Andreas Wagner's Comparison of Bodily Forms of God and Man

The following useful table comes from:

Andreas Wagner, God's Body: The Anthropomorphic God in the Old Testament (trans. Marion Salzmann; London: T&T Clark, 2019), 20-22

Matching of exemplary biblical references for the comparison of bodily forms of God and man, respectively

Body part	Bodily form – external verbal ‘image’ of God	Bodily form – external verbal ‘image’ of man
ro’š head	Isa. 59.17 He [Yhwh] put on righteousness as his breastplate and set the helmet of salvation on his head and put on the garments of revenge and attired himself with zeal as with a cloak.	Num 6.5 As long as his vow lasts no razor shall be used on his head. He is holy until the time he has vowed himself to Yhwh has passed and he ust allow the hair on his head to grow long.
	Ps. 60.9 [God has spoken in his sanctuary: . . . ] Gilead is mine, Manasseh is mine, Ephraim is the safeguard on my head, Judah is my sceptre (par. Ps. 108.9).	Zech. 6.11 Take silver and gold from them and make crowns and crown the head of Joshua, the high priest, the son of Jehozadak,
	Dan. 7.9 I saw thrones were set in place, and one who was ancient sat down. His clothing was white as snow and the hair on his head pure as wool . . .
pānîm face, countenance	Gen. 33.10 Jacob answered: NO, please! If I have found favour in your eyes, accept the gift from my hands; for I saw your face as if I saw God’s countenance, and you were gracious to me.	Gen. 43.31 And after he [Joseph] had cried, had washed his face, he went out and controlled himself and said: Serve the food!
	Job 2.7 So Satan went out from the countenance of the Lord and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the top of his head.	2 Sam. 19.5 But the King covered his face and cried aloud: O my son Absalom! Absalom, my son, my son!
‘ayin eye	Amos 9.3 And though they hide themselves on the Mount of Carmel, I will search for them and bring them down; and though they conceal themselves before my eyes at the bottom of the sea I will command the serpent to bite them there.	Deut 19.21 Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
	Gen. 6.8 But Noah found favour in the eyes of Yhwh.	Ps. 6.8 My eyes grow weak and sorrow and fail because I have so many foes.
‘ozean ear	2 Kgs 19.16 [Hezekiah says] Yhwh, give ear and hear, open your eyes, and see and hear the words Sennacherib has sent to insult the living God.	Exod. 32.2 Aaron spoke to them: Take off the golden ear-rings on the ears of your wives, your sons and your daughters, and bring them to me.
	2. Chron. 7.15 [the speaker is Yhwh] Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer offered in this place.	Ezek. 23.25 I will direct my jealousy against you [Oholiha], and they will deal furiously with you. They will cut off your nose and your ears, and what is left shall fall by the sword. They shall take your sons and your daughters, and what remains of you shall be consumed by fire.
‘ap nose	2 Sam. 22.9 Smoke rose from his nostrils/nose and consuming fire from his mouth, flames came from him.	Gen. 2.7 And Yhwh God formed man out of earth from the field and blew the breath of life into his nostrils/nose. And man became a living soul.
	Isa. 65.5 [Yhwh talks about the disobedient] They are smoke in my nostrils/nose, a fire that burns the whole day.	Prov. 30.33 For when one churns milk it produces butter, and when one blows his nose hard, he forces out blood, and when one stirs up anger he produces strife.
paeh mouth	Lev. 23.12 And took him [a blaspheming Israelite] prisoner, until they received a clear answer from the mouth of Yhwh.	Judg. 7.6 The number of men who lapped was three hundred. All the rest of the people drank kneeling, from the hand to the mouth.
	Ps. 33.6 The heavens were made by the word of Yhwh and his host by the breath of his mouth.	Song. 1.2 He kissed me with the kisses of his mouth; for your love is more delightful than wine.
naepaeš throat, neck	Jer. 6.8 Mend your ways, Jerusalem, before I turn my naepaeš (neck?) from you and make you a desolate country, in which no-one lives!	Ps. 69.2 God, help me! For the water has come up to my neck.
	Ezek. 23.18 When she carried out her prostitution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned my naepaeš (neck?) . . .	Prov. 25.25 Good news from a distant land is like cool water for a parched throat.
zerôac arm	Exod. 15.16 Terror and dread fell upon them; they froze like stones in the face of your powerful arm, until your people, Yhwh, passed by, until the people passed by who you purchased.	Ps. 18.35 He teaches my hands to fight and my arm to bend the bronze bow.
	Ps. 89.11 You beat Rahab to death and scattered your enemies with your strong arm.	Song 8.6 Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal over your arm . . .
yāmîn right hand	Isa. 62.8 Yhwh has sworn by his right hand and by his mighty arm . . .	Gen. 48.13 Then Joseph took them both, Ephraim on his right hand towards Israel’s left hand and Manasseh by his left hand towards Israel’s right hand, and brought them to him.
	Ps 48.11 Like your name, O God, your glory reaches to the ends of the earth. Your right hand is filled with righteousness.	Judg. 16.29 And he [Samson] encompassed the two central pillars on which the house stood, one with his right and the other with his left hand, and braced himself against them.
yād hand	Jer. 18.6 Can I not treat you, you from the house of Israel, as this potter does? Yhweh declares, Look, like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in by hand, O house of Israel.	Prov. 26.15 The sluggard buries his hand in the dish, and he is too lazy to bring it to his mouth.
	Ps. 75.9 For Yhwh has a cup in his hand, filled to the brim with spiced wine.	Song 5.4 My friend thirst his hand through the latch hole, and my heart began to pound for him.
raegael foot (leg)	2. Sam. 22.10 He [Yhwh] bowed the heavens and came down, and darkens was under his feet.	Gen. 18.4 Let a little water be brought to wash your feet, and take a seat under this tree.
	Isa. 66.1 This is what Yhwh says: Heaven is my throne and the earth is the footstool under my feet! . . .	Jos. 5.15 And the commander of Yhwh’s army said to Joshua: Take your shoes off your feet; for the place where you are standing is holy. And Joshua did so.

Andreas Wagner: Exodus 20:3//Deuteronomy 5:7 does not deny the existence of other (true) Gods

Commenting on Exo 20:3//Deut 5:7, Andreas Wagner wrote:

In the Decalogue, for example, it says: Exod. 20.3/Deut. 5.7 You shall have no other gods before me. This phrase intends that God alone should be revered. It does not deny the existence of other gods and is thus not monotheistic. (Andreas Wagner, God's Body: The Anthropomorphic God in the Old Testament [trans. Marion Salzmann; London: T&T Clark, 2019], 143)

 For more on the Bible and the "number of God," see:

Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"

Tad R. Callister's A Case for the Book of Mormon Available for Preorder

Tad R. Callister's new book, A Case for the Book of Mormon, is now available for preorder on Amazon. I know that he consulted with leading LDS scholars, including a few friends of mine, in researching and writing this book, so it should be a good one.

A friend shared with me the following from the "works cited" section. One will notice that my article, Responding to a Critique of Tad Callister's October 2017 General Conference Talk on the Book of Mormon appears therein; seemingly, he appreciated my defence of his talk:

Michael Rhodes' Translation of Figures 8-11 of the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus

In his paper, The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus: Twenty Years Later, Michael Rhodes discusses facsimile 2 in great detail. With respect to figures 8-11, here is the Egyptian hieroglyphics:

Here is Rhodes' transliteration of the Egyptian:

Finally, here is Rhodes' translation:

O God of the Sleeping Ones from the time of the creation. O Mighty God, Lord of heaven and earth, of the hereafter, and of his great waters, may the soul of the Osiris Shishaq be granted life.

The "no Mormon before has argued like that" "Response"

I will admit that my arguments in favour of Latter-day Saint theology and/or in defence thereof are not the “typical” approaches and answers one finds among many other Latter-day Saints, such as how I jettison the use of biblical proof-texts to support the LDS understanding of pre-existence and instead argue from Christology. The whole “well, I never came across a Mormon who argued that before” approach, while common, it nothing less than a disingenuous intellectual dodge—instead of dealing with the issues just try to avoid them by hand-waving (this is something James White and Jeff Durbin engaged in while attempting to respond to my popular article Refuting Jeff Durbin on “Mormonism”)

Further, it is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” approach to things. If a Latter-day Saint argues using a purportedly novel approach to an issue and tries to add to the intellectual debate, well, that is to be dismissed as it is “new” and not the “typical Mormon” approach; if they utilise a formulation of the “standard” response to a topic, that is to be dismissed as it is “a typical Mormon response to ‘x’.” Again, it is disingenuous and a dodge by critics who argue thusly.

It is not just limited to critiques of Latter-day Saint apologists; I have seen James White pull this stunt against Robert Sungenis on many occasions (e.g., on how Sungenis approaches the Marian Dogmas and the manner in which he appeals to the intercessory work of Christ to defend the Mass to support it being a propitiatory sacrifice).

Robert Christian Kahlert vs. the Spaulding-Rigdon Theory of Book of Mormon Origins

Robert Christian Kahlert, while critical of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, wrote the following against the Spaulding-Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon origins:

Rigdon’s Conversion

One of the main arguments behind the Spaulding-Rigdon Thesis lies in the assumption that the Book of Mormon was too good a fit for Rigdon to be authored independently of him. Supports of the Spaulding-Rigdon Thesis place a special emphasis on the observation that the Book of Mormon presents a “Campbellite” style of theology and, on numerous theological issues, sides with Rigdon against Campbell.

But that argument inverts the logic of conversion. It is like saying, that Goldilocks must have helped to make the porridge, since she thought it tasted “just right”. The potential compatibility of a theological message is the precondition for its acceptance. Indeed, if the Book of Mormon was incompatible with Rigdon’s thinking, why would have accepted it as a revelation? Assume for sake of argument that the Book of Mormon had rejected the restoration of the apostolic charismata, and thus sided with Campbell against Rigdon and his congregations, Rigdon would have disavowed the book outright, and his students—e.g. Parley P. Pratt—and congregation members would have refused it as well. Far from the compatibility being a smoking gun indicating nefarious activities, it was the necessary precondition for the success of the corporate raid. (Robert Christian Kahlert, Salvation and Solvency: The Socio-Economic Policies of Early Mormonism [Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 133; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016], 166)

Robert Christian Kahlert on the use of "Mormon"

On the name of the Church and how “Mormon” was initially a derogatory term, one non-LDS scholar wrote the following in 2016, two years before the Church's attempt to move away from the use of "Mormon" as a nickname:

It is important to understand that "Mormons" is an external label, derived from one of the key documents, the Book of Mormon (in the following abbreviated as "BoM"), published in March 1830, which was in the past often meant and taken as derogatory, as was its variant "Mormonites". When the church was organized in April 1830, its members called themselves "Church of Christ", following a verse from the BoM (3 Nephi 27:8); cf. [Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, volume 1, p. 92 Fn 82]. Unfortunately other movements, such as the Campbellites, also laid claim to that semantic space; the self-description of practicing members as simply the "Saints" has the same problem. To avoid confusion, the name was extended to "Church of the Latter Day Saints" in 1834 and to "Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints" (LDS for short) in 1838; cf. [H Michael Marquardt and Wesley Walters, Inventing Mormonism, p. 156]. In the present age, members seem to have come to terms with this label, if the name of the world renowned Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the website mormon.org (visited April 17th, 2014) are any indication. (Robert Christian Kahlert, Salvation and Solvency: The Socio-Economic Policies of Early Mormonism [Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 133; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016], 1 n. 2)

 For more on the name of the Church and use of "Mormon" in the early 19th century onwards, see:

Stephen Smoot, A "Mormon" By Any Other Name?

See also my blog post:

The Church of the Uncertain Name

Joseph Pohle on the Coming of Elijah Before The Lord's Second Coming

Commenting on the belief that Elijah (NT: Elias) will return before the parousia, Catholic theologian Joseph Pohle wrote:

So far as it regards Elias, this belief is based on the prophecy of Malachias: “Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers: lest I come and strike the earth with anathema.” “Elias the prophet” cannot be identical with John the Baptist, as some have thought, because the Septuagint expressly calls him “the Thesbite.” Moreover, our Lord Himself clearly distinguishes between the two, and ascribes to Elias precisely the role that was attributed to him by His contemporaries. Matt. 17:11 sq.: “But he answering, said to them: Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things; but I say to you that Elias is already come . . . Then the disciples understood that he had spoken to them of John the Baptist.” St. Augustine explains this text as follows: “As there are two advents of the Judge, so there are two precursors . . . He sent before Him the first precursor and called him Elias, because Elias was to take the same part in the second coming that John had in the first.”

From what we have said it further appears that the phrase “dies Domini” does not mean the first coming of Christ as the Messias, but His second coming as the Universal Judge. The day of His Incarnation was a day of mercy and blessing; the day of the Last Judgment will be a “day of terror.” (Joseph Pohle, Eschatology or The Catholic Doctrine of the Last Things: A Dogmatic Treatise [St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1920; repr., Veritatis Splendor Publications, 2014], 103-4)

Does Acts 19:3-6 teach "rebaptism"?

And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. (Acts 19:3-6)

In a note to his general review of New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodologies, John Tvedtnes wrote:

I have already read Acts 19:3-6 differently from most Latter-day Saints, believing verse 5 to be part of Paul’s words referring to those who heard the message of John the Baptist. If John’s baptism was of no value, it is difficult to understand why Jesus would have submitted to the ordinance. Because the baptism that John said Jesus would bring was the baptism of the Spirit (Matthew 3:11), it is logical to see Acts 19:6 as Paul’s response to the men who had “not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost” (Acts 19:2). But to baptize them again after they had received John’s baptism makes no sense to me. I may be wrong in this assessment, and the Greek text may contain nuances that my minimal exposure to that language cannot detect. (p. 46 n. 58)

I happen to agree completely with Tvedtnes on this issue, and there is much to support this interpretation. For instance, in biblical Greek there are no quotation marks, so the Greek, so whether Paul’s words end at verse 4 or 5. Furthermore, the salvific efficacy of water baptism and being baptised “into” or “unto” repentance and remission of sins indicates that water baptism, even that of John the Baptist, was not a mere symbol, and what made “Christian” baptism superior was that it was coupled with the gift of confirmation of the Holy Ghost after baptism (on baptism into/unto remission of sins, see the comments on Acts 2:38 at Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation)

Modern revelation further supports this reading and militates against the popular but errant reading:

Thou art blessed, for thou shalt do great things. Behold thou wast sent forth, even as John, to prepare the way before me, and before Elijah which should come, and thou knewest it not. Thou didst baptize by water unto repentance, but they received not the Holy Ghost; But now I give unto thee a commandment, that thou shalt baptize by water, and they shall receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, even as the apostles of old. (D&C 35:4-6)

Some might appeal to Joseph Smith once stating that baptism without being coupled without confirmation is worthless, but that is a case of reading too much into a single quotation. When Joseph Smith’s entire theology and comments on baptism are taken into consideration, he never denied baptismal regeneration; instead, he often stated that water baptism affected remission of sins, including the baptism performed by John the Baptist! Consider the following quotations, taken from Joseph Smith’s Commentary on the Bible (comp. Kent P. Jackson; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994):

Affirmation of Baptismal Regeneration

The Baptism of John the Baptist:

It was the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins for the receiving of the Holy Ghost, and it was the gospel baptism. (Discourse of 17 June 1843, recorded by Wilford Woodruff; WJS, 155) (p. 116)

John preached the gospel and must have preached the first principles. If so he must have preached the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins, for that is the first principle of the gospel and was ordained before the foundation of the world. (Discourse of 22 January 1843, recorded by William Clayton; WJS, 159) (p. 116)

John came preaching the gospel for the remission of sins. He had his authority from God, and the oracles of God were with him. The kingdom of [God] for a season seemed to be with John alone . . . He preached the same gospel and baptism that Jesus and the apostles preached after him. (Discourse of 22 January 1843, recorded by Wilford Woodruff; WJS, 156-58) (p. 116)

On John 3:3-5

Baptism is a sign ordained of God for the believer in Christ to take upon himself in order to enter into the kingdom of God. For “except you are born of the water and the Spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of God,” saith the Savior, as it is a sign of command which God hath set for man to enter into his kingdom. Those who seek to enter in any other way will seek in vain, for God will not receive them, neither will the angels acknowledge their works as accepted. For they have not taken upon themselves those ordinances and signs which God ordained for man to receive in order to receive a celestial glory. And God has decreed that all who will not obey his voice shall not escape the damnation of hell. What is the damnation of hell? To go with that society who have not obeyed his commands.

Baptism is a sign to God, to angels, and to heaven, that we do the will of God, and there is no other way beneath the heavens whereby God hath ordained for man to come. Any other course is in vain. God hath decreed and ordained that man should repent of all his sins and be baptized for the remission of his sins. Then he can come to God in the name of Jesus Christ, in faith. Then we have the promise of the Holy Ghost . . . It mattereth not whether we live long or short after we come to a knowledge of these principles and obey them. I know that all men will be damned if they do not come in the way which God has appointed. (Discourse of 20 March 1842, recorded by Wilford Woodruff; WJS, 107-9) (pp. 129-30; cf. D&C 55:1)

This strong and positive answer of Jesus, as to water baptism, settles the question. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, it is no wonder he is so positive in the great declaration: “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believes not shall be damned” [Mark 16:16]. There was no other name given under heaven, nor any other ordinance admitted, whereby men could be saved. No wonder the apostle said, “being buried with him in baptism,” ye shall rise from the dead [Rom. 6:4]. (Times and Seasons, 1 September 1842, 905) (p. 130)

On Acts 2:38-39

By this we learn that the promise of the Holy Ghost is unto as many as the doctrine of repentance was to be preached, which was unto all nations. And we discover also that the promise was to extend by lineage, for Peter says, “not only unto you, but unto your children and unto all that are afar off.” From this we infer that it was to continue unto their children’s children, and even unto as many generations as should come after, even as many as the Lord their God should call . . .

We learn from Peter that remission of sins is obtained by baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Ghost follows inevitably. For, as Peter says, “you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Therefore, we believe in preaching the doctrine of repentance in all the world, both to old and young rich and poor, bond and free . . . In order to be benefitted by the doctrine of repentance, we must believe in obtaining the remission of sins. And in order to obtain the remission of sins, we must believe in the doctrine of baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And if we believe in baptism for the remission of sins, we may expect a fulfillment of the promise of the Holy Ghost, for the promise extends to all whom the Lord our God shall call. (Messenger and Advocate, September 1835, 181) (pp. 144-45)

Here you see the doctrine of repentance, baptism for the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, connected by the promise inseparably. Now I want you to consider the high standing of Peter. He was now being endowed with power from on high and held the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . This was the character that made the glorious promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost, predicated upon the baptism for the remission of sins. And he did not say that it was confined to that generation, but see further: “or the promise is unto you, and your children, and to all who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Then, if the callings of God extend unto us, we come within the purview of Peter’s promise. (Letter to Isaac Galland, from Liberty Jail, Missouri, 22 March 1839; Times and Seasons, February 1840, 55) (p. 145)

On 1 Pet 1:23

Being born again comes by the Spirit of God through ordinances. (Discourse of summer of 1839, recorded in Willard Richards’s “Pocket Companion”; WJS, 12) (p. 200)

On Acts 10:44-48 and the Holy Ghost

There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the gospel. But he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. And had he not taken this sign [or] ordinances upon him, the Holy Ghost, which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him until he obeyed those ordinances and received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, according to the order of God. (Discourse of 20 March 1842, recorded by Wilford Woodruff; WJS, 108) (p. 150)

 The "rebaptism" reading of Acts 19:3-6 seems rather untenable in light of (1) the ambiguity of the Greek text; (2) the salvific efficacy of water baptism in [a] New Testament and [b] Latter-day Saint theology and (3) the teachings of modern revelation and the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Mike Ash on Early LDS Medical Views on the Word of Wisdom and Tobacco

In their book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? the Tanners quote the following from the Wayne Sentinel (a newspaper printed in the neighbourhood where Joseph Smith grew up) showing that there were some people who (correctly) taught the dangers of tobacco before the February 1833 revelation to Joseph Smith known as the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89):

It is really surprising that a single individual could be found, who, after experiencing the distressing sensations almost invariably produced by the first use of tobacco, would be willing to risk their recurrence a second time: . . . tobacco is, in fact, an absolute poison . . .

We have ourselves known individuals, in whom very severe and dangerous affections of the stomach—tremors of the limbs, and great emaciation, were referable to excessive smoking and chewing, and which were removed only after these habits were entirely relinquished.” (Wayne and Sentinel, November 6, 1829 as cited by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5^th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987, 2008], 413)

While the Tanners do overstate their case on the Word of Wisdom (and practically everything else they discuss in their writings), such should caution some errant Latter-day Saints who claim that no one before Joseph Smith warned about the dangers of tobacco.

With respect to the Tanners on the Word of Wisdom, Mike Ash has an excellent article refuting the Tanners on this issue (chapter 26, “The Word of Wisdom,” pp. 405-13 of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?), Up In Smoke: A Response to the Tanners’ Criticism of the Word of Wisdom

The following addresses early LDS medical views of the Word of Wisdom in general and tobacco specifically:

EARLY LDS MEDICAL VIEWS AND THE WORD OF WISDOM

It general it appears that, to the early Saints, Word of Wisdom observance was recommended with the perception that observance meant moderation103 guided by prevailing medical beliefs.104 The Latter-day Saints of the 1830’s, like the Latter-day Saints in every decade since, have attempted to interpret the Word of Wisdom according to insights of conventional medical knowledge. In Joseph’s day there were a variety of differing medical systems, each with its own popularity and none with the allegiance of the majority. Herbal medicine was very popular among the Saints, whereas homeopathic medicine (which amounted to little more than dispensing sugar pills and colored water) was just gaining a foothold.105 The Saints, like their contemporaries, practiced many of these systems to various degrees. The Word of Wisdom was not received in a cultural or medical vacuum.106

Earlier it was noted that according to the opinions of the reform movement and the nineteenth-century medical community, many items or spices that are not mentioned in the Word of Wisdom were also considered to be harmful. Reading through the statements of early Latter-day Saints we see that some members interpreted the revelation to include these more radical items, although they were never made an official part of the Word of Wisdom. Some of the more radical interpretations continued well into the twentieth century. David O. McKay, for instance, in 1926 advised the youth to “refrain from the use of tobacco” as well as “too much meat and from the use of strong spices, cocoa, tea and coffee.”107

Among the items which Grahamism recommended avoiding were white bread and flour, and refined sugar. Many early Saints (and no doubt some now) saw this as good advice in context of the Word of Wisdom’s recommended use of grain. It is therefore interesting to read that Rulon S. Howell, the Brazilian Mission president between 1949 and 1953, encouraged the members in Brazil to use unrefined sugar and avoid white flour. Missionaries who were sent to teach the Brazilian women in Relief Society also discouraged the use of white flour and refined sugar.108

David A. Smith, speaking in the April 1930 Conference encouraged members to substitute white flour for wheat.109 He also believed–and as previously noted this was one of the beliefs of early physicians–that pepper, spices, and mustard should be avoided.110

In subsequent years, however, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ began to teach that while it was possible there were health benefits to avoiding such items, consuming them was not in violation of the Word of Wisdom. Mark E. Peterson, for example, said in April 1953 Conference:

I do not believe we should try to establish our personal fads as Church doctrine. I do not believe my eternal salvation will be affected in any way if I eat white bread or white sugar. I do not believe the doctrines of the Church are in any way involved in whether my whole wheat is stone ground or steel-cut.111

Likewise, Joseph Fielding Smith, in his Answers to Gospel Questions, wrote that the “Lord has not condemned the use of white flour, nor white granulated sugar.”112 The fact that he would note this suggests that some Saints still believed that these items were in violation of the Word of Wisdom.

Thus we see that the Saints, in all ages, have been influenced in the interpretation of the Word of Wisdom by the findings of the medical community. Medical sentiments of the 1830’s suggested that each of the four proscribed Word of Wisdom stimulants (alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea) offered some redeeming therapeutic value. That is not to say that the belief in medicinal value was the only reason the Saints consumed these stimulants. Sometimes they were consumed for the relief of stress, mental anguish, or simply to liven the spirits. For many of the early Saints these circumstances presented justifiable grounds for non-observance or fell within the tolerances of moderation.113

. . .

TOBACCO

The early LDS approach to tobacco was similar to that of their attitude to alcohol: it was avoided, but it was also believed–based on contemporary medical advice–to offer medicinal aid for things such as toothaches (as used by Brigham Young123), and relief of fatigue, stress, and headaches. James Talmage was counseled by the First Presidency “‘to try the effect of moderate smoking'” for his nervous disorder. Talmage wrote in his journal that “‘a good cigar produced a marvelous quieting of my over-wrought nerves.'”124 While Joseph Smith apparently had no objection to the use of tobacco for medicinal purposes,125 he apparently almost never used it himself. The one most notable exception was when he tried the faith of the Saints by riding through Nauvoo smoking a cigar just after having preached a discourse on the Word of Wisdom.126 Brigham Young counseled moderation in the use of tobacco and in a sermon in 1860 chastised the brethren for their tobacco chewing because it was uncouth, filthy, and offensive, not because it violated the Word of Wisdom.127

Notes for the Above:

103 Peterson, “An Historical Analysis,” 27.

104 Bush , “The Word of Wisdom in Nineteenth-Century Perspective,” 57.

105 Ibid., 48.

106 Thomas G. Alexander, “The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement,” Dialogue 14:3 (Fall 1981): 87.

107 David O. McKay, Conference Report (October 1926), 114.

108 Mark L. Grover, “Relief Society and Church Welfare: The Brazilian Experience,” Dialogue 27:4 (Winter 1994): 35.

109 Elder David A. Smith, Conference Report (April 1930), 86.

110 Ibid., 85.

111 Mark E. Petersen, Conference Report (April 1953), 84

112 Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1957), 201.

113 Peterson, “An Historical Analysis,” 24.

. . .

123 Bush , The Word of Wisdom in Nineteenth-Century Perspective, 56-57.

124 Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker. A Book of Mormons. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1982), 344-345.

125 Peterson, “An Historical Analysis,” 38-39.

126 Diary Excerpts of Abraham Cannon, Vol. 19, October 1, 1895, in New Mormon Studies CD-ROM: A Comprehensive Resource Library (Smith Research Associates, 1998).

127 Brigham Young, “Confession of Faults,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 10 March 1860, Vol. 8 (London: Latter-Day Saint’s Book Depot, 1861), 361.

Craig Foster, Assessing the Criticisms of Early-Age Latter-Day Saint Marriages

The following is an excellent article is by my friend, Craig Foster:

Assessing the Criticisms of Early-Age Latter-Day Saint Marriages (PDF)

One will note that this article contains these things called *notes* and *references* unlike a craptacular series of articles in a certain online publication where the editor accuses those who simply ask for references and the sources being used as being "rape apologists."

James L. Barker on Infant Baptism and Baptism by Sprinkling and Pouring

I have written many posts defending the salvific efficacy of water baptism (baptismal regeneration) in both the Bible and early Christian literature, including the following:

Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7

 James Barker, in his 1946 book, The Protestors of Christendom, wrote the following addressing various arguments to defend (1) infant baptism (via the “household baptisms” defence) and (2) the purported biblical basis for the validity of other means of baptism than just immersion:

The jailer and his “house” were baptized (Acts XVI:23-24), but there is no reason for believing that there was any infants in the “house” or that any infants were baptized: Paul and Silas did not preach to infants, and they had first spoken unto him (the jailer) the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his “house,” neither did they baptize infants. In the few cases where a whole family was baptized, there is no reason to believe that the family included infants. If the baptism of the “house” of the jailer is sometimes alleged in support of infant baptism of the “house” of the jailer is sometimes alleged in support or infant baptism, it is only because the defenders of infant baptism cannot cite an example of infant baptism in the New Testament.

“Unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” ([John] III:3.) Neither may it be inferred from this statement of the Savior that infants should be baptized. As here quoted from the King James’ version of the Bible, “man” is used to render the Greek indefinite person tis. Though tis may usually be rendered on the German indefinite pronoun man or by the French indefinite pronoun on, there is in English no corresponding indefinite pronoun and no single word or phrase that may be used in all cases to translate the meaning of tis. Tis may mean a, an, a certain one; somebody; any one; all of a class (of which one is speaking), etc. If John desired to quote the Savior as meaning everyone of the (adult) class to which [Nicodemus] belonged, then he very properly used it tis. If he desired to quote the Savior as meaning all persons whatsoever, then he chose a word that did not have that meaning. Moreover he could have chosen the Greek word pas, sometimes combined with tis, pas tis, which would have said what some defenders of infant baptism would like us to believe he intended to say. As evidence for infant baptism, this statement of the Savior to [Nicodemus] has no bearing whatever.

In the New Testament times immersion is the only form of baptism known to have been used. It is sometimes argued that Paul baptized the jailer by sprinkling or pouring, but the text says nothing about sprinkling or pouring and nothing in regard to the manner of his baptism may be inferred from the text. The jailor was not baptized in the jail: before the baptism, the jailer “had brought out” Paul and Silas from the jail; and after the baptism, he “brought them into his house” (Acts 16:30, 34), consequently, Paul and Silas had been free to baptize him wherever they could find enough water.

It has been argued that the Apostles must have baptized by sprinkling or aspersion since there was not much water in Jerusalem, and yet they baptized three thousand persons on the day of Pentecost. Concerning this, E. Jacquier (Catholique) (Les Actes des Apotres, p. 85) says: “About three thousand persons were baptized; it is not said that it was on the same day or in the same place, or whether they were baptized by Peter alone (seul). It has been objected that it would have been very difficult to baptize three thousand persons, even in a certain lapse of time, considering the form, immersion, in which baptism was administered in this period of time, and the scarcity of water in Jerusalem. The public authorities would have been aroused by this demonstration. But all around Jerusalem there was a sufficient number of pools (piscines) to enable them to baptize such a large number of persons without even attracting attention” . . . In defence of pouring, attention is sometimes called to the seventh chapter of Mark’s gospel (3): “And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen (aniptois), hands, they found fault. (4). For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash (nipsontai) their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash (baptisontai), they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing (baptismous) of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables (couches—klinon).” Lightfoot “had supposed that (in verse 4) they plunged or bathed the hands” “instead of having them moistened by pouring as in the preceding verse.” Lagrange does not think the interpretation of verse 4 impossible, but says concerning verse three: “It is a question of a ritual formality . . . they touched the water with the end of the fingers.” And for Lagrange, kai klinon (and tables—couches), though added “by serious authorities” “must have been suggested by the legislation of Leviticus xv,” Evangile selon saint Marc, pp. 180-183, and he does not admit it into his text. There is nothing here on which to base an argument for baptism by sprinkling. (James L. Barker, The Protestors of Christendom [Independence, Miss.: Zion's Printing and Publishing Company, 1946], 47-48 n. 30, 49 n. 33)