The Myth of Pope Joan

One of the lousiest arguments against the Papacy and Roman Catholicism is that there was a “Pope Joan,” a female pope. Fortunately, this myth seems to be dead, though I did recently hear the comment in passing by a fellow Latter-day Saint (I managed to correct them on this myth of history). While I do not believe that the bible and history supports the dogmatic theology of the papacy one finds in Catholicism (esp. as defined at Vatican I), one should make sure one uses the best arguments against the best arguments, not, well, utter nonsense.

Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid has written a bit on this issue, including a whole chapter in his book, Pope Fiction. Here is an online article refuting this claim:

The Myth of Pope Joan

Refutation of James White's Arguments Against Open Theism

On the Reality is Not Optional youtube page, there is an excellent beat-down of James White's incredibly eisegetical arguments against Open Theism:

EP187 Fisher Responds to James White's Opening Statement

For more on the deficient, anti-biblical nature of White's Reformed theology, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

The contingent nature of Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy

The book of Jeremiah records the following prophecy given by the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah (the "70-year prophecy"):

Assuredly, thus said the Lord of Hosts: Because you would not listen to My words, I am going to send for all the peoples of the north -- declares the Lord -- and for My servant, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, and bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all those nations roundabout. I will exterminate them and make them a desolation, an object of hissing -- ruins for all time . . . This whole land shall be a desolate ruin. And those nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. When the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation and the land of the Chaldeans for their sins -- declares the Lord -- and I will make it a desolation for all time. (Jer 25:8-9, 11-12, 1985 JPS Tanakh)

For thus said the Lord: When Babylon's seventy years are over, I will take note of you, and I will fulfill to you My promise of favor -- to bring you back to this place. For I am mindful of the plans I have made concerning you -- declares the Lord -- plans for your welfare, not for disaster, to give you a hopeful future. When you call Me, and come and pray to Me, I will give heed to you. You will search for Me and find Me, if only you seek Me wholeheartedly. I will be at hand for you -- declares the Lord -- and I will restore your fortunes. And I will gather you from all the nations and from all the places to which I have banished you -- declares the Lord -- and I will bring you back to the place from which I have exiled you. (Jer 29:10-14, 1985 JPS Tanakh)

As Christopher M. Hays notes:

So, Jeremiah prophesied that Babylon would conquer Judaea and rule the Israelites and their land for seventy years, after which God promised to restore them. But did things turn out as planned? Not exactly. The Old Testament is littered with texts trying to account for the way in which subsequent history did not line up with Jeremiah’s timeline. Initially, the biblical authors needed to explain why the exile began to wind down too early; then, they had to reverse their tactics and explain why restoration from exile was taking too long; and finally some of them just threw up their hands and denied that the prophesied restoration was ever even inaugurated (however abortively or impartially). In short, the Hebrew Bible seems a veritable cacophony of voices trying to explain why things did not turn out as Jeremiah had prophesied. (Christopher M. Hays, “Prophecy: A History of Failure?” in Christopher M. Hays, ed. When the Son of Man Didn’t Come: A Constructive Proposal on the Delay of the Parousia [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016], 23-58, here, p. 26, italics in original)

While Hays’ entire essay should be read, as one example of the reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s original prophecy by Ezra-Nehemiah, he writes:

[The editor of Ezra-Nehemiah has to] explain why the restoration from exile had been so sluggish! Even seventy years after the invasion of Judea, things still hadn’t come together as Jeremiah had prophesied. Jeremiah 29:10-14 (cf. 25:11-12) promised that after the seventy years God would return the Israelites from exile and restore their fortunes. But it is not as if all the Israelites had returned to the Promised Land by the time the Temple had been rebuilt. Only a portion of the Israelite population hobbled back to Judaea under Cyrus’s decree (Ezra 2:1-65). When Ezra’s ministry began around 458 BCE, a solid 130 years into the exile, he was still only leading a modest contingent of Israelite exiles to Jerusalem (see Ezra 8:1-20), and even then, their travel required the gracious permission of King Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:11-28). A dozen years after that, Nehemiah undertook his ministry (Neh. 2:1-10), and he too lamented that the exile was far from over (Neh. 1:1-11). Thus, in about 446 BCE, some 141 years after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, Nehemiah was still in Persia; the walls of Jerusalem lay in ruins; and those who had supposedly escaped captivity remained “in great trouble and shame” (Neh. 1:3). To compound matters, Nehemiah the governor of Judah, Nehemiah’s predecessors had been exploiting and oppressing the Israelite residents. To put it mildly, the restoration of Israel after seventy years that Jeremiah promised had proven an overstatement; God’s “plans to prosper them and not to harm them” (Jer. 29:11) were not coming to pass as advertised.

So, the editor of Ezra-Nehemiah had to back-pedal. Although he wanted to read the prophecy of Jeremiah as being fulfilled in more-or-less literal, chronological terms, he was obliged to see 515 BC as the beginning of a fulfillment that remained quite incomplete even seventy additional years later. The editor of the book, summoning a pitiably quixotic optimism, seemed to hope that, with men such as Ezra and Nehemiah at the helm, Israel might steer a course toward complete restoration. (Ibid., 28-29, comment in square brackets added for clarification)

Such is further proof of the contingent nature of biblical promises and prophecies.

For more, see the section entitled “The Bible is both God-centered and Man-centered” in my essay:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Cover for "After the Order of the Son of God"

The following is the cover for my forthcoming book, After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood. I hope to announce its release real soon!

Evidence of other Book of Mormon figures apart from Moroni appearing to Joseph Smith

Commenting on the evidence for other Book of Mormon figures apart from Moroni visiting the young Prophet Joseph Smith, LDS author Trevan Hatch wrote:

[I]t is worth noting that Moroni was not the only prophet to teach and assist Joseph Smith in his work with the translation of the plates; several other Book of Mormon prophets may have assisted Joseph as well. Wilford Woodruff explained that Joseph translated the plates “according to the dictation of Moroni, Nephi, and Lehi, the angels of God who administered to him” (JOD 16:266). John Taylor also spoke of the assistance of Book of Mormon prophets in the early days of the Restoration: “when Joseph Smith was raised up as a Prophet of God, Mormon, Moroni, Nephi and others of the ancient Prophets who formerly lived on this Continent . . . came to him and communicated to him certain principles pertaining to the Gospel of the Son of God. Why? Because they held the keys of the various dispensations and conferred them upon him” (JOD 17:374). Brigham Young said that Alma was among those prophets who appeared to Joseph in the early days of the Restoration (JOD 13:47).

At least two individuals recorded that a “Nephite” visited the Prophet Joseph. One of these individuals was Helen M. Whitney: “In another letter I find an interesting item concerning the Prophet Joseph’s receiving a visit from one of the Nephites who told him he had been through England, Ireland, and that the work of the Lord would be short and powerful in those places. He also told him many things about this land (America), many of which have been fulfilled (Helen Mar Whitney, A Woman’s View: Helen Mar Whitney’s Reminiscences of Early Church History, ed. Jeni Broberg Holzapel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel [Provo: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1997], p. 173). Heber C. Kimball’s wife, Vilate, similarly explained that Joseph received “a visit from one of the Nephites” and that he became aware of things that would shortly transpire in America and in the British Isles (Women’s Exponent, 10, no. 18, February 15, 1882, 138). We do not know the identity of this Nephite, but Helen and Vilate likely could have been referring to Moroni or one of the Three Nephites. (Trevan G. Hatch, When the Lights Came On: Joseph Smith and the Return of Heavenly Manifestations [Springville, Utah: CFI, 2016], 75-6)

Anti-Mormons Admitting that LDS Christology is *NOT* "Arian"

Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen. (Alma 13:9, just one of many texts in uniquely LDS Scripture teaching the eternal existence of Jesus)

It is a common objection that Latter-day Saint Christology is “Arian.” However, such a claim is simply false. For an article addressing this, see:

Is Latter-day Saint Christology "Arian"?

Alexander Campbell in his review of the Book of Mormon, "Delusions" from the Millennial Harbinger 2, no. 2 (7 February, 1831) wrote the following:

Mormon was very orthodox, for he preached in these words, A.D. 362: - 'That Jesus was the very Christ and the very God.' He must have heard of the Arian controversy by some angel!!

In spite of being a vehement critic of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, Campbell did realise that neither preached an Arian Christology. Commenting on the above criticism from Campbell of the high Christology in the Book of Mormon, RoseAnn Benson wrote:

Campbell was correct in stating that neither the prophet Mormon nor Joseph Smith taught Arianism. Jesus Christ is subordinated to his Father, but not because of the statements of the Nicene Creed. Smith taught that “Christ came according to the words of John, & he was greater than John because he held the keys of the Melchesedic Priesthood & the kingdom of God & had before revealed the priesthood to Moses. Yet Christ was baptized by John to fulfill all righteousness.” Joseph Smith, 22 January 1843, in Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 2:216. In other words, the premortal Christ had priesthood authority and appeared to Moses and other Old Testament and Book of Mormon prophets for the purpose of dispensing that power. He is the Father of heaven and earth, and the Creator of all things from the beginning and is the God who condescended to come to earth to redeem his people. He has always been a member of the Godhead, but subordinate to his Father as his Son, to whom he obeyed, praised, and prayed. (RoseAnn Benson, Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith: 19^th-Century Restorationists [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 2017], 269 n. 28)

To be fair, even modern critics of the LDS Church and its Christology will readily admit that "Mormon" Christology is not "Arian." As one critic of the Church wrote once in response to a fellow Evangelical who falsely stated Mormonism teaches Jesus is "created":

RoseAnn Benson on Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith's Attitude Towards Creeds

In a recent volume by RoseAnn Benson where she compares and contrasts the Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith and their Restortionist movements, among other things, we find the following comparison between Alexander Campbell’s negative attitude towards creeds and those of Joseph Smith, which one found informative. On Alexander Campbell, we read:

Creedalism. This term meant the doctrinal territory staked out by sectarians, the beliefs to which members must subscribe. Both Alexander and his father were put off by the splintering of Christianity and had no desire to start yet one more denomination, recognizing the need to return to the original standard of God, “free from all mixture of human opinion and inventions of men.”

. . .

In his 1809 Declaration and Address, Thomas Campbell made the following clarification regarding his opposition to creeds and confessions:

Although we may appear to our brethren to oppose them, yet this is to be understood only in so far as they oppose the unity of the Church, by containing sentiments not expressly revealed in the word of God; or, by the way of using them, become the instruments of a human or implicit faith, or oppress the weak of God’s heritage. Here they are liable to none of those objections, we have nothing against them. It is the abuse and not the lawful use of such compilations that we oppose.

. . .

Campbell appealed to logic, reason, and the scriptures in several articles to show that creeds were simply absurd. (1) If one argues that confessions of faith or human creeds are plainer or easier to understand than the prophets of God, then “men are either wiser or more or more benevolent than God.” Instead, Campbell suggested that the “abstract and metaphysical dogmas of the best creeds not extant, are the most difficult of apprehension and comprehension.” (2) Creeds act as dividers rather than unifiers of the Christian church. If the apostolic church was united without creeds, they are not necessary or helpful to Christian unity. (3) Since creeds are composed of human speculation on the revelations of God, they necessarily include the imperfections and limitations of man’s uninspired intellect and can never be placed on the same level as scripture. Thus, to suppose that unity and unanimity of agreement could occur under creeds “is in every way as irrational as to make a uniformity of features, of color, of height and weight, a bond of union.” (4) The number of items in the creeds—for example, the 33 chapters of the Presbyterian Confession with 171 dogmas—“is not amongst the last of their absurdities.” (5) In the business of our salvation we can depend only on pure truth. Thus by depending on the scriptures rather than on creed, we protect ourselves from false ideas. If God’s word is sufficient to save humankind, then creeds are not necessary. (6) We could better spend our time reading directly from the scriptures. Since creeds are uninspired human devices unauthorized by heaven, a more efficient use of time for those who wish to come to Christ would be to read directly from the prophets of God Campbell contended that “the Bible is of itself as plain and intelligible as it can be made, and its pretended darkness a mere clerical fiction.” Further, he pointed out that reeds created by Synods must be fallible because their authors were fallible—and “it would be strange if man could explain the will of God more intelligently or benevolently than God himself had done it.” (7) Perhaps Campbell’s most piercing argument was his citation of Jesus’s intercessory prayer. He pointed out that the words of the Apostles regarding Christ are the basis of unity among the disciples of Christ. “The will of heaven . . . is that all who believe on the Messiah through the testimony of the apostles may be one; consequently, they do not will that those who believe on him through the Westminster divines shall be one.” Thus, any attempt to unite Christians by creed is “an attempt to overrule the will of heaven.” (RoseAnn Benson, Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith: 19^th-Century Restorationists [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 2017], 78, 79-80)

On Joseph Smith’s attitude towards creeds, and how they were similar and dissimilar to those of Alexander Campbell, Benson wrote:

-Isms and Creeds. Like Campbell, Smith uniformly rejected the five points of Calvinism. Regarding the doctrines of election and predestination, Smith insisted, “Unconditional election of individuals to eternal life was not taught by the Apostles.” Nevertheless, Smith clarified that “God did elect or predestinate, that all those who would be saved, should be saved in Christ Jesus, and through obedience to the gospel; but he passes over no man’s sins, but visits them with correction, and if his children will not repent of their sins He will discard them.”

Smith was a vehement opponent of creeds but for reasons different from Campbell’s. In the 1838 official record of his 1820 First Vision, Smith declared that in response to his question “which of all the sects was right,” he was told among other things that the creeds of Christendom “were an abomination in his sight.” In other words, truth had been replaced by the false reasoning and philosophies of the early Christian Fathers, regardless of how well-meaning their efforts were, with which God was greatly displeased. Smith considered his First Vision a completely authoritative source coming from God himself. Creeds set limits on God and his ability to reveal additional light and knowledge. In other words, Smith believed the scriptures were very important, but not sufficient.

In a statement about the confessions of the different denominations, Smith explained his own resistance to them: “They all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to though all of them have some truths but I want to come up into the presence of God & learn all things but the creeds set up stakes, & say, hitherto shalt thou come, & no further—which I cannot subscribe to.” . . . In response to the frequently asked question “Wherein do you differ from other sects?” Smith responded once with this statement, “We believe the Bible, and all other sects profess to believe their interpretations of the Bible, and their creeds.” (Ibid., 106-7)

As noted, the issue of Biblical sufficiency was a key area of contrast, not just between Joseph Smith’s Restorationist movement and Campbell’s, but between LDS and all groups within the broad “Protestant” spectrum.

For a book-length treatment of this issue, Sola Scriptura, see:

Robert S. Boylan, Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura (2017). An online version can be found here.