Introduction
This episode addresses two doctrinal and historical questions submitted by a listener named Larry. The first concerns whether Joseph Smith had access to a Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon. The second investigates how a Presbyterian minister could have declared that Joseph’s brother Alvin was damned for not being baptized, when Protestant theology—particularly Presbyterianism—traditionally teaches that baptism is not required for salvation. These two questions open a broader discussion about early nineteenth-century American Christianity, the nature of Joseph’s translation process, and the doctrinal misunderstandings that later shaped the Latter-day Saint narrative regarding Alvin’s salvation.
Joseph Smith and Access to the Bible During Translation
Early nineteenth-century America was filled with Bibles. They were inexpensive, widely distributed, and commonly found in homes. Whether Joseph Smith personally carried a Bible during the translation period is uncertain, but access to one would not have been difficult. For historians, however, access is not the central issue.
What matters are the eyewitness accounts of the translation itself. Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer all testified that Joseph did not consult books, manuscripts, or a Bible while translating. They consistently described him dictating the text while using the Urim and Thummim or a seer stone placed in a hat, often with the plates covered or located elsewhere.
Martin Harris conducted a personal test by secretly replacing Joseph’s seer stone with another stone. When Joseph attempted to translate, he was unable to continue. Harris took this as confirmation that the translation depended entirely on divine revelation rather than prior knowledge or reference texts.
Some have suggested that Joseph may have relied on a Bible when translating Isaiah or the Sermon on the Mount. However, these sections were translated in locations where Bibles were also common, making the presence or absence of a personal copy impossible to prove. Because Bibles were so widely available, historians focus instead on the consistent documentary record, which indicates that Joseph did not consult a Bible during the translation process.
Why a Presbyterian Minister Declared Alvin Damned
The second question concerns the well-known story of a Presbyterian minister who told the Smith family that Alvin was damned because he had not been baptized. The account comes from William Smith in an interview given in 1894—more than seventy years after Alvin’s death in 1823. William recalled that Rev. Stockton strongly implied Alvin was lost because he was not a member of the church. This detail is crucial, because it reveals that the preacher’s concern was not baptism itself but church membership.
Nineteenth-century Presbyterians, as Calvinists, believed in predestination and did not teach that baptism was necessary for salvation. They thought that the “elect” would show signs of faith, such as a desire for scripture and church membership. Baptism, usually given in infancy, indicated belonging to the Christian community but did not confer salvation. Rev. Stockton implied Alvin was damned because he was an unbaptized adult, had not joined any church, and lacked signs of saving grace, unlike his family.
Joseph Smith later received Doctrine and Covenants 137, where he saw Alvin in the celestial kingdom and questioned how this was possible, given that baptism and church membership were required for exaltation. The Lord revealed that those who would have accepted the gospel had they lived longer would inherit the celestial kingdom. This vision led to temple work for the dead. Modern Latter-day Saints sometimes simplify this by suggesting Stockton condemned Alvin for not being baptized, but the accurate interpretation is that he lacked evidence of saving grace, not baptism itself.
Historical Background on Baptism in Christian Traditions
The episode also discusses how baptism functioned historically within broader Christianity. Infant baptism was practiced by Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Presbyterians. It did not automatically make the child a church member; instead, it marked incorporation into the covenant community and expressed faith on behalf of the parents. In contrast, Anabaptists of the sixteenth century rejected infant baptism altogether and insisted on adult baptism following personal profession of faith. They were persecuted severely by both Catholics and Protestants. Because Latter-day Saints require rebaptism, outside observers occasionally associate them with Anabaptists, though the theological foundations differ significantly.
The Presbyterian Church USA today affirms that baptism is performed only once and recognizes baptisms from most Christian denominations. However, it does not recognize baptisms performed by Latter-day Saints or Jehovah’s Witnesses because these groups do not adhere to the traditional Trinitarian creeds. This reflects theological boundaries rather than baptismal practice itself.
Conclusion
The discussion concludes by reaffirming that eyewitness accounts consistently show Joseph Smith did not consult a Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon. Access to a Bible would have been easy, but the evidence demonstrates that the translation came through revelation. Regarding Alvin, the condemnation issued by the Presbyterian preacher reflected Calvinist beliefs about predestination and church membership rather than any doctrine requiring baptism for salvation. Joseph’s later revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 137 clarified that salvation would be offered to all of God’s children, laying the foundation for the monumental doctrine of vicarious work for the dead and expanding the scope of God’s mercy far beyond the boundaries of nineteenth-century Protestant theology.