the gospel, too, and be given the chance to live a godly life in the spirit.

Since other Christian commentators have no knowledge of such a concept, they often try often try to come up with various alternative explanations which harmonize with their established beliefs. For example, the NIV Study Bible lists two other possible interpretations of this scripture:

Some hold that in his preincarnate state Christ went and preached through Noah to the wicked generation of that time . . . . Others argue that between his death and resurrection Christ went to the prison where fallen angels are incarcerated and there preached to the angels who are said to have left their proper state and married human women during Noah's time (cf. Ge. 6:1-4) . . . .¹³³

James Moffatt offers the following translation of 1 Peter 3:19, "It was in the Spirit that Enoch also went and preached to the imprisoned spirits . . . ."¹³⁴ He justifies this blatant change in the wording by postulating that the text probably originally said "Enoch" , but was changed to read "in (or by) which also" (Greek en ho kai) by "a scribe's blunder in dropping some repeated letters."¹³⁵ In other words, a translation is true if you drop the "anslation" and add the "ue." (Moffatt also ignores the fact that Enoch wasn't even on the earth during Noah's lifetime, see Genesis 5:22-29, so his emendation not only is completely arbitrary and out of context, but it is demonstrably untrue.)

As for 1 Peter 4:6, the translators of the New International Version are also guilty of inserting extra words in the text to suit their preconceptions. They translate the verse, "For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit." Why do they add the word "now"? A text note explains:

The word "now" does not occur in the Greek, but it is necessary to make it clear that the preaching was done not after these people had died, but while they were still alive. (There will be no opportunity for people to be saved after death; see Heb. 9:27.)¹³⁶

But the verse they cite as proof only says, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement." (Hebrews 9:27) Clearly this says nothing about the time between death and the judgment, since the judgment will not take place until after the Millennial reign of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. (see Revelation 20) And wasn't it precisely Peter's point that the gospel had to be preached to the dead so that everyone could be judged on equal terms? If "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34), how could he condemn people for not accepting the gospel, when the vast majority of the people who have lived on the earth have never even heard of Jesus Christ?

We will find that the early Christian writers held no such narrow view, insisting that the gospel had to be preached to the spirits in prison. And they did not stop at the pitifully small amount of information Peter gave. They preached a doctrine remarkably similar to the Latter-day Saint belief that the gospel was not only preached by Christ in the spirit world, but by His disciples, as well, after they died.

Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria insisted that it wouldn't be right for God to condemn those who hadn't heard the gospel:

Since those who did that which is universally, naturally, and eternally good are pleasing to God, they shall be saved through this Christ in the resurrection equally with those righteous men who were before them, namely Noah, and Enoch, and Jacob, and whoever else there be, along with those who have known this Christ, Son of God . . . .¹³⁷

For it is not right that these should be condemned without trial, and that those alone who lived after the advent should have the advantage of the divine righteousness. But to all rational souls it was said from above, "Whatever one of you has done in ignorance, without clearly knowing God, if, on becoming conscious, he repent, all his sins will be forgiven him."¹³⁸

And Peter, in the Clementine Recognitions, derided the God of Simon Magus because he could only save those who knew of Him!

Then said Peter [to Simon Magus]: "He saves adulterers and men-slayers, if they know him; but good, and sober, an merciful persons, if they do not know him, in consequence of their having no information concerning him, he does not save! Great and good truly is he whom you proclaim, who is not so much the saviour of the evil, as he is one who shows no mercy to the good."¹³⁹

If the definition of eternal life is to "know . . . the only true God, and Jesus Christ" (John 17:3), how can those who have not even heard of them be saved? Paul had the answer when he said that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17) The only answer consistent with an all-loving and merciful God is that the gospel has to be preached to those who have not been given the chance to accept Christ in mortality. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Hermas all testified of the fact that Jesus did, indeed, preach to the spirits in prison, some even claiming that the departed disciples of Jesus continued the preaching work:

It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him. Now all those believed in Him who had hope towards Him, that is, those who proclaimed His advent, and submitted to His dispensations, the righteous men, the prophets, and the patriarchs, to whom He remitted sins in the same way as He did to us, which sins we should not lay to their charge, if we would not despise the grace of God. For as these men did not impute unto us (the Gentiles) our transgressions, which we wrought before Christ was manifested among us, so also it is not right that we should lay blame upon those who sinned before Christ's coming.¹⁴⁰

And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the Apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades . . . . For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, on repenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge . . . . If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there . . . .¹⁴¹

When He became a soul, without the covering of the body, He dwelt among those souls which were without bodily covering, converting such of them as were willing to Himself, or those whom He saw, for reasons known to Him alone, to be better adapted to such a course.¹⁴²

These Apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of the preaching. Accordingly they descended with them into the water, and again ascended.¹⁴³

This belief in Christ's preaching mission to the dead was not some incidental folk belief, but a central part of the Christian message. It was so central, in fact, that Justin Martyr accused the Jews of having removed a passage from Jeremiah about the descent and preaching to weaken the scriptural support for Christianity.

Here Trypho remarked, "We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled." [Justin quotes some passages which the Jews evidently removed from Esdras and Jeremiah.] And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.'¹⁴⁴

The Odes of Solomon preserve a beautiful account of the preaching work of Christ to the dead. In one of the Odes the Savior says:

Sheol saw me and was made miserable: Death cast me up and many along with me. I had gall and bitterness, and I went down with him to the utmost of his depth . . . . And I made a congregation of living men amongst his dead men, and I spake with them by living lips: Because my word shall not be void: And those who had died ran towards me: and they cried and said, Son of God, have pity on us, and do with us according to thy kindness, and bring us out from the bonds of darkness: and open to us the door by which we shall come out to thee. For we see that our death has not touched thee. Let us also be redeemed with thee: for thou art our Redeemer. And I heard their voice; and my name I sealed upon their heads: For they are free men and they are mine.¹⁴⁵

God is merciful and He is just. He doesn't save some and give others no opportunity to be saved. His hand goes out to all nations and all people at all times, and Jesus' atonement breaks the bands of death and hell, so that all mankind can choose Him, and live. This is the message of Christ's preaching mission to the dead, which mainstream Christianity has lost, and God has restored through Joseph Smith.

Baptism for the Dead

"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." How does one reconcile Jesus' statement with the fact that the unbaptized dead can be saved in the kingdom of God? Joseph Smith had an answer that shocked the rest of Christianity--the living can be baptized as proxies for the dead. In this ordinance, one is baptized in behalf of a dead forbear, so that if that person decides to accept the gospel in the spirit world, the ordinance for the entrance into the kingdom of God will have been done for him.

Paul mentioned this ordinance in passing as part of his argument for the reality of the resurrection: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29) Commentators have long recognized that the plain meaning of the passage is that living people were being baptized for dead friends or relatives, but they usually try to get out of it by placing some other, more dubious interpretation on this verse. Thus Henry Halley:

This seems to mean vicarious baptism, that is, baptism for a dead friend. But there is no other Bible reference to such a practice, and no evidence that it existed in the Apostolic Church. Perhaps a better translation would be "baptized in hope of the resurrection.¹⁴⁶

But Paul's statement itself is evidence that baptism for the dead existed in the Apostolic Church! The NIV Study Bible admits that, "The present tense suggests that at Corinth people were currently being baptized for the dead."¹⁴⁷ And if "baptized for the dead" really means "baptized in hope of the resurrection," it is an idiom of which translators have no knowledge, or they would have used it to sidestep the obvious meaning of the passage.

Another popular argument is that "Paul mentions this custom almost in passing, using it in his arguments substantiating the resurrection of the dead, but without necessarily approving the practice."¹⁴⁸ But why would Paul use some heretical practice in his arguments for the resurrection? Couldn't he find some more firm foundation for this all-important Christian doctrine? And if he mentioned it in passing, wouldn't that mean that his audience, the Corinthians, were thoroughly familiar with the practice and its implications?

A wide variety of such strange interpretations of this verse have been propagated over the centuries.¹⁴⁹ The basic premise of all these arguments, however, is that since they have no more information concerning the practice, it must either be illegitimate, or the verse must be interpreted in some other way, because Christianity certainly couldn't have lost such an important practice. But the information concerning this strange doctrine has been lost, and it took a prophet to restore it. In a recent study of the verse in question, Richard DeMaris of Valparaiso University admits that despite dozens of proposed interpretations, "the reference itself is simply so obscure and our knowledge so limited that we cannot discern just what this rite actually involved or meant."¹⁵⁰ However, his article makes it clear that such a rite did exist, even though he contends that it was probably confined to the area of Corinth.

Related to the practice of baptism for the dead is the idea that the spirits of the dead must be baptized in the spirit world after accepting the gospel there. According to Kirsopp Lake, "The idea that hearing the gospel and baptism is necessary for the salvation of the righteous dead of pre-Christian times is common . . . ."¹⁵¹ For example, the Pastor of Hermas related that the Apostles baptized the righteous dead after preaching to them:

"They were obliged," he answered, "to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For," he continued, "before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.¹⁵²

Jesus preached the same doctrine in the Epistle of the Apostles:

For to that end went I down unto the place of Lazarus, and preached unto the righteous and the prophets, that they might come out of the rest which is below and come up into that which is above; and I poured out upon them with my right hand the water [of] (baptism) . . . of life and forgiveness and salvation from all evil, as I have done unto you and unto them that believe on me.¹⁵³

But if the dead receive their baptism in the world of spirits, why do they need vicarious baptism? Clement of Alexandria brought up an interesting point after quoting the passage from Hermas:

"They went down therefore into the water and again ascended . . . . But those who had fallen asleep, descended dead, but ascended alive . . . ." Then, too, the more subtle substance, the soul, could never receive any injury from the grosser element of water . . . .¹⁵⁴

Of course you can't baptize a spirit in real water--such a physically oriented ordinance must be performed in mortality. Although not strictly an official doctrine, many Latter-day Saints believe that such ordinances must be performed in the spirit world to effectualize the ordinances performed vicariously in the world of the living. After all, a spirit must accept the ordinances done for him. For instance, in a report requested by the First Presidency of the LDS Church, Heber Q. Hale, president of the Boise stake, related that in a vision he had seen, "Ordinances [were] performed in the spirit world effectualizing in the individual recipients the same principles of the Gospel vicariously performed here."¹⁵⁵

Indeed, the idea that spirits are baptized in the spirit world may be quite relevant to our case in light of what J.R. Porter calls "the well-known [Jewish] idea of the correspondence and the simultaneity of the earthly and heavenly ritual . . . ."¹⁵⁶

In the Gospel of Nicodemus the concept was taken somewhat further. Two brothers were resurrected in this story after hearing Christ preach in the spirit world. Then, in their resurrected form, they were baptized in the Jordan.

And after they had thus spoken, the Saviour blessed Adam with the sign of the cross on his forehead