John A Widtsoe on "holy spirit"

In Latter-day Saint terminology, the “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” are one and the same person (though the former is the more commonly used term, in part, due to the influence of the KJV on uniquely LDS Scriptures). Notwithstanding, some LDS authors have used the term “holy spirit” (note the lack of capitalisation) to refer to the Father’s own spiritual influence. John A. Widtsoe, while discussing how God the Father communicates with us, wrote the following which is rather helpful on this matter

By the Holy Spirit. God is a personal being of body—a body limited in extent. He cannot, therefore, at a given moment be personally everywhere. Time and space surround him as they surround us. Nevertheless, it is known that God, by his power, will and word, is everywhere present. The Lord must, therefore, be in possession of other agencies whereby his will may be transmitted at his pleasure to the uttermost confines of space. The chief agent employed by God to communicate his will to the universe is the holy spirit, which must not be confused with the Holy Ghost, the personage who is the third member of the Godhead. The holy spirit permeates all the things of the universe, material and spiritual. By the holy spirit the will of God is radio-transmitted, broadcasted as it were. It forms what may be called the great system of communication among the intelligent beings of the universe. The holy spirit vibrates with intelligence; it takes up the word and will of God as given by him or by his personal agents, and transmits the message to the remotest parts of space. By the intelligent operation and infinite extent of the holy spirit, the whole universe is held together and made as one unit. By its means there is no remoteness into which intelligent beings may escape the dominating will of God. By the holy spirit, the Lord is always with us, and "is nearer than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet." The intelligent earthly manifestations of the holy spirit are commonly spoken of as the natural forces. It is conceivable that the thunders and the lightnings, the movements of the heavenly bodies, the ebb and flow of the oceans, and all the phenomena known to man, are only manifestations of the will of the Lord as transmitted and spread by the measureless, inexhaustible, infinite, all-conducting holy spirit.

By the holy spirit, which fills every person, man may obtain information from the Lord. By its means come the messages which transcend the ordinary methods of acquiring knowledge. By it man may readily communicate with God, or God with him. When a person utters his prayer in faith, it is impressed upon the holy spirit, and transmitted, so that God may read the man's desire.

This doctrine of a rational theology has been duplicated in a modest way by the development of wireless telegraphy and by radio. According to scientific views, by electrical waves messages are spread throughout the universe to be taken up by any person who has the proper receiving apparatus.

The Eternal Record. So thoroughly permeated with the holy spirit is the immensity of space that every act and word and thought are recorded and transmitted everywhere, so that all who know how to read may read. Thus we make an imperishable record of our lives. To those whose lives are ordered well this is a blessed conception; but to those of wicked lives, it is most terrible. He who has the receiving apparatus, in whose hands the key is held, may read from the record of the holy spirit, an imperishable history of all that has occurred during the ages that have passed in the world's history. This solemn thought, that in the bosom of the holy spirit is recorded the whole history of the universe—our most secret thought and our faintest hope—helps man to walk steadily in the midst of the contending appeals of life. We cannot hide from the Master. (John Andreas Widtsoe, Rational Theology as Taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1915; repr., General Books, 2009], 38-39)

Refuting the Tanners on D&C 87, the Civil War, and Joseph Smith's 9 March 1843 Dream

In an attempt to discredit D&C 87, the so-called “Civil War” Prophecy (“so-called” as it covers much more than the then-future Civil War; see, for e.g., Jeff Lindsay’s discussion of D& 87), the Tanners wrote the following in a section entitled, “Suppressed Material Concerning the Civil War Prophecy”:

In the History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 324, we find another reference to the 1832 prophecy attributed to Joseph Smith:

I prophesy, in the name of the Lord, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina. It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25, 1832.

In our research in the diary of Joseph Smith, we found that this statement does appear under the date of April 2, although there have been a few changes in wording. A careful examination of this portion of Joseph Smith’s diary, however, reveals that some very important material has been suppressed. Before we can understand the significance of this matter we must turn back in Joseph Smith’s diary to the date of March 11, 1843, where we find the following:

A dream, then related, Night before last I dreamed that an old man came to me and said there was a mob force coming upon him, and he was likely to loose his life, that I was Leut General and had the command of a large force, and I was also a patriot and disposed to protect the innocent &-- [word unclear] finding & wanted I should assist him. I told him I wanted some written documents to show the facts that they are the aggressors & I would raise a force sufficient for his protection, that I would call out the Legion. He turned to go from he, but turned again and said to me. “I have any amount of men at my command and will put them under your command.”

This dream, with some modifications, appears in the History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 301.

Now, when we move ahead to the date of April 2, 1843, in the diary of Joseph Smith, we find that just before Joseph Smith gives his second account of the prophecy concerning South Carolina, there is an interpretation of the dream which reads as follows:

Related the dream written on page 3—Book B Interpretation by O. Hyde—old man—government of these United States, who will be invaded by a foreign fee, probably England. U.S. Government will call on Ge. Smith to defend probably all this western territory and offer him any amount of men he shall desire & put them under his command.

This important interpretation of the dream should appear in the History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 324, just before the words “I prophesy.” The reader will find, however, that the interpretation has been completely omitted. The reason that it was suppressed is obvious: Joseph Smith was dead by the time the Civil War started, and therefore the interpretation could not be fulfilled. In his first account of the prophecy on the Civil War, Doctrine and Covenants 87:3, Joseph Smith had predicted that England would come into the war and that the war would spread until it “shall be poured out upon all nations.” The war did not spread to “all nations” as Smith had predicted, and the U.S. government certainly did not call upon Joseph Smith to protect it from England or any other country. (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5^th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987 2008], 195-H)

The Tanners make a number of blunders in the above commentary.

With respect to D&C 87:3, the text reads thusly:

For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

The text  does not say that “the” war (i.e., the then-future Civil War) would have England as a participant, only that the Southern States would request assistance from other nations, including England, which they did (In May 1861, the Southern States sent representatives to England, France, Holland, and Belgium, seeking both political recognition and military and economic assistance in the war), and after this, “war” (used in a general sense; note the use of “then” as opposed to “the”) would be the condition such nations would find themselves in (e.g., the two World Wars which took place after the U.S. Civil War).

As Duane Crowther, in his book on Joseph Smith’s prophecies, wrote:

For many years England relied on the strength of her navy for protection rather than on alliances with foreign powers. It was not until Germany began to rival her sea power that England sought alliances with France and other nations for protection against the Axis powers. These alliances brought on World War I, and in that conflict and in World War II it can be seen that war was poured out upon all nations. (Duane W. Crowther, The Prophecies of Joseph Smith: Over 400 Prophecies By and About Joseph Smith, and Their Fulfillment [Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1983], 231)

In volume 3 of their A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, H. Dean Garrett and Stephen E. Robinson offered the following insight into the verse:

3. The Southern States will call on other nations. Two separate historical periods are described in this verse. The first of these is the Civil War, during which the Southern States would enlist the aid of other nations, including Great Britain, against the Northern States. History shows that the South did seek aid and alliances from Great Britain and also from France, Holland, and Belgium. These nations offered passive support to the South but would not enter into official political and military alliances unless the Confederacy could demonstrate some likelihood of ultimate victory.

A second historical period is described in the last half of this verse, when "they shall also call upon other nations" to defend themselves from still "other nations." When the events described in this verse take place, war will become worldwide. Brother Sidney B. Sperry noted that the pronoun "they" in this passage refers not to the South but to the nations to which the South had previously appealed, that is, to Great Britain and France, Holland, and Belgium. This seems likely, since the South never sought military aid against "other nations" (foreign powers) but only against the Northern States. Thus, the prophecy in verse 3 indicates that during the Civil War the South would call upon Britain as well as on other nations. Then, at a later time, Britain, France, Holland, and Belgium would in turn also call upon other nations for help against their enemies, and war would at that time be poured out upon the whole world. In fact, Great Britain and these other nations did seek the aid of other nations at least twice in the twentieth century, and on each occasion the result was a world war.

With respect to Joseph Smith’s dream on 9 March1843 (recollected by Joseph on 11 March and recorded in his journal by William Clayton), do note a few things:

Firstly, Joseph Smith did not view it as a prophetic dream or based on divine revelation.

Secondly, Orson Hyde’s interpretation is couched, not in prophetic language, but conditional language (note the use of “probably”). Again, Hyde is not speaking as a prophet, but as one giving his opinion.

Thirdly, there is a contrast between the non-inspired dream and its interpretation by Orson with the inspired, authoritative revelation Joseph offers after such speculation. In his journal for 2 April 1843, we read:

I prophecy in the Name of the Lord God that the commence[n]t of bloodshed as preparat[o]ry to the coming of the son of man. will commenc[e] in South Carolina.—(it probably may arise through the slave trade.)—this the a voice declared to me. while I was praying earne[s]tly on the subje[c]t 25 December 1832. (The Joseph Smith Papers, Journals: Volume 2: December 1841-April 1843, eds. Andrew H. Hedges, Alex D. Smith, and Richard Lloyd Anderson [Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2011], 324-25, emphasis in bold added)

Of course, the then-future Civil War did indeed begin in South Carolina in 1861, and Joseph was correct in his personal belief that it would probably be due to the issue of Slavery (which was the main cause of the Civil War).

Finally, one may ask why the Lord would make the following promise:

I earnestly desird to know concern[in]g the coming of the Son of Man & prayed. when—a voice said to me, Joseph, my, son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old thou shalt see the face of the son of man, therefore let this suffice & trouble me no more on this matter. (Ibid, 325)

Some may argue this is a case of “divine deception” as the Lord knew Joseph would be killed in 1844. As one who is an Open Theist, I believe God has contingent foreknowledge, so perhaps it is a real possibility that Joseph may have lived until he was 85 years of age and would have received this promised vision of the Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, that this was not a prophecy of what would happen but could, note the use of “if.” For more on contingent foreknowledge, see the discussion of the topic in my paper:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

A search on “contingent foreknowledge” and “Open Theism” on this blog will also bring up other discussions, such as D&C 124, William Law, and Open Theism.

Commenting on this text, John Tvedtnes, in his excellent paper The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy wrote:

Since Joseph did not live to the age of 85, the “if” portion of the Lord’s statement to him clearly shows that it was conditional. Moreover, Joseph was not told that the Lord would return in glory in 1890, only that he would see him at that time if he was yet alive. In other words, the Lord did not answer Joseph’s question directly, for the very reason that no one knows the time of his coming–not even Joseph Smith or the angels of heaven (Matthew 24:36).

One might enquire about the likelihood that the Lord would “trick” Joseph Smith thus, making him think that he would see the Lord in 1890 when, in fact, the Lord knew Joseph would die in 1844. The question is mooted by a similar situation in the Bible. Isaiah came to King Ahaz in the name of the Lord and told him that Ephraim (head of the northern kingdom of Israel) would be broken “within threescore and five years” (Isaiah 7:8). Ahaz reigned in Judah from 734 to 728 B.C. Sixty-five years later would be 689-663 B.C. In actual fact, however, Israel was taken captive in 722 B.C., just six years after Ahaz’s death, when his son Hezekiah was king of Judah.

Some critics, including the Tanners, argue that this text proves Joseph Smith believed that the Second Coming would take place in 1890/91. However, as we have seen, this was not a prophecy of the Second Coming, but a conditional promise that Joseph would see a vision of Jesus if he lived until 85 years of age.

Indeed, that Joseph Smith himself did not believe this was a prophecy of the date of the Second Coming can be seen in his retelling of this experience in a special conference of the Church four days later (note the explicit use of conditional language and Joseph giving his opinion, not inspired revelation he received, on issues):

<I was once praying earnestly upon this subject. And a voice said unto me.> my son, if thou livest till thou art 85 years of age, thou shalt see the face of the son of man . . . <I was left to draw m own conclusions concerni[n]g this &,> I took the liberty to conclude that if I did live till that time Jesus <he> would make his appearance.--<but I do not say whether he will make his appeara[n]ce, or I shall go where he is.-->

I prophecy in the name of the Lord God.--& let it be written. <that the> Son of Man will not come in the heavens till I am 85. Years old

48 years hence or about 1890. (Ibid., 338)

The prophecy Joseph offered, in its context, as well as his other sermons and writings, was not that Jesus would come in 1890, but he would not come until at least 1890. For more refuting the bogus claim that Joseph believed the Second Coming would take place in 1890/91, see my post Did Joseph Smith Predict the Second Coming Would Happen in 1890/91? As well as the excellent article by Malin Jacobs, The Alleged Fifty-Six-Year Second-Coming Prophecy of Joseph Smith: An Analysis (cf. Response to a Critique of: Alleged 56-Year Second Coming Prophecy)

As we see, the Tanners, are guilty of misreading and abusing sources, and attributing inspired, prophetic status to comments that were never presented as such by the speakers and writers!

Did Brigham Young Deny the Virginal Conception of Jesus in October 1866? An example of Anti-Mormon Quote Mining

One of the most classical examples of yellow journalism by anti-Mormons is the (false) claim Mormonism teaches God had sex with Mary. I have refuted this a number of times, including the following:

Refutation of "Mormonism says God impregnated Mary by sex"

I also discuss this in “Appendix 2: The Virginal Conception in Latter-day Saint Theology” in my book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (pp. 184-207).

To give an example of the quote-mining critics often engage in to “prove” this, consider the following:

Brigham Young, the second President of the Church, had this to say concerning the birth of Christ:

The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. (Deseret News, October 1866). (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5^th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987, 2008], 260)

The impression the Tanners wish to leave a reader is that Brigham affirmed that God had coitus with Mary. However, if one reads the very next few lines(!) one will find that Brigham denies the “God had coitus with Mary” interpretation:

On this account infidels have called the Savior a bastard. This is merely a human opinion upon which one of the inscrutable doings of the Almighty. That very babe that was cradled in the manger was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God, our Heavenly Father. This answer may suffice you--you need never inquire more upon that point. Jesus Christ is the only begotten of the Father, and He is the Savior of the world, and full of grace and truth. (source)

 Here is an image of the quoted text from the Deseret News:

Notice what Brigham does say and also what he does not say:

·       Brigham denies, rather strongly, that Jesus was not a bastard and that his conception was not the result of an unlawful union.

·       Brigham affirms that the Father of Jesus was a real person, namely, God the Father.

·       Brigham denies knowledge of the mechanics of the conception of Jesus; instead, he states that this knowledge is sufficient for our needs and one should not speculate beyond such--that is very odd if Brigham did believe God the Father had coitus with Mary, as the Tanners and other critics (falsely) charge Brigham and other Latter-day Saints of believing.

That the Tanners are guilty, not of being sloppy, but being intentionally deceptive is easily proven, as they reproduce vol. 11, p. 268 of the Journal of Discourses which is a reproduction of the very portion of Brigham's sermon which appeared in the 10 October 1866 issue of the Deseret News on the very next page (p. 261)!

The Father and Holy Spirit being the Same Person in the Theology of the Tanners

I have been re-reading Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? by the Tanners, and have been rather struck by how rather misinformed their grasp of Trinitarian theology truly is. I have discussed how they advocate Modalism in a previous article:

The Tanners Advocating Modalism in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?

Elsewhere, a careful reader will find that the Tanners identify the person of the Father with the Holy Spirit (i.e., the Father and Holy Spirit are the same person). While discussing Joseph Fielding Smith’s rejection of Jesus being the son of the Holy Spirit, but instead, Son of the Father, the Tanners write in response:

The reason that Joseph Fielding Smith objects to the teaching that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Ghost is that, according to Mormon theology, this would make Jesus the son of the Holy Ghost rather than the Son of God. This idea arises from an improper understanding of the term Holy Ghost. The term Holy Ghost means exactly the same as the term Holy Spirit. The American College Dictionary defines the term Holy Spirit as the Holy Ghost. Now, the Bible tells us that God is a Spirit, and that he is holy; therefore, God himself must be the Holy Spirit. (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5^th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987, 2008], 260, emphasis in italics in original, emphasis in bold and underline added)

 Such only goes to show that, as with many other professed Trinitarians, the Tanners are, functionally, heretical in their theology, not just from an LDS perspective, but even from a Trinitarian perspective.

Malin Jacobs, The Alleged Fifty-Six-Year Second-Coming Prophecy of Joseph Smith: An Analysis

Over a year ago, I wrote an article Did Joseph Smith Predict the Second Coming Would Happen in 1890/91?

Today I re-read a great article by Malin Jacobs on this issue and thought I would plug it:

The Alleged Fifty-Six-Year Second-Coming Prophecy of Joseph Smith: An Analysis

Lane Theut, then with Bill McKeever's group (see Top 17 Reasons Bill McKeever Doesn't Understand the Latter-day Saint Faith), tried (lamely) to respond. Needless to say, Jacobs embarrassed Theut:

Response to a Critique of: Alleged 56-Year Second Coming Prophecy (cf. Russell Ashdown Refutes Lane Thuet on Patriarchal Blessings for further evidence of Theut's lack of intellectual integrity and honesty--something that seems to be a requirement to work with MRM).

The Abbots of Constantinople and the Veneration of Images, not the Images' Heavenly Prototypes Merely

Speaking of the Second Council of Nicea, its defenders, and the theology of the veneration given to images, not the images’ heavenly prototype merely, Dom Chapman wrote:

[I]n a letter written in the name of all the Abbots of Constantinople “to the iconoclastic synod”:--

“We venerate images . . . not because we are assured that we are right by the second holy synod of Nicaea or by that which earlier decided divinely, but from the very coming of our Lord and God in writing and without writing we have been made firm and rest securely upon that see to which Christ saith: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Bk. II. Ep. I, P.G. 99, p. 1117) (Dom John Chapman, The First Eight General Councils and Papal Infallibility [London: Catholic Truth Society, 1906], 76, italics in original, emphasis in bold added)

This again shows that, contrary to some errant Catholic apologists, Catholic theology (as well as that of Eastern Orthodoxy) teaches that the image/icon receives some veneration, too, not just the saint in heaven whom it depicts.

For more, see:

 Latter-day Saints and Religious Images

The Synod of Elvira vs. Second Nicea on Veneration of Images

Answering a Catholic Apologist on the Veneration of Images

Robert Bellarmine Affirming the Veneration of Images, not the Heavenly Prototype Merely

God Commanding the Making of the Brass Serpent and Cherubim: Support for the Veneration of Images?

Xavier Léon-Dufour on the meaning of Jesus' command to be "like little children"

Commenting on Jesus’ command for his followers to be “like little children,” Xavier Léon-Dufour wrote:

‘Like Little Children’

One day, the disciples tried to prevent some people from bringing little children to Jesus, presumably because they thought it would be for Jesus a waste of valuable time: these children were not old enough to observe the Law, and the disciples probably concluded that they were too young to be of interest to their Master. But Jesus was intensely interested in them just because they were no innocent and guileless, and said: ‘it is to creatures such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. I tell you truly, anyone who does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child who does not welcome the kingdom of God like a little child will not enter it’ (Mk 10:14-15). In this episode, Jesus seized the opportunity to teach that the kingdom was not something which men could enter by their own efforts; it was a gift, to be accepted gratefully, in the way little children accept presents. Children have nothing to give, they can only receive presents; and that is why they provide so perfect an image of the attitude Jesus expected from his disciples. Matthew records a similar saying (‘Unless you become again like little children . . . ‘, Mt 18:1-4), in which there may be a hint also of the need to be reborn by baptism, through which a man enters the kingdom as a little child (cf. Jn 3:3).

Jesus also said, ‘Happy are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 5:3). Detachment from worldly goods is indispensable for possession of the kingdom, because the man whose life is dominated by concern for possessions does not have sufficient trust in his heavenly Father: this is a major theme of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6:32-34). In a time of peace and relative stability, such detachment may not seem unduly difficult, but Jesus said that his disciples ought to have confidence in their heavenly Father even in war and under persecution. ‘Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but have no power to kill the soul. Be more afraid of him who can throw both soul and body into hell. Are not sparrows sold at two a penny? Yet not one of them falls to the ground unknown to your Father. The very hairs of your head are all numbered. So be without fear, for you are certainly more precious than many sparrows’ (Mt 10:28-31; Lk 12:4-7).

Nor is it only in extreme situations that Jesus call for an unreserved commitment to oneself to God’s care; he demands the same attitude in daily life. ‘No man can be the servant of two masters at once; either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be attached to one and will despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money’ (Mt 6:24). Luke places this saying in a different context (Lk 16:13), and introduces Jesus’ teaching on poverty with the parables of the Rich Fool who, when he thought he had enough money, died suddenly the same night (Lk 12:20). It is not that Jesus condemned men simply for being rich: he was most gracious to Zacchaeus the tax collector, who gave half his wealth to the poor (Lk 19:8-9), but our Lord did condemn in the strongest terms those whose lives were consumed with the pursuit of earthly possessions.

The spirit of total commitment to God which has been described as a spirit of detachment and childlike simplicity is called, in technical theological language, faith. The word ‘faith’, when it occurs in the gospels, does not mean primarily an acceptance of some proposition as true, or even obedience to divine revelation (though either of these meanings may be implied); the primary meaning of the world in the gospels is a total entrusting of oneself to God, as a child trusts his father. Jesus demanded that men should how this same unbounded trust towards himself, and when they showed it, he never failed to respond with generosity. Those who carried the paralysed man to him (Mk 2:5), the blind men who asked or sight (Mt 9:29), the centurion of Capernaum (Mt 8:10, 13), and the Canaanite woman (Mt 15:28) all showed unbounded faith in Jesus, and were rewarded correspondingly. In these and many other texts, the miracles of Jesus are presented not as a cause producing faith in men, but as the reward and result of their faith. This is the lesson taught in the passage about the sign of Jonah (Mt 16:1, 4; Lk 11:29-30): the doctrine taught by Jesus should have been sufficient to engender faith in anyone who was well disposed, and Jesus was unwilling to perform miracles for those who turned a deaf ear to his preaching. In other words, when Jesus asked for faith, he asked men to respond to God’s call like little children, in simplicity and sincerity of heart. (Xavier Léon-Dufour, The Gospels and the Jesus of History [trans. John McHugh; London: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, 1968], 241-42)

Xavier Léon-Dufour on the Messianic Secret in the Gospel of Mark

One of the themes in St. Mark’s gospel is that Jesus tried to lead his disciples step by step to an acknowledgement of his divine Sonship. As a result, Mark takes pains to show that Jesus, during his earthly life, did not openly declare from the first moment of his ministry who he really was; the full revelation first moment of his ministry who he really was; the full revelation had to wait until Jesus had shown the meaning of his mission by suffering and dying. This is certainly Mark’s theory; was it the common belief of the early Church, and if so, does it represent what really happened?

That it is Mark’s theory needs little proof. According to Mark, Jesus forbade the unclean spirits to reveal who he was (Mk 1:34; 3:12); he imposed the same prohibition on those whom he cured by astounding miracles (1:44; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26), and even on the disciples (8:30; 9:9). Mark tells how the disciples did not really understand the truth about the personality of Jesus (4:41; 6:51-52; 8:16-21; 9:33-34; 10:35, 41-42) and implies that half the purpose of speaking in parables was to conceal the mystery from those who were unworthy to know it (4:11). Matthew has no parallel to most of these texts (only to Mk 8:30 and 9:9), and even though he has one text not in Mark which teaches the same lesson (Mt 9:30), as a general rule he plays down the lack of understanding shown by the disciples. Luke also plays down the disciples’ lack of understanding, and he never mentions that Jesus forbade them to speak about his messianic mission. For these reasons, many scholars claim that the theory of the ‘messianic secret’ is a purely Markan invention.

At first sight, it looks as if Mark did invent this theory; but there is one objection. Mark has included in his gospel two passages (Mk 2:10, 28; 10:47-52) in which Jesus apparently did not order men to refrain from broadcasting his identity. Mark presumably took these texts from his sources without altering them; and therefore it may have been Mark’s fidelity to his sources which led him to state so frequently that Jesus forbade men to tell everyone who he was. In that case, the ‘messianic secret’ would not have been Mark’s invention but a datum of very old tradition. Matthew, as we have seen, is less scrupulous in the treatment of his sources, and therefore it is more likely that he suppressed it (particularly in the light of his theology); in one text, though, he has preserved an example of the same tradition which is not recorded by Mar (Mt 9:27-31), and which therefore cannot have been based on Mark.

The theme of the ‘messianic secret’ is therefore not something thought up by Mark, but a datum which Mark accepted from tradition. Matthew transposed the idea and presented it as the story of Jesus’ withdrawal from public preaching (Mt 12:15-21; 14:1-16:12); John has transposed the idea in a different way by presenting his dialogues as questions addressed to the reader. Thus the common tradition underlying the gospels shows Jesus not merely as a Messiah who was in fact unknown, but as one who himself chose to conceal his identity. (Xavier Léon-Dufour, The Gospels and the Jesus of History [trans. John McHugh; London: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, 1968], 232-33)

The Tanners Advocating Modalism in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?

Some critics of the Book of Mormon claim that Mosiah 15:1-4 and Ether 3:14 teach Modalism. This has been refuted by myself and other LDS scholars, including:

Blake T. Ostler, Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity

Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths

Robert Boylan, Does the Book of Mormon Teach Modalism,  Responding to Jared Cook on Mosiah 15: Part 1, Responding to Jared Cook on Mosiah 15: Part 2 (cf. The 1832 First Vision Account versus Modalism and Psalm 110:1 and the two Lords in the 1832 First Vision Account)

Notwithstanding, many critics of the Book of Mormon who read these and other texts as teaching that God is a single person is reflective of true theology (i.e., reflects the theology the authors hold to). This is the case with the Tanners, showing that they are ignorant of Trinitarianism and are Modalists (to be fair, probably out of theological ignorance than conviction).

As they write in a chapter entitled “The Godhead”:

The Book of Mormon also teaches that Christ was God himself manifest in the flesh. In Mosiah 15:1, 2 and 5 we read the following:

And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son--. . . . And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son, to the Father, being one God . . .

This is in harmony with the Bible, for in 2 Corinthians 5:19 we read as follows: “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, . . . “ (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5^th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987, 2008], 163, emphasis in bold in original, emphasis in highlighter added)

That the Tanners believed (errantly) that Mosiah 15 teaches that the Father and Son are one and the same person is seen in comments they make in their chapter on the First Vision:

The Book of Mormon, which was first published in 1830, taught that there was but one God:

And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-- . . . And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, . . . (Book of Mormon, Mosiah 15:1, 2, 5)

The Book of Mormon tells of a visitation of the Father and the Son to the “brother of Jared.” The Father and the Son mentioned, however, are not two separate personages. Only one personage appears, and this personage says:

Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light, . . . (Ether 3:14) (Ibid., 163, emphasis in bold in original, emphasis in highlighter added)

If anything, apart from poor exegetical skills (both of the Bible and the Book of Mormon), the Tanners, in their magnum opus, where ignorant of the Trinitarianism their Protestant theology teaches, and were, functionally, heretical, even according to Trinitarian theology.

"In Defense of Columbus: An Exaggerated Evil" and 1 Nephi 13:12 as a Symbolic, not Specific, Prophecy

And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land. (1 Nephi 13:12)

The following video deconstructs a lot of the exaggerations and lies about Columbus:

In Defense of Columbus: An Exaggerated Evil

The apologetic value of this would relate to how many LDS interpreters believe that Columbus fulfilled the prophecy in 1 Nephi 13:12 (quoted above).

Related to this, one may view 1 Nephi 13:12 as evidence against Open Theism. However, some may view this as a more “open” prophecy that could have been fulfilled by someone God raised up, not that Columbus had to be the person who fulfilled it. Brant Gardner, in his commentary on this verse, argued that it was symbolic as opposed to specific:

The traditional reading of this verse identifies the “man” as Columbus. For example, Rulon S. Wells of the First Council of the Seventy noted in October 1919 general conference: “Nephi sees in vision that the Spirit of God inspired the great Columbus (it can mean no other) to cross the many waters, the great Atlantic ocean, which separated him from the seed of Nephi’s brethren, who were in the promised land.”

The general connection between the European exploration of the New World and communication with the “Gentiles” in the Old World certainly begins with Columbus, even if the technical “discovery” of this new world has now been asserted for the Vikings. As a technical matter, neither the Vikings nor Columbus actually set foot on territory that is identified with the Lehites. While there is less to suggest that Hernán Cortés was inspired by God, a claim Columbus makes for himself, it is nevertheless Cortés who first stepped on the Lehite promised land and approximately where that land was located, in the geography accepted by this commentary.

Thus, I argue that it is better to read this vision symbolically rather than specifically. Divine inspiration to Columbus resulted in opening the promised land to Gentiles from the other side of the ocean; even if Columbus never set foot on the technical promised land, nevertheless he was the instrument by which the prophecy was fulfilled. (Brant Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Volume 1: First Nephi [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 232-33, emphasis added)

Orson Hyde on the Need for Continuing Revelation

It is no secret that Latter-day Saints reject the Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura. I have written much against this doctrine, both biblically as well as historically. For a very detailed refutation of this doctrine, see:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

It should be noted, however, that LDS do not believe that their expanded canon is formally sufficient, too, and that there will always be a need for continuing revelation to supplement inscripturated revelation as well as to speak to then-contemporary issues, whether moral or theological.

In a sermon dated 6 October 1854, Orson Hyde said the following:

It is so with the servants of God. There is a Spirit that is ever ready, and points out, under varied and conflicting circumstances, the very course which the servants of God should pursue. The Bible is not a sufficient guide; it is only the history of the people who lived 1800 years ago. The history of our Church in this day, presents the scenes and transactions of this people—the revelations and words of God to them; but if an individual living an hundred, or eighteen hundred, years hence, under different circumstances, were to adopt the history of this people for his guide in all things, he would not find it sufficient to answer the circumstances surrounding him. (JOD 2:75)

Sandra Tanner Embarrasses Herself on Biblical Issues

Gospel Tangents just posted a video where Sandra Tanner reveals how truly ignorant she is about biblical scholarship:

What Does Sandra Tanner have to say about Biblical Forgeries? (Part 5)

Sandra's apologetic for her Protestant understanding of the Bible really sums up how pathetic and superficial it is:

I accept the Bible as historical. There really are Jewish people living in Israel

It has been said by many of their fellow critics, even of the LDS Church, that the Tanners consciously engaged in a double-standard in how they approached their Protestantism with "Mormonism." This interview proves this beyond doubt.

Tanner also holds to Sola Scriptura. I would have loved if Sandra offered her rationale for such a doctrine. To see a lengthy refutation of this doctrine, see my article:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

The Affirmation of Pre-Adamites by Joseph and Hyrum Smith and Orson Hyde

In an entry dated 28 April, 1844 (JS, History, 1838–1856, vol. E-1), Joseph Smith (and his brother Hyrum) affirmed the concept of Pre-Adamites (emphasis added):

28 April 1844 • Sunday

<28> Sunday 28. At home, a beautiful clear day.

My brother 

Hyrum [Smith] preached at the 

stand in the morning, and among other things said the time will shortly come, that when one man makes another an offender for a word, he shall be cut off from the church of Jesus Christ. There were prophets before Adam, and Joseph has the spirit and power of all the Prophets.

Interestingly, other LDS who knew Joseph and Hyrum also taught this. In a sermon dated October 6, 1854, Orson Hyde taught that Adam and Eve were not the first humans on this planet; instead, there was a pre-Adamite population:

I will go back to the beginning, and notice the commandment that was given to our first parents in the garden of Eden. The Lord said unto them, "Multiply and replenish the earth." I will digress here for a moment from the thread of the subject, and bring an idea that may perhaps have a bearing upon it. The earth, you remember, was void and empty, until our first parents began at the garden of Eden. What does the term replenish mean? This word is derived from the Latin; "re" and "plenus;" "re" denotes repetition, iteration; and "plenus" signifies full, complete; then the meaning of the word replenish is, to refill, recomplete. If I were to go into a merchant's store, and find he had got a new stock of goods, I should say—"You have replenished your stock, that is, filled up your establishment, for it looks as it did before." "Now go forth," says the Lord, "and replenish the earth; for it was covered with gloomy clouds of darkness, excluded from the light of heaven, and darkness brooded. upon the face of the deep. The world was peopled before the days of Adam, as much so as it was before the days of Noah. It was said that Noah became the father of a new world, but it was the same old world still, and will continue to be, though it may pass through many changes. When God said, Go forth and replenish the earth; it was to replenish the inhabitants of the human species, and make it as it was before. (JOD: 2:79)

Bill Hamblin's review of "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"

Chapter 6 of the Tanners' Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? is "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon" (pp. 97-125). It is based on their booklet of the same title.

My friend, Bill Hamblin, wrote a devastating review of the booklet:

Review of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Joseph Smith as a "Saviour" and mortals being called מושׁיע in the Hebrew Bible

Many Evangelical critics of the Church often criticise the respect and honour given to the prophet Joseph Smith by Latter-day Saints. I discussed this issue in some detail in my article:

Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology

With respect to Brigham Young’s high view of Joseph (who was also a close personal friend of his), the Tanners write:

The importance of Joseph Smith in Mormon theology cannot be overemphasized. Brigham Young, the second President of the Mormon Church, made these statements . . .

He is the man through whom God has spoken . . . yet I would not like to call him a saviour, though in a certain capacity he was a God to us, and is to the nations of the earth, and will continue to be. ([Journal of Discourses] Vol. 8, page 321). (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? [5^th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987, 2008], 252; comment in square brackets added for clarification).

Daniel W. Bachman, in his excellent article showing the Tanners' blatant abuse of sources in Chapter 19 of their book, "Joseph Smith" (pp. 252-59), Mormonism–Shadow or Reality? History or Propaganda? Joseph Smith as a Case Study, discussed this particular text. He wrote:

The excerpt has been taken out of its context in Brigham’s speech. To begin with he is talking about Joseph’s role as prophet in foreseeing the Civil War and offering to save the nation from it. The sentence immediately following the Tanner excerpt shows that Brigham did not view Joseph Smith as a savior or God in the sense that Christ was, for he said, “He [Joseph Smith] was not the only-Begotten of the Father, who died for the sins of the world; but he was the Prophet of the Lord, through whom God spoke to the nations.” Brigham is here speaking in exactly the same sense as found in Exodus 4:16 where the Lord tells Moses that Aaron would be Moses’ spokesman to the people and Moses would be to Aaron “instead of God.” The readers of Shadow or Reality? know nothing of this. By divorcing these statements from their context, the meaning is changed subtly to suggest something that Brigham did not intend and which he specifically tried to interdict in his remarks.

Furthermore, while Brigham did not call Joseph a “saviour” in the above text, he did give a nod to it perhaps being an acceptable title for the prophet. While this might be shocking to some, especially those from Evangelical Protestantism, such is a perfectly valid title to use of mortals, not just deity.

In the Hebrew Bible, the title מושׁיע mošia^c. While the term is never transliterated in the Bible, it appears 27 times in the Old Testament and means a "deliverer/saviour" and is used for both morals and deity.

Examples of mortals being called this title include:

And when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer (מושׁיע) to the children of Israel, who delivered them, even Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother . . . But when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised them up a deliverer (מושׁיע), Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a man lefthanded: and by him the children of Israel sent a present unto Eglon the king of Moab. (Judg 3:9, 15)

And the Lord gave Israel Israel a saviour (מושׁיע), so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime. (2 Kgs 13:5)

Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardst them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours (מושׁיע), who saved them out of the hand of their enemies. (Neh 9:27)

And the saviours (מושׁיע) shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord's. (Obad 1:21)

HALOT defines the term thusly:

4955  מוֹשִׁיעַ

מוֹשִׁיעַ: ישׁע pt. hif. > sbst.: מֹ(וֹ)שִׁ(י)עוֹ/עֲךָ, מוֹשִׁיעֶֽךָ/עֵךְ/עָם, מֹ(וֹ)שׁיעִים: deliverer, saviour:

—1. of people: a( pl. Ob ₂₁ )Sept. pass., ? מוּשָׁעִים or (נוֹ׳ Neh 9₂₇; b( phrases וְאֵין מ׳ and simil., with no deliverer, helpless Dt 22₂₇ 28₂₉.₃₁ Ju 12₃ 2S 22₄₂ Is 47₁₅; c) raised up by Yahweh for his people Ju 3₉.₁₅ (properly referring to the “minor judges”, but carried over in Deuteronomic literature also to the heroic deliverers, Noth Überl. Stud. 49; Boecker 65; Soggin Königtum 13³) 2K 13₅ Is 19₂₀ 45₁₅;

—2. Yahweh as מוֹ׳: a( 1S 10₁₉ Is 45₁₅ 63₈; b( with suffix 2S 22₃ Is 43₃ 49₂₆ 60₁₆ Jr 14₈ Ps 106₂₁ or genitive Ps 7₁₁ )Israel( 17₇ (חֹסִים); c( no saviour but Yahweh 2S 22₄₂/Ps 18₄₂ Is 43₁₁ 45₂₁ Hos 13₄. †

Therefore, there is no problem with Joseph Smith being called, in a limited sense, a "saviour."

Readers might find some parallels between both the term’s function as well as how it is transliterated with Book of Mormon Mosiah. Indeed, many LDS scholars (correctly, I believe) link Book of Mormon Mosiah with OT mošia^c. For a discussion, see:

John W. Welch, "What was a Mosiah"?