I came across the above video in which Mike Winger, after pointing to numerous prophetic references to the coming of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, at 23:20 minutes into the video embarks on a criticism of Joseph Smith, by pointing to the lack of such prophetic references to him in comparison with Jesus, which, according to him, discredits Joseph Smith as a true prophet. Here is a quote (emphasis added):
“Now let’s contrast this, because I think it will show us how cool it is; because other people have come after Jesus, and they have been like, ‘Hey, I have got a new revelation from God;’ and then they will try to launch off the Bible into their new revelation. Muhammad is an example of this, right? ‘I got the new revelation.’ He has got the Quran, and all the other writings that go along with that. But I want to talk today a little bit about Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith is the founder of Mormonism; and did you know, this Joseph Smith shows up unannounced, like there is no Old Testament passage that says that this guy is going to come. He can’t be like Jesus, and be like, ‘Hey man, you believe the Bible, then you are going to believe me, because it said I was coming.’ There is none of that. But according to Mormonism, there is some of that, so what I want to do right now is, compare this evidence for Jesus, with the evidence for Joseph Smith.”
I have a problem with that comparison. Why is he comparing “evidence for Jesus” with “evidence for Joseph Smith”? Jesus claimed to be the promised Messiah, the Son of God, and the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Joseph Smith made no such claim. He claimed to be nothing more than a messenger of Jesus Christ, a true prophet and Apostle, like the ones mentioned in the Bible. If he wants to compare Joseph Smith with anything, he should compare him with one of the Old Testament prophets, or New Testament Apostles. He wouldn’t compare Moses with Jesus, or Abraham, or Job, or Elijah, or Jeremiah; he wouldn’t compare Peter with Jesus, or Paul, or James, or John; so why compare Joseph Smith with Jesus? By so doing he is putting Joseph Smith on a higher pedestal, elevating him to a higher station than any of the Old Testament prophets or New Testament Apostles! He is saying that Moses is not worthy of comparison with Jesus, Abraham isn’t, Job isn’t, neither Elijah, Jeremiah, or Daniel; he is saying Peter isn’t worthy of comparison with Jesus, Paul isn’t, neither James, nor John—but Joseph Smith is! I think that Joseph Smith would have been flattered by that kind of comparison.
The obvious reason why he is not comparing Joseph Smith with one of the Old Testament prophets, or New Testament Apostles, of course is that if he did, he would not be able to make Joseph Smith look any worse (or better) than them, because there are no more such “prophetic references” in the Bible for them than there is for Joseph Smith (nor need to be). He is not comparing “like with like,” because he knows that if he did, he could not make Joseph Smith look bad, because there are no more such “prophetic references” in the Bible to them than there is to him. His objective is to make Joseph Smith look bad by any means possible—right or wrong, honest or dishonest. He knows that he cannot do that by comparing him with Isaiah or Jeremiah, Elijah or Elisha, Daniel or Ezekiel, Moses or Abraham; he cannot do it by comparing him with Peter or Paul, James or John; so the only option he has left is to compare him with Jesus. I am sure that will not have escaped the notice of his viewers.
Then he proceeds to comment on and criticize an article that he has found on the Church’s website, in which the author attempts to find prophetic references to Joseph Smith in the Bible; but his reference to that article is a bit misleading. He makes it sound as though the article is some kind of “official” statement put out by the Church, which it is not. It is an article written by its author for the January 1989 issue of The Ensign, a monthly journal published by the Church, the past issues of which can be read on the Church’s website. Anybody can write an article for The Ensign; and those who do are reflecting their own personal views, not articulating the official doctrinal position of the Church. I am sure there is nothing in it that the Church would disapprove of or find fault with; but presenting it as some kind of “official” statement of the Church would also be misleading. I will refrain from commenting on it because that would take too long; but it can be seen here; and readers who are interested can read it and judge it for themselves. I will only briefly comment on one thing he said with reference to it. At 27:13 minutes he makes this comment:
“But Joseph Smith; in Mormon theology one of his giftings, and this was part of the ‘gifting of tongues;’ in Mormonism, gift of tongues is different than it is in a biblical sense; but in Mormonism he had the gift of tongues, like he could translate things that weren’t even there, and that was part of his gift of tongues, … this is why Mormonism is currently shrinking, because it is so outlandish, …”
Which of course is entirely incorrect. That is not what the “gift of tongues” in LDS theology is; and Joseph Smith’s ability to translate ancient scripture had nothing to do with the “gift of tongues”. Joseph Smith was a seer as well as a prophet; and his ability to translate ancient languages (by revelation) had to do with his gift as a seer, not the gift of tongues as such. And the LDS Church is not “shrinking”. That is his wishful thinking. It is still one of the fastest growing churches. It is his “Evangelical Christianity” that is shrinking, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Skipping the rest of his commentary on the article, at 33:26 minutes into the video he continues his criticism of Joseph Smith as follows (emphasis added):
“But yes, why do I show that to you? How do I know Muhammad isn’t really the Prophet? How do I know Joseph Smith isn’t really a prophet of God? How do I know Joe Schmo knocking on my door tomorrow, having a new revelation from God, isn’t? Where in the scriptures does it tell me I should be looking for you?”
The answer is, The same place in scripture that told the Israelites to be looking for Moses, or for Jeremiah, or for Daniel, or for Isaiah; the same place that told the Christians to be looking for Paul, or for Peter, or James, or John. How did they know? How have the people of any age or generation recognized a true prophet from a false one? How did the people in the days of Jeremiah know he was a true prophet, or in the days of Isaiah, or Ezekiel, or Daniel? How did the people of Nineveh know that Jonah was a true prophet and not a fake one? We can figure out whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet or not in the same way that they could; and it was not because somebody had “prophesied” that they should come (except possibly in a generic sense, which would be equally applicable to Joseph Smith). He then continues his criticism as follows:
“The Old Testament creates massive anticipation for Jesus. He shows up and fulfills what was written.”
Sure it does; but what has that got to do with Joseph Smith? He wasn’t Jesus, nor did he claim to be. Why Is he comparing Joseph Smith with Jesus? Why doesn’t he compare him with Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Moses? Why does he not compare him with Peter or Paul, James or John? Whom is he trying to fool? Some of his viewers may be stupid enough to be fooled by that; but I doubt that all of them would be. He then continues:
“What are we waiting on now? We are waiting on some things to happen in a book called Revelation. We are not waiting for a new prophet with a new revelation. We are waiting for Christ to return. We are waiting for God to finish everything. So we have no expectation for this.”
Not according to the Bible. The Bible teaches that before Jesus comes, something else must happen first:
Acts 3:
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
The Bible tells us that the original Christian Church that Jesus established apostatized, and lost the divine authority that it once possessed, and therefore needed to be restored. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of the original and true Church of Jesus Christ today. Then he continues:
“In fact you know what prophets we ultimately expect are many false prophets. That is what Jesus warned us about. And Jesus of course wasn’t the only last prophet ever. During the end times there is of course going to be specific prophets and stuff that come. But anyway, I thought that would be an interesting thing to do.”
A false prophet is anybody who claims to speak for God, when God has not sent him. He needs to be very careful that he doesn’t fall into that category himself. Joseph Smith, however, was a true prophet because he was truly sent from God, and there are ways that we can know that. Then skipping some introductory remarks he continues:
“Mormon theology is deeply, deeply committed to this idea that you actually know the Book of Mormon is the word of God, you actually know that Joseph Smith is the Prophet, because you get a strong sensation that he is; yeah, they used to call it a ‘burning in their bosom’. But that is a little bit dated term, so sometimes they are starting to shift the terminology of it a little bit. But yeah, that is the thing, the burning in your bosom. And then they will come to your door and knock, knock, knock, ‘Hey you know, can we just pray together,’ you know; and they quote James, you know, like you know, ‘If anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God,’ which of course this is not asking for wisdom, that is a total misquote of the of the passage, misapplication of it too.
“And then these strangers who come to you telling you that everything you know about God and Jesus is just a little wrong, and they have this new revelation, this new book; and you are a little freaked out by the whole experience; and then they put their hands on you and they pray; and you are just kind of freaked out, and your adrenaline is pumping, and then they are like, ‘See, that proves it, that proves it, that feeling that proves it;’ except no feeling can overturn the plain teachings of Scripture. I mean clearly, clearly it is not, it is not the right gospel, it is not the right gospel, so it must be wrong. I mean Galatians says, ‘If anyone comes to you preaching a different gospel than what you have already received here, let him be accursed.’ So no feeling is going to undo the plain teachings of Scripture; and that is a safe place for us to be.”
That of course is a complete misrepresentation of the restored gospel and Church of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that the Holy Ghost leads us to all truth:
John 16:
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
1 John 2:
20 But ye have an unction [anointing] from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
• • •
27 But the anointing [Holy Ghost] which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
That is how we can know all truth, but especially divine truth, and truth about the word of God. We can know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God in the same way that we can know that the Bible is the word of God—by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the only way that anyone can know that either book is inspired and came from God. “Historical evidence” alone cannot prove that to anyone. If it did, then all Bible scholars should be believing Christians; but we know that most of them are not.
We know the Book of Mormon is the word of God when we read it, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to us that it is true and of God. “Praying” alone doesn’t reveal that to anyone, and Latter-day Saints don’t tell anyone to do that. The witness comes through reading the book, and asking God in faith to reveal to us the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost. The “witness” comes as we prayerfully read and ponder the contents of the book. That is what LDS missionaries tell people to do. The Book of Mormon also contains a special warning for folks like Mike Winger, which he would do well to take note of:
We know the Book of Mormon is the word of God when we read it, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to us that it is true and of God. “Praying” alone doesn’t reveal that to anyone, and Latter-day Saints don’t tell anyone to do that. The witness comes through reading the book, and asking God in faith to reveal to us the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost. The “witness” comes as we prayerfully read and ponder the contents of the book. That is what LDS missionaries tell people to do. The Book of Mormon also contains a special warning for folks like Mike Winger, which he would do well to take note of:
3 Nephi 29:
5 Wo unto him that spurneth at the doings of the Lord; yea, wo unto him that shall deny the Christ and his works.
6 Yea, wo unto him that shall deny the revelations of the Lord, and that shall say the Lord no longer worketh by revelation, or by prophecy, or by gifts, or by tongues, or by healings, or by the power of the Holy Ghost.
7 Yea, and wo unto him that shall say at that day to get gain, that there can be no miracle wrought by Jesus Christ; for he that doeth this shall become like unto the son of perdition, for whom there was no mercy, according to the word of Christ.
Another scripture that proves God’s willingness to reveal truth to man (which he has scorned) is the following from James:
James 1:
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
The word “wisdom” is used in a broad sense in scripture, with a wide range of meanings, including the ability to know and discern divine truth:
Proverbs 9:
10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
Proverbs 19:
8 He that getteth wisdom loveth his own soul: he that keepeth understanding shall find good.
Proverbs 16:
16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver!
Deuteronomy 34:
9 And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses.
Ephesians 1:
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Recognizing divine truth, or the truth of the word of God, requires the “spirit of wisdom,” which can only come from God. That is how we can know whether any scripture is genuine and comes from God, including the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
After I had written the foregoing, I found another interesting video by Mike Winger (shown above), in which at 35:46 minutes into the video, after quoting Galatians 2:3 and Romans 11:6 he adds:
“You know what this is, this is the Bible defining its terms for us. Just as it defines love in 1 Corinthians 13 … here the Bible is defining the terms ‘grace’ and ‘works;’ and it says if it is grace, you can’t mix it with works, or else that is not even grace; and if it is of works, then you can’t mix it with grace, or else that is not works. You are going to be saved either by grace or by works, but you can’t mix the two. Do you see that in Romans in 11:6? If more people saw that, every cult would just cease to exist.”
After which he embarks at first on a criticism of Catholic theology, and later of LDS theology, portraying them as “mixing works with grace”. The first mistake he has made is that he thinks that Paul is the “be-all and end-all” of the Bible. When Paul has said something, there the whole Bible has “defined its terms!” Anything else that disagrees with that is a “cult!” If that be the case, then most of the rest of the Bible is a “cult!” because they teach something different. Here is one example:
James 2:
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
So in his theology the Bible “defines its terms” only in Paul, but not in James! Who says that Paul is better at “defining biblical terms” than James? I happen to think that James does a better job! Here are some more verses that he might want to look at:
Don’t these “define biblical terms”? Only Gal. 2:3; Rom. 11:6 does? And these are just a few examples from the NT. There are loads more in the OT. So in his theology the Bible “defines its terms” only in a few isolated passages of Paul, to the exclusion of 99% of the rest of the Bible! Not a very smart theology! Then at around 36:43 minutes he begins a critique of Catholic theology, portraying it as “mixing grace with works,” which after some examination I have to disagree with. I think that Catholic theology has got the balance more or less right. The Bible doesn’t “define its terms” just in Gal. 2:3; Rom. 11:6. It defines its terms in all of the 66 books of the Bible. Paul is not the “be-all and end-all” of the Bible, to the exclusion of 99% of the rest of the Bible, and even the express words of Jesus himself in the four Gospels. After that he makes a brief criticism of LDS doctrine by quoting the following verse from the Book of Mormon:
2 Nephi 25:
23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
That passage is misunderstood. “After all we can do” means in spite of all we can do. That is the correct meaning of it. Some Latter-day Saints in the past have misunderstood it that way; but nowadays thankfully not too many of them do.
So the bottom line is that he has got his theology, as well as his knowledge of LDS doctrine and Joseph Smith badly wrong. Joseph Smith was a great prophet, and a restorer of God’s only true Church on earth. The Book of Mormon is true. It is the word of God, a book of ancient scripture like the Bible. It is also a great witness to the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. Anybody who studies and examines it sincerely and honestly, with a genuine desire to know of its truth, has the promise that he shall know the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost.
