The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest & perhaps understood by few of this generation, After a person hath faith in Christ, repents of his sins & received the Holy Ghost (by the laying on of hands) which is the first Comforter then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering & thirsting after Righteousness. & living by every word of God & the Lord will soon say unto him Son though shalt be exalted. &c When the Lord has thoroughly proved him & finds that the man is determined to serve him at all hazard. then the man will find his calling & Election made sure then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter which the Lord hath promised the saints as it is recorded in the testimony of St. John…
Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more or less than the Lord Jesus Christ himself & this is the sum and substance of the whole matter, that when any man obtains this last Comforter he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him or appear unto him from time to time.
Joseph Smith, June 27, 1839, Commerce, Illinois; recorded in Willard Richards Pocket Companion
These comments by Joseph Smith have been the source of much speculation over the years, including the foundational principle of several Mormon offshoot communities. However, much like his confusion regarding Elijah/Elias and Isaiah/Esaias, I believe Joseph Smith probably misinterpreted the verses he used as a basis for the concept of a “Second Comforter”.
First, let’s take a look at John 14:16-18, referenced by Joseph in the talk I quoted above (I used ellipses for brevity’s sake and cut out Joseph’s quoting of the verses):
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
When we, like Joseph, having grown up understanding that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter, read that Jesus is going to send another comforter, we tend to think of Jesus as referring to something other than the Holy Spirit; but that is because we already have that concept in mind. If we instead read the verses in context, the implication is that Jesus is the first comforter and, once he is no longer with his disciples, he will send the Holy Spirit as another comforter.
The Greek word translated here as “Comforter”, παράκλητος (paraklētos), means an intercessor or helper. It was frequently translated in Latin as “advocatus” and generally means “one who is called to someone’s aid”. It is set as opposite the reference in verse 18 that Jesus will not leave his disciples “comfortless”. Here, the Greek word is ὀρφανός (orphanos) and means to be orphaned, or without the aid of one who brings comfort (e.g., parent, guardian, friend).
Paraklētos is also used in John 15:26:
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Again, this verse, when placed in context, is building on the idea that Jesus is the “first” comforter and the Holy Spirit is the “second” comforter.
The same word, paraklētos, also shows up as a direct reference to Jesus in 1 John 2:1, where it is translated as “advocate”:
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
So, I think we are on the right path when we refer to Jesus as one of the Comforters, but rather than being the “second” Comforter, he is instead the “first”. He was present with the disciples and was their advocate before the Father. He was shortly to leave them so was telling them that he would send them another advocate/helper/comforter – the Holy Spirit, who would testify of him and remind them of his covenant. He is the first and primary advocate, while the Holy Spirit would fill in during his absence.
The text is pretty clear when placed into context, despite Joseph’s reading of the verses, which is why I think it is taking things too far when Joseph’s misinterpretation is used as the foundation for a Mormon offshoot’s doctrine that one must have a personal visitation from Jesus in this life in order to receive exaltation.
Perhaps Joseph was eager to read a personal visit from Jesus into the text because, as he claimed, he had been visited by Jesus, which no doubt brought great comfort to him. I also wouldn’t limit what God can do and claim that Jesus can’t visit someone; God can do what he wishes (e.g., Saul of Tarsus). However, I also find the concept described in the text to be a powerful and useful one: Jesus was and is the first – the primary – advocate and comforter. His work should bring great comfort to us, and his support as our advocate should provide us with the confidence to move out into the world as his disciples, aided by the comforter he promised in his physical absence, to love others and reflect his image into all the world.
I’ve often heard discussions about The Holy Spirit and The Holy Ghost being different. The Holy Spirit is that which can touch a non-member’s life in various ways (being led to investigate the Church). The Holy Ghost is bestowed be Priesthood authority and is more complex in it’s presence. That’s kinda like a First and Second Comforter.
I wasn’t aware of the “personal visitation” belief and was wondering which groups it’s found in.
Well done! Joseph’s statement never made any sense to me.
Markag – I learned it as the gift of the HS and HG being the same (what your received after baptism), but the Light of Christ was available to all people regardless of confirmation status. This generally comes up in lessons as an excuse as to why non-Mormons have spiritual experience with the HG. It never made any sense to me either though as the spiritual experiences of Mormons and non-Mormons are pretty much exactly the same (both find lost things after praying, both are called of God (via the HG) into callings/missions in their respective churches, both receive the gift of comfort in dealing with tragedy. Seems much more likely we Mormons don’t know what we are talking about.
Markag, the idea has gained popularity in the last decade with Denver Snuffer’s 2006 book called _The Second Comforter_, but it’s been floating around for awhile based on some early teachings. The only people I’ve seen today who believe in the necessity of that personal visitation admit they were influenced by Denver Snuffer, like Mike Stroud.
Cody, I can see your point (and notice that other translations seem to go with that line of thinking), but there’s enough other stuff in that chapter that muddies the picture, allowing Joseph’s interpretation of Jesus as Second Comforter to seem plausible. Christ earlier declared himself the way, the truth, the light, so in later saying the “Spirit of truth,” it totally makes sense why someone would convert that to Christ. Then there’s the whole Christ will “manifest” himself to those who love him (v. 21), and both the Father and he will come to those who love him (v. 23). He also talks in v. 19 about how the world won’t see him in a bit, but his current disciples see him (echoing the idea in v. 17 that the world won’t see or know the Spirit of truth, only the disciples will).
I thought the whole needing to see Christ in *this* life was typically backed up by a different statement, but I’ll need to keep digging on that.
Thanks. This makes sense. I’ve noticed that Joseph often took scripture out of context to support his own theological leanings. We still do this a lot as Latter-day Saints.
Mary Ann, I don’t think the text can be read the way you are suggesting it might have been read. The term “the Spirit of truth” was used as a reference to the Holy Spirit and, in John 15:26, you’ll notice that the Father sends it and it testifies of Jesus. Additionally, if we go further, into John 16:6-14, the text is clear that the Spirit of truth is also the Holy Spirit, despite how Joseph and others have tried to finesse the text.
If we try to push out of our minds the baggage we’ve inherited from centuries of tradition and read the text with fresh eyes, trying our best to read it as a 1st century believer would rather than a 19th, 20th, or 21st century American, we can see what the text itself says.
It also helps to read some of the good scholarship about early Christian beliefs surrounding the Holy Spirit, it’s role, etc. in order to get context. Early Christians believed the Holy Spirit was a direct manifestation of God and Christ, and was the long-promised presence of God. They believed that the Holy Spirit’s presence in their community was the presence of God. We have plenty of other texts that demonstrate this, so for us to divorce these verses from that general milieu invites error.
For additional context, this was supposedly said by Jesus prior to his death and reappearance, so there would be a time when, following an absence, his disciples would see him while “the world” would not (following his resurrection but prior to his ascension), and the author of this gospel would have been aware of those claims (scholars usually place the Gospel of John’s creation somewhere around 80-90 CE).
Oh, Mary Ann, I forgot to follow up on your last comment. I may be wrong here but I believe the idea that one must have a visit from Christ in this life comes from how D&C 76:74 is interpreted, where to receive the “testimony of Jesus” is to receive a testimony from Jesus that one has obtained eternal life. Such an experience is referred to as receiving the Second Comforter, and D&C 76:74 is stating that those who don’t receive that testimony “in the flesh” inherit the terrestrial glory.
Again, I may be wrong but that is where I recall having read the concept.
This is a very interesting post, and rings true to me. I’m hoping Mary Ann will come back with more Snuffer or Stroud arguments.
On the other hand, the Book of Abraham most likely comes from a misinterpretation of the mummy scrolls, and many of us still accept it as revelation. Those who do could then also accept Joseph’s second comforter interpretation.
I love the post and appreciate this interpretation. I agree that in context it seems Jesus is the first comforter, while Holy Ghost is second.
On the other hand, the scriptures say the first shall. E last and last shall be first. For us, the Holy Ghost is our first comforter. If he were to see Jesus, he would be second comforter.
Scriptures can have multiple meanings and I think this is a perfect example. I see both interpretations as valid.
Great point, Mormon Heretic.
I was taught the Holy Ghost is the first comforter, Christ the second my whole life. Talks, lessons, manuals, etc. On LDS.org Topical Guide it states that the Holy Ghost is the first comforter and Christ the second. It lists many scriptures, including the ones you have Cody, plus many more. Joseph’s quote is not listed. Clearly your interpretation does not match the church’s, and I’m sure they interpreted the scriptures the way they do long before Denver Snuffer was born. In other words, it is NOT an off-shoot doctrine as some have said—it is the doctrine. Holy Ghost first comforter; Jesus Christ the Second Comforter.
Tom Phillips, who has received the calling and election (second comforter) was under the impression that he was about to see Jesus and was otherwise a conservative high profile leader in the church.
He quotes comments in Mormon Doctrine that state categorically that Christ will appear during this ordinance.
2 Nephi 32:5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.
6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.
These verses from the Book of Mormon seem to indicate that the Holy Ghost comes first and Christ manifesting himself to you in the flesh comes second. Hence, the Holy Ghost is the first comforter and Jesus is the second comforter.
LDS Aussie, I also saw the Tom Phillips interview on Mormon Stories. Great interview and I agree with you.
Tom Phillips is misunderstanding the 2nd annointing. All the Q15 have had it, but many have stated they have not seen Christ in the flesh. I know local people who’ve received that ordinance and we’re told they are ellible for a visit from the Savior but not to be discouraged if He doesn’t appear in the flesh. However, they have had very sacred dreams of Him. These people are so Christlike and humble and low key about their earnest discipleships that I do not wonder that they’ve received the ordinance and the dreams. I strive to follow their beautiful examples that are as the Savior’s example.
Tom Phillips is the polar opposite of them and his fruit speaks for itself.
It sounds like this post is primarily focused on the “order” of events. Some good feedback on that already, particularly Rebecca’s.
But the idea of receiving a visit from Christ himself, however, is throughout Mormon scripture and throughout LDS teaching history until relatively recently. The quote you started with above from Joseph Smith continues with additional detail and clarification after your quote ends. (see TPJS, pp. 150-151) Even Bruce R. McConkie taught it powerfully. (see “Mormon Doctrine”, p. 483) Denver was by no means an innovator in this regard. I just got done listening to two Mormon Stories interviews with people other than Denver Snuffer who also made his same mistake of actually believing this teaching of Joseph’s, Bruce’s, and others’.
The availability of the experience to all, though implied by Nephi, is explicitly highlighted in D&C 93:1. It is an experience that every (major) writer of the Book of Mormon mentions as having had, and which Christ himself (whom Christians call their “Redeemer”) gives as His definition of “redeemed” in Ether 3:13. How incredibly ironic would it be if Christ’s oft repeated invitation of “Come unto me” were actually meant literally and not in some vague, “spiritual” way? For those who have experienced the LDS temple endowment’s very symbolic ceremonies, the idea of entering Christ’s actual presence being the same as being “redeemed from the Fall” is taught pretty clearly. (Although LDSs often somehow seem to mistake the symbol for the reality, unfortunately.) It seems the only real innovation regarding this teaching is the abandonment of the teaching over time (despite its persistence in scripture & ceremony) and the recent outright teaching of the idea as being a Satanically-inspired idea. (see Dallin Oak’s “Boise Rescue” comments)
Vaughn, I am indeed focused on the order of the events, simply because I’m placing the text in the context in which it was given. Jesus is called a “Comforter” in the text and he was there with the apostles. He then speaks of another “Comforter” who will come when he is gone. The order seems to matter: Jesus (who was with them) was the First Comforter, and the Holy Spirit (yet to come) was the Second Comforter. That is how the text reads.
To us (who exist after the events described in the text), the Holy Spirit is the First Comforter, and thus, if Jesus came to you, you’d be experiencing him as a Second Comforter. My argument isn’t that Jesus could appear to someone (I suppose he could do whatever he pleases) but rather that to use the stated text as an example of Jesus being that Second Comforter is to claim it says something that it does not say. It’s torturing the text grammatically and contextually. Religions have a long history of doing this sort of thing, and to do so may indeed teach a true principle, but importantly, this text does not teach it. We have several other latter-day revelations stating that a visit from Jesus is possible, but I’m not addressing those and am willing to concede that they do, indeed, teach it.
I’ll also mention that Joseph Smith had a habit of taking scripture out of context or misunderstanding it, and built doctrines off of such misunderstandings (e.g., Elias/Elijah, Isaias/Isaiah). I’m okay with that, though, because I can still find the subsequent teachings to be useful.
The first comforter is the Holy Ghost. The Second Comforter is the Savior himself. There is also a Third Comforter, which is Heavenly Father. The Holy Spirit is the combined mind and will of the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost is in us when we live worthy of its’ presence and is our connection to God. There are only 2 personages in the Godhead. The Father and the Son (and their singular spouses). Trinitarian beliefs make the Holy Ghost into a third separate personage. Joseph revealed that is a sectarian notion and is false.
Ezekiel, Our scripture, including our Latter-day scripture given through the Prophet Joseph Smith, repeatedly declare that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God. I cannot understand your posting.