I believe that most of us are familiar with Ezekiel’s prophecy that the stick of Judah (the Bible) and the stick of Joseph (the Book of Mormon) “shall become one in thine hand” (Ezek. 37:17). In direct fulfillment of that prophecy, the Book of Mormon acts as a witness or testament of Jesus Christ alongside the Bible so that together these two books of scripture “become one in thine hand” (Ezek. 37:17).
For a moment, consider the following:1 How many straight lines can you draw through a single point? The mathematical answer is infinite. Suppose such a single point represents the Bible. Further assume that each straight line represents a different interpretation of the Bible. The reason we have so many Christian churches today is because they each interpret the Bible differently. If they interpreted it the same, they would be the same church.
Now ask yourself: How many straight lines can you draw between two points? The answer is one. Now assume that one point represents the Bible and the other point represents the Book of Mormon. There can be only one straight line, only one doctrinal interpretation, between the two. This is one reason the Book of Mormon is so important: it is a second witness of Jesus Christ—a second reference point that results in one interpretation of Jesus Christ and his teachings.
No wonder the Lord tells us, “The elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel” (D&C 42:12). These two scriptural accounts are joint, compelling witnesses of Jesus Christ, his life, and his doctrine—especially his Atonement.
What then are some examples of doctrinal misconceptions that existed at the time of Joseph Smith, and how do the Bible and Book of Mormon work together to clear up those misconceptions?
First Misconception: The Fall of Adam was a tragic step backward in our spiritual progress.
When Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, the Bible records, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” (Gen. 3:22). The Fall opened the eyes of Adam and Eve so they could know good and evil and thus progress in their pursuit of godhood.
The Book of Mormon confirms that Adam and Eve were in a state of spiritual neutrality in the Garden of Eden and thus could not progress and have a fulness of joy: “And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen. . . . And they [Adam and Eve] 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. . . . Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:22–23, 25).
The Fall opened the door to godhood. Nonetheless, most Christians believe the Fall was a tragic mistake—a giant step backward in God’s eternal plan. One such proponent told me he could not accept The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it teaches that the Fall was a giant step forward in humankind’s eternal progress.
I asked this man, “Do you believe that the Garden of Eden was meant to be the spot where Adam and Eve would have their posterity and that this garden was meant to be their eternal heaven?”
“Yes,” came the reply, “that is correct.”
We then discussed that the central issue of our disagreement was this: Which is better—the heaven before the Fall—namely the Garden of Eden—or the heaven made available after the Fall and the Atonement of Jesus Christ? In other words, which is the better heaven—the one for the unfallen man and woman or the one for the man and woman who have fallen but have been redeemed by Jesus Christ?
If the heaven for the unfallen man and woman is better, then we agreed that the Fall was a tragic step backward. If, however, the heaven created for the fallen but redeemed man and woman was better, then we agreed that the Fall must have been a giant step forward.
I then asked the man, “Would Satan be a part of your proposed heaven [meaning the Garden of Eden]?”
“Of course not,” came the reply. “Satan is not in heaven.”
“That’s interesting,” I said. “Wasn’t Satan in the Garden of Eden tempting Adam and Eve?”
He turned quiet.
“And furthermore, wasn’t Satan cast out of heaven where God resides? For the Bible declares, ‘And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon [Satan]; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, . . . which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out [of heaven] into the earth’” (Rev. 12:7–9; emphasis added).
I continued, “After Satan was cast out to the earth, he went to tempt Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. How then could the Garden of Eden be heaven, if Satan had just been cast out of heaven?”
With some honesty the man replied, “You have a point.”
And thus, by scriptural definition, the Garden of Eden cannot be heaven—a truth confirmed by both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
Second Misconception: Baptism is not essential for salvation.
Some churches believe that God is free to offer his salvation if for some reason a person has not been baptized by the time he or she dies. This is a compassionate but incorrect conclusion because such churches don’t understand the doctrine of baptism for the dead.
The Bible clearly teaches that baptism is essential for salvation. The Savior, who is the Great Exemplar, was baptized as a model for all others to follow. In addition, Jesus explained to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Paul further taught that evidence of our commitment to Christ is manifested in the physical ordinance of baptism: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27).
The Book of Mormon teaches the same doctrinal truth and gives the underlying reasoning for such a command: “And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!” (2 Ne. 31:5). One of the things I love about the Book of Mormon is that it not only teaches doctrinal truths with clarity but often gives the underlying rationale for such doctrine.
Third Misconception: Baptism may be by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.
Numerous Christian churches teach that one may be baptized by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion even though the Bible clearly teaches that baptism must be done by immersion. When the Savior was baptized, the Bible tells us he came “straightway out of the water” (Matt. 3:16), thus indicating he must have first been immersed in the water. Immersion is consistent with the intended symbolism of the ordinance—namely the death, burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ as taught by Paul (see Rom. 6:3–6).
The Book of Mormon is consistent in teaching this same truth. It teaches that “Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing” (Mosiah 18:14). Lest there be any question about the correct mode of baptism, the Savior, when he came to America, gave his disciples authority to baptize and taught them the related baptismal prayer. He also gave them instructions for how baptisms should be performed: “Then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water” (3 Ne. 11:26).
The Christian reformers clearly understood how baptisms were performed by Christ and his disciples. Martin Luther acknowledged the symbolism of baptism when he said, “For this reason I would have the candidates for baptism completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the sacrament signifies. . . . Thus it was also doubtless instituted by Christ.”2 John Wesley concurred: “Mary Welch was baptized, according to the custom of the first church . . . by immersion.”3 And John Calvin added his testimonial seal: “The very word baptize . . . signified to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church.”4 Nonetheless, this doctrinal truth, so clear in the Bible as understood by the reformers, became corrupted over time, hence the need for the Book of Mormon as a second and clarifying witness of the truth.
Fourth Misconception: Infant baptism is necessary.
While many Christian churches practice infant baptism, there is not a single case of infant baptism recorded in the Bible. To the contrary, the Savior teaches us that little children should be given a blessing. Mark records that the Savior said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. . . . And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them” (Mark 10:14, 16).
The Book of Mormon is in complete accord. In fact, it preserves Christ’s words as to why infant baptism is not necessary: “The whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me” (Moro. 8:8). Mormon then tells his son Moroni, “After this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children” (Moro. 8:9). Instead of baptizing little children, the Book of Mormon tells us that the Savior “took their little children, one by one, and blessed them” (3 Ne. 17:21).
How then did the doctrine of infant baptism get started? About the end of the second century AD, the doctrine of original sin emerged as taught by Origen and others. This doctrine taught that a baby does not have personal sin but inherits the original sin of Adam and thus must be baptized to rid the baby of that original sin. Fortunately, the Book of Mormon cleared up this misconception by explaining that the curse of Adam was removed by the Savior.
Kurt Aland, a scholar on early Christian writings, made this candid observation: “It can be no accident . . . that all our information about the existence of infant baptism comes from the period AD 200 and 250. . . . For the time before this we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism. . . . To this day [1963] nobody can prove an actual case of the baptism of an infant in the period before AD 200.”5
The Book of Mormon just keeps getting it right.
Fifth Misconception: The gift of the Holy Ghost automatically comes after confession or baptism.
Some Christian churches teach that the gift of the Holy Ghost automatically comes after confession or baptism without the laying on of hands even though the Bible teaches to the contrary. After Philip had baptized some new converts in Samaria, the Apostles “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)” (Acts 8:14–16). Note that these disciples had been baptized but had not yet received an automatic bestowal of the Holy Ghost. The Bible tells us that Peter and John “then laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:17). This was the same procedure followed by Paul. After some new disciples were baptized, “Paul . . . laid his hands upon them, [and] the Holy Ghost came on them” (Acts 19:6).
Again, the Book of Mormon is another testament that the gift of the Holy Ghost is an ordinance bestowed by the laying on of hands: “On as many as they [Christ’s disciples] laid their hands, fell the Holy Ghost” (Moro. 2:3). This is one more case where there can be only one straight line—one doctrinal interpretation between two dots (the Bible and the Book of Mormon).
Sixth Misconception: The doctrine of Christ is a mystery.
Many churches might struggle with answering the question “What is the doctrine of Christ?” even though such doctrine is taught in the Bible and elaborated upon in the Book of Mormon. Peter spoke to a group of people about the Savior and his Resurrection. These people believed Peter and had faith in Jesus Christ and his Resurrection. As a consequence, the scriptures tell us, “They were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37). By reading the next few verses, a reader can infer their full question to Peter: “What shall we do to be saved?” (see Acts 2:40). Peter responds, “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.” Later the scriptures tell us that these new disciples “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:38, 42). In other words, Peter taught the doctrine of Christ—namely faith, repentance, baptism, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring or remaining steadfast to the end.
This same doctrine is taught in 2 Nephi 31. There Nephi tells us that “this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (2 Ne. 31:21). Again, this same doctrine was taught by the Savior in 3 Nephi 27. He then concludes by saying that this doctrine is also known as “my gospel” (3 Ne. 27:21).6
Seventh Misconception: Revelation ended with the Bible.
At the time of Joseph Smith, many churches taught—and continue to teach—that revelation ended with the Bible. In other words, the Bible is the complete and final word of God. The prophet Amos taught, however, that “the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7). Paul the Apostle wrote that the mysteries of the kingdom were “revealed unto [God’s] holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (Eph. 3:5). This is consistent with the fact that the Epistles of the New Testament were revelations given to Christ’s Apostles in order to assist them in instructing the Saints, clarifying doctrinal issues, and resolving disputes. Does anyone honestly believe that when the events of the Bible ended (approximately AD 100), there were no more needed instructions for the Saints, no more doctrines to clarify or reveal, no more disputes to resolve?
The Book of Mormon responds to those who believe that revelation was not an ongoing necessity in Christ’s Church: “I [Moroni] speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophecies . . . ; Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them. For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?” (Morm. 9:7–9). The logic of Moroni was compelling: If God had prophets and revelation in the Old Testament and prophets and revelation in the New Testament and he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, what would you expect God to have in his Church today?
Eighth Misconception: Christ’s Church doesn’t need to be named after him.
One might ask this poignant question: At the time of Joseph Smith, how many churches were named after Jesus Christ? The Apostle Paul recognized that there were contentions among the Saints—some declaring they were disciples of Paul, and some disciples of Apollos, and others of Cephas, and some of Christ. Paul then clarified that they were all disciples of Jesus Christ: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13). In other words, we were all baptized in the name of Christ and thus are all disciples of Christ. Thus the logical conclusion was that they were members of Christ’s Church (Acts 11:26), not Paul’s or Apollos’s or Cephas’s church.
The Book of Mormon reinforces and clarifies that Christ’s Church should be named after him: “Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; . . . And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel” (3 Ne. 27:7–8).
The logic was so easy to understand—if Christ is the chief cornerstone of his Church, if he is our Savior and Redeemer, if he is the author and finisher of our faith, then why would his Church be called by any name other than his?
Elder James E. Talmage addressed this very issue: “There are churches named after their place of origin—as the Church of England; other sects are designated in honor of their famous promoters—as Lutherans, Calvinists, Wesleyans; others are known from some peculiarity of creed or doctrine—as Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists; but down to the beginning of the nineteenth century there was no church even claiming name or title as the Church of Christ.”7
I believed Elder Talmage’s conclusion was correct, but I also knew he did not have computers in his day and age, so I asked a friend, Richard Holzapfel, then a professor at Brigham Young University, to research the issue of whether any church was named after Jesus Christ at the time of the Restoration in 1830. He sent me an email with the following discovery: “In the USA it seems there was no organization using any form of the Lord’s name as a title for their church [before Joseph Smith restored Christ’s Church in 1830].”
Martin Luther was keenly aware of what Christ’s Church should be called, for he told his parishioners: “I ask that men make no reference to my name; let them call themselves Christians, not Lutherans. What is Luther? After all, the teaching is not mine. Neither was I crucified for anyone. . . . How then should I—poor stinking maggot-fodder that I am—come to have men call the children of Christ by my wretched name? . . . Let us abolish all party names and call ourselves Christians, after him whose teaching we hold.”8
It seems so logical: if it is Christ’s Church, it would be named after him. Both the Bible and Book of Mormon come to this conclusion.
Ninth Misconception: People cannot become perfect.
Most, if not all, Christian churches believe it is blasphemy to teach that people can become gods even though such doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible and confirmed in the Book of Mormon. The Savior in the Sermon on the Mount taught, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). Note the wording—not relative perfection as compared to another person, but absolute perfection as measured by the standard of our Father in Heaven. To this point, prophets and scholars have noted that the word “perfect” in Matthew 5:48 should be rendered as “complete.”9 Paul taught this same glorious truth. He said that the purpose of the Church was “for the perfecting of the saints . . . unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:12–13). The standard of perfection in these scriptural references was not humankind, but rather the Father and the Son (see also John 17:20–23 and Rev. 3:21). Paul understood this possibility and thus disclosed his goal in life: “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded” (Philip. 3:14–15).
The Book of Mormon, in one of its concluding verses, invites us to “come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness.” And then it tells us how this lofty goal is possible: “By his grace [the enabling power of Christ’s Atonement]10 ye may be perfect in Christ” (Moro. 10:32).
This seems so consistent with the goal of Christianity—namely, to become like Christ. If the goal of Christianity is to be a disciple and follower of Christ, then at what point is it blasphemous to say we can become like him? Is it okay to be 2 percent like Christ, or 50 percent or 80 percent, without being blasphemous? Once we have crossed the line and acknowledged we can become like Christ to any degree, then logic says we can continue to become like him until we are in fact perfect, as the scriptures command us to be.
Conclusion
Truly, the Bible and Book of Mormon are one in God’s hand. Not only do they confirm each other but they also complement each other. The Bible teaches about the gospel being preached to the dead, proxy baptism, and three degrees of glory. The Book of Mormon helps us understand that the Savior’s Atonement was infinite (a phrase not used in the Bible), clarifies that he suffered not only for our sins but also for our afflictions and temptations, and explains that he has the power not only to cleanse us and resurrect us but also to perfect us. In addition, the Book of Mormon gives us the covenants we make at baptism and the baptismal and sacramental prayers. It gives us masterful sermons on faith by Alma, the scattering and gathering of Israel by Jacob, the Savior’s Atonement by King Benjamin, and Lehi’s philosophical and spiritual masterpiece on the relationship between the Fall, the Savior’s Atonement, and humankind’s agency. These two books of holy scripture work to confirm and complement each other in every way.
Recently I met with a good friend who left the Church. I asked him if he honestly believed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. He replied in the affirmative. He said that Joseph Smith was creative—a storyteller of prodigious proportions and thus had the capacity to write the Book of Mormon.
I believe there are at least two problems with such an argument. First, it is one thing to be creative. The stories of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are creative, but they are not necessarily inspiring. The Book of Mormon stories are not just creative but highly inspiring—such as the story of the two thousand sons of Helaman. When I first read that story as a teenage boy, I heard a voice in my mind say, “That story is true.” This was my first significant witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon.
Second, the claim that Joseph Smith was a creative storyteller does not solve the question of who wrote the Book of Mormon. The real question remains: Where did Joseph get the incredible, even staggering doctrine that fills this book, page after page, especially its inspired insights on the Savior’s Atonement and doctrine that was contrary to the mainstream religious beliefs of Joseph’s time? Was it brilliance or revelation that produced such doctrine? If brilliance—if Joseph was a genius—why hadn’t other geniuses since the Apostasy come up with some or all of these doctrinal truths? I believe it was revelation that produced these doctrinal masterpieces.
The same spirit that helps one know the Bible is true is the same spirit that helps one know the Book of Mormon is true. They are compatible witnesses of Jesus Christ’s ministry and mission. That is why Nephi said, “If ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ” (2 Ne. 33:10). I bear my solemn testimony that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are indeed the words of Christ.
