We often think that the Bible has a set number of books.  However, this is not true.  The King James Version (that many Protestants and Mormons use) has 39 Old Testament Books, but the Catholic Bible has 46 books, and the Eastern Orthodox Bible has 51 books.  The extra 7 books in the Catholic Bible are:  Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Baruch, and Wisdom.  In addition to these books, the Orthodox Bible also contains 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, and Letter of Jeremiah.  A few other books are considered part of the Apocrypha:  Bel and the Dragon, Song of the Three Young Men and Prayer of Azariah, Prayer of Manasseh, Story of Susannah.  The Book of Esther has 6 additional chapters in Greek, not found in the KJV.

Recently, I purchased the New American Bible.  It is the standard Bible for American Catholics.  One of the things that I was surprised to see in the NAB was scholarly information integrated within the Bible.  For example, there is a brief introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis right before the Book of Genesis.  The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest available versions of many Biblical books (in some cases by 1000 years), and this version of the Bible includes corrections from the Dead Sea Scrolls.  I found that pretty cool.

As part of my introduction to “the Apocrypha”, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the book of Judith.  (Here is a post on some other apocryphal books I have discussed previously.)  As I was looking through the table of contents, I was immediately struck by the female name of Judith.  After all, except for Ruth and Esther, I can’t think of any books of scripture with a female name.  So, I decided to pick this one first.

Judith was the widow of a man named Manasseh.  The Assyrians were attacking Israel, and cut off the water supply.  Concerned for her people, Judith dressed up in “her festive garments and all her feminine adornments” (Judith 12:15) , and approached the Assyrians.  She gains the trust of Assyrian General Holofernes, and promises to deliver Israel to them with no loss of life for the Assyrians.  At this point, the story gets really interesting, starting in chapter 13.

2  Judith was left alone in the tent with Holofernes, who lay prostrate on his bed, for he was sodden with wine.  3 She had ordered her maid to stand outside the bedroom and wait, as on the other days, for her to come out; she said she would be going out for her prayer.  To Bagoas she had said this also.

4  When all had departed, and no one, small or great, was left in the bedroom, Judith stood by Holofernes’ bed and said within herself: “O Lord, God of all might, in this hour look graciously on my undertaking for the exaltation of Jerusalem: 5 now is the time for aiding your heritage and for carrying out my design to shatter the enemies who have risen against us.”  6 She went to the bedpost near the head of Holofernes, and taking his sword from it, 7 drew close to the bed, grasped the hair of his head, and said, “Strengthen me this day, O God of Israel!”

8 Then with all her might she struck him twice in the neck and cut off his head.  9 She rolled his body off the bed and took the canopy from its supports.  Soon afterward, she came out and handed over the head of Holofernes to her maid, 10 who put it into her food pouch; and the two went off together as they were accustomed to do for prayer.”

Judith and her maid return to Israel and show them the head of Holofernes.  Encouraged, the Israelites then rout the scared Assyrians.

So why is this story considered apocryphal?  The NAB Bible cautions, “Any attempt to read the book directly against the backdrop of Jewish history in relation to the empires of the ancient world is bound to fail.”  The Jewish Encyclopedia says,

with the very first words of the tale, “In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh,” the narrator gives his hearers a solemn wink. They are to understand that this is fiction, not history. It did not take place in this or that definite period of Jewish history, but simply “once upon a time,” the real vagueness of the date being transparently disguised in the manner which has become familiar in the folk-tales of other parts of the world.

Many believe this book to be historical fiction.  Martin Luther noted that books of questionable authenticity are found only in Greek, not Hebrew.  Jews also do not consider the book canonical.  Catholics consider the book written “by godly men”, but not quite on par with other scriptures.  However, they do consider the book canonical.  What do you think of this story?  Is it nice to have a feminine hero?

The title to that post may give the wrong impression.  I will clarify that Mormons celebrate Easter with family, but we generally don’t hold special worship services.  We believe that Jesus died on the cross, rose on the 3^rd day, and we believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus.  However, for some reason, our church seems to eschew large celebrations or special worship services in celebration of all holidays, including Easter and Christmas.  (In fact, I would go so far to say that Pioneer Day on July 24^th has larger celebrations than either Easter or Christmas, at least in Utah.  Pioneer Day is not a big deal outside of Utah.)  The church seems to like to keep these Easter and Christmas celebrations low-key, and seems to prefer that families do their own thing for Easter and Christmas celebrations.

I wish LDS church leadership would encourage special worship services, or hold a special Easter fireside.  (They do hold a Christmas fireside the first Sunday in December, though it seems odd to me that they don’t do something closer to Christmas.  I guess they want to spend their time with family too.)  In other churches, you can attend a sunrise Easter celebration or Midnight Mass to celebrate these special holidays.  Such special services are completely absent for Mormons during these holidays.  In some congregations (aka wards), the bishop may decide to have a special theme for Sacrament (aka Communion) Meeting, but this is entirely up to the discretion of the bishop.  I have been in some wards with a special theme, but more wards than not seem to pay little attention to Easter or Christmas.  (I think part of the reason is that Mormons have a lay ministry.  The bishop may not have time to plan anything special because he is already busy with his full-time 40 hour job and part-time 10-20 hour bishop.)

Every 4 years, Mormons take a different book of scripture as the topic for Sunday school.  This year we are studying the New Testament.  Last year was the Old Testament.  We also spend a year on the Book of Mormon, and another year on the Doctrine and Covenants.  If you look at the Sunday School manual, the lesson for our ward scheduled for Easter Sunday is “Who is My Neighbor?” Since we’re studying the New Testament this year, it might be easier to tie Easter into the lesson.  If we’re studying the other 3 books of scripture, the teacher is obviously going to have to do some stretching of the lesson to make it tie in with Easter.  If we’re studying the Book of Mormon, we do so chronologically, so Christ’s resurrection doesn’t happen until late in the year.  Good luck to the teacher for tying Easter into the lesson when studying the D&C or Old Testament.

If you want to know something that Mormons don’t celebrate, that would be Good Friday.  We took a family vacation to visit my parents and my wife’s parents in St. George.  On Good Friday, I asked my wife, “Do you know what today is?”  She responded, “Earth Day.”  Well, that’s correct, but not the answer I was looking for.  (I wouldn’t have known that either if Bored In Vernal hadn’t asked me for a photo to commemorate Earth Day.)  I asked her what other day it was, and she did not know.

In my job, I am working on an international medical study.  We hold weekly meetings to discuss issues with the study.  Two weeks ago, one of the principal investigators (I’ll call him John) asked to cancel our meeting scheduled for Good Friday.  If he hadn’t mentioned it, I would not have been aware of Good Friday (and frankly I didn’t know when Easter was—I wish it had a set day like Christmas does or even Thanksgiving to make it easier to remember.  This bouncing around in March and April makes it practically impossible to remember.)

Mormons don’t acknowledge Good Friday at all.  For those Mormons reading this who don’t know, Good Friday is the traditional day that Jesus was raised and died on the cross.  It is always the Friday before Easter. I believe Good Friday is a big deal in the Catholic Church.  I am not sure how well Protestants follow the holiday (and I would love to hear some Protestants comment on this—my guess is that it varies by denomination.  I would also like to hear how Catholics celebrate Good Friday.)  My boss is Presbyterian, and she didn’t seem to be aware of Good Friday or seem to have plans for it.  She came to work Friday (just like I did).

So Mormons technically celebrate Easter, but we don’t really celebrate at church.  We do it at home.  We hold Easter Egg hunts and consume lots of Easter candy.  Some families talk about the resurrection, but some don’t make a big deal about it.  I have tried to remind my children that Easter is celebrated in commemoration of Christ’s resurrection, so they know that.  But I think they were more excited about the Easter Egg Hunt held at Worthen Park in St. George than remembering the resurrection.

While milling about the park following the Easter Egg Hunt, a person handed me a card advertising a non-denominational Sunrise Service at 8 AM in Tuacahn.  (I think sunrise is about 6:47 in St. George.)  They have a 2^nd service at 11 AM with nursery and “child ministry” so that adults can enjoy the services without interruption from kids.  I asked my in-laws if they wanted go.  My mother-in-law kind of wrinkled her nose and said that she didn’t want to be up in time for the 8 AM meeting, and the 11 AM meeting conflicted with her ward.  My wife looked at me like I was crazy for suggesting such a thing.  (My parents and brother-in-law said they really aren’t interested in other church services.)  I went to the 8 AM service this morning, but it was rained out.  My parents ward had a nice choir and talk on Easter.

So why do you think Mormons don’t acknowledge Good Friday?  Why are there no special worship services in celebration of Easter or Christmas?

I just watched Biblical Authors?  Dr Steve Kellmeyer, author of Fact and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code said,

The Catholic Bible contains more books than the Protestant Bible because of events that happened long before Christ was born.  During the Babylonian exile, the Hebrews were scattered across the Mediterranean and many never returned.  Those who were in the east and never went back to Jerusalem lost their native language.  They were unable to read or write Hebrew after just a few generations.

But they wanted to maintain their connection with their faith.  In order to do this, the Jewish scriptures had to be translated into Greek.  So a hundred years before Christ is born, we have two versions of the Old Testament.  We have the Hebrew canon of scripture, and we have the Greek version of the Old Testament scriptures, and the Greeks themselves wrote additional books that were never translated back into the Hebrew.

This Greek version of scripture is called the Septuagint, and if we look at the New Testament, 80% of the quotes that Jesus and the apostles make to Old Testament scripture are from the Septuagint.  This is important because the Greek version is much more Christological and much more prophetic than the Hebrew versions of the scriptures.  Isaiah is different, for instance; Jeremiah is different, and the differences in the Greek version point much more clearly to Christ than those in the Hebrew.

So when it came to the point that the apostles were proselytizing those in the eastern Mediterranean, and the Hebrews were seeing enormous numbers of their fellow converting to Christianity, they decided to canonize their Old Testament, and the rule the used was, “anything written in Greek was not scripture.”  Why did they pick that rule?  Because the Greek scriptures were so Christological that people would convert simply by reading them.

But it was the Greek scriptures that were used by Jesus and the apostles, that were used constantly during the early church.  When people attempted to attack the scriptures and question what was part of scripture and what wasn’t, the churches decided what actually was and wasn’t scripture.  By the late 300′s and early 400′s, the popes and the councils of the church had defined scripture according to the Septuagint.  The Septuagint as I said had more books.

By the 1500′s when Martin Luther with the faith alone theology, he found that the excessive Christology of the Old Testament also pointed to elements of doctrine that did not support faith alone theology, so he was forced to move back to the Hebrew canon of scripture in order to support the idea that he was bringing forward.  That is why all of the Protestant scriptures now have fewer books in the Old Testament than those that are present in the Catholic Bible.

The interesting point is, up until 1827, there was no version of Protestant scripture that did not include those books.  Luther did not entirely throw them out of the Bible.  He simply lifted them and placed them into an appendix between the Old and the New Testaments.  The first time a Bible was ever printed without was 1827–the English Bible Society first promulgated a Bible that was missing those books.  Prior to that, centuries before it had even been illegal in England to do such a thing under the Protestant kings.  Anyone who put forward a Bible that was missing those books could be beheaded.

Here is a list of the books of the Apocrypha:

1. The First Book of Esdras (also known as Third Esdras)
2. The Second Book of Esdras (also known as Fourth Esdras)
3. Tobit
4. Judith
5. The Additions to the Book of Esther
6. The Wisdom of Solomon
7. Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
8. Baruch
9. The Letter of Jeremiah (This letter is sometimes incorporated as the last chapter of Baruch. When this is done the number of books is fourteen instead of fifteen.)
10. The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men
11. Susanna
12. Bel and the Dragon
13. The Prayer of Manasseh
14. The First Book of Maccabees
15. The Second Book of Maccabees

I find it a bit ironic that Mormons and Protestants discuss whether faith or works is more important.  Why don’t we use the Catholic Bible?  Should we really be supporting Luther’s Bible?

That’s a really good question, because very little is known about him.  He seems to be a real person, because archaeologists have discovered an ancient catacomb in Rome and church dedicated to him.  In 496 Pope Gelasius set up his feast day as February 14 (along with other martyrs) ”… whose names are justly reverenced among men, but whose acts are known only to God.”   That’s the facts of what we know.

Legends say that the Emporer Claudius II didn’t want his soldiers worrying about wives back home, so he banned solders from marrying.  Valentine thought this was unjust, and married the soldiers in secret.  When Claudius discovered this, he sentenced Valentine to prison.  In jail, Valentine tried to convert the Goth emperor and was sentenced to death.  On his way to his execution, he sent a note to his jailer’s daughter signed “From Your Valentine.”  The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that he was first beaten with clubs and then beheaded on February 14, around the year 270 AD.  Pope Julius I apparently built a church near to his memory, dating to around the 5th century.  The History Channel has a nice short video here.

What are you doing to celebrate Valentine’s Day?

The Protevangelion fills in many of these details.  The subtitle of the book is quite long: An Historical Account of the BIRTH of CHRIST, and the Perpetual VIRGIN MARY, his Mother, by JAMES THE LESSER, Cousin and Brother of the Lord Jesus, chief Apostle and first Bishop of the Christians.  Now this is the same James that I blogged about previously as the leader of ancient Christians (rather than the traditional Peter.)

Apparently this gospel was considered canonical among eastern Christians, but generates some controversy because it states that Joseph was a much older widower before marrying Mary.  Some ancient church fathers disputes this and state that Joseph was a virgin as well.  It is believed this manuscript was originally composed in Hebrew.  Postellus translated it into Latin.  This version I will quote below was printed in 1552 in Zurich.

The first few chapters are similar to the gospel of the birth of Mary, discussing Joachim and Anna’s failure to conceive a child.  In this gospel, Anna complains that even the birds can conceive.  I won’t reference that part of the story since it is similar, but there are some interesting facts about Mary’s childhood.  For example, she walks 9 steps at 9 months of age, and dances in the temple at age 3.  But since I discussed her childhood previously, I’ll leave that for now.

I want to discuss some interesting events about John the Baptist, his father Zacharias, and the more detailed account of discord between Mary and Joseph at her unexpected pregnancy.  As you remember from my previous post, there was some Jewish custom about rods for the betrothal of the virgins at the temple.  Zacharias plays a prominent role in this story, as he helps Mary find a husband.

Chapter 8

6 – And behold the angel of the Lord came to him and said, Zacharias, Zacharias, Go forth and call together all the widowers of the people, and let every one of them bring his rod, and he by whom the Lord shall shew a sign shall be the husband of Mary.

7 – And the criers went out through all Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all the people ran and met together.

8 – Joseph also, throwing away the hatchet, went out to meet them; and when they were met, they went to the high-priest, taking every man his rod.

9 – After the high-priest had received their rods, he went into the temple to pray;

10 – And when he had finished his prayer, he took the rods, and went forth and distributed them, and there was no miracle attended them.

11 – The last rod was taken by Joseph, and behold a dove proceeded out of the rod, and flew upon the head of Joseph.

12 – And the high-priest said, Joseph, Thou art the person chosen to take the Virgin of the Lord, to keep her for him;

13 – But Joseph refused, saying, I am an old man, and have children, but she is young, and I fear lest I should appear ridiculous in Israel.

14 – Then the high-priest replied, Joseph, fear the Lord they God, and remember how God dealt with Dathan, Korah, and Abiram, how the earth opened and swallowed them up, because of their contradiction.

15 – Now therefore, Joseph, fear God, lest the like things should happen in your family.

16 – Joseph then being afraid, took her into his house, and Joseph said unto Mary, Behold, I have taken thee from the temple of the Lord, and now I must go to mind my trade of building.  The Lord be with thee.

Chapter 9 – [Mary meets with angel, learns of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, Zacharias can’t speak]

23 – But perceiving herself daily to grow big, and being afraid, she went home and hid herself from the children of Israel; and was fourteen years old when all these things happened.

Chapter 10

1 – And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned home from his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big:

2 – Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face can I look up to the Lord my God?  Or, what shall I say concerning this young woman?

3 – For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my god, and have not preserved her such!

4 – Who has thus deceived me?  Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her?

5 – Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me?

6 – For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Even, and seduced her.

7 – Just after the same manner it has happened to her.

8 – Then Joseph arising from the ground, called her, and said, O thou who hast been so favored by God, why hast thou done this?

9 – Why hast thou thus debased thy soul, who wast educated in the Holy of Holies, and received thy food from the hand of angels?

10 – But she, with a flood of tears, replied, I am innocent, and have known no man.

11 – Then said Joseph, How comes it to pass that you are with child?

12 – Mary answered, As the Lord my God liveth, I know not by what means.

13 – Then Joseph was exceedingly afraid, and went away from her, considering what he should do with her, considering what he should do with her; and he thus reasoned with himself;

14 – If I conceal her crime, I shall be found guilty by the law of the Lord;

15 – And if I discover her to the children of Israel, I fear, lest she being with child by an angel, I shall be found to betray the life of an innocent person;

16 – What therefore shall I do?  I will privately dismiss her.

17 – Then the night was come upon him, when behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and said,

18 – Be not afraid to take that young woman, for that which is within her is of the Holy Ghost;

19 – And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.

20 – Then Joseph arose from his sleep, and glorified the God of Israel, who had shown him such favour, and preserved the Virgin.

Chapter 11

1 – Then came Annas the scribe, and said to Joseph, Wherefore have we not seen you since your return?

2 – And Joseph replied, Because I was weary after my journey, and rested the first day.

3 – But Annas turning about perceived the Virgin big with child.

4 – And went away to the priest, and hold him, Joseph in whom you placed so much confidence, is guilty of a notorious crime, in that he hath defiled the Virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord, and hath privately married her, not discovering it to the children of Israel.

5 – Then said the priest, Hath Joseph done this?

6 – Annas replied, If you send any of your servants, you will find that she is with child.

7 – And the servants went, and found it as he said.

8 – Upon this both she and Joseph were brought to their trial, and the priest said unto her, Mary what hast thou done?

9 – Why hast thou debased thy soul, and forgot they God, seeing thou wast brought up in the Holy of Holies, and didst receive thy food from the  hands of angels, and heardest their songs?

10 – Why hast thou done this?

11 – To which with a flood of tears she answered, As the Lord my God liveth, I am innocent in his sight, seeing I know no man.

12 – Then the priest said to Joseph, Why hast thou done this?

13 – And Joseph answered, As the Lord my God liveth, I have not been concerned with her

14 – But the priest said, Lie not, but declare the truth; thou hast privately married her, and not discovered it to the children of Israel, and humbled thyself under the mighty hand (of God), that they seed might be blessed.

15 – And Joseph was silent.

16 – Then said the priest (to Joseph), You must restore to the temple of the Lord the Virgin which you took thence.

17 – But he wept bitterly, and the priest added, I will cause you both to drink the water of the Lord, which is for trial, and so your iniquity shall be laid open before you.

18 – Then the priest took the water, and made Joseph drink, and sent him to a mountainous place.

19 – And he returned perfectly well, and all the people wondered that his guilt was not discovered.

20 – So the priest said, Since the Lord hath not made your sins evident, neither do I condemn you.

21 – So he sent them away.

22 – Then Joseph took Mary and went to his house, rejoicing and praising the God of Israel.

Chapter 12

1 – And it came to pass, that there went forth a decree from the Emporer Augustus, that all the Jews should be taxed, who were of Bethlehem in Judaea;

2 – And Joseph said, I will take care that my children be taxed; but what shall I do with this young woman?

3 – To have her taxed as my wife I am ashamed; and if I tax her as my daughter, all Israel knows she is not my daughter.

4 – When the time of the Lord’s appointment shall come, let him do as seems good to him.

5 – And he saddled the ass, and put her upon it, and Joseph and Simon followed after her, and arrived at Bethlehem within three miles.

6 – Then Joseph turning about saw Mary sorrowful, and said within himself, Perhaps she is in pain through that which is within her.

7 – But when he turned about again he saw her laughing, and said to her,

8 – Mary, how happens it that sometimes I see sorrow, and sometimes I see laughter and joy in thy countenance?

9 – And Mary replied to him, I see two people with mine eyes, the one weeping and mourning, and other laughing and rejoicing.

10 – And he went again across the way, and Mary said to Joseph, Take me down from the ass, for that which is in me presses to come forth.

11 – But Joseph replied, Whither shall I take thee? For the place is a desert.

12 – Then said Mary again to Joseph, take me down, for that which is within me mightily presses me.

13 – And Joseph took her down.

14 – And he found there was a cave, and let her into it.

Chapter 13

1 – And leaving her and his sons in the cave, Joseph went forth to seek a Hebrew midwife in the village in Bethlehem….

Chapter 14

…

3 – She replied to me, Where is the woman that is to be delivered?

4 – And I answered, In the cave, and she is betrothed to me.

5 – Then said the midwife, Is she not thy wife?

6 – Joseph answered, It is Mary, who was educated in the Holy of Holies, in the house of the Lord, and she fell to my lot, and it not my wife, but has conceived by the Holy Ghost.

7 – The midwife said, Is this true?

8 – He answered, Come and see.

9 – And the midwife went along with him, and stood in the cave.

10 – Then a bright cloud overshadowed the cave, and the midwife said, This day my soul is magnified, for mine eyes have seen surprising things, and salvation is brought forth to Israel.

11 – But on a sudden the cloud became a great light in the cave, so that their eyes could not bear it.

12 – But the light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and sucked the breast of his mother Mary.

13 – Then the midwife cried out, and said, How glorious a day is this, wherein mine eyes have seen this extraordinary sight!

14 – And the midwife went out from the cave, and Salome met her.

15 – And the midwife said to her, Salome, Salome, I will tell you a most surprising thing which I saw,

16 – A virgin hath brought forth, which is a thing contrary to nature.

17 – To which Salome replied, As the Lord my God liveth, unless I receive particular proof of this matter, I will not believe that a virgin hath brought forth.

18 – Then Salome went in, and the midwife said, Mary, shew thyself, for a  great controversy is risen concerning thee.

19 – And Salome received satisfaction.

20 – But her hand was withered, and she groaned bitterly.

21 – And said, Woe to me, because of mine iniquity; for I have tempted the living God, and my hand is ready to drop off.

22 – Then Salome made her supplication to the Lord, and said, O God of my fathers, remember me, for I am of the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob.

23 – Make me not a reproach among the children of Israel, but restore me sound to my parents.

24 – For thou well knowest, O Lord, that I have performed many offices of charity in thy name, and have received my reward from thee.

25 – Upon this an angel of the Lord stood by Salome, and said, The Lord God hath heard they prayer, reach forth thy hand to the child, and carry him, and by that means thou shalt be restored.

26 – Salome, filled with exceeding joy, went to the child, and said, I will touch him;

27 – And she purposed to worship him, for she said, This is a great king which is born in Israel.

28 – And straightway Salome was cured.

29 – Then the midwife went out of the cave, being approved by God.

30 – And Lo! A voice come to Salome, Declare not the strange things which thou hast seen, till the child come to Jerusalem.

31 – So Salome also departed, approved by God.

Chapter 15

1 – Then Joseph was preparing to go away, because there arose a great disorder in Bethlehem by the coming of some wise men from the east,

2 – Who said, Where is the king of the Jews born?  For we have seen his star in the east and are come to worship him.

3 – When Herod heard this, he was exceedingly troubled, and sent messengers to the wise men, and to the priests, and inquired of them in the town-hall,

4 – And said unto them, Where have you it written concerning Christ the king, or where should he be born?

5 – Then they say unto him, In Bethlehem in Judaea; for this it is written: And thou Bethlehem in the land of Judah are not the least among the princes of Judah, for out of thee shall rule my people Israel.

6 – And having sent away the chief priests, he inquired of the wise men in the town-hall, and said unto them, What sign was it ye saw concerning the king that is born?

7 – They answered him, We saw an extraordinary large star shining among the stars of heaven, and so out-shined all the other stars, as that they became not visible, and we knew thereby that a great king was born in Israel, and therefore we are come to worship him.

8 – Then said Herod to them, Go and make diligent inquiry; and if ye find the child, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.

9 – So the wise men went forth, and behold, the star which they saw in the east went before them, till it came and stood over the cave where the young child was with Mary his mother

10 – Then they brought forth out of their treasures, and offered unto him gold and frankincense, and myrrh.

11 – And being warned in a dream by an angel, that they should not return to Herod through Judaea, they departed into their own country by another way.

Chapter 16

1 – Then Herod perceiving that he was mocked by the wise men, and being very angry, commanded certain men to go and to kill all the children that were in Bethlehem, from two years old and under.

2 – But Mary hearing that the children were to be killed, being under much fear, took the child, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in an ox-manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

3 – Elizabeth also, hearing that her son John was about to be searched for, took him and went up unto the mountains, and looked for a place to hide him;

4 – And there was no secret place to be found.

5 – Then she groaned within herself and said, O mountain of the Lord, receive the mother with the dhild.

6 – For Elizabeth could not climb up.

7 – And instantly the mountain was divided and received them.

8 – And there appeared to them an angel of the Lord, to preserve them.

9 – But Herod made search after John, and sent servants to Zacharias, when he was (ministering) at the altar, and said unto him, Where hast thou hid thy son?

10 – He replied to them, I am a minister of God, and a servant at the altar; how should I know where my son is?

11 – So the servants went back, and told Herod the whole; at which he was incensed, and said, Is not this son of his like to be king in Israel?

12 – He sent therefore again his servants to Zacharias, saying, Tell us the truth were is they son, for you know that your life is in my hand.

13 – So the servants went and told him all this;

14 – But Zacharias replied to them, I am a martyr for god, and if he shed my blood, the Lord will receive my soul.

15 – Besides know that he shed innocent blood.

16 – However Zacharias was murdered in the entrance of the temple and altar, and about the partition;

17 – But the children of Israel knew not when he was killed.

18 – Then at the hour of salutation the priests went into the temple, but Zacharias did not according to his custom meet them and bless them;

19 – Yet they still continued waiting for him to salute them;

20 – And when they found he did not in a long time come, one of them ventured into the holy place where the altar was, and he saw blood lying upon the ground congealed;

21 – When, behold a voice from heaven said, Zacharias is murdered, and his blood shall not be wiped away, until the revenger of his blood come.

22 – But when he heard this, he was afraid, and went forth and told the priests what he had seen and heard; and they all went in and saw the fact.

23 – Then the roofs of the temple howled, and were rent from the top to the bottom;

24 – And they could not find the body, but only blood made hard like stone.

25 – And they went away, and told the people, that Zacharias of Israel heard thereof and mourned for him, and lamented three days.

26 – Then the priests took counsel together concerning a person to succeed him.

27 – And Simeon and the other priests cast lots, and the lot fell upon Simeon.

28 – For he had been assured by the Holy Spirit, that he should not die, till he had seen Christ come in the flesh.

[I James wrote the History  in Jerusalem; and when the disturbance was I retired into a desert  place, until the death of Herod.  And the disturbances ceased at Jerusalem.  That which remains is, that I glorify God that he hath given me such wisdom to write unto you who are spiritual, and who love God; to whom (be ascribed) glory and dominion for ever and ever.  Amen.]

So how much validity is there to this story?  Do you think Zacharias may have been killed defending the location of John the Baptist?  How real were the arguments between Joseph and Mary?  Do you think Joseph was a much older widower than Mary?  What problems do you see with this gospel?

“Will you do my eulogy?”

I don’t understand, I said.

“My eulogy?” the old man asked again.  “When I’m gone.”  His eyes blinked from behind his glasses.  His nearly trimmed beard was gray, and he stood slightly stooped.

Are you dying? I asked.

“Not yet,” he said, grinning.

Then why—

“Because I think you would be a good choice.  And I think, when the time comes, you will know what to say.”

Picture the most pious man you know.  Your priest.  Your pastor.  Your rabbi.  Your imam.  Now picture him tapping you on the shoulder and asking you to say good-bye to the world on his behalf.

Picture the man who sends people off to heaven, asking you for his send-off to heaven.

“So?” he said.  “Would you be comfortable with that?

The book is a great read.  Mitch tells the true stories of the interactions with his rabbi, as well as a pastor of a homeless church in Detroit.  I wanted to share a few stories that I found especially touching.  In preparation for the eulogy, Mitch met with his rabbi regularly for 8 years.  The rabbi is a remarkable man.  One of their conversations is detailed on page 158,

Soon we had tumbled into a most fundamental debate.  How can different religions coexist?  If one faith believes one thing, and another believes something else, how can they both be correct?  And does one religion have the right—or even the obligation—to try to convert the other?

…[jump to page 159]

Is there any winning a religious argument?  Whose God is better than whose?  Who got the Bible right or wrong?  I preferred figures like Rajchandra, the Indian poet who influenced Gandhi by teaching that no religion was superior because they all brought people closer to God; or Gandhi himself, who would break a fast with Hindu prayers, Muslim quotations, or a Christian hymn.

…[jumping to pages 160-162]

“Ask yourself, ‘Why did God create but one man?’” the Reb said, wagging a finger.  “Why, if he meant for there to be faiths bickering with each other, didn’t he create that from the start?  He created trees, right?  Not one tree, countless trees.  Why not the same with man?

“Because we are all from that one man—and all from that one God.  That’s the message.”

Then why, I asked, is the world so fractured?

“Well, you can look at it this way?  Would you want the world to all look alike?  No.  The genius of life is its variety.

“Even our own faith, we have questions and answers, interpretations, debates.  In Christianity, in Catholicism, in other faiths, the same thing—debates, interpretations.  That is the beauty.  It’s like being a musician.  If you found the note, and you kept hitting that note all the time, you would go nuts.  It’s the blending of the different notes that makes the music.”

The music of what?

“Of believing in something bigger than yourself.”

But what if someone from another faith won’t recognize yours?  Or wants you dead for it?

“That is not faith.  That is hate.”  He sighed.  “And if you ask me, God sits up there and cries when it happens.”

He coughed, then as if to reassure me, he smiled.  He had full time help in the house now; his home care workers had included a tall woman from Ghana and a burly Russian man.  Now, on weekdays, there was a lovely Hindu woman from Trinidad named Teela.  She helped get him dressed and do some light exercises in the morning, fixed his meals, and drove him to the supermarket and synagogue.  Sometimes she would play Hindi religious music over her car stereo.  The Reb enjoyed it and asked for a translation.  When she talked about reincarnation, per her faith, he quizzed her and apologized for not knowing more about Hinduism over the years.

How can you—a cleric—be so open-minded? I asked.

“Look, I know what I believe.  It’s in my soul.  But I constantly tell our people: you should be convinced of the authenticity of what you have, but you must also be humble enough to say that we don’t know everything, we must accept that another person may believe in something else?”

He sighed.

“I’m not being original here, Mitch.  Most religions teach us to love our neighbor.”

I thought about how much I admired him at that moment.  How he never, even in private, even in old age, tried to bully another belief, or bad-mouth someone else’s devotion.  And I realized I had been a bit of a coward on this whole faith thing.  I should have been more proud, less intimidated.  I shouldn’t have bitten my tongue.  If the only thing wrong with Moses is that he’s not yours; if the only thing wrong with Jesus is he’s not yours; if the only thing wrong with mosques, Lent, chanting, Mecca, Buddha, confession, or reincarnation is that they’re not yours—well, maybe the problem is you.

One more question? I asked the Reb.

He nodded.

When someone from another faith says, “God bless you,” what do you say?

“I say, ‘Thank you, and God bless you, too.’”

Really?

“Why shouldn’t I?”

I went to answer and realized I had no answer.  No answer at all.

I wanted to share one more story, where I take the title of my post.  From pages 70-71,

“What’s wrong?” the Reb asked.

Apparently minutes earlier, Gunther had been outside, overseeing the parking, when the Catholic priest came stomping out and began to yell about all the cars parking by his church, because it was Sunday and he wanted the spaces for his members.

“Get them out of here,” he hollered, according to Gunther.  “You Jews move your cars now!”

“But it’s High Holiday,” Gunther said.

“Why must you have it on Sunday?” the priest yelled.

“The date was set three thousand years ago,” Gunther replied.  Being an immigrant, he still spoke with a German accent.  The priest glared at him, then uttered something almost beyond belief.

“They didn’t exterminate enough of you.”

Gunther was enraged.  His wife had spent three and a half years in a concentration camp.  He wanted to slug the priest.  Someone intervened, thankfully, and a shaken Gunther returned to the sanctuary.

The next day, the Reb phoned the Catholic archbishop who oversaw the area’s churches and told him what had happened.  The following day, the phone rang.  It was the priest, asking if he could come over and talk.

The Reb met him at the office door.  They sat down.

“I want to apologize,” he said.

“Yes,” the Reb said.

“I should not have said what I did.”

“No, you should not have,” the Reb said.

“My archbishop had a suggestion,” the priest said.

“What is that?”

“Well, as you know, our Catholic school is in session now.  And they will have their recess soon…”

The Reb listened.

Then he nodded and stood up.

And when the school doors opened and the kids burst out for recess, they saw the priest of St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church and the rabbi of Temple Beth Shalom walking arm in arm, around the schoolyard.

Some kids blinked.

Some kids stared.

But all of them took notice.

You might think that an uneasy truce; two men forced to walk around a schoolyard, arm in arm.  You might think a certain bitterness would haunt the relationship.  But somehow, in time, they became friends.  And years later, the Reb would be inside the Catholic church.

At the priest’s funeral.

“I was asked to help officiate,” the Reb recalled.  “I recited a prayer for him.”  And I think, by that time, he might have thought it wasn’t so bad.”

I loved the book, and HIGHLY recommend it to everyone.  I’ve only discussed the rabbi here, but there’s a fascinating story of a Christian preacher of the “I Am My Brother’s Keeper” church as well.  Your heart will be touched, as mine was.

I welcome debate here.  Sometimes tempers flare.  I hope we can follow the example of the priest and the rabbi, walking arm in arm despite our different beliefs, and I hope we can maintain these friendships, even if we don’t convert anyone to our way of thinking.

Following her presentation, I asked her if she would share her PowerPoint presentation, which she graciously did.  I have intended to post this much sooner, but have had a backlog of posts on Mormon Schismatic groups (see my Introduction, and details about Fundamentalist Mormons, the Bickertonites,  the Strangites) and the David O McKay Biography (first and second posts), to go along with the Mormon Matters implosion.  I’m finally getting around to Jack’s presentation.  (Better late than never, right?)  If you’d like a copy of her PowerPoint slides, she has made them available on this link to her website.

In her presentation, she said that “female priesthood” is a somewhat anachronistic term, but it is clear that women participated in ordinances that we would consider priesthood ordinances.  She noted that in the New Testament period and onward, there is evidence for

• Women as apostles, bishops, elders, priests and deacons
• Women performing baptisms and administering the Eucharist

She references several types of evidence to support this position

• New Testament data
• Canonical commentary
• Early Christian texts
• Inscriptions on monuments
• Artistic depictions of women
• Polemical evidence (church fathers condemning the already existing practice of ordaining women.)

She references Romans 16:7, which references Andronicus and Junia.  Some translators changed the name Junia (female) to Junis (male.)  Clearly Junia was an apostle.  Early Christian Father John Chrysostum (who lived from 347-405 AD) is quoted as saying,

Greet Andronicus and Junia…who are among the apostles’:  To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.” (In ep. ad Romanos 31.2)

Jack refers to female Deacons in Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 3:8-11.

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.”

“Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money;  they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.”

Ancient Church Father Origen (185-253) also discussed Phoebe.

“’I commend to you Phoebe . . .’ This passage teaches by apostolic authority that women also are appointed in the ministry of the church, in which office Phoebe was placed at the church that is in Cenchreae. Paul with great praise and commendation even enumerates her splendid deeds . . . And therefore this passage teaches two things equally and is to be interpreted, as we have said, to mean that women are to be considered ministers in the church, and that such ought to be received into the ministry who have assisted many; they have earned the right through their good deeds to receive apostolic praise.” (Commentary on Romans 10.17)

John Chrysostum discussed 1 Tim 3:11,

“’Likewise women must be modest, not slanderers, sober, faithful in everything.’ Some say that he is talking about women in general. But that cannot be. Why would he want to insert in the middle of what he is saying something about women? But rather, he is speaking of those women who hold the rank of deacon. ‘Deacons should be husbands of one wife.’ This is also appropriate for women deacons, for it is necessary, good, and right, most especially in the church.” (Homily 11)

Theodoret of Cyrrus (lived 393-460 AD) said,

“’In the same way, women’ that is, the deacons, ‘are to be serious, not irresponsible talkers, sober, faithful in everything.’ What he directed for the men, he did similarly for the women. Just as he told the male deacons to be serious, he said the same for the women. As he commanded the men not to be two-faced, so he commanded the women not to talk irresponsibly. And as he commanded the men not to drink much wine, so he ordered the women should be temperate.” (Commentary on 1 Timothy)

Jack refers other women mentioned in the New Testament.  The following are definite or probable church house leaders.

1. Lydia (Acts 16:14-15; 40),
2. Nympha (Col. 4:15),
3. Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11),
4. Stephanas (1 Cor. 16:15-16),
5. Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5),
6. and possibly the “elect lady” and her “chosen sister” in 2 John.
7. Euodia & Synteche are mentioned in Philippians 4:2-3.  Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350 – 428) read this as a struggle between the two women for leadership.

Some may wonder if a deaconess is simply the wife of a deacon.  However, Jack says that wives of male deacons were generally not given the title of “deaconess”.  She says that descriptions of their function don’t start appearing until the late second and early third centuries.  She also shows a painting possibly depicting women administering the Eucharist (LDS refer to this as the Sacrament.)  Archaeologists are split as to whether this truly represents the Sacrament.

In the 5^th century, Testamentum Domini 2:20 states that if pregnant women could not attend church on Sunday, deaconesses could take the Eucharist to their home.  She also notes that in 511 AD, 3 Gallic bishops were chastised for allowing women to assist with the Eucharist.  This obviously indicates that women were involved in the practice.  Canonical Resolutions 24 (6^th century) states that deaconesses could distribute the Eucharist to their female companions who lived in convents in Edessa.

Jack describes the practice of baptisms by women.  Acts of Paul and Thecla (2^nd century) depicts Thecla performing a self-baptism similar to the story of Alma in Mosiah 18:13-14.  She also notes that early church Father Justinian said it was acceptable for women to baptize as long as they met certain requirements.  In several texts as early as the first half of the third century, female deacons are described as assisting with baptisms and anointing the bodies of the female converts with oil before or after baptism.  In others, it is the women themselves performing the baptisms.

However, such things weren’t popular with everyone.  For example, Tertullian (c. 160 – 220) railed against women performing baptisms (On Baptism 17.4).  Jack gives several examples where baptisms performed by women were criticized.  Church councils in the 5^th and 6^th centuries condemned the practice, and as infant baptism became the norm, fewer adult female converts needed to be baptized, so the practice appears to have died out.

As far as female elders, Jack says there is less evidence; (there is more evidence in the Western Church than Eastern Church.)  She has noted 15 inscriptions referring to the feminine form of “elder”.  Jack says “Since the wives of elders were sometimes called by the term, we can’t be certain that every reference to a female presbyter is meant to denote an ecclesiastical office. However, usually when that was the case, the husband was titled and mentioned along with her.”  Jack showed several inscriptions referring to female elders.  For example, Guilia Runa is noted to have been “presbiterissa”, suggesting that she was a recognized leader of the Church of Saint Augustine in Hippo around the 5^th century AD.  Leta of Tropea, Calabria is noted as “The Presbyter”, but her husband is not honored as an elder.  There are other examples.

Jack mentions that Episcopa Theodora, was the mother of Pope Paschal I.  A painting of her is found in the Church of St. Praxedis, AD 820.  Her husband is mentioned in other texts and is not a bishop.  It appears that vandals tried to scratch off the “a” in “episcopa” in an attempt to obscure her gender.  Other inscriptions include:

1. “Here lies the venerable woman, bishop Q (uenerabilis fem[ina] episcopa Q), buried in peace for five [years] . . . +Olybrio.”  It is a damaged inscription at St. Paul’s Basilican Cemetary in Rome, 4^th-6^th century
2. Canon 20 of the Council of Tours (6^th century) mentions an “episcopa Terni”
3. A 5^th century fragmentary inscription is dedicated to a priestess in Solin. A cross on the inscription indicates that it was a Christian priestess, not a pagan one.

I have previously mentioned a heretical group called the Montanists.  Briefly, Montanus lived in the 2^nd Century AD in Turkey, and was an early Christian leader that traveled with 2 prophetesses.  Jack quoted Epiphanius of Salamis (310-403) describing the Montanists: “They consider Quintilla together with Priscilla as founder, the same as Cataphrygians. They bring with them many useless testimonies, attributing special grace to Eve because she first ate of the tree of knowledge. They acknowledge the sister of Moses as a prophetess as support for their practice of appointing women to the clergy. Also, they say, Philip had four daughters who prophesied. Often in their assembly seven virgins dressed in white enter carrying lamps, having come in to prophesy to ecstasy;”

So, there does appear to be ample evidence for female priesthood in the ancient Christian Church.  I would love to hear more from Jack on why female priesthood is considered “anachronistic”, because I don’t fully understand what she means.  But I absolutely loved her presentation, and I loved how she ended her presentation.

• Option 1 – We can Reject or Dismiss this information.  We can say things such as:

-        “We don’t care if apostate Christian groups were ordaining women”

• Option 2 – We could offer a polemic attack against Joseph Smith.

-        We can look at this data and say, “Look what Joseph Smith neglected to restore.”

• Option 3 – We can accept this information.

-        Yes, women did hold a priesthood in ancient times.

-        The 9^th Article of Faith allows that God still has things to reveal; gives Latter-day Saints room to be accepting of this data

Since Jack went to BYU, she is quite familiar with the Mormon concept of an apostasy.  She said, “I think it shows very well how the idea that women had the priesthood and it was taken away can fit into a Mormon apostasy narrative.”

In a letter from Atto, Bishop of Vercelli, wrote to a priest named Ambrose in the 10th century:

“Because your prudence has moved you to inquire how we should understand “female priest” (presbyteram) or “female deacon” (diaconam) in the canons: it seems to me that in the primitive church, according to the word of the Lord, “the harvest was great and the laborers few”; religious women (religiosae mulieres) used also to be ordained as caretakers (cultrices ordinabantur) in the holy church, as Blessed Paul shows in the Letter to the Romans, when he says, “I commend to you my sister Phoebe, who is in the ministry of the church at Cenchrea.” Here it is understood that not only men but also women presided over the churches (sed etiam feminae praeerat ecclesiis) because of their great usefulness. For women, long accustomed to the rites of the pagan and instructed also in philosophical teachings, were, for these reasons, converted more easily and taught more liberally in the worship of religion. This the eleventh canon of the Council of Laodicea prohibits when it says it is not fitting for those women who are called female presbyters (presbyterae) or presiders (praesidentes) to be ordained in the churches. We believe female deacons truly to have been ministers of such things. For we say that a minister is a deacon (diaconum) from which we perceive female deacon (diaconam) to have been derived. Finally, we read in the fifteenth canon of the Council of Chalcedon that a female deacon is not to be ordained before her fortieth year—and this was the highest gravity. We believe women were enjoined to the office of baptizing so that the bodies of other women might be handled by them without any deeply felt sense of shame…as as those who were called female presbyters (presbyterae) assumed the office of preaching, leading, and teaching, so female deacons had taken up the office of ministry and of baptizing, a custom that is no longer expedient.”

Personally, I’ve studied a bit about women and the priesthood, and I have a post planned that will show that Mormon women washed, anointed, and blessed the sick by the laying on of hands right up until 1946.  I agree with Jack that women’s loss of the priesthood fits very well with the Apostasy.  Of the options she mentioned above, I like Option 3 best.

She let me know of a couple of other links you might find interesting.

• Elder Joanna by Kevin Barney @ By Common Consent, June 16, 2007
• Ordained Women in the Early Church: Book Review by Mogget @ Faith-Promoting Rumor, March 17, 2006

So, what do you make of Jack’s presentation?

Martins joined the LDS church in 1972 with his wife Ruda and son Marcus. Grover describes in detail race relations in Brazil. From page 36,

“This racial climate is a positive factor in the functioning and success of Brazilians of African descent. It does not eliminate issues of race, but it places them in a difference context. Elder Martins is an example of how a person of color can succeed in this type of social system.”

Martins grew up very poor. Grover says on page 37,

“He liked school and had a firm commitment to education, so he was unhappy when, after the sixth grade, knowing that his parent needed help, he left school to begin earning money to help them. At age twelve, he found only low-paying jobs: picking oranges or digging ditches. It was a step up to become a courier at a law office.”

Grover says that Martin never regretted helping his family; instead it furthered his resolve to get an education. His greatest help ended up being his future wife, Ruda. She worked as a secretary in a law office, and encouraged his to continue to pursue his education. Ironically, Ruda’s family was his first exposure to racism. From page 38,

Ruda’s family were fair-skinned mulattos and were concerned about their daughter marrying someone darker. A common belief in the Afro-Brazilian community was that marrying someone darker would “weaken” their racial lineage. “They had feelings against those who were darker and were actually more intolerant because they were not white but yet did not want to marry someone who was darker,” Helvecio explained. “They felt that it would be better if their children married either mulattos or whites but never someone darker than they.

Ruda and Helvecio continued to study and date, and eventually Helvecio became a favorite of his mother in law. After they married, both continued to work; Helvecio finished a bachelor’s degree in accounting at night, and went on to take finance and business administration graduate classes, as well as a teaching certificate. He earned a job at the government owned oil company, Petrobas, and taught night finance and business administration classes at the State University of Rio de Janeiro. He moved up the corporate ladder very quickly at Petrobas.

Helvicio grew up with the Catholic faith, but adopted his wife’s religion of Macumba, “an Afro-Brazilian religion that included, among other beliefs, spirit possession and the worship of African gods.” Page 40 continues,

Thus, even as Martins became one of few blacks in a job environment and social circle that included Brazil’s president and was almost exclusively white, he and Ruda participated in one of the most distinct black cultural groups in the country—one that appealed primarily to poor and black Brazilians.

In 1972, he and Ruda felt the need to look for another religion. Missionaries arrived at this opportune time, and they were baptized on June 2, 1972. Their baptism created conflict with Ruda’s family, but Helvecio’s sister eventually joined the church as well. From pages 41-42,

Helvecio’s and Ruda’s acceptance of the priesthood restrictions was, surprisingly not difficult. In fact, it had been the first question they had asked the missionaries; and Helvecio, although he could not later remember the exact words, recalled that “it was very clear and precise and sounded so right that it didn’t bother me at all. At that time I accepted it as being the will and desire of the Lord” (28) In fact, they were somewhat annoyed that it became an issue that other members of the Church frequently brought up. In the beginning their complete acceptance of the restrictions and continued activity in the Church created some questions and even mild antagonism toward them from members who were struggling to understand the restrictions themselves. Many expected the family to leave the Church soon and were surprised when they remained active…

However, they then went from being a novelty in the Church to notoriety, attracting attention that they did not desire. In fairness to their ecclesiastical leaders, the Martinses were unique. There were other faithful black members, but most were poor. Helvecio probably had the highest social position and prestige of any Brazilian member, white or black. Few members had any political or economic influence, while Martins was on a first-name basis with the president of Brazil. He met often with cabinet members and other government officials or groups about the priesthood ban. They also gave interviews to the press who were curious about the restrictions and about the Martinses’ acceptance of those limitations.

Helvecio spoke in stake conference shortly after his baptism and was introduced to all the General Authorities who visited Rio de Janeiro, including several apostles. His visibility was so extensive that his colleagues at work started referring to him as a “Mormon bishop.”

None of Helvecio’s reaction was artificial or compensatory. “I didn’t feel bad, I felt very good,” he states with the utmost sincerity. “I felt supported and blessed. Logically I realized there were many things I could have done and many ways I could have served that [were] not possible because I didn’t hold the priesthood. But I didn’t feel any less or inferior or rejected or relegated to a second-class citizen. Everybody supported me, everybody helped and assisted me, and I felt that things were even a bit easy for me.” (38)

Grover discusses Martins advantages growing up in Brazil. From page 43,

He did not see the priesthood restrictions as aimed at him personally but rather to a group of which he was part. That is an important psychological factor that meant he did not take the restrictions personally. Second, because he lived in Brazil, he did not have access to much of the literature in the United States giving various unofficial “reasons” that could have created confusion and conflict. This lack of information probably helped eliminate many potential concerns, and he could reconcile himself to the restrictions with what he knew.¹⁵

Third, the restrictions did not significantly affect his participation in the Church. Some Afro-Brazilians in Brazil report being baptized and then forgotten; but Helvecio’s leaders recognized and respected his status and experience outside of the Church. Within a week, both were immediately called to positions that did not require priesthood. Helvecio became teacher of the Gospel Doctrine class, while Ruda served as a counselor in the ward Primary presidency. Such callings quickly integrated them into the fabric of their ward and stake, giving them considerable interaction with the other members.

Finally, he was in a Brazilian congregation that did not exhibit the forms of racism that might have existed elsewhere, even in Brazil. Most in the congregation probably did not attach much significance to the racial restrictions except as an American practice that came with the gospel but was not essentially Brazilian. Most Brazilians dealt with the restrictions by ignoring them as much as possible.

Martins served in many positions, including Public Relations Director, stake executive secretary, and counselor in two stake presidencies, bishop, and mission president (twice). At the end of this second stint as mission president, he was called to the Second Quorum of Seventy in 1990. From page 47,

After a year in Brazil, he suffered a serious accident in June 1991. He fell in the shower and needed surgery on his neck to correct the effects of a fall in the shower and needed surgery on his neck to correct the effects of the fall and an earlier injury from a car crash in 1969. That surgery affected his ability to move, and he struggled to maintain his health. He continued to work hard through suffering chronic back pain. In October 1995 at age sixty-five, he was released after five years as a Seventy.”

Grover notes that Martins is “remembered only sparingly in connection to the black issue.” From page 48,

Although I think that knowing Elder Martins would greatly enhance anyone’s life, this comparative anonymity would actually please him. The last thing he wanted to be known as a symbol of his race. He stated firmly to me: “Soon after my call, some poorly informed people ironically tried to identify me as the Brazilian General Authority, or a representative of the black race to the Lord. This idea is a mistake. I was not called by the Lord to represent any people, nationality, ethnic group, race, or any part of society or group of His children. I was called as a representative of the Lord to his people, just as those who preceded me, those at my side now, and those in higher Quorums than the idea of one I now am a member….Consequently I formally reject the idea of representing any group; that is not what I am.” (76).

Finally, I enjoyed what Grover wrote about race issues. From page 51,

Much has been written about Mormonism and race issues in the United States with minimal reference to South America or the Caribbean. Brazil has by far the largest number of members of the Church (hundreds of thousands) who are black. A high percentage of some congregations are of African descent.³⁴

Numerous black bishops and stake presidents are serving and have served. Research that discusses race in the Church but which does not examine what is happening in Brazil, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Columbia, or other areas of Latin America, let alone Africa, will not be accurate. Focusing only on African Americans seriously distorts the overall picture of blacks in the church.³⁵

So, do you agree that we have a distorted view of blacks in the church?

Growing up, Immaculee had no idea if she was a Hutu or a Tutsi.  Her parents had endured previous political unrest, and wanted to raise their children as if their tribe did not matter.  (It turns out she was a minority Tutsi.)  In 1994, this awful episode began, and she hid with 7 other women in a small bathroom.  She lost half her body weight, and spent literally 3 months praying.  (She is a Roman Catholic.)  The subtitle of the book is “Discovering God Amidst the Rwandan Holocaust”.

She describes her attempt to forgive, even amidst this awful tragedy.  She describes a spiritual experience she had, while essentially witnessing a murder.  I don’t emotionally understand the experience, but I can slightly grasp it intellectually.  She describes hearing the murder of a Tutsi mother, and her child left to die:

page 93-94,

One night I heard screaming not far from the house, and then a baby crying.  The killers must have slain the mother and left her infant to die in the road.  The child wailed all night; by morning, its cries were feeble and sporadic, and by nightfall, it was silent.  I heard dogs snarling nearby and shivered as I thought about how that baby’s life had ended.  I prayed for God to receive the child’s innocent soul, and then I asked Him, How can I forgive people who would do such a thing to an infant?

I heard His answer as clearly as if we’d been sitting in the same room chatting: You are all my children…and the baby is with Me now.

It was such a simple sentence, but it was the answer to the prayers I’d been lost in for days.

The killers were like children.  Yes, they were barbaric creatures who would have to be punished severely for their actions, but they were still children.  They were cruel, vicious, and dangerous, as kids sometimes can be, but nevertheless, they were children.  They saw, but didn’t understand the terrible harm they’d inflicted.  They’d blindly hurt others without thinking, they’d hurt their Tutsi brothers and sisters, they’d hurt God–and they didn’t understand how badly they were hurting themselves.  Their minds had been infected with the evil that had spread across the country, but their souls weren’t evil.  Despite their atrocities, they were children of God, and I could forgive a child, although it would not be easy…especially when that child was trying to kill me.

In God’s eyes, the killers were part of His family, deserving of love and forgiveness.  I knew that I couldn’t ask God to love me if I were unwilling to love His children.  At that moment, I prayed for the killers, for their sins to be forgiven.  I prayed that God would lead them to recognize the horrific error of their ways before their life on Earth ended–before they were called to acocunt for their mortal sins.

I held on to my father’s rosary and asked God to help me, and again I hear His voice: Forgive them, they know not what they do.

I took a crucial step toward forgiving the killers that day.  My anger was draining from me–I’d opened my heart to God, and He’d touched it with His infinite love.  For the first time, I pitied the killers.  I asked God to forgive their sins and turn their souls toward His beautiful light.

That night I prayed with a clear conscience and a clean haert.  For the first time since I entered the bathroom, I slept in peace.

I still can’t fathom her capacity to forgive.  It is awe-inspiring to me.  After the war, she met the man (one of her neighbors), that killed her parents, stole their property, and burned her home to the ground.  Semana, the jailhouse guard allowed her to see him so she could spit on him if she wanted.  From page 204,

“He looted your parents’ home and robbed your family’s plantation, Immaculee.  We found your dad’s farm machinery at his house, didn’t we?”  Semana yelled at Felicien.  ”After he killed [your mother] Rose and [brother] Damascene, he kept looking for you…he wanted you dead so he could take over your property.  Didn’t you, pig?” Semana shouted again.

I flinched, letting out an involuntary gasp.  Semana looked at me, stunned by my reaction and confused by the tears streaming down my face.  He grabbed Felicien by the shirt collar and hauled him to his feet.  ”What do you have to say to her?  What do you have to say to Immaculee?”

Felicien was sobbing.  I could feel his shame.  He looked up at me for only a moment, but our eyes met.  I reached out, touched his hands lightly, and quietly said what I’d come to say.

“I forgive you.”

My heart eased immediately, and I saw the tension release in Felicien’s shoulders before Semana pushed him out the door and into the courtyard.  Two soldiers yanked Felicien up by his armpits and dragged him back toward his cell.  When Semana returned, he was furious.

“What was that all about, Immaculee?”  that was the man who murdered your family.  I brought him to you to question…to spit on if you wanted to.  But you forgave him!  How could you do that?  Why did you forgive him?”

I answered him with all truth:  ”Forgiveness is all I have to offer.”

I never want to experience a tragedy so awful.  I truly admire Immaculee’s capacity to forgive; she is a tremendous example of a Christian.

I believe Paul invented Christianity, not Jesus. There are only a couple of last minute, thrown-in scriptures that Christians use to claim Jesus intended to start a new church, but the overwhelming evidence points to Jesus merely trying to reform Judaism.

He went on to say,

Paul is definitely the one that changed Christianity into what it is even today. It was Paul that actually brought the Gentiles into the fold without the need for circumcision. It was Paul that stated Jesus fulfilled Mosaic Law including the law of tithing, on and on. The movement that Paul inherited was not a unique religion but was a Jewish sect. Paul made it a unique religion. In fact, if there actually was a falling away, Paul is the one that initiated it.

In a previous post on the Apostle Paul’s Remains, Bishop Rick said,

There are many who believe that without Paul, there would be no Christian faith…that it is him that kept it from going the way of all the cults of the time. It was Paul that took Christianity beyond Judaism. Until then, it was really just another Jewish sect.

As I mentioned there, and I will mention again, I disagree with Bishop Rick.  Here in America, we tend to think the Catholic Church claims to be founded from Peter, and then Martin Luther started the Reformation.  Mormons believe Joseph Smith started the restoration.  However, such a  picture is highly simplistic, and not entirely accurate.

At the death of Christ, there was a large movement known as Gnosticism.  This dates right to the time of Christ.  Christian gnostics believed that Christ was not actually human, that he was not born, and that he came supernaturally to the earth.  They don’t believe in Mary, Joseph, the star, and all that is associated in the Biblical story.  The Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic gospel.  It is not a narrative, like the 4 gospels are, but rather just a group of sayings of Jesus.  Gnostics valued intellectual/spiritual knowledge above all.  One could say they were the first group to espouse “intellectualism.”  Gnosticism is kind of an umbrella term, like Protestantism.  Just as not all Protestants believe exactly the same things, there are different flavors of Gnosticism.  Gnostic groups rivaled Orthodox Christianity in size until about the 7th or 8th centuries.  Constantine persecuted the Gnostics in favor of Orthodox Christianity.  I did another post discussing the varying beliefs of Gnostics.

About 2 years ago, I did a post on Montanism which dates to about 170 AD.  Briefly Montanus was a Christian prophet from Turkey, and I discussed interesting similarites between him and Joseph Smith.  I also did a post on Marcionism.   Marcion lived 110 – 160 AD in Sinope, Turkey.  He is probably the first person who tried to establish a Christian canon.  His New Testament was much smaller than ours today.  It included an edited version of the Gospel of Luke, and 10 of Paul’s letters.  He was the son of a bishop, and originally embraced by the orthdox church, but due to his embracing of Gnostic doctrines, he was excommunicated.  However, his movement became so large that it rivaled the orthodox church in size for about a century.

I also know about Ariunism, but have yet to post on the topic.  Arius was an early Christian leader that rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.  Now his idea of God isn’t the same as the Mormon conceptualization either, but he does show some diversity of thought as well.

The Catholic church wasn’t really distinct from the Orthodox Church officially until about 1000 AD.  A case can be made that there was some schismatic activity as early as about 700 AD, but prior to 1000, there really was no Catholic church–it was known as the Orthodox Church.  I previously discussed the idea of theosis in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and its similarities to Mormon Exaltation.

So, suffice it to say, I think there is a lot more diversity of Christianity than simply Paul.  Certainly Paul was a great missionary, and affected Western Christianity significantly.  However, Gnosticism was well established at the time of Paul, and certainly other movements like Marcionism, Ariunism, and Montanism (to name a few) spread Christianity as well.  I think it is a stretch to call Paul the author of Christianity.