SOT LitnerStandard of Truth listener companion
Rex’s Elders Quorum President Should Start Listening Here
S2E8 · Baptism in the Early Church
0:00 / 1:16:34
13 chapters
← All episodes
Standard of Truth · Season 2 · Episode 8 · 1:16:34

Baptism in the Early Church

The revelation on 1 Corinthians 7:14, D&C 74, was dated for generations to Ohio in 1832, but the earliest manuscript places it in Wayne County, New York, in 1830, right alongside the church's first argument over baptism.

Press play above. The page follows along.
The question ·

If baptism is essential, how do we handle mistakes in performing it, and what happens to children, as early Latter-day Saints had to work out?

Richard

Richard opens with a news story about a Catholic priest in Phoenix whose "we" instead of "I" made thousands of baptisms invalid, and Gerrit uses it to explain why baptism means something different to Protestants, Catholics and Latter-day Saints. Richard shares a mission story about a grieving Catholic mother and his temple-worker training, and Gerrit reads the Catholic Catechism's hope for unbaptized children. Gerrit then shows how the Book of Mormon made baptism essential for Joseph and Oliver, which led to the early church's first known controversy: Baptists who didn't want to be rebaptized, answered in D&C 22. He closes with D&C 74, whose earliest manuscript moves it from Ohio in 1832 to New York in 1830, recasting it as an answer about infant baptism, and lands on the Restoration's certainty that little children who die are saved.

Who comes upJoseph SmithOliver CowderyAlvin SmithLucy Mack SmithJohn the BaptistSidney RigdonPaul the ApostleJesus ChristAndres ArangoThomas J. Olmsted
Now playing · 0:39

Rex’s Elders Quorum President Should Start Listening Here

The banter is over. The serious part starts here.

Chapters

Tap a chapter to jump there

Transcript

118 moments · tap a time to play from there
Intro Welcome to the Standard of Truth Podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, where we explore the early days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and gain rare historical insights into how a young farm boy was able to establish a new church and grow it by way of visions, manifestations and miracles.
Gerrit Hi, welcome to another episode of the Standard of Truth podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat, and I'm joined by my friend, Professor Richard LeDuc.
Richard Thank you, Gerrit. In this week's podcast, we want to talk a little bit about baptism in the early church. And to start things off, we wanted to reference an article that we read a couple of days ago. It's from an online article, Insider. Matthew Lowe is the author. And the title is, A Catholic priest in Arizona resigned after discovering he'd incorrectly performed thousands of baptisms for over 20 years. Just a couple of excerpts from the article. A Catholic priest in Phoenix has resigned after realizing he's been incorrectly performing baptism for over 20 years, rendering the right invalid for thousands of people. As he administered the ritual, the Reverend Andreas Arango would say, We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But the correct wording is, I baptize. According to the Vatican's instruction, Thomas J. Olmsted, Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix, wrote in January 14th, No one, including priests, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority, Olmsted wrote.
Richard Citing Vatican teachings, Olmsted added that he didn't believe Arango had intentions to harm the faithful or deprive them of the grace of baptism and the sacraments. Still, the official Diocese of Phoenix website said that Arango's one-word alteration means that all of the baptisms he has performed until June 17th, 2021 are presumed invalid. The diocese also called for those who believed Arango had incorrectly baptized them to submit their correct details to receive the proper right. So, I mean, you thought you had a bad day at the office. Yeah. I was saved yesterday, and now I'm not.
Gerrit Yeah. Well, so, I mean, over 20 years, we're talking thousands. I mean, it's one of the primary functions there for a priest in that diocese is gonna be doing these baptisms. And because it is Catholicism, I'm going to guess that nearly all of them, I mean, probably somewhere around 99% of them were infant baptisms. I mean, obviously, people can choose to become a Catholic and be baptized later in life. But, you know, as we would call them in our church, child of record birth, right? I mean, that's gonna be the standard. Most of those baptisms are gonna be infant baptisms, which also, you know, kind of calls into question, well, now what? I mean, the article kind of brushed over the fact that, like, yeah, so those are invalid. And, you know, the diocese is reaching out to people to let them know, you know, hey, Bill, I know you thought that you'd receive this essential sacrament of the church in order to go to heaven.
Gerrit Sorry. You know, you're not, I mean, I don't know, I don't know what the call was like.
Richard But, but it is interesting because they go out of their way to say that this wasn't purposeful. This wasn't intentional. There wasn't some malfeasance here.
Gerrit But the baptisms are invalid.
Richard Yeah, regardless. Yeah.
Gerrit And, and, and so you, you, you see that as a, a thing now, now, now I want to talk about this in a larger sense, and then we'll come back to this article or basically, you know, I mean, we're just going to ramble a lot. So welcome to every week of the Standard of Truth podcast. But obviously Catholicism is in a unique position in Christianity. I mean, a relatively unique position. I mean, that goes without saying, right, for its adherence and its membership worldwide, but also with the continued claim that baptism is an essential right for salvation, right? So that, that, that baptism isn't just something that you do. Baptism is required for salvation. And so obviously this, that means that this, you know, my bad essentially by this priest is a lot worse than it would be otherwise. Now you'll notice that you probably haven't heard a whole lot of stories of, you know, Presbyterian ministers having performed the baptism ritual wrong and all of the baptisms having to be redone.
Gerrit Now there is a liturgy inside of Presbyterianism about how you perform baptisms and who performs them and what you say. But there's a difference. And the difference, of course, one of the main differences between Protestantism and Catholicism is Protestantism is based upon the idea that salvation fundamentally comes from faith alone. This is the whole claim that it's not because you were baptized, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, that you made confession, that you did all the good works. That actually has nothing to do with your salvation. Salvation is based entirely on whether or not you have faith in Jesus. Now if you have faith in Jesus, then God's grace, grace is what saves you. Because you have faith, the grace of the Lord covers your sins and you're saved.
Gerrit Now, of course, the cynical Catholic or the cynical Latter-day Saint actually responds to faith salvation claims very, you know, like, oh, so are you saying I don't have to do anything? Like, I could just, I just like go kill somebody now because I'm saved because I said I have faith in Jesus. Well, the response, of course, from, you know, nearly every Protestant would be, well, if your plan is that you're going to go kill somebody, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't actually have faith in Jesus, right? I mean, that's not what people with faith in Jesus do. And so it's not that Protestants don't believe in doing good works. I mean, I think a good way of examining this is thinking about going on a mission, okay? Think about you think about going on a mission. Now there are lots of very worthy, faithful members of this church, leaders of the church in places who never served a mission.
Gerrit Serving a mission is not required to go to the celestial kingdom. I really hope it's not given the fact that my dad never served a mission. My dad was a giving man, you know, someone who was utterly devoted to the gospel, but he never served a mission. So it's not a requirement, right? Now of course, there's the expectation that every worthy young man serves a mission. But you can still go to the celestial kingdom if you didn't serve one. Well, we also don't think in our church, we don't believe that if you don't go on the mission, let's say you don't go, you know, you've got a better offer somewhere, you know, maybe you go into the military or you go to college and it's just not going to work, whatever the reason is, you don't go on a mission. Maybe you're not active at the time when it's time to go on a mission. You become active later, whatever.
Gerrit We don't believe that the person that you would have taught in Switzerland, well, I should probably pick a country where people listen. They wouldn't have listened in Switzerland either way, but let's say they go to Brazil. We don't believe that the person you would have taught in Brazil who you would have taught is now condemned to hell forever because you didn't go share the gospel with them. In fact, our theology is such that we believe that everyone is going to have an equal opportunity to accept the gospel either in this life or in the next life. Now you might have, maybe you would have touched their heart and it would have mitigated years of not having the whole truth, but their ultimate salvation actually isn't really in your hands. God has made provision through work for the dead for every single person to have a chance to go to the celestial kingdom. So if the person can still be saved if I don't go on a mission, if I can still be saved if I don't go on a mission, well, that leads to what's behind door number three.
Gerrit Why am I even going on a mission, right? And so I'm making this comparison to why Protestants do good works. Because I didn't go on a mission because I thought it would get me into heaven. And I didn't go on a mission because I believed it was the only way people could be saved. I already had a testimony of the idea of work for the dead, and I understood that everyone was going to have an opportunity. I went on a mission because God commanded me to go on a mission and because I love God. Now, that is the way that Protestants generally see works. Of course I'm going to help the poor. Of course I'm going to try to live a moral life. Of course I'm going to try to share the gospel with other people because I love Jesus. It's just that I don't believe that doing those things is what saves me.
Gerrit What saves me is the grace of Christ because I have faith. Now of course Protestants disagree about how you get that faith. If you're a Calvinist, you believe that God gives you the gift of faith and it's a free gift from God. You did nothing of yourself. God chose to give you faith and that's why you're saved. And if you're an Arminian, then you believe that you were actively participatory in that, that you chose to accept God's extended hand of grace and that is why you're saved. But either way, you're saved by faith. Either God gives you the faith or you choose the faith, but regardless, faith alone is how you're saved.
Richard I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of our Protestant brothers and sisters as it relates to our idea of works though as well.
Gerrit Sure. Yeah, because they think that we think that we can work our way to heaven, that we're just working our way. I mean, you'll hear people say, you think you can work to go to heaven. And look, theologically speaking, I mean, Latter-day Saints, of course, also believe that we are saved by the grace of Christ. Catholics also believe they're saved by the grace of Christ, but they believe that that grace is applied as people apply grace to themselves through performing the ordinances or rites, if you're talking Catholicism, that God has commanded people to perform. So fundamentally, when it's grace versus works, what it boils down to is for a Protestant, are there any essential things you have to do in order to be saved? Works. When we say works, I don't mean necessarily helping old ladies across the street. I mean, which is great, please help every old person you see struggling to get across, please help them do it, whether you think you're getting saved for it or not.
Gerrit But as in things like baptism, confirmation, for Latter-day Saints, they believe in further people, rites and rituals, the endowment, washings and anointings, right? There are other things that are required for so let now, of course, our understanding of salvation is already different. If you want to go back and listen to our multi-part series on Doctrine and Covenant, section 76, already when we talk about salvation, we're really talking about different tiers of heaven because we already believe the grace of Christ is eventually going to save everyone essentially from hell and everyone will at least be in the telestial Kingdom. But we're really talking about exaltation, so there's a little bit difference there. In any case, for a Protestant, they don't believe that there's anything. It is only by faith. Now, of course, because you have faith, you're going to get baptized because Jesus commanded you to get baptized.
Gerrit So what person having faith in Jesus saying, I know that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, I know that he commanded me to be baptized, but I'm not going to do anything he says. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, right? So of course, Protestants revere baptism. Their baptism days, for many people, it's the most sacred day of their life, especially for people who follow more Baptist-style traditions where they do adult baptisms. That is the day where they declare publicly, I am Jesus, I am Jesus' and he is mine and I will serve him and I'm publicly declaring it. It's also the way that people enter churches. This is what puts you, you're baptized into a church as well. But the difference is, even though for a Baptist is a great example, a Baptist would be the first person to tell you that though the name implies baptism is pretty essential, it's actually not.
Gerrit Of course, any true believer in Jesus will want to be baptized because Jesus told them to get baptized. But what about that thief on the cross who never was baptized, right? Who, as the two other, the one railed against Jesus, and if you'd be the son of God, save yourself and us. And the other said, Lord, remember me when they come to that kingdom. And Jesus says to that other thief while they're up on the cross, today, thou shalt be with me in paradise. So, for many Protestants, they see that as the demonstration that while, of course, if you can get baptized, you're going to. Baptism can't actually be essential for salvation because if it was, then that thief couldn't be going to paradise. And so that's the argument that a Protestant would make.
Gerrit Again, I don't want to say that they don't believe baptism is important. If you're, of course, they do. Baptism is a part of nearly every single Protestant denomination that I can think of. And what that baptism means runs the gambit of just simply an outward sign to you making a participatory commitment to the grace that God has offered you, to you joining in a covenant chain with a church. I mean, there's all kinds of ranges. But fundamentally, baptism is not essential for salvation. You do it for whatever the reason is, and it's a holy thing to you. But you don't have to have a baptism. You could be that thief on the cross. You could just, by confession of your faith, be saved. For Catholicism, for a really long time, that was the case that, you know, baptism is essential. And if you're not baptized, you can't be saved.
Gerrit Since 1965, since the Second Vatican Council, now no one's listening at all right now, right? We've gone... Well, should I start talking about townships maybe to bring them back? Yeah, we need to bring them back. I need to talk about townships in rural Vermont in order to get people back into the podcast. But there's been some softening of that language over the course of time in Catholic liturgy about what happens to someone who's not baptized. But this is a pretty big conundrum. I mean, this is... You have people who believe that they performed an essential right of baptism that they didn't actually perform, that through no fault of their own. Now, I want you to think about the fact that if you're one of these parents who took their baby to get baptized, your baby was baptized. And horrifically and tragically, a few weeks later, that baby passed away.
Gerrit I don't have any idea, the demographics or the numbers.
Richard But if there's thousands, you would assume maybe there's at least a couple.
Gerrit There's got to be at least some that are not alive anymore, because this is over 20 year period. So you didn't have to die as a baby. You could have died when you're 15. And obviously not everyone lives. And so what are they thinking right now? Now if you go to the Catholic Catechism from the Vatican, so I'm on the Vatican's website here, okay, so I'm not trying to, I'm not doing any anti-Catholic rhetoric here. Even in the Catholic Catechism, under the necessity for baptism, there's exception that is made for the intent to be baptized that might give some comfort to those people. Now Richard, you were telling me you had a story from your mission.
Richard Yeah.
Gerrit Well, let's hear that story first.
Richard Well, so Vatican II comes out, well, like 65 or whatever, right?
Gerrit Yeah, they're working on it for like a decade.
Richard Yeah, so I was served in Southern California and we were tracking, and you do different door approaches when you're tracking. And this particular day, we were talking about the eternal nature of families, and the families are together forever. We knocked on a door and we said something along the lines of, you know, that families can be together forever. And the woman on the other side of the door started to cry. And she was Catholic, and she had a baby that didn't die immediately, but died still as an infant. And she never took the baby in to be baptized. And at the funeral, as she claims, that her priest told her that that baby was in hell. And because the priest apparently was obviously very upset that she hadn't done these things.
Richard And I'm trying to say in fairness to the priest in this particular, I don't know that, you know, time and place, right? Right.
Gerrit Yeah, that may not have been...
Richard But it's entirely possible that...
Gerrit Maybe he said it under his breath.
Richard Well, no.
Gerrit Maybe it was like, try the veal.
Richard And your baby is burning. But the thing is that the thing that's difficult there is that in trying to be, you know, give credit to the priest, the priest believes that to his core, right? And the priest is frustrated and upset and angry that this has happened. And he lets it fly on, on this poor, grieving mother. The whole circumstance is fairly tragic, but whatever the softening of the language, and I think you're gonna read it in a second, that it's nice, and that kind of is moving in the direction of more mercy. You know, you've got, the Catholic Church has a billion people in it, and you've got, you know, priests.
Gerrit 1800, 1900 years of history that are.
Richard Yeah, and so Vatican II could come out and say a particular thing, but a priest might not necessarily agree with Vatican II, and his little fiefdom, as he's teaching his congregation, he might be a little bit more conservative or fundamental to some of the old traditions.
Gerrit I know it's gonna be hard for most of our listeners to believe that in different wards you might be in, there might be different levels of gospel doctrine teachers with different opinions.
Richard Well.
Gerrit But imagine. Imagine a world where what someone thinks the gospel is essential.
Richard It was interesting. It was interesting. So, you know, if I was writing an ensign article, she was baptized and ended up becoming, you know, the Stake Relief Center president.
Gerrit You weren't in Wisconsin, so it was possible.
Richard Yes. Well, I mean, so, but we did, we did end up teaching her, and she ended up not progressing in the discussions, and who knows what's happened, but I will say that at least in that moment, when we had an opportunity to teach about the eternal nature of families and the opportunity for all of God's children to be together forever and obtain salvation, it was at least in that minute, and sometimes on missions, you just kind of get little, just little bits, little pieces, and it was about, you could see just this pain that was on her. She was just weeping as she was telling us this story. She was just kind of belifted. It was a very interesting experience.
Gerrit So, I mean, if you go to the catechism, there's several things that are in there, right? So first of all, one of the questions that obviously was asked is, you know, you can't, if you're going to convert to the church, you have to go through the catechism process, right? So you have to be taught. I mean, again, very similar in the sense of Latter-day Saint, you have to be taught, you have to accept the doctrines, and then you're baptized. So they call someone who's going through the catechism process a catechumen, which kind of sounds like a Book of Mormon evil person's name, but.
Richard You got Pahoran, you got catechumen.
Gerrit You got catechumen, kishumen, you got all kinds of kumens. Yeah, but so what happens if someone is trying to join the church? They're going through the process, they're going through the classes, and they get hit by a bus on their way to their baptism. Well, that's a real problem, right? I mean, now you might think that, you know, I know I'm kind of making light of it in saying that, but this is a real world situation. This actually does happen, you know, where people fully intend to get baptized and tragically die beforehand. So, 1259 of Vatican II. For catechumens who die before their baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. So there's this allowance made. If you're trying to be baptized and die before you are, well, then there's an allowance. So I'm guessing that 1259 would apply to many of these people.
Gerrit They were trying to be baptized. Clearly, you're trying to. Now, that does say for catechumen, so that's an adult or at least someone of age who's saying, I want to be baptized. 1260. Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers in a way known to God of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of this. This is important. Every man who's ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. So here's this other catalog that's made for people who don't know, they're ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and his church.
Gerrit Someone who isn't being taught by Catholic missionaries, they don't know about it, but are trying to do the best they can. If it can be supposed that this good person would have desired baptism if only they understood it, then they can also be saved. So that's a huge allowance, obviously, for many, many people. But now we'll get to 1261, which is, like I said, the one that's probably going to relate most to what we're talking about here. Because nearly every baptism performed by this priest, illegitimately now, declared illegitimate, would have been a baby. As regards children who have died without baptism, the church can only entrust them to the mercy of God. As she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness towards children which caused him to say, let the children come to me, do not hinder them. That's quoting from the Vulgate, from the Catholic Bible.
Gerrit Allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who've died without baptism. Now, that's probably not quite as comforting as, you know, 1259. If you're someone explicitly trying to join the church and you die before you're able to, well, there's an allowance made for you. 1260, if you're an adult, you know, who never has heard about the church and doesn't know anything about it, but are a good person, then there's an allowance made for you if it's believed that you would have accepted baptism had you known about it. But we're really talking about children here. So that wasn't, they weren't the ones desiring baptism, their parents. As regards little children who died without baptism, you know, these quotes allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who died without baptism. To hope that there's a way of salvation is not the same thing as declaring their sins.
Richard And this is a softening of what it was before.
Gerrit Sure, it would have been before. I mean, all throughout the medieval times, the doctrine of limbo is something that is, you know, taught by a lot of theologians that, you know, unbaptized babies don't go to hell. They go to a place in between heaven and hell because they can't go to heaven because they weren't baptized. Baptism is essential. They weren't baptized. They can't go to heaven, but they're not going to go to hell because God bless children and that's, you know, any theologian listening is going to be like, oh, there's like 95 other things. This is the Reader's Digest version, obviously, and also the Reader's Digest version written by someone who isn't a Catholic theologian, so it's even worse. It's like the Reader's Digest version written by someone not able to write. But you'll notice that that's not a definitive statement. Even with Vatican II, it's not a definitive statement that they're going to be saved. It's the hope. And in fact, it's followed up by something that kind of diminishes that hope a little bit, right? So after saying, we can hope that there's a way for the salvation of children who've died, all the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children from coming to Christ through the gift of Holy Baptism.
Gerrit I mean, that follow-up sentence is almost saying, because we actually don't know if they're saved and we're only hoping that they are, It's urgent that they do. You better get them in here and get them baptized and hopefully not incorrectly by a well-meaning but wrong priest. Now, why did we focus on this? Well, because this is how I was going to announce to you that I'm on my way to becoming a Catholic priest. No, because in the early Church, this is something that Latter-day Saints are dealing with as well. This question about baptism, one of the most unique facets of the Church and of the Book of Mormon is that while the Bible, you might wonder how is it that Protestants can argue that baptism isn't essential? I mean, doesn't Jesus say, whosoever believeth in his baptism shall be saved?
Gerrit Well, yes, but he also says, but he that believeth not shall be damned. And so Protestants would argue that the operative aspect of that is belief, right? Whosoever believeth in his baptize shall be saved. Again, because of course, you're going to get baptized if you believe, but who's going to be damned? Someone who doesn't believe, right? So a Protestant would argue the operative thing here is obviously belief. Now, of course, a Catholic would argue the opposite. A Catholic would say, no, it says you have to believe and be baptized. But a Protestant would say, the belief is the essential part. Of course, you're going to get baptized if you believe, and if you don't believe, then you won't get baptized, but it's the lack of belief that's going to condemn you. So this is early Latter-day Saints, before they were even called Latter-day Saints, early Mormonites. One of the major differences, one of the things that's going to be stark to members of the church joining the church is not just that baptism is important.
Gerrit Again, baptism is very important in the Baptist sects that are growing all over the country at the time of Joseph Smith. It's the main part, right? It's adult baptism. If someone accepts this covenant with Jesus to join the church, but there's something very different about what's being taught. And you actually notice how different it is by the inquiries that Joseph and Oliver have when they are translating the Book of Mormon. That's because the Book of Mormon takes a lot of the ambiguity out of Mark 16, 16, because when Jesus says something similar in the Book of Mormon, it's 3 Nephi 11, 33 through 34, and whoso believeth in me and is baptized, the same shall be saved, and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God, and whoso believeth not in me and is not baptized, shall be damned.
Gerrit So whereas the Mark version of this kind of leaves off baptism as being important on both sides, when Jesus is speaking to the people in 3rd Nephi, it's explicit. It is, baptism is essential. And then Jesus goes on to give power to baptize to certain people and to tell them how baptism is supposed to be done. When Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith read, I mean, I'm doing air quotes, I mean, this is Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon and Oliver Cowdery is writing it down. This is the first time that they've ever heard this. And so their natural response is, if baptism is essential for salvation, because both of them are coming from Protestant backgrounds, Joseph's coming from primarily a Presbyterian background, which there is baptism in the Presbyterian church, there's infant baptism actually, but Joseph wasn't baptized into the church.
Gerrit If, as you might recall, from an earlier discussion we had, when Alvin dies, it's a Presbyterian minister who, similar to the woman you met on your mission, the Presbyterian minister, I don't know what part of the sermon, I don't know if he's like, you know, we're all sad that Alvin has passed away, and also Alvin's burning in hell. The argument that the minister made was, Alvin was an adult. He never desired to be baptized. He hadn't joined the church through baptism. So therefore, he must never have really had saving faith. God must not have given him, if God had given him saving faith and grace, of course, as an adult, he would have wanted to be baptized. And so the conclusion the minister came to, at least according to Lucy Max Smith, was Alvin was in hell. Now, again, not what you want to hear at your son's funeral, right?
Gerrit But that minister very much believed it. Again, he didn't believe baptism saved anyone. But he was pretty certain, if you were an adult living in America during the midst of the Second Great Awakening and you had never felt the call to get baptized, then God hadn't given you the gift of faith. If he had, you would have manifested it. And you didn't. So, welcome to hell, Population Alvin. So, this idea that even the lack of manifestation of baptism might demonstrate that someone is destined for hell is something that's very much on Joseph Smith's mind. Well, now as they're translating the Book of Mormon, it's becoming readily apparent as they translate the Book of Mormon. I mean, you don't have to get very far in Mosiah and Alma before you realize, hey, baptism seems to really matter. It's a big deal in the church. But then you have the Lord appear to the people and make baptism an express commandment and give people exactly how they're supposed to do it and give people exactly the authority.
Gerrit Only these people have the authority to do it. Well, Joseph and Oliver have a huge sea change in their understanding. They are coming from Protestant backgrounds where baptism is really only the symbol that you believe. That's why it matters. I mean, again, it's more than that. I don't want to denigrate that. If there's a Protestant listening, I understand baptism is very important to you. But you would also agree that it is not essential for salvation. If you've been saved, if God's given you the gift of faith, or if you've chosen that faith, of course you'll choose to be baptized, but it's not essential for salvation. Well, once Joseph and Oliver realized that it seems to be, their question is, how can we be saved? It's kind of the same question that Joseph had in the Grove when he first went to the St. Grove. How can I be saved? And this is when they have the authority restored to them. And they baptize one another.
Gerrit In point of fact, very interesting, right? Today, you would say something like, you can't receive the Aaronic Priesthood unless you're a baptized member of the Church. But in fact, Joseph and Oliver are not baptized, and John the Baptist places hands on their head and gives them the Priesthood of Aaron. So it's an example of, again, the way we do things today, because God has outlined them in the Church's structure, that you're baptized, and then when men reach a certain age, they are then given the Aaronic Priesthood and then different offices in it. Joseph and Oliver are not, A, members of the Church, because the Church doesn't exist, B, they are not baptized, because they haven't been baptized, and they are given the authority, and they then proceed to baptize.
Gerrit Again, you won't find it very often in the modern Church, at least not if anyone's doing what they're supposed to, that someone who is not baptized is now baptizing someone else. But that's exactly what happens when Oliver baptizes Joseph, Joseph baptizes Oliver. And the fact they even have authority at all is outside of our general understanding of how you can receive authority. Well, the fact that baptism is essential is a different thing for all of the people that are coming into the Church. That baptism is important. Most people agree with that. I mean, most of these camp meetings end, and these revivals end, and people going down to the river and being baptized, and it's a big deal to publicly demonstrate it. But it's actually a different type of theology, much more similar to Catholicism in the sense that baptism isn't just what we do if we believe. Baptism is essential for salvation.
Gerrit Well, that's going to lead to lots of questions. Doctrine and Covenants Section 20, which is kind of the early handbook of the Church, right? It's called the Articles and Covenants of the Church. It's read at the Church's first conference, and it's approved by the Church. Doctrine and Covenants Section 20, you can already tell, is like a little mini handbook of the Church. I mean, you've probably referenced it in being in a bishopric. Like, oh, what does D&C 20 say about that? Because it gives the baptism prayers, it gives the sacrament prayers, it gives the offices in the priesthood, it says what each office's job is. I mean, there's all kinds of things in there. It's like a little mini handbook for the early Church. Again, reiterates the essential nature of baptism by explaining who can be baptized, how you could baptize, who has the authority to baptize. Baptism from the beginning of the Church is very essential. So you start to have different questions about baptism in the early Church than you might have in your ordinary Protestant denomination.
Gerrit So, for instance, what we have in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 22. So Doctrine and Covenants, Section 20 is received, it's received in two parts. Part of it's received in 1829, we don't know what part, and part of it's finished or completed in 1830, again, we don't know what part. So it's a composite revelation, but on the heels of that revelation, only days later, actually, another revelation is going to be received talking about baptism. This is Doctrine and Covenants, Section 22. Doctrine over Section 22, so 20 is received, kind of straddling the beginning of the Church and then it's founding. 21 is received at the founding of the Church, it's received literally at the meeting on April 6th. 22 is the next revelation received. And it's only a few days later.
Gerrit It's April 16th of 1830. Okay, so the Church is 10 days old. They're trying to share the Gospel of people, and already baptism is actually the first known controversy in the early Church. There might be others. I don't have enough documents, and I want to be careful as a historian that maybe there were others. But the first known controversy we have after the Church is established is Doctrine and Covenants, Section 22 is addressing it. And that is this reference to whether or not people need to be baptized into the Church of Christ if they've already been baptized in another phase. Again, most Protestants, by the time they're adults, have already been baptized. Many have been baptized as infants. Some, like Baptists, they're arguing that, no, you should only get baptized when you're an adult, so you can make that covenant yourself.
Gerrit You can say, I'm going to serve Jesus. But for others, Lutherans and Congregationalists and Presbyterians, they're still performing infant baptisms on the basis of, well, obviously, a child can't exhibit grace, but if their parents are in the church and in grace, then the child can have that grace at least extended to them through the parents demonstrating their faith. Again, the baptism doesn't save the child. The child has to have faith to be saved. But that's why you would justify it. And of course, they found all kinds of reasons to justify that. But this, at least according to the source we have, is particularly comes up because of, and it would make sense, of a group of Baptists who wanted to join the Church but didn't think they should have to get rebaptized. So they've accepted the Gospel. They, oh, the Book of Mormon is true. I want to be, Joseph Smith's a prophet. I want to be baptized.
Gerrit This is one of the early section headings, section heading, well, the early introduction written in the earliest manuscript version of this. A revelation given to Joseph the seer. Some were anxious to join the church without rebaptism. And Joseph inquired of the Lord, and he received as follows. A commandment under the Church of Christ, which was established in the last days, 1,830, in the fourth month, and in the sixth day of that month, which is called April. That's when the Church was founded. Behold, I say unto you, and it goes on to give the response. The explanation, we don't have to read it. We could read it. It's very short. Behold, I say unto you, that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing, and this is a new and everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning. Wherefore, although a man should be baptized and a hundred times, it availeth him nothing.
Gerrit If you cannot enter into the straight gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works, for it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old. Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen. So apparently this group of, and again, we have by another source, they said it was a group of Baptists, which would make sense, because to a Baptist, their adult baptism day is a sacred, sacred day to them. That's the day when they have come, they themselves have come to the decision, from this day forward, for the rest of my life, I serve Jesus. And so you can ask, if you have a Baptist friend, ask them if they know their baptism day, they will. They'll actually know it better than you do. You'll be like, oh, I know it was eight, but no, they'll like know the day. They would have to go searching through their church records to figure out what day it was, because it was so holy to them. And so they're not only making a huge transition to join this brand new church that's claiming that there's some kind of scripture outside of the Bible, which is already just right out.
Gerrit Right? They're told that in order to join the church, they need to be baptized. And so you can see, oh, you don't understand. I already committed myself to Jesus, you know, seven years ago. You don't understand. And when I was 21, I already was baptized and made my covenant to Jesus. And the reason why baptism wouldn't seem to need to be redone is because these people are all coming out of a world in which baptism isn't essential. The point of baptism is to outwardly demonstrate to them, to outwardly demonstrate that you have accepted the grace of Christ to salvation. But the baptism itself doesn't save you. And so you can see within two weeks of the Church being founded, the fact that the Church was stating that baptism was essential led to this question that prompted the revelation.
Gerrit Revelations received on the basis of, well, can't these people just say, you know, their old baptism is when they committed it. Isn't that enough? And it's kind of the response from God. I don't think you get it. Baptism has to be done by proper authority. If you're baptized a hundred times and it's not done by proper authority, then it doesn't matter if you were. And so that makes a very pretty definitive statement. You're not able to join our Church without baptism. Now, while we're talking about this priest, I mean, we've actually used this example before. Let's say that, you know, a girl goes to get baptized, she's going to have her dad baptize her, and she's going to have both of her grandmas serve as witnesses of the baptism. So they're going to be the ones up there judging. Now, of course, both of her grandmas, they've got cataracts so thick, they can't even see the water, let alone what's going on in the water, okay?
Gerrit They're elderly. The dad's a little bit too enthusiastic, and as he says the prayer, he dunks his daughter down a little too far, and one of her feet come up out of the water. Well, no one really sees it. The dad doesn't notice. The grandmas are like, looks good. They're fine. Is this girl actually baptized? Are all of her covenants that she's going to make both with baptism and for the remainder of her life, are they invalid because this error was made? Because look, we believe in baptism by immersion, and she was not baptized by immersion. What if, I mean, making it even closer to home, what if it's a brand new bishopric that just got called? And the bishopric member who's there for that baptism, second counselor, never been in the bishopric before, his very first baptism.
Gerrit And even though the words are up there on the, right behind him on the font, as everyone knows who's been in a sacrament meeting, even though the words are right there in front of the priest, that doesn't mean that they're going to read them that way. I know myself.
Richard You're going to say eat it.
Gerrit Oh yeah. You put all kinds of words in.
Richard You're going to.
Gerrit If I had a nickel for the number of times I've messed up trying to bless the sacrament, I'd be a wealthy man, and this podcast would be monetized, just through my poor prayers on the sacrament. I mean, so let's say that this second counselor in the bishopric, the dad baptizes his daughter. She goes all the way under, but when he does it, he leaves one of the words out. Maybe he, instead of saying, and of the father, and of the son, and Holy Ghost.
Richard Or he says, I instead of we, or the opposite.
Gerrit Or he says, we. We baptize you in. And the bishopric member is so excited. It's his first baptism. It's a beautiful thing. Everyone's crying. Everyone's happy. He doesn't say, hey, you got to do it again. Is she really baptized? Or is she just tricked into thinking she's baptized? Her whole life, she does everything else. She's going to go to the temple. She's going to receive her washings and anointing. She's going to be endowed. She's going to get married in the temple. And she's going to live her life. And she's going to repent in faith and take the sacrament. And when she dies, she's going to go up to judgment. And St. Peter's going to say, I'm looking at your file here. Yeah, he said we instead of I. So, sorry, you're not baptized. Welcome to hell, population U. At least you should be with Alvin. Yeah, exactly. Now they can have a party.
Gerrit I would guess that while we, you know, while we attempt to make those things right at the time, that we don't say that that actually isn't a valid baptism. The fact that her foot came up and no one noticed doesn't mean that she doesn't actually have that covenant. God commands us to try to do things the way that they are to be done. But if someone makes a human error, and I've got news for you, we're all humans and we make errors constantly, and that error isn't caught. We don't simply say, well, now all of those people don't have the ability to be saved. Now they can't, they are no longer candidates for the celestial kingdom. So it's a very interesting thing that while baptism by proper authority is essential in our church, and it's very, you know, legalistic, we have the words, we have the way that it should be done, it should be done by immersion, there's also this allowance that's made that intent to do it the right way seems to be what matters most.
Richard So I like to think about an example. So let's say that a father baptizes his children. He will probably perform in his life a handful of baptisms, maybe three, maybe seven.
Gerrit If he went on his mission to Wisconsin, he'd like lose several of them. It'll be like negative two baptisms, I didn't even go in the water, it was frozen over.
Richard So let's say five baptisms, 10 baptisms, in a person's entire life that they would perform. And so it's fairly infrequent, doesn't happen that often. And in the instance that you're describing, there isn't something, now if you catch it and you see it, then you redo it. Similar to the sacrament, we want to be correct and we want to do things right. But it doesn't, to your point, invalidate the baptism.
Gerrit Right, because what you're really relying on is that second counselor in the bishopric, what are you, a first counselor? That first counselor in the bishopric, who, what if he didn't hear it properly? What if in his mind, he's saying the words in his mind and that makes him think that it was said the right way, and he doesn't say, whoa, full stop, you gotta re-baptize, you said the word we instead of I. Is that child still baptized? Because no one noticed it.
Richard That's right. And again, just to restate, we're not saying that it doesn't matter. Well, you want to do it correctly.
Gerrit We're not advocating that people go and write their own baptismal vows.
Richard Yeah, yeah. Well, you like to say, well, actually, Bishop, we wrote our own vows.
Gerrit We wrote our own vows.
Richard But so in this particular instance, where a father baptizes 10 people in, or a man baptizes 10 people in their life. Okay, well, so that's pretty infrequent. Maybe they're more likely to make mistakes or have issues or problems. Now, take, in contrast to that, the temple, where there is a tremendous amount of training that is done in the temple.
Gerrit You don't just become a temple worker just like, you don't just walk in and say, I guess I'm going to be a temple worker today.
Richard No, I mean, there's a tremendous amount. I mean, obviously, the worthiness piece matters, but then you go in and you receive a tremendous amount of training. I had an opportunity to serve as a temple worker for a couple of years and really enjoyed that. And so you go through quite a bit of training, and then even after you go through that training, then they have you do some more basic things as you're kind of checking things off. And each temple does things different, in terms of the way that they do things, but there's pretty standard training that you take initially. And now there's supervisors all the way up of people to make sure that things are done properly, to make sure that things are done in order, and to make sure that things are done right. Now, that said, there's a couple of trainings, one of the trainings in the temple specifically is, that if you go and you make a mistake, that doesn't invalidate the work that is being done, the ordinance that is being done.
Gerrit Right, so if you're trained to say it a specific way, and you practice it and you practice it and you practice it, and you go and you do it, and then as you're walking to your car that night, the realization comes to you, oh my goodness.
Richard You said we instead of I.
Gerrit I didn't say of. I didn't say of, I know I didn't.
Richard That doesn't invalidate it. I mean, I don't want to get too specific in what those things are or not, but the training that we receive is, hey, we're going to do our best. We need to do it right. We want to make sure we do it correct. We want to make sure we say it exact. But if you don't, that person on the other side is not now losing out on the opportunity of their salvation for your mistake. And that's somebody that has received a lot of training that spends six to eight hours per week doing this versus kind of just the infrequency of doing baptisms. And even in that particular setting, it's, hey, we believe that in a loving and merciful Father in Heaven, we're doing our best, and away we go.
Gerrit And I think that Latter-day Saints, because look, we have a very organized church, we have a liturgy that's organized, that's spelled out, this is how things should be done, that we sometimes confuse the way God has outlined things should be done with God not having the ability to do whatever God wants to do. And they're not the same thing, right? So I wanted to share, though, another example of baptism being another early controversial question. Again, why does this matter? Why are there so many questions about baptism? Because you went from being a Protestant believing that baptism was an outward symbol to being a Mormonite, as you might have been called at the time, a member of the Church of Christ is what it was called, where baptism is essential. Well, suddenly if baptism is essential, then how I do it matters. And who has authority to do it matters. And who can be baptized, it matters far more because I am now elevating the status of a baptism.
Gerrit So one last aspect of changes to the Doctrine and Covenants that I wanted to demonstrate related to this is actually from Doctrine and Covenants, Section 74 in the 2013 edition of the Scriptures. Because this also relates to baptism, but this is actually one of the most changed section headings in our Scriptures. Here's the reason why there was a problem. Well, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 74 was not dated in its earliest publication. When it's included in the Book of Commandments and the Doctrine and Covenants, it doesn't have a date. So the fact it doesn't have a date makes it pretty hard to place when was this. So when it was reorganized into the chronological sections and the section heading that was created for it placed it alongside the New Testament translation.
Gerrit The reason why is Doctrine and Covenants, Section 73 is entirely about that. What is Doctrine and Covenants, Section 73? Well, if you read it from either version, this is from the 2013 edition, the section heading, Revelation given to Joseph Smith, the prophet, and Sidney Rigdon at Hiram, Ohio, January 10, 1832. Since the early part of the preceding December, the prophet and Sidney had been engaged in preaching, and by this means, much was accomplished in diminishing unfavorable feelings that had risen against the church. So you then have this Revelation telling them to do certain things. What are Joseph and Sidney doing? They're engaged in the translation of the New Testament. So when the history of the church is written, with this Revelation that doesn't really have a date on it, what is written into the history of the church is, so right after Doctrine and Coven, Section 73, what's written is, Upon the reception of the foregoing word of the Lord, I recommenced the translation of the Scriptures, and labored diligently until just before the conference, which was to convene on the 25th of January.
Gerrit During this period, I also received the following as an explanation of 1 Corinthians 7 14. So now you should understand, we should probably do an entire thing on the history of the church, that the way the history of the church was written was they took all these existing Revelations, documents and letters, and which was very common for the time, because they were writing the history of Joseph Smith, they took things from a third person, Joseph writing, Joseph writing, he said that he would do this, someone writing that, to putting it in first person, as if Joseph's writing his own history, even though their scribes writing it for him. So it's not Joseph literally writing on the page, I also received the following Revelation. It's a scribe who's writing the history, placing Joseph Smith's documents in the order that he thinks they're in. Now Joseph's going to review it, of course, but it makes perfect sense. What is section 74 all about? It's all about 1 Corinthians 7 14. It even quotes 1 Corinthians 7 14.
Gerrit Well, Joseph is translating the New Testament in December and January of 1832. So it makes perfect sense that we received this revelation as we were questioning things about, you know, we got to 1 Corinthians. Wait a minute. What about that? And then God gave her. That's exactly how doctrine comes. Section 76 came, right? 76 came because they are thinking about things like John 5 talking about how there are different mansions, that there's a resurrection of the just and a resurrection of the unjust. How is that going to work? The kingdoms come in the vision. So they place this revelation in that context in the history of the Church. And thereafter, every edition of the Doctrine and Covenants and every section heading of it and every Doctrine and Covenants commentary that was written all said this revelation came because of Joseph Smith translating the New Testament.
Gerrit Because that's what the history of the Church said. The problem was, that's not why this revelation was actually received. And how do we know that? Well, we know it because if you go to the actual section, if you go to the, you know, we know it now because we have access to the earliest manuscript version of this, you go to the earliest manuscript version and this is what it's titled. If you go to it, pull it up here, it is called an explanation of scripture. Okay, well, that's, that is different than many other revelations, the way it starts, but an explanation of the epistle to the 1st Corinthians, 7th chapter, 14th verse, given to Joseph the Seer at Wayne County, New York, 1830.
Gerrit Now you can see the problem. In the previous edition of the, editions of the Doctrine and Covenants and the history of the church, it is saying that it was received in January of 1832 and in Hiram, Ohio, while Joseph is then engaged in the translation of the New Testament. But our earliest manuscript copy of this shows that it wasn't received in Ohio. It wasn't received when Joseph Smith was doing the New Testament translation because he hadn't started doing it yet in 1830. And it wasn't related. Well, so and it was received in 1830 instead of 1832. There's years difference there. What does that mean? Well, we don't know the exact date that this was received, but Wayne County is where Palmyra is, right? So the Wayne Sentinel, that's the Grandin's print newspaper that he prints on his print shop, is the Wayne Sentinel, Wayne County.
Gerrit So this is a revelation that's received probably, we're guessing, in Palmyra or thereabouts. And in 1830, not years later, it actually changes the entire context of the revelation. Somewhere early in the church, my guess is actually pretty shortly after Doctrine and Covenants Section 22 is received, the next question is given. You might wonder, well, why do you think this has anything to do with D&C 22? And I don't understand. Why would this have anything to do with baptism? Well, because 1 Corinthians 7, 14, was then and continues to be the primary argument that is made for why infant baptism should happen. We should go to, we'll go to 1 Corinthians real quick and read it. Here it is. We'll start maybe a couple of verses before, so Paul writing the letter to the Corinthians.
Gerrit There starts to be questions in the early Christian church about, okay, so what happens if a man joins the church and is a believer and his wife refuses to become a Christian? Does that mean he should leave his wife? Or what if it's the other way around? What do you do? And the woman, this is verse 13, and the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. So there's, Paul was saying, look, marriage itself is more important than not being married to someone who's not a believer. Okay, so if you have that. And then he goes on in verse 14 and that's the one that becomes a big deal. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy. This was taken as evidence for especially Protestants, but then also it's used in Catholicism as well, to justify infant baptism in the sense of saying, because you are a believer, your children are made holy because you're a believer.
Gerrit Now, they're not saved because you're holy, but that's the reason why. Then of course, multiple references in the New Testament to entire households being saved. All of the household was baptized. And so that's led to, well, come on, there's got to be some child in that household, right? It doesn't expressly say in the New Testament, but those were the justifications made for infant baptism. And really most of the Protestant denominations, the major ones in the United States at the time of Joseph Smith, most of them did practice infant baptism. But it was a really strong source of contention. I mean, you've got Baptists essentially saying, you guys are Catholic if you're doing infant baptism. The whole point of baptism is that it's a sign and a symbol of your conversion to Jesus, but you're giving it to a baby. Baptism should be by adults. Adults should make that. So it's a real source of contention. And so you can tell that what likely sparked this is someone saying, hey, should we be baptizing our baby?
Gerrit So the first question is, do we have to be baptized if we've already been baptized? And the Lord says, the Lord says, no. I mean, yeah, well, sorry. The Lord says, yes, you have to be baptized even if you've already been baptized because you have to be baptized by proper authority. And then immediately on the heels of that, the next most logical question is asked, well, do I have to be baptized? I mean, well, then if baptism is so essential, do children have to be baptized? In fact, they might have even, for all I know, D&C 74 might have been asked even before D&C 22 was asked. Someone might have said, they might have, maybe it wasn't baptized. That is a later source that says it's baptized. Maybe it was someone saying, you don't understand, I was baptized as a Presbyterian when I was a baby. I shouldn't have to get baptized again. That infant baptism is being justified by that verse there and has been, like I said, it still is today.
Gerrit If you go read theological discussions justifying infant baptism today, it will be along the lines of 1 Corinthians 7 14 will factor prominently. How does the Lord respond? Now I'm going to be reading from the manuscript here rather than from the verse. So if it doesn't sound exactly the same. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. Now in the days of the apostles, the law of circumcision was had among them. All the Jews which believe not the gospel of Jesus Christ. And it came to pass that there was a great contention among the people concerning the law of circumcision. For the unbelieving husband was desirous that his children should be circumcised and become subject to the law of Moses. Which law was fulfilled? And it came to pass that the children being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ wherein they became holy.
Gerrit Wherefore for this cause, the apostle wrote unto the church, giving them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever, except the law of Moses should be done away among them, that their children might remain without circumcision, and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy, for it was had among the Jews, but little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and this is what these scriptures mean. So that's, I mean, frankly, as opposite as it could possibly be. Now, of course, the Book of Mormon speaks pretty clearly on infant baptism. It is not a nuanced view that is being taken on infant baptism in the Book of Mormon. In fact, saying that people who believe that children have to be baptized, they're under condemnation, right?
Gerrit So this is not a surprising response to the revelation. But what's interesting is that here, the Lord is giving a revelation to Joseph Smith that directly refutes the Christian interpretation of that verse and provides a completely different understanding of it. That this is not a reference to baptizing your children so that they can be holy. It's actually a reference to the fact that the dead work of circumcision is not what makes them holy. They're holy already. And of course, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 20, the Articles and Covenants of the Church already throw out the idea of original sin. The idea that sin is something that is born into people that know that this idea instead is that everyone has the ability to be saved.
Gerrit And of course, the Articles of Faith are later going to go on. Many other things as well, but the Articles of Faith are going to go on and say that we believe that men will be judged for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression. And so early on, this discussion of what happens to children is a question that's being asked as the restored gospel of Jesus Christ re-institutes this understanding that baptism is essential. Well, if baptism is essential, what happens to children? And what they are told both in the Book of Mormon and also through multiple teachings is that they're saved. That we are not wondering. Our catechism does not say, we sure hope that there's some kind of an allowance made for children that aren't baptized.
Gerrit We actually know the allowance that's made. And that through the atonement of Jesus Christ, little children who die are saved. And we don't even do their temple work. We seal them to their parents. But we don't perform baptisms for the dead for babies that died. We say that they are celestial glory bound. We don't live with the ambiguity of wondering what happens if a child dies before a child reaches the age of accountability. God has declared it. In his scriptures, through his prophets, that child is saved. Saved in the celestial kingdom. Not just saved from hellfire, they're saved. To the point where while we will do temple work for every person on this earth eventually, we won't be doing any baptisms for the dead for children that die. And that speaks to how central to Latter-day Saint theology the idea that there is no original sin.
Gerrit It's interesting. You would actually think it would be the other way around that if Joseph was going to concoct a religion in which baptism suddenly became essential, even though for Protestants for 300 years, it hadn't been, that you would think he would more heavily lean on the fact that there's original sin. Oh, you got to get baptized. You better get baptized in my church tomorrow. Because if you're not baptized by authority, you are going to hell. Instead, throughout Joseph Smith's ministry, what you see is a lessening of the exclusion of baptism. Not only, yeah, baptism is essential, but not for children. Baptism is essential, but if you don't get it in this life, people can do your work for you. Baptism is essential, but if people would have accepted the gospel anyway, they're still going to be saved in the celestial kingdom.
Gerrit It's an interesting dichotomy, honestly, to say that works are essential, except when they're not, which is apparently most of the time. And for the millions of children who have died and will die before they reach the age of eight, there literally isn't any ordinance that's essential for them. So it's one of the beautiful aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Look, there's all kinds of things that we don't have answers to, but there are a lot of really awesome things that we have answers to. And so my hope is if you're listening and you're really struggling with some aspects of church doctrine or history that you don't understand, first of all, you aren't alone. I don't understand everything. And it's worse for me because it's my job to understand, right? For you, you can just say, well, you know, I don't know. I'm literally studying it all the time, and I'm like, I've got nothing.
Gerrit I don't know. I don't have any idea.
Richard It's like an account. I don't know anything about numbers.
Gerrit Exactly. Right. Yeah. And so my hope is that when you're struggling, because of these questions you can't answer, you won't forget the fact that God actually has provided some answers to questions that the rest of the Christian world is still wrestling with. I mean, it's a beautiful thing that the Catholic Catechism portrays that hope that those children who die with an improper baptism or who don't have baptism, that they will still be saved. But it is just a hope. Joseph Smith declares in The Voice of the Lord, it's not a hope. Those children who die, not only are they saved, those parents who lost those children will have the opportunity to raise them in the millennium. It is a beautiful doctrine, one that I'm not willing to give up and one that I hope you're not willing to give up.
Gerrit Maybe you won't have an answer to everything, but there are answers to some things that many other Christians don't have answers for. And hopefully those beautiful answers can help us get people to just get past the rough patches where we don't have them. Hopefully you enjoyed this, looking back at this. I'm sure that this was probably just as entertaining as townships. But there really are important reasons to study the original revelations in their earliest form, because otherwise we wouldn't know the context of this revelation. Now we know. In the early church, people were asking questions about baptism and infant baptism because we have that new dating. Thank you so much for joining us, and we look forward to seeing you again virtually next week.
Intro Thank you for listening to the Standard of Truth podcast, hosted by historian Dr. Gerrit Dirkmaat. If you know anybody that could benefit from the material in this episode, please share it with them. And for more resources, visit standardoftruth.com. Until next time.

Quote board

Make a share card from any line

So, I mean, you thought you had a bad day at the office. Yeah. I was saved yesterday, and now I'm not.

RichardBanter

I went on a mission because God commanded me to go on a mission and because I love God.

GerritInsight

Maybe it was like, try the veal.

GerritBanter

You got Pahoran, you got catechumen.

RichardBanter

So, welcome to hell, Population Alvin.

GerritBanter

If I had a nickel for the number of times I've messed up trying to bless the sacrament, I'd be a wealthy man, and this podcast would be monetized, just through my poor prayers on the sacrament.

GerritBanter

And even in that particular setting, it's, hey, we believe that in a loving and merciful Father in Heaven, we're doing our best, and away we go.

RichardInsight

And I think that Latter-day Saints, because look, we have a very organized church, we have a liturgy that's organized, that's spelled out, this is how things should be done, that we sometimes confuse the way God has outlined things should be done with God not having the ability to do whatever God wants to do.

GerritInsight

It's an interesting dichotomy, honestly, to say that works are essential, except when they're not, which is apparently most of the time.

GerritInsight

It is a beautiful doctrine, one that I'm not willing to give up and one that I hope you're not willing to give up.

GerritInsight

More from this episode

Claim checkThings people say, and what the episode shows.

Claim check

What critics say, and what the episode found
Latter-day Saints think they can work their way to heaven.
D&C 74 came while Joseph was translating the New Testament in Ohio in 1832.
If a baptism has an unnoticed mistake, the person isn't really baptized.
Take it to classReady to use in a lesson or a talk.

Take it to class

Ready to copy into a lesson or a text

For Protestants, baptism is a sacred sign of faith; for Latter-day Saints, it's an essential ordinance done by proper authority. That difference explains much of early church history.

D&C 22 came only ten days after the church was organized: even sincere earlier baptisms needed to be redone by authority.

We do ordinances carefully and correct mistakes we catch, but God is not bound by our human errors.

Other churches can only hope for unbaptized children; the Restoration declares that little children who die are saved through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Banter binThe funniest moments in this episode.

Banter bin

The running jokes, for people who skip ahead
TownshipsNo one's listening, so maybe Gerrit should talk about townships in rural Vermont to bring them back; the episode was probably as entertaining as townships (16:23, 1:15:15).
Pick a country where people listenNot Switzerland; they wouldn't have listened either way, so Brazil (8:03).
Try the vealMaybe the priest said it under his breath: "and your baby is burning" (19:47).
Book of Mormon namesCatechumen sounds like a Book of Mormon villain: Pahoran, catechumen, kishumen (22:37).
Wisconsin missionsIn an Ensign version the woman becomes a stake leader, which Gerrit allows since Richard wasn't in Wisconsin, where a missionary ends with negative two baptisms because the font froze over (21:24, 50:45).
Population AlvinWelcome to hell, population Alvin; later the girl with the wrong word can party with Alvin (33:23, 48:10).
A podcast that loses moneyNickels for flubbed sacrament prayers would finally monetize the podcast (47:31).
Write your own vows"Actually, Bishop, we wrote our own vows" (52:00).
I don't know anything about numbersGerrit admits he doesn't understand everything, and Richard compares himself to an accountant who doesn't know numbers (1:14:09).
The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown MailbagSend Gerrit and Richard your question.

The Phebe Draper Palmer Brown Mailbag

Your question could be next week’s episode
Questions from Litners drive a lot of episodes. Send yours. If it makes the show, Richard reads it on air.
General ConferenceGeneral Conference talks that cite a scripture read in this episode.

In General Conference

Talks from the latest General Conference that cite a scripture this episode reads or names on air
October 2026 General Conference · cites D&C 20Divine AppointmentsPresident Timothy L. FarnesPresident Farnes recalls a discouraging day as a young priesthood leader when then-Elder Dallin H.October 2026 General Conference · cites D&C 20Spiritual ImmunityElder Christian C. ChigbunduElder Chigbundu, recalling the talk of "immunity" during the COVID-19 pandemic, describes building spiritual immunity through four small and simple things: scripture study, prayer, the sacrament, and keeping covenants, including temple worship.October 2026 General Conference · cites D&C 20Courage Born of Our Faith in Jesus ChristElder Neil L. AndersenElder Andersen welcomes President Rosemary Chibota, who joined the Church at 17 after reading a pamphlet about Joseph Smith, and teaches that spiritual courage, born of faith in Jesus Christ, has always been required of disciples, from Moroni to today.

Summaries, themes and lessons for every talk are on What Did They Say?

Go deeperWhere to read more.

Go deeper

Deep dives the episode points toward
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257-1261 on the necessity of baptism (18:25).
Look at the earliest manuscript of D&C 74 in the Joseph Smith Papers and compare its heading to the 1981 edition (1:00:20).
Read D&C 22 and the early account that the people asking were Baptists (41:44).
Read Moroni 8 alongside D&C 74 on little children (1:07:56).
Study how the History of the Church was compiled from Joseph's papers by scribes in the first person (58:17).
SOT Litner · S2E8.