Clay Painter, “Hello, and thanks for tuning in.  My name is Clay Painter and I’m a guest interviewer for this episode.  Today we have the extremely distinguished guest, Dr. Robert M. Price.  Bob Price got his Masters of Theological Studies from the Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. in Systematic Theology from Drew University.  Later he received a second Ph.D. this time in New Testament Studies from Drew University.  He is a former pastor and now is an atheist but still finds religious studies fascinating. Furthermore, he still appreciates some religious liturgy and occasionally attends church services.

Bob is a prolific author and a well-known scholar.  His books include Deconstructing Jesus, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, The Reason Driven Life, and the Pre-Nicene New Testament.  And those are just a very few of the many books that he has written.  He is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, an interviewer for the Point of Inquiry podcast, and he runs his own podcast entitled the Bible Geek.  Bob Price, welcome to Mormon Expression.”

Bob, “Well, thanks for having me.  It’s a great treat to be here.”

Clay, “Yeah absolutely.  I contacted you for this interview to primarily discuss one of your new books, Latter-Day Scripture, which is a critical examination of the Book of Mormon. Mormon Expression actually had a panel discussion of the book in episode 169, but I thought that it would be really great to hear you speak about your own work and again thanks for making the time.”

Bob, “Oh, It’s great.  No problem.”

Clay, “Just to kind of give the listeners a heads up of where this podcast is going, like I said in that episode 169, the panel did a pretty good job at discussing what your main points of the book were, that the Book of Mormon is a pseudepigrapha and that you address it as a pseudepigrapha, and then you critically analyze it holding and revealing the multiple sources that Joseph Smith used to kind of create this pastiche work that the Book of Mormon is.  But before we get to that, for listeners that aren’t acquainted with you, can you give us a brief summary of maybe your transition from Christian apologist to a pastor to a liberal Christian and now an atheist?”

Bob, “Well, I was converted to, I guess I always believed in God and Christ and so on.  Growing up my parents were Southern Baptists, but not militant.  Once we moved from Mississippi to New Jersey when I was 10, we began going to a Conservative Baptist Association Church.  I don’t know why the Southern Baptists hadn’t, but they quickly pressed home this whole business of accepting Jesus into your heart and all of that, and I did and I was pretty devout on into junior high and then high school.  I was interested in this whole new thing.  I don’t even know that I even heard the word apologetics yet, but I began to hear it suggested that you can defend the faith and show that it was very probably true or pretty much prove it was true with historical evidence and such.  Geez, this sounded fascinating so I started reading all the stalwarts like John Warwick Montgomery and Josh McDowell and so forth, and I really got into this, Jay and Dee Anderson, and anything published by New Varisty, you name it.

I was armed to enter the battle.  A couple of years later after I had gone through college and studied more but also began to press home my own questions, I began to think, you know I think I’ve only heard one side of this.  This is always kind of a danger for people who get into apologetics defending the faith because if you’re going to present arguments and you don’t want to come off looking like an idiot, you have to weigh the arguments yourself and say, now if I were not a believer, would I find this convincing?

The more I did that, the more problems I had and then I started stumbling on other historical phenomena, kind of like the rise of Christianity, and I began to compare them and to understand what historical method was and I guess I was half way through my master’s program at Gordon Conwell even before I realized I just can’t buy this, the Biblical authority business just seems to me to die th death of a thousand qualifications.

The notion that Jesus definitely existed and rose from the dead and that proves he’s the Son of God.  That’s just full of holes.  There’s no real reason to believe it and so I embarked on an aggressive reading program in other liberal neo-orthodox etc. theologians.  Once I got the degree out of the way, I started at Drew on another theology degree where I studied more of these people.  I was rapidly becoming agnostic about any supernaturalism.  I read Buldman and Paul Tillick and I thought now this is a good way of dealing with it.  There certainly is such a thing as a religious experience.  There certainly is profundity albeit symbolic in the Bible.  So I kind of went to a very extreme, I’d say liberal type of theology, and figured I had some kind of Christian faith.

I began going to a local Baptist church with a real fascinating pastor who was Southern Baptist, but much educated and very much into Kierkegaard and so on.  I then went down to North Carolina to teach at a free-will Baptist college.  I was still very skeptical and didn’t hide it, but I was loyal to the church.  I began going to the Episcopal Church.  I loved the liturgy etc.  I started to think well probably there is some sort of God albeit, not really personal.

About this time I had been down teaching at Mount Olive College about four and a half years.  The pastorate from my old church in New Jersey came open and I applied for that.  I was accepted.  My wife and I and our new baby moved up there and I was pastor for that church for about six years. During that time, I started the second Ph.D. program in New Testament at Drew University. The more I read of the old critics like F.C. Bower and so forth, and also the more I read by Jacque Derendaugh and Don Cubot I began to realize I had unexamined assumptions that there was probably no real reason to believe in spiritual entities more real than physical entities: in other words, Idealist Metaphysics.  I then sort of moved over into religious humanism.

Well the further I got into that I began to think that this is just religion eroding itself and sublimating into the air.  It’s got less and less to it.  It seems to be just trying to evolve into secular humanism.  So I became a religiously friendly atheist and humanist.  Well, I moved back down to North Carolina to be near my in-laws who were having health problems and started going to the Episcopal Church again and I thought, you know, I guess I can be a Christian without solving all the philosophical problems.  I can enjoy the liturgy and the Eucharist and have spiritual experience, which I did.

But then I guess it just goes inevitably back and forth.  I began to think, do I really see anything in this?  It began to wear on me.  So my fondness for and fascination with religion has never dissipated, but I kind of go back and forth on whether I want to identify with it, whereas I do know that I’m an atheist and a skeptic.  You can not easily combine those.  I guess I’m not hot and cold on that.”

Clay, “No absolutely.  Thanks for sharing that story. I think this whole idea of examining critically and studying your way out of religion and religious belief is shared by many listeners that are going to be listening to that.  So after you’ve done this and you’ve published multiple books, and you’re involved in the higher criticism circle, what draws you to Mormon Studies and the Book of Mormon?  How did you even become involved in that?”

Bob Price, “Well, uh, I think it was now looking back a few years, I somehow got in touch with Mark Thomas at BYU.  I got him to write a fascinating article for the Journal of Higher Criticism that I had started/edited, and he did this thing on basically a history of critical study of the Book of Mormon.  People gradually trying to apply to the text methods of modern biblical criticism, and I just found the whole idea fascinating.  I already figured it was a modern work.  I’d read enough of it to know that and I began to read some of these symposia from Signature Books and I thought ‘Wow, this is just a burgeoning field of fascinating scholarly inquiry so I tried my hand at it and got involved with Mark and the Book of Mormon Roundtable and prepared papers for that, and that’s what most of the stuff in my collection Latter-Day Scripture is.  I just found it so fascinating to consider what I already knew about the Book of Mormon in light of what I had learned about the Bible.

For instance, this original debate that still rages: is the Book of Mormon from the 19^th century or is it an ancient book?  Well, I figured that was settled but in light of Biblical studies, for it to be a forgery in a sense, a pious fraud, that looks a lot less bad in terms of the history of scripture because so much of all scripture is pseudepigraphical, it’s almost part of the scripture genre.  It’s over-simplified to say this is a rip-off, it’s a hoax or a fraud.  It’s not quite that way.  It’s just certain writings on certain subjects have to adopt the pose of venerable, ancient, perhaps lost scripture in order to underline the depth and the archaic antiquity of the ideas they are trying to expound.

And so, I wrote an essay that was in Dialogue I think, called Joseph Smith: Inspired Author of the Book of Mormon.  I said, ‘you know you LDS Christians, you shouldn’t be that worried about this.  Here’s what mainstream, at least orthodox, liberal Christians and scholars know about the Bible, an awful lot of it is fake, if you want to call it that.  But that’s no real problem, maybe you could see it that way too and rid yourself of an awful headache, and it would make more sense if you admitted yes, Joseph Smith is the author of our scripture.  Wouldn’t that actually befit his role as a founding prophet more than the idea that he’s just an archaeologist who’s stumbled on an ancient text?

I mean he is the authority, you recognize that in your other books like the Doctrine and Covenants.  Why not come clean and admit that yeah, he wrote this too, and that’s fine. He’s the prophet.  Do you think he is or don’t you?  Of course, I don’t have the personal faith but I look at It in sociological terms.  Is this man the founding prophet of a religious community?  Yes he is.  Is Reverend Moon?  Yes he is.

Functionally, the guy is a prophet and even a Messiah if you want to call him that. You don’t really have to push it farther than that.  And once you see, ok I have a scripture here, revered by zillions of people, maybe I could be of some help showing how the dilemma is not as bad as they think it is, and that’s sort of the approach I’ve taken.  I don’t regard myself as an apologist for the Book of Mormon, but I do think you can reframe the whole debate in a way that’s much more healthy and positive and productive.

Clay, “No that’s great.  You know I hear you saying that Joseph Smith, he’s the author of the Book of Mormon, but let’s not worry about it so much because he’s just doing what thousands of years of history, you know historical prophets have done in the past when they’ve had a message, they’ve reframed it, they’ve claimed authority from other people that have religious clout.  Is that correct?  Is that kind of your main point there?

Robert, “Well, it’s half of it.  I’d go on from there to say that once you recognize this isn’t just a straight forward history, nor is it just a hoax pretending to be straight forward history, you begin to open a window into understanding the deeper dimensions of the text.  Once you say now, this sounds a lot like the Bible, but Smith wrote it, how’d he do that?  Did he combine certain passages because he liked elements of this one and that one and cross them into a new synthesis?

Well yeah he did, and this really did give me great respect for this man, as a creative theologian and writer.  It’s just fascinating, the way in 3 Nephi for instance, his narrative of the Second Coming of Christ into the Western Hemisphere, the way he’s combined various elements of the gospels and why he did and the theological implications.  This guys’ not—I mean even a non-Mormon, even an anti-Mormon shouldn’t look at this guy and say he’s just a hoaxer.  No, No, No.  You’ve got a real creative mind here, a literary genius in some ways.  But you’d never recognize that.  You’d never be free to recognize it if you didn’t realize the sacred game the guy was playing, just like the authors of Deuteronomy and the Book of Daniel, and the Book of Revelation and so much other biblical material did.

Clay, “No that’s good.  Let’s back up just a tad and talk about pseudepigrapha in general.  You mentioned that the Bible is littered with pseudepigrapha.  Do you have kind of a—you mentioned three books there but what books in the Bible are fairly conclusively pseudepigrapha?”

Bob, “Well, unless you’re just a fundamentalist stopping your ears up, Daniel is just very obviously pseudopigraphical and there are many other books not in the canon that take the same approach where the author poses as some wise man of the past, usually more of a scribe than a prophet which is kind of a wink to the reader to signal that this is a literary work, not a transcription of a vision despite the content of it—it’s all a kind of a shtick.  You summarize the history of Israel or the Church or whatever, up until your own time—you the writer, but you say that this is written by an ancient scribe who foresaw it.

Why do that?  Well, it’s a way—these things are usually written in times of great stress.  It’s a way of saying, look, it may look like great chaos to you but God had a plan and that’s working itself out. It’s like a parable about divine providence you might say.  Or sometimes it’s just a case like with the so-called Deutero-Isaiah, or 2^nd Isaiah, or 2^nd Zechariah.  You had somebody that revered the oracles of an early prophet and had more to say in that community but humbly felt, who am I?  I’m gonna put this under the aegis of the great prophet.  I’m not going to have the brazenness to make myself equal with him.  Another way with less admirable motives, you might say, ‘nobody’s gonna take me seriously if I used my own nom de plume.  If I say here’s the prophecy of Bill or the Apocalypse of Chad.  Who’s going to listen to this?  So I better get a hearing with a great name and then the value of it will be apparent to the reader.  That’s generally called a pious fraud.

It is a fraud, but it is pious.  So Daniel is certainly one of those. Deuteronomy—Moses said all of this?  There’s no way.  The law is totally different than it was in earlier law codes defined in Exodus, etc.  The whole premise is kind of vague and self-contradictory.  Is Moses talking to the people who survived the 40 years in the desert? He talks to them as if they were, ‘you did this, you did that’, but then he says they’re all dead and so I’m giving you, their heirs, a pep talk about the law.  Well what is it?  This isn’t historical.  It’s a chance to update the Torah, and the people think that’s really what happened under King Josiah, much, much later.  Well there’s several of those law codes put under Moses’ name.  The rabbis continue to say that they’re oral tradition of interpreting the Torah was part of the Torah, that ‘oh we really didn’t come up with this, Moses did, and he repeated it orally without writing it down and it came down to us.’  That’s pseudepigraphy.

In the New Testament, it seems to me that the letters of Paul are pseudepigraphical. This is way out there, I mean very few scholars think this, but I follow the Dutch radical school of the 19^th century that says that all of these letters are by different Paulinists, and that’s why you have so many different viewpoints in them.  So I think they’re pseudepigraphical.

The Gospels have no names on them, so they were really anonymous.  It was somebody later on, perhaps Polycarp of Smyrna who kind of guessed who had written them, and that’s all it was.  So by far, most of the Bible is anonymous or pseudonymous. The Psalms—there were originally no names on them. They certainly don’t go back to David.

Clay, “Sure. Uh huh.”

Bob, “But neither do they claim to.  That’s just an ancient editorial convention.  We don’t know who wrote virtually any of the Bible, and when you have names, it’s either ancient guesswork or false pen-names.  It’s almost the rule, not the exception.”

Clay, “No, that’s great.  You know, is it fair to say that if we’re going to objectively be critical of all of our scripture, not just our own scripture, not just someone else’s scripture, but if we’re going to be objective and unbiased, and if we’re gonna throw out the Book of Mormon, then heck, we might as well throw out half the Bible.”

Bob, “Oh yeah, you’d have to, yeah.”

Clay, “Or we can be kinder, accept it as pseudepigrapha, acknowledge that is shows insight into the men of the times who wrote it, and may say something about the sociology and religious evolution of that time, and analyze it as that?”

Bob, “Yeah, and that can be edifying too for the reasons you just mentioned.  Any fool can see that the Book of Mormon is the charter for what happened to the Mormon Church’s in their trek across the country. They had their own exodus, their own persecutions.  I mean it’s fascinating.  It’s this updating and Americanizing of the Bible and Christianity.  That doesn’t contradict it being a modern work.  In fact it makes – the truth of it is made all the more clear if you realize it was written in the 19^th century.

I can’t think of the name of whoever said this but in view of the whole DNA thing that just shot the whole premise of it to hell, right?  That there’s no Semitic DNA in the American Indians.  Some traditionalist Mormon made this great statement.  He said maybe the issue isn’t really, ‘Are our stories true?  Maybe the issue is are we true to our stories?’  Bingo, There’s somebody that’s using his brain.”

Clay, “Absolutely, And to be fair, you’re not saying that as an atheist—I don’t think that you’re saying that Joseph Smith somehow foresaw the exile of the Mormons and how they had to trek across the plains, but more you’re saying that’s why it speaks to Mormons as scripture.  Is that correct?”

BoB, “Yes. Yeah, I mean he already had adventures of a kind that almost placed him in the Book of Mormon, but yeah, had it gone another way, probably nobody would even remember it today, but they did see themselves in it.”

Clay, “No, that’s great.  I don’t want to change gears too much, but I’m really, really interested in how this was received at BYU, and how this Book of Mormon Roundtable shook out.  What was that experience like?”

Bob, “Well, we had some people from FARMS, who as of course you know are kind of rock-rimmed apologists for the Book of Mormon as an ancient work.  Is there a Jack Sullivan or something like that?

Clay, “There could very well could be, I’m not sure.”

Bob, “He’s a major character, it’s my failing memory. He’s very significant.  I should remember his name but he’s written truckloads of stuff.  He’s very erudite, but I think he’s wrong.  I had a couple of friendly confrontations with him around the table and said, look, you just can’t ignore the fact that the King James Bible is quoted in this supposedly ancient work, and it’s not just mistranslation of the text and so on.

Well, everybody was well-mannered, but that was pretty much the end of the thing.  We had to have what turned out to be our last meeting in a library downtown or something.  It was no longer under the auspices or should I say wasn’t even tolerated by BYU and they fired Mark Thomas and so they’re just not interested in any kind of revisionism, though there were several people in the roundtable who were traditionalist believers that said, hey, look any perspective that sheds any light on this thing, I want to hear it.  It was a really great, creative collegial atmosphere.”

Clay, “No that’s good to hear that there was at least a mixed bag.  There were those that were absolutely opposed to it, but those that actually maybe welcomed the intellectual honesty and intellectual debate in and of itself.  No that’s great.  I guess we covered a lot of ground on why we should examine the Book of Mormon, but should the Book of Mormon be important to non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, theists and non-theists?  If so, why should it be examined?  What does the Book of Mormon have to add to the religious discussion on a global scale, if anything?  You know, maybe it doesn’t.

Bob, “Well, I’d say it’s importance—this is obviously, you know, just my limited perspective, I’m not pontificating on anything, but it seems to me that it’s most important for understanding the Mormon Church, though it’s limited even there since very little of it appears to have determined the theology of Mormonism; Joseph Smith’s other writings did more of that.  I don’t know that Mormonism would be much different theologically if you didn’t have a Book of Mormon actually.”

Clay, “Yeah, that’s true.  I mean the theology within the Book of Mormon is fairly early 1800’s protestant, not at all like it is today, you know.”

Bob, “That’s right, yeah.  What they have today is far more interesting.  It’s fascinating stuff.  I have to admit—well it’s interesting to me as a student of the Bible because it provides a kind of a testimony of how American Christians have always read the Bible, picturing ancient Israel as Christians already in advance.  Of course, the Bible doesn’t actually put it that way, you have to read it in like Abraham and everybody knew about the atoning death of Jesus and his Resurrection and they were just looking forward to it happening and their faith is predicated on that.  Well that historically [chuckles] that’s absurd, but that is what Christians have believed so the Book of Mormon does them a favor of actually in effect re-writing the Old Testament as if that were true, they just have it happen in the Western Hemisphere.

So it’s very fascinating, but I have to admit I did not find much that was all that edifying about it.  It seemed to me to be pretty turgid.  I gotta say on the other side though, well once somebody said to me, a young Mormon missionary that , have you read this thing, it’s so great and all that, and it couldn’t have been written by mere mortals or something like that, and I said, well, to tell you the truth, I find the Lord of the Rings to be more satisfying scripture, and I stick by that but I don’t mean to condemn the Book of Mormon, there’s a lot of the Bible that’s not that exciting either.  I guess that’s not the point of it.

There is in the Book of Mormon a curiously relevant, modern, narrative that you’ve got these people that share the heritage of Israel and they split and you’ve got the Nephites and the Lamanites and the latter group is dangerous to the former group.  I know this is real politically incorrect, but it seems to me you’ve got a great analogy of what’s going on in the world today.  You’ve got Jews and Christians who are like the Nephites and radical Muslims who are like the extremely dangerous Lamanites who want to settle the hash of the Nephites.  The Nephites better wake up and do something about it.  I think that again you’re not really supposed to say that kind of thing.”

Clay chuckling, “Yeah that’s pretty inflammatory Bob, I don’t know what to think about it to tell you the truth.  I’m not sure—well, I don’t know.”  [Clay chuckles]

Bob, “Well keep in mind that I say this only about radical Muslims and their sympathizers but according to an acquaintance, colleague of mine, Said Hussein Nasir, a very erudite Sufi scholar.  He says, ‘oh it’s only about 10% of Muslims worldwide.’

Oh you mean 10 million?  I’d say we’ve got a problem.  I do not think that all Muslims are like this.  I’ve studied Islam.  I find Islam fascinating.  I love Islam and the Koran, but you can’t ignore the danger that a huge army of fanatics poses.”

Clay, “Oh yeah,  sure.  Thanks for qualifying it as well.  I guess to kind of close, as an outsider and as someone who has a lot of experience with higher criticism within Mormon scriptures and non-Mormon scriptures and just global scriptures in general, what guidance would you have for Mormons who have become disillusioned with the Book of Mormon, with the Book of Abraham, which is even more objectively pseudepigrapha.  You know we’ve got the Book of Abraham, it’s the Book of Breathings.  They’ve translated it.  It doesn’t has nothing to do with Abraham.  You know I see a lot of these people trying to fall back on Biblical scriptures and kind of entrench themselves in Christian scriptures.  I guess as an outsider, would you have any guidance or suggestions for these people who have become disenfranchised from Mormonism and Mormon scriptures and are searching elsewhere?”

Bob, “Well, I would just plead for consistency that they shouldn’t think that the Bible is immune to the kind of debunking, if that’s what they call it that the Book of Mormon is subject to, and I guess what I’m really thinking here in terms of a pastoral concern, they’re just setting themselves up for another even worse disappointment.  I would suggest that they might kind of take the view that reconstructionist Jews do and say, look, we have a community and a tradition and certain values that we believe in and we love.  We have a book here that we find edifying that we love.  Suppose it turns out that it’s fiction like The Pilgrim’s Progress, and it’s not history.  How much does that really matter?

Whatever Joseph Smith said or thought, we do know what he did.  I mean it’s the same way most of us view Dr. King.  This guy had his problems morally, but really who cares?  Look at the balance.  Look at the big picture, what this man did for everybody, and I say the same for Joseph Smith.  I wonder if it’s not better to kind of take a de-mythologized chastened view and to say, I’m a Mormon and proud of it.  Alright I no longer believe certain things, I put away childish things but does Mormonism stand or fall with them?  I don’t think so.

I mean if it does, you’ve got a pretty shallow faith.  If Mormonism is really no more than a dubious belief about people that came to the Western Hemisphere back in the 6^th century BCE, I mean even if that’s true, who cares?  They ideas of Mormonism really have nothing to do with that.  So I say don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

Clay, “Yeah, no, that’s interesting, and it’s really interesting to hear from an outsider Bob.  It seems like you have, on some of your work you’re considered, I don’t know, fairly fringy and radical with your Jesus Myth Theory, but then on the other side you’re incredibly moderate and incredibly accepting of religion in general and I don’t know if that makes any sense or not.  But it’s interesting because what you say right now, and I’m not sure if I’m convinced of it or not.  I’m not sure if there is a baby in the bathwater but what you’re saying right now is something that I hear many more moderate, liberal Mormons say, and that’s an interesting perspective, so yeah, it’s good to hear that from an outside source as well.”

Bob, “Well if they find nothing of value in it, they shouldn’t stick with it, but I’m just thinking about the plight of those who say that it is a thriving matrix for their community and society.  Well, that seems to me to transcend the issues that are bothering them.  And it’s not necessarily all or nothing.  If however it’s a burdensome experience, well, that’s another whole matter that you should leave it like I left fundamentalism.“

Clay, “Sure, no absolutely.  Well Bob, if people wanted to learn more about your views, your work, your books, where would they go to find that out?”

Bob, “Well I got this nifty website my wife made up for me called robertmprice.mindvendor.com. There’s an archive of my old sermons, my various articles on things, my short stories reviews, just anything and everything.”

Clay, “No that’s great.  You know Bob, I want to thank you again for taking time to talk with us today. For listeners that are interested, go to robertmprice.mindvendor.com.  You’ve got an upcoming book that’s published through Signature Books if I’m not mistaken?”

Bob, “Yeah. The Amazing Colossal Apostle:  The Quest of the Historical Paul.”

Clay, “Perfect.  So thanks for tuning on.  As always, the discussion continues at MormonExpression.com.”

What are your impressions?

For a bit of background, Jana Riess was raised by an atheistic dad, and her mom wasn’t very religious either.  Yet, Jana felt pulled toward religious faith, joining with the Presbyterians before embracing Mormonism.  John questioned why it is hard for atheists to keep their children away from religion.  This corresponds immediately after their conversation that I transcribed previously.

John, “Yeah, right.  Ok in this last part of the segment I am just going to bring it back to your childhood for a second.  So right now, based on our data, you know, people are leaving the church at an exponentially increasing rate. Intellectual issues really are most prominent. There are spiritual reasons people leave, there are cultural or political reasons people leave, but by and large, it’s the types of things we have been talking about today.

I think it’s important to look ahead and see where that takes future generations, because (I’m sorry that this is a bit long of a statement) I say across the table from Sam Harris.  I had lunch with Sam Harris.  I sat across the table with Michael Shermer, I had lunch with Michael Shermer.  These are two of the worlds’ great atheist writers and thinkers.  I asked them point blank.  I said, ‘when my wife gets cancer, when is one of your people going to be showing up at our door, delivering a casserole In Logan?’

What I mean by that is—and I don’t mean it socially—if you believe in evolution at all, and most people who leave the church probably do, you would probably concede that if religion weren’t adaptive to the human species, it would have died out, right?  It would have gone by the wayside, but actually, my understanding over the past century is that mankind’s gotten more religious, not less overall. Even though right now there might be a little waxing and waning going on.  So, I think there’s a lot of people leaving religions, leaving Mormonism, envisioning this sort of post-religion world where religion is dead and as soon as we can shake off the chains of religious oppression, then rainbows will emerge and it will rain gumdrops and butterflies will fly around.”

Jana, “Oh unicorns!  Don’t forget the unicorns.”

John chuckling ,”Unicorns will come out and we’ll all be enlightened, and it’s just fascinating to ask what if Jana Reiss, what if Jana Reiss is one of the outcomes of this mass movement towards secularism.  In other words, what if we just ain’t escaping this religious thing as a species any time soon?  The minute that we think we are, as Greg Prince said, atheists are having a hard time keeping their kids in the fold.

[Jana chuckles, John continues.]  What if we’re going to boomerang whether we –what if society is going to boomerang back to religion whether we want it to or not?  And if it is, why not stay and make it as great of a place to stay if our grandchildren are going to end up back here anyway?  That was not even a question.  I’m embarrassed that I just said all that and didn’t even shape it into a question.  Feel free to comment on it.”

Jana, “You have nothing to be embarrassed about.  This is a conversation, it’s not an interrogation.  You have nothing to be embarrassed about.

Well, the things that occurred to me while you were talking, first of all, I can understand that people within Mormonism will be very concerned about disaffection, disaffiliation, people leaving the church.  It is a concern, and I sure hope that people at the church are taking notes on why this happens and that they are planning to make changes in the way we do things, particularly the way we set up these either/or dichotomies in which people are essentially forced out  if they have questions.  But I would also say, and I think you alluded to this, that this is not just the trend within Mormonism.  The trend towards disaffiliation is happening everywhere, and it’s a really fascinating moment in American culture.

I read a book a few Years ago by Christian Smith called Soul Searching, where he was doing research on teenagers and religions, an then he followed up on those same teenagers some years later when they became adults, so college age and in their early 20’s to find out specifically what happened to those kids, but more generally what happens to this whole generation, and I really recommend reading those books in tandem because it’s quite illuminating of how this is affecting.

In the first book, Mormonism comes of very well actually, because Mormon teens at least know what they’re supposed to believe and they report praying regularly, they report  devotional practices that would demonstrate some kind of personal commitment. But even those things are not really enough to hold people in the fold.  So Mormonism more recently, just last year, Oxford published another book by Kenda Creasy Dean who had been one of the researchers on the youth and religion project that Christian Smith started.  (I hope this isn’t boring people.)

The upshot is that she had a whole chapter on Mormons. Are they the success story in how their kids are learning the faith, being indoctrinated in the faith, and then staying in the faith?  I think the chapter was very good in terms of how it examined Mormon kids and how they are acculturated.  I don’t think it did such a great job in terms of looking at the darker side in the fact that a lot of these people then leave even returned missionaries will come home and sometimes leave for whatever reason.  People you would expect to have the highest levels of commitment to the faith.

But much of that is because we are living in a culture in which now 14% of young adults claim no affiliation, so that is a significant change even from a couple of decades ago when it was more like 6 or 7, so it has doubled, so it’s not just Latter-day Saints.

John, “Yeah, and that’s all true, and in Europe religion’s really struggling, and there’s some predictions that in nine countries across the world religion will become extinct, but that’s kind of what I’m wondering is—I wonder about the human condition there’s just no escaping God and belief overall.  I wonder if we’re destined as a species to boomerang back to faith or if science or social engineering is going to someday lead us to a better place?  Have you thought about that at all?”

Jana, “I have thought about it some, but not enough.  I think those are important questions for the future, but no I don’t have any grand sweeping wisdom to give you.”

John, “But as far as you’re concerned, well, what you represent to me is a testimonial that it’s not as simple as yank your kids out of church, you know, and teach them secular ways, because somehow at least for some that spirit just calls them right back, right?”

Jana, “Sometimes that happens.”

John, “Yeah.  I mean I remember speaking of a faith episode with Krista Tippett where there was a liberal loosey goosey Catholics who raised their kids outside of the faith and low and behold, by the time they were adults they were like fundamentalist Catholics.  Have you seen that dynamic happen in Judaism or other religions? “

Jana, “Yes, there is a whole kind of trend and it is very interesting to observe. I think the book that you are referring to from the Krista Tippets show was called the New Faithful.  Colleen someone, I can’t remember her last name, but she was looking at this phenomenon precisely of people who you would think are going to embrace largely secular values and then take a turn for conservative religions, in that case conservative Catholicism, why?  What is it that they are finding there?  I think that the reductionistic sociological answer is that people want to know what they’re supposed to believe, and never more so than a time of confusion more generally.

I don’t think that kind of explanation gives people very much credit.  It doesn’t hold true with people that I talk to.  They don’t say, ‘I wanted to know the truth so that my life would be simpler.’  Their lives are rarely simpler because of the changes that they’ve made.”

Why do you think atheists and religionists seem to have a hard time keeping their children “in the fold”?

John Dehlin recently interviewed her on Mormon Stories. In part 2, he discusses her book quite a bit, but in part 1, he discusses her background and perspectives on various issues. Jana grew up in an atheist family. As part of her “rebelious” youth, she went to church, eventually settling down with the Presbyterian faith. She felt called to the ministry and attended seminary to become a pastor. During her time in seminary, she converted to Mormonism. She has a Ph.D. in American Religious History from Columbia University.

There are some people who believe that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are frauds.  John questioned Jana about this line of reasoning, and I thought Jana gave some interesting insights (1) into the idea of a Mormon Midrash, and (2) truth doesn’t have to be empirical.  I wanted to quote from their interview, starting with about 30 minutes left in part 1.

John Dehlin, “The Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon were like top 5 issues for people that have caused them to leave, and a lot of us just have the assumption that the only people who haven’t left are those who don’t know about Book of Mormon and DNA and the Book of Abraham, and everybody else has left, you know.  How in the world do you stay knowing about that stuff?”

Jana Riess, “Well, I don’t know that this is going to be a satisfactory answer to be honest with you because one of the things that I have found is that some of the people, most of whom are men, who get very exercised about  being in the know about what really happened with the Book of Abraham, etc. are not persuaded by arguments that rest on spirituality.  They only want arguments that meet them point for point, saying—again this is an either/or proposition as well—the whole way they approach the question.  If the Book of Abraham is not a divine translation of this ancient document, if it is in fact an ordinary funerary document that Joseph Smith completely expanded, embellished, elaborated on or if you are looking at a more cynical view, just simply lied about, then what do we do with the rest of our faith?

Well, let’s step back first of all and think about how important is the Book of Abraham to the Mormon faith in general?  I don’t think it’s terrifically important, but that’s just me.  But we need to have a tradition of midrash.  We need to have a tradition where we can look at a prophet in the way that Jews have looked at prophets of old and say, ‘this is a midrash’ on a revelation, or this is a midrash on an earlier work of scripture.”

John, “What does that word mean?”

Jana, “Midrash, well it’s basically any expanded teaching.  I don’t know what the exact definition would be, but an expanded teaching is something where in midrashim, you are taking a core text and then thinking about it cosmically, you’re thinking about it theologically, and you could look at, for example, the entire Pearl of Great Price as a midrash. You have Moses as a midrash on Genesis, right?  If you think about it in those terms, the literal nature of it is less important than what the book is trying to teach us about who we are as children of God.  I think that is where we need to be looking, and I frankly don’t give a hoot about some of the arguments about historicity, DNA, the more troubling avenues is of course Joseph Smith, the more troubling aspect is not the scripture itself, but what Joseph Smith said about and whether he can then be relied upon as a prophet of God.  Based on my work on the Hebrew Bible, I would say yeah.  Have you looked at those guys lately?

I mean we have this completely ridiculous idea of what a prophet is supposed to be.  No human being can measure up to that and there’s certainly no biblical example that does, and yet we conveniently forget about it. We come up with these stupid Gospel Doctrine lessons that encourage us to look at people in the Old Testament as if they were perfect and they we look at our own leaders to be perfect as well, and when they aren’t, well we leave.

John, “Right.  And then that all is a compelling, you know, a viable intellectual response and I want to dig into that a bit in a second.  But, it sounds like what you were also gonna say is there’s a strong spiritual component to it as well, is that right?”

Jane, “Yes there is, and I worry that we don’t emphasize deep reading of scripture in the way that we ought to.  We talk about reading the scriptures all the time.  Don’t get me wrong, and I think that’s an important devotional practice.  I think our church actually does a fairly good job of encouraging people to dig into the scriptures every day.  But we’re doing it for that informational thing that I was talking about before.  We’re doing it so we can learn the scriptures, we have the same thing when we go to the temple.  The temple is not a worship experience.  The temple is a learning experience, instruction.  That’s not at all the same.

We don’t have any corporate worship in Mormon culture, and that’s a huge problem.  I think if we have more authentic experiences of worshiping in community, of reading the scriptures together in community, not in the Gospel Doctrine sense where we’re there to learn about so and so, but in the sense that we have a small group of people who get together, who read the scriptures, who pray together about the needs in their lives, that is a completely different understanding of the scriptures, and we don’t do that.  I have no idea why we don’t.

John,”Hmmm.  And yet you feel it sounds like your Mormon-ness has been overall spiritual edifying for you and that’s part of what’s kept you around, right?  So have you just had to supplement on your own?”

Jana, “I do a lot of supplementing, yes. [chuckles]  That’s well said.  Yeah I do, I do a lot of supplementing.  I think that’s one of the blessings of having not grown up in this tradition.  I worry about people who basically feel that they have to leave Mormonism because they are convinced that the world out there is so much better, right?  It always is going to look that way.  Sometimes it actually is that way, but they don’t understand that it is possible to learn from other traditions without leaving your own, and instead to bless and enrich your life as a Mormon.  You know I’ve been enriched as a Mormon by studying Buddhist texts from Tibet, and about mortality and Tibetan prayer beads and how they sit and think about death, because the prayer beads are actually made of human bones and skulls, and they sit there and they touch them. They think about ‘yeah, I’m going to die.  How does that change the way I live now?

I want to clarify that I don’t actually have such a rosary, I don’t have anything that’s constructed out of human bones and skulls [John chuckles], but the idea of it, just the idea of it has transformed my spirituality and how I think about prayer and mortality, the fact that this is sooo fleeting.  We are here for such a short time.  We have to think about that every day.”

John, “Hmmm.  I’m going to kind of use this as a way to close this first hour, so don’t think that I’m going to now dig into some big deep exploration of this, but well, I guess I have two questions.  One is, um, I won’t ask them at the same time.  So the first question is what about the person that says to you, No Jana, either the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith said it was, or it’s a fraud.  Either the Book of Mormon is what Joseph said it was or it’s a fraud, and truth actually matters, facts matter.  A fair reading of the archaeological, anthropological, genetic, whatever evidence of the Book of Mormon, and a fair reading of the text, the funerary text that Joseph claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham from, you know, points that it was not true.  If it’s not true, I’m outta here because it’s based on fraud and deception and isn’t what it claims to be.”

Jana Riess, “But you are defining truth in this incredibly narrow way when you do that – not you personally, but anyone who does that.  You are defining truth in the way that enlightenment philosophy has taught us to define truth which is that it is factual, that it is historical, that it is epistemologically verifiable, right?  Well truth does not have to be factual, historical, or epistemologically verifiable.  It’s awfully nice when that happens because we can explain it to our friends and not sound like spiritual idiots.  But I’m afraid it doesn’t always work that way.  I think it bothers me—God bless the people at FAIR, I think they do wonderful work and it’s very persuasive for some people, but they’re not asking the bigger question—at least sometimes, about ‘why is this important?’

I once heard a fantastic sermon when I was in seminary.  It was called ‘The Second Question.’  The preacher, this professor had been to a magic show by Penn and Teller, and the guy behind him just basically spoiled the experience for the preacher by saying, ‘Oh, I know how they did that. I know how they did that.’ At one point in the show, either Penn or Teller said, ‘probably there are some people out there who are saying to themselves, ‘I know how they did that, but that’s not the important question.  The important question is ‘why do we do that?’ Why do we do this every day?  The preacher then extrapolated from that this whole sermon called ‘The Second Question.’

If we were to apply that to this situation—for example using Book of Mormon DNA as our test case, right?  The problem with the Book of Mormon DNA is that it demonstrates that you have this understanding of the Book of Mormon that simply cannot be factually true.  They’re right—it cannot be factually true in that sense.  Why does it have to be factually true? This is where I really disagree with Terryl Givens that you had one your show, and I love Terryl, and I think his work has been so important.  I think it’s awesome that he came on your show, but Terryl sets up this situation in [his book] By the Hand of Mormon where he says, “if you don’t believe it happened this way, everything else falls apart.  The rest of it hinges upon the literal nature of this, and I think that when we do that, we are setting everyone up to fall.  Because first of all, it may not be factually verifiable, but why do we care about that?

I think we care about it to a ridiculous degree because we are concerned about how it all sounds to other people. We’re a persecuted religious minority; we’re very sensitive about how our faith plays in Peoria, which by the way, it doesn’t, because I grew up near Peoria, and I can tell you it totally doesn’t.  So the apologetics issues and the questions that are asked, let’s get to the second question, and let’s look at some of these scriptural texts prayerfully, and ask God before we even start reading what do you want to teach me from this?  How does this have bearing on my life?  That’s a very transformative way to approach the scriptures.”

John, “So you’re saying, ‘Forget if Mormonism is factually, historically what it claims to be.  Live it, and if it transforms your life, then you’ve enjoyed a transformed life.  Is that what you’re saying?”

Jana, “I don’t think it’s quite as reductionistic as that.  This is not Pascal’s wager where we are just saying I am going to live as if this were true and see what happens.  Because there is an element beneath this entire experience that is that seed of faith, that yearning, that desire to believe, and that undergirds everything else.  That undergirds every spiritual question.  I think that you’re right that you say, at some point there is this point where it’s a leap of faith, and you do take that faith, leap on faith, as they say for better or for worse.

You have to do it with both eyes open, and this is where I look at some of the people I know in charge, and it all just seems to come so easily to them and of course this is all true, and I was raised on this with mother’s milk and how dare you ever question this.  That is so immature.  That is as immature as it is for someone to say, well this one thing wasn’t factually true so I’m throwing it all out because it’s all lies.  We have to grow up. That’s the whole point of Mormon theology where the burden is upon us with our agency that we need to search for truth.”

John, “Right, so you’re not saying truth doesn’t matter, you’re saying there’s gotta be a core hope or belief that at some level there’s some validity of truth to what’s going on, and then from there the struggle is part of the point.”

Jana, “YES IT IS!!! Well said.  The struggle is part of the point.  I think when Pilate makes this comment that just seems like a throwaway afterthought, ‘ha, what is truth?’ as though that’s this kind of cynical approach, I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt here. I’d like to think that there’s a part of Pilate that really wants to know, what is truth to you, Jesus?  Because you’re totally blowing my mind.  Why don’t we have that curiosity ourselves?

There’s a Gnosticism to people who say ‘I have discovered the real truth’, whether it’s the conservative Mormons who believe that they have discovered the real truth and everything else is crap outside the church, or it’s disaffected former Latter-day Saints who say I’ve discovered the truth about the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham and everything else is crap.  That’s Gnosticism. When we believe that some sort of sacred, secret teaching has awakened us and opened our eyes and that everyone else is in the dark, that is not Christianity.”

John, “And for someone who didn’t believe in Christ, what would you appeal to?  It’s just not what, mature, or broad-thinking, or enlightened?”

Jana, “Mm Hmm.  That’s a good question. Yeah, I think it is not spiritually mature.  If we, as progressive people want to be able to say that we are in fact progressive people, we need to entertain other points of view, and I find that on both of those extremes, there’s often a hardness and a coldness to investigating new truth, and I worry about that.”

John, “Right.  Isn’t that if I’m just going to play pro-LDS for a second, Isn’t that one of the beauties of what Joseph Smith left us, is a legacy of, we will follow the truth and be willing to accept new truth when it comes?”

Jana, “You know, I am so pleased that you brought that up, because unfortunately, we don’t live that way.  It comes in even how people talk to me about my conversion.  I converted in 1993.  That’s the official story, right?  But I am always converting.  I am on a journey of conversion and I’m not the same Christian that I was in 1993 when I became a Latter-day Saint Christian, and I won’t be the same Christian in 18 years from now.  I am always converting, and I hope that I am always going to be open to new truth and wherever God leads me.”

What are your thoughts on a Mormon Midrash, the Book of Mormon, Abraham, and truth doesn’t need to be empirical?

Black Pete, as he was known, was born in 1775 in western Pennsylvania.  (Staker speculates that his last name may have been Carroll, but it is unclear.)  Pete’s owner John Kerr stipulated that Pete would be freed 10 years after Kerr’s death, so Pete was freed at the age of 29.  Pete continued to work for the Kerrs, as well as the Carrel family.  The two families later moved to Ohio (near Kirtland), and Pete moved with them.  About 1820, Black Pete associated with Sidney Rigdon and the Reformed Baptist movement.

It is believed that Black Pete’s mother Kino came from the Slave Coast of Africa, which includes the modern day countries of Guinea, Mali, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Liberia, The Gambia, and Guinea-Bissau.  Staker says she was probably a Muslim, and probably was brought to America in the 1750s-1760s time frame.  Pete was immersed  in many of these ecstatic religious experiences of the time.

Slaves in America developed their own kind of religious worship by combining elements of Muslim worship, Christianity, and Native American influences.  Slaves often practiced ecstatic religious expressions such as speaking in tongues and dancing, and other expressions, sometimes known as the “slave shout.”  Many of these practices became part of the Second Great Awakening in America and were adopted by white communities as well, including Methodist and later Mormon religious services.

In late October 1830, Joseph Smith received a revelation that Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, Parley Pratt, and Ziba Peterson were to go on a mission.  They met Sidney Rigdon in Mentor, Ohio; Rigdon initially was quite unreceptive to the missionaries message.  The missionaries continued on to Kirtland, and found that they were much more successful there.  One of the first converts in Kirtland was the Morley family, and this led to many other baptisms in Kirtland.  Rigdon came to the Morley farm to perform a wedding on November 4, and was a bit more receptive to the missionaries.  On November 8, Sidney and his wife Phoebe were baptized, and Sidney abandoned his role as a minister for the Baptist Church.

The missionaries soon headed south to Cincinnati, leaving the early church members with no real leadership. Staker discusses how Black Pete was one of the citizens that filled the vacuum on pages 64-65.

Black Pete had lived on the Whitney property during their communal experiment and may have continued to do so for a time.  He became a central figure in the new religious community by early December.  The typical pattern for slaves’ conversion to various Christian congregations was through “a radical encounter with spiritual beings” as they sought divine manifestations from the spiritual world.⁸⁵ It seems probable that Black Pete, as a “revelator” in the new religious community, would have built on the ecstatic religious world he knew well.  Because he left no written records, his beliefs and role in the movement can be glimpsed only through the eyes of others as his involvement intensified that winter.

Short lists of those who were ordained and commissioned to preach after their baptism never included Black Pete.  However, the men who wrote about their baptisms note they were also ordained and commissioned as part of their conversion process, and many of the early converts were not included in lists of commissioned preachers, leaving Black Pete’s authority to preach and baptize uncertain.  As part of Kirtland’s ecstatic religious experiences, a number of the men received “letters” that fell from heaven which were copied onto paper before the original letter disappeared.  Black Pete was among those who received one of these letters, his delivered by a black angel.  Because the letters were apparently divine commissions to travel the countryside and preaching and baptizing and because Black Pete was among those who went about the country preaching, it is likely he also performed baptisms during January of 1831.  Careful studies of the relationship between black members and priesthood ordination confirm that some early black members were ordained to the priesthood well after Black Pete’s conversion.⁸⁶ Although the beginning date for a priesthood ban on black members is not firmly established, it is clear that during Black Pete’s period of involvement in early Latter-day Saint history, there were no priesthood restrictions on black members.  Black Pete may well have acted in his role as Book of Mormon preacher in an authorized capacity.  Nevertheless, the newly founded religious movement in Ohio quickly looked to Black Pete for direction; and as this small Church of Christ spread, it seemed to take on a life of its own.

Following his conversion to Mormonism, Staker notes that Pete went with some missionaries (probably Levi Hancock, Edson Fuller, and Heman Bassett) to the shores of Lake Erie in Astabula County.  On February 5, 1831, the Ashtabula Journal “identified Black Pete as a leader in this new religion, suggesting that the group of young men recognized him as their chief source of influence.”  The footnote references “The Golden Bible or the Book of Mormon,” Ashtabula Journal, 3, no. 10 (February 5, 1831):  Levi Hancock in later years became a close friend of black Latter-day Saint Elijah Abel and took special note of blacks in his writings.

In chapter 8, Staker describes many examples of ecstatic religious experiences in the “Mormonite” community in Kirtland.  Of course, may members and non-members were uneasy about the practices.  Sidney Rigdon and Edward Partridge went to New York to meet Joseph Smith, arriving in January 1831.  Joseph quickly sent John Whitmer to preside over the branch.  The missionaries returned in March 1831 and the practices were perceived as “unusual.”  Whitmer wrote years later that (quoting from page 94) ‘a false spirit misled members and that “the devil blinded the eyes of some good and honest disciples.”‘⁶ Staker notes that “Whitmer was apparently unable to resolve concerns about enthusiasm”.

Joseph soon left New York and arrived in Kirtland in February.  Church members looked to him for direction.  Staker notes on page 103,

Black Pete and his associates were forbidden to preach and baptize on the basis of letters from heaven: “It shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church” (D&C 42:11).

It is known that Joseph Smith was aware of Black Pete.  On page 105, Staker writes,

Some of these accounts of Morley family meetings subtly expressed discomfort that a black man would be in a familiar relationship with white women.  ”White women would chase him [Black Pete] about,” recalled Reuben Harmon.¹⁰ The interest apparently went both ways as Lovina Williams, Frederick G. Williams’s youngest daughter, became the object of Black Pete’s affections.  She turned fourteen a month before the missionaries arrived from New York.  According to W. R. Hine, “Black Pete claimed to receive a revelation to marry her.”  Hine also recalled that D. P. Hurlbut “before he left the Mormons” likewise “courted Dr. Williams’ beautiful daughter, and told her he had a revelation to marry her; she told him when she received a revelation they would be married.  Everybody about Kirtland believed he had left the Mormons because she refused him.”¹¹ Henry Carroll claimed that Black Pete sought a revelation from Joseph Smith after his arrival in Kirtland “and wanted to marry a white woman.  Jo Smith said he could get no revelations for him to.  Pete claimed he [Black Pete] did.”¹² Three years later, Lovina married Burr Riggs, one of Black Pete’s close associates, on November 19, 1834.

Concerning Black Pete, Staker concludes with this on page 188:

Black Pete’s presence in the Mormonite community raised numerous other questions about gifts of the Spirit and discerning the things of God that provided a revelatory response.  These revelations continue to provide spiritual insight and answer additional questions within the Latter-day Saint tradition today.  After modern revelation had completely transformed the Morley family in Kirtland, Black Pete disappeared from the community sometime between 1831 and 1834.  On March 3, 1837 Joseph Smith, Sr., father of the Prophet, ordained a former slave, Elijah Abel, an elder.⁶⁹  Abel continued to play a role in the community for the rest of the centure and was probably its best-known black Latter-day Saint.  Other black Latter-day Saints also contributed to the early development of the Restoration.  However, it seems that none of them had as much influence on the early development of the movement as Black Pete.

I am amazed at the large role Staker puts on Black Pete.  How about you?  Were you aware that the first black Mormon was baptized within the first 7 months of the founding of the church? Do you think Staker presents evidence that Pete held the priesthood?

Dr Jeffrey Chadwick, BYU Jerusalem Center

In his 1915 classic entitled Jesus the Christ, Elder James E. Talmage maintained that Jesus Christ was born on April 6 in the year 1 BC.¹ Talmage was apparently the first LDS writer to propose this particular date.  Nearly a century has passed since his book appeared, and in that time it has become practically axiomatic among Latter-day Saints that Jesus was born on April 6 of 1 BC.

The above quote comes from the January 2011 issue of BYU Studies.  Jeffrey Chadwick has undertaken a study to figure out when Jesus was born, and he comes to the conclusion that December was the correct month.  Trying to precisely date the birth of Jesus is problematic, because Luke and Matthew can’t even agree on when Jesus was born.

The Gospel of Luke states that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem due to a census that was being taken when Ceasar Augustus was head of the Roman Empire and Cyrenius (also spelled Quirinius) was governor of Syria.  A footnote for the New American Bible (a Catholic study Bible) states:

Although universal registrations of Roman citizens are attested in 28 BC, 8 BC, and AD 14, and enrollments of individual provinces of those who are not Roman citizens are also attested, such a universal census of the Roman world under Ceasar Augustus is unknown outside the New Testament.  Moreover, there are notorious historical problems connected with Luke’s dating the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria and the various attempts to resolve the difficulties have proved unsuccessful.

P. Sulpicius Quirinius became a legate of the province of Syria in AD 6-7 when Judea was annexed to the province of Syria.  At that time, a provincial census of Judea was taken up.  If Quirinius had been legate of Syria previously, it would have been before 10 BC because of the various legates of Syria from 10 BC to 4 BC (the death of Herod) are known, and such a dating for an earlier census under Quirinius would create additional problems for dating the beginning of Jesus’ ministry.

A previous legateship after 4 BC (and before AD 8 ) would not fit with the dating of Jesus’ birth in the days of Herod.  Luke may simply be combining Jesus’ birth in Bethelehem with his vague recollection of a census under Quirinius to underline the significance of this birth for the whole Roman world: through this child born in Bethlehem peace and salvation came to the empire.

The Gospel of Matthew states that Jesus was a decade earlier than Luke.  In Matthew, Jesus was born just before Herod’s death.  Chadwick takes considerable effort to precisely date Herod’s death.  The ancient historian Josephus recorded a lunar eclipse 10 days to 2 weeks prior to Herod’s death.  Astronomical research places this eclipse on March 13 in 4 BC, so Herod’s death must have occurred in late March or early April of 4 BC.  Most scholars generally agree that Herod died in 4 BC, placing Jesus’ birth some time before 4 BC.  (Chadwick notes another eclipse occurred in September 15 of 5 BC, but argues that

this date fell months prior to Passover and is otherwise difficult to reconcile with the known length of time Herod is recorded to have reigned, as noted by Thomas A. Wayment’s study.  Wayment–and Brown, Griggs, and Hansen before him–seem willing to at least consider the September 15 eclipse of 5 BC as the one mentioned by Josephus, but they seem more convinced by the 4 BC eclipse of March 13.³⁶ The present study argues that a September eclipse and November death date for Herod in 5 BC are not possible in view of what is known about the length of Jesus’s life.

Chadwick notes many other historical pieces to the puzzle, but I want to hit the crux of why he thinks Jesus was born on December.  Though most scholars believe that the census in Luke was not related to the birth of Jesus, Chadwick calculates that Gabriel appeared to Mary (also known as “the Anunciation of Mary”)

to announce to Mary that she would conceive and bring froth a son to be named Jesus (see Luke 1:27-31).  In the Jewish context of this account, this would mean that the month of Adar, the sixth month of the Jewish year occurred from mid-to-late February to mid-to-late March….

From the account in Luke it appears that the Annunciation actually occurred near the end of Adar (mid-to-late March) and that Mary conceived immedately or within a day or two of the angel’s visit.  This is all evident because Luke reported that after the Annunciation Mary traveled “with haste” (immediately) to Judea, where she stayed for three months with her older kinswoman Elisabeth, and that the older woman, six months pregnant with her own child, instantly recognized that Mary was also carrying a child in her womb (see Luke 2:39-43).

Of course, nine months after March would put Jesus birth in December.  Chadwick goes on to say that “it is quite possible, perhaps even probable that Jesus was born during Hanakkuh at the end of 5 BC.”

Now, I’m sure this flies in the face of conventional LDS thought.  Chadwick references other studies of the birth of Jesus and notes problems with the dates proposed.  Here is a summary.

April of 1 BC.  As mentioned earlier, this is the date proposed by Elder James E Talmage in Jesus the Christ.  However, since it has been demonstrated that Herod died in 4 BC, the year is wrong.

April of 4 BC.  Orson Pratt and Bruce R. McConkie have postulated a date of April 11 for this year.  Chadwick states

Herod died within days of the beginning of April that year, and Jesus has to have been born at least two months, and more likely three to four months, prior to Herod’s death in order for all the events described in Luke and Matthew to have taken place before Herod’s passing.  This would push the latest historically plausible date for Jesus’s birth to December of 5 BC.

April of 5 BC.  Chadwick explains why this date is unworkable as well.

Any date in April of 5 BC, whether it be April 6 or some other day, is likewise unworkable as the natal date of Jesus.  The death of Jesus must have occurred in early April of AD 30, the only other year in which Passover fell late in the week and which also allows Jesus to have lived thirty-three full years from his birth.  But April of 5 BC was thirty-four full years prior to Jesus’s death, and the language of the Book of Mormon does not allow for thirty-four full years to have passed from Jesus’s birth to his death.

Spring or Autumn of 5 BC.  Chadwick rules out Autumn as well, because the Annunciation of Mary occurred in the Jewish month of Adar, corresponding to March.  As for any other spring date, Chadwick notes that other authors have also excluded Spring or Summer dates as well.

Dates in 6 or 7 BC.  Chadwick notes that some non-LDS scholars have proposed earlier dates.  Some reference that Herod wanted all children two years and younger killed, so they have proposed an earlier date.  Such dates would put Passover on a Tuesday at the death of Christ, making him stay in the tomb longer than the requisite three days recorded in the Gospels.  Earlier dates would also conflict with John the Baptist’s ministry that occurred

“in the fifteenth year in the reign of Tiberius Ceasar” (Luke 3:1), the commencement of which can be confidently dated to autumn A.D. 27. Jesus cannot have died in the same year that John began preaching, since Jesus himself only began preaching at Passover (spring AD 28), just months after John’s advent.

Obviously, of greatest interest is the council activities surrounding the Nauvoo Expositor.  For those unfamiliar with the history surrounding the Expositor, here is a brief introduction.  William Law was originally a member of the First Presidency.  He was disturbed to learn about polygamy, and at first tried to work with Joseph Smith.  However, Joseph excommunicated him, and he was purged from the city council.

In response, William and his brother Wilson Law, along with a group of others started a rival newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor, publishing information about polygamy as well as calling for the repeal of the city charter for Nauvoo.  The Expositor published only 1 issue; the city council met and declared the Expositor guilty of libel, a public nuisance, and called for the press to be destroyed.  The council also asked for a barn owned by the paper’s editor Robert Foster to be destroyed as well.

Following the destruction of the press, Joseph, Hyrum, and others were transported to Carthage on the charge of riot.  Once there, the charge was upgraded to treason.  I’ve talked previously about Michael Quinn downplaying polygamy in relation to the Expositor, as well as Dallin Oaks’ book discussing the trial of Joseph’s assassins.

I was lucky enough to receive a pre-release version of the book.  When I received it, I had to turn to June 1844, the month that changed Mormon history forever.  One of the interesting things to learn was how John Dinger compiled the book.  There are 3 sets of minutes for these city council meetings.  The minutes were originally recorded on loose sheets of paper.  Then, the minutes were corrected and copied to some rough bound books.  A final set was corrected, to be furnished for official publication to newspapers with additional additions and deletions.

Some of the originals were damaged crossing the plains, so it was important that different versions of the minutes survived.  The council minutes cover 1841-1845.  Each year composes  one volume. Volume 2 of the rough bound minutes are missing, and it is believed that the missing volume contained information about the trial of John C Bennett (also a former member of the First Presidency, and original mayor of Nauvoo.)  I wish that volume survived–I’d love to learn more about John C. Bennett.

I think that sometimes people look at the events of June 1844 with a limited scope: polygamy.  However, as we read the city council minutes, there were other larger issues that were discussed in addition to polygamy.  It becomes clear that agents in Missouri were still trying to extradict and arrest Joseph Smith, specifically for the assassination attempt on Missouri Governor Boggs.  As such, original Mayor John C. Bennett helped push the original Nauvoo city charter through the state legislature.  It was the most expansive city charter in Illinois (and in the nation.)

The city council, aware of Joseph’s problems in Missouri, passed the most expansive habeus corpus laws in the country to stymie efforts to arrest Joseph.  Because Missouri officials continued to make attempts to arrest Joseph, the Nauvoo city council granted itself the power to review all arrest warrants and determine their validity.  As such, it became nearly impossible to take Joseph out of Nauvoo, and prompted calls for the repeal of the Nauvoo city charter so that Joseph could be arrested and face charges in Missouri.

Disenchanted with polygamy, the Law and Higbee brothers (former members of the church hierarchy and city council) saw no other recourse than to call for the repeal of the city charter and publish information about polygamy.  This obviously didn’t sit well with the city council.

These notes are quite rough.  Brackets to fix grammar and add information about individuals has been added for readability.  Quoting from page 258, (items in blue are my editorial comments)

C[ounselor] H[yrun] Smith believed the best way [would be] to smash the press all to pieces and pie {or spill/scatter} the type…{several council members concur} A[lderman] [Samuel] Bennet…considered [the paper] a public Nuisance.

However, I was interested to learn that it was not unanimous.  (Please note that “the Mayor”  is Joseph Smith below.)  From page 259,

B[enjamin] Warrington [said he was] convinced [t]his [was] a peculiar ^situation^ for the city council to pass this a[ction, to declare a newspaper] a nuisance[,] [and] would [not] be hasty & [he] propose[d] giving a few days limitation & assess a fine of $3000.00 for any libel – & if they would not cease publishing [the] libels[,] [then] declare it a nuisance.  C[ouncillor] Warrington said the counsellor State made provisions [for such instances]. – [They could] fine [the paper] 500.00.

[The] Mayor was sorry to have one dissenting voice[.] – C[ouncillor] Warrington did not mean to be understood to go [against the proposition.] but [would] not be in haste.  C[ouncillor] [Hyrum] Smith – spoke of the Mortgages on the property of the proprietors of the Expositors [and thought they city could not collect fines against them.]

The rest of the minutes are interesting as well.  There were (unfounded) charges of infidelity against William Law, (unfounded) charges of Francis Higbee participating in counterfeiting money, and many other accusations against the proprietors of the Expositor.  Council members recited the indignities of Haun’s Mill, and mobbings in Missouri as a reason not to tolerate the Expositor.  Obviously the resolution to destroy the Expositor passed, setting into motion a series of unfortunate events, leading to Joseph’s death.

One day later is a short entry (June 11) references the burning of the Expositor and possible retaliation.  From page 266,

Jason R. Luce said [he heard] Ianthus Rolf said while the [Nauvoo Expositor] press was burning last eve[ning] [that] before 3 weeks [were out] the [Nauvoo] Mansion House would be strung [pulled] to the ground & he would help do it.  And Tallman Rolf said the city would be strung to the ground within 10 days (Moses Leonard heard it.  Joshua Miller was present[)].  ^Henry Redfield said^ Matthias Spencer said that [storeowner David] Bryant said before he would see such things[,] he would wade to his knees in blood.  (Others were present).

The day Joseph [Smith] went to Carthage[,] ^[I] was at^ [the] Finch & Rollison Key Stone [store].  [Abner] Powers ^a taylor^ was talking with Mr ^N. N.^ Davis – about Joseph’s going [to Carthage].  Powers ^of Potsdam N.H.-^ said they would attempt to kill Joseph.  Mr Davis replied ["]O no, I think not.["] – Yes says Powers[,] “they will by God & you know it[,] by God.

On June 21, the city council minutes were approved and the members in attendance were noted.  Joseph was killed on June 27, as a mob stormed the jail and killed he and Hyrum, wounding John Taylor severely, and Willard Richards slightly.

The book adds a ton of footnotes that I have omitted.  These footnotes give biographical and other information that aids in understanding, and they are very useful.  After all the emotion of the June 10 city council meetings, the July 1 meeting is much more somber and conciliatory.  Letters from Illinois Governor Ford and other government officials were read.  Councillor W.W. Phelps rose and stated on page 274,

As to the press[,] we will do whatever is right towards a remuneration “whatever we ascertain the minds of all the Proprietors of the Expositor.”  Moved by Ald[erman] Phelps that the resolution pass – and it was carried.  Moved that Hiram Kimball be appointed to make [an] [en]treat[y] with the Proprietors of the said Expositor – and carried.

It is interesting to see the combustible atmosphere of June 1844, and I haven’t even started talking about the High Council minutes.  I plan to talk about that more next week.  Comments or questions?  How do you think history would have changed if the city council had listened to Councilman Warrington?  Would the majority of the church be reading this while looking over the Mississippi River?

Few people have actually read the Spaulding manuscript, and its whereabouts were secretive for quite some time.  A man by the name of Doctor Philastus Hurlbut (Doctor was his first name, last name is also spelled Hurlburt) tried to find the Spaulding manuscript, and obtained it from Spaulding’s widow.  Hurlbut hinted that the document was related to the Book of Mormon, but didn’t publish the document.  Hurlbut became embroiled in controversy when he threatened to (quoting from page 136 of the Sidney Rigdon biography),

“wash his hands” in the prophet’s blood.  In January 1834, Smith filed a legal complaint bringing Hurlburt to trial on 1 April.  The court found him guilty, fined him $200, and ordered him to keep the peace for 6 months.

The notoriety surrounding Hurlbut, compounded by an embarrassing incident when his wife was discovered in bed with Judge Orris Clapp, tarnished his image.  He sold his research to Eber D. Howe, editor of the Painesville Telegraph, who held a long-term grudge against Mormonism for converting his wife and daughter.

Howe kept up the pressure, printing a pamphlet called Mormonism Unvailed. After reading the manuscript, Howe hinted that there must be a second undiscovered manuscript, because the manuscript in his possession didn’t seem to match the Book of Mormon.  Howe didn’t keep Painesville Telegraph very long.  In January 1835, he sold the paper to his brother for $600, but the newspaper folded later that year.   A man by the name of LL Rice purchased the assets of the Painesville Telegraph in 1839-40.

Many documents came with the purchase, but Rice did not view them at the time.  Rice later moved to Honolulu, Hawaii.  In the 1880s, James Fairchild, president of Oberlin College in Ohio suggested that Rice look through the documents in search of pre-Civil war slavery information.  It was at this point that the Spaulding document was discovered.  Rice notes “There is no identity of names, of person, or places; and there is no similarity of style between them.”

The actual manuscript was given to Oberlin College in Ohio, and a copy of the manuscript can be downloaded here.  The document was labeled faintly in pencil “Manuscript Found—Conneat Creek”.  I thought it would be interesting to give a brief synopsis of the book so that you can get an idea of how different the book is from the Book of Mormon.  The RLDS church first published the contents of the manuscript, and it includes a section giving a brief background.

In the introduction to the book, there is a letter dated in 1885 offering the manuscript to Joseph Smith III rather than the LDS church.  Tellingly, Rice said to Smith:

“I am of the opinion that no one who reads the Manuscript will give credit to the story that Solomon Spaulding was in any wise the author of the Book of Mormon….Finally, I am more than half convinced that this is his only writing of the sort, and that any pretence that Spaulding was in any sense the author of the other, is a sheer fabrication.  It is easy for anybody who may have seen this, or heard anything of its contents, to get up the story that they were identical.”

Here is a brief summary of the contents of the book.

Introduction

Spaulding tells how he came up with the manuscript.  The introduction actually bears some remarkable resemblances to the story in the Pearl of Great Price on how Joseph said he obtained the golden plates, though there are some notable differences.

Spaulding tells a story in which he discovers a stone covering an underground cavern.  After climbing into the cavern, Spaulding found 28 rolls of parchment, written in Latin behind another stone.  The rolls had a variety of subjects, but this is the story that captured Spaulding’s attention, “a history of the author’s life & that part of America which extends along the great Lakes & the waters of the Mississippy.”  (I have previously documented some of the horrendous spelling errors and humorous stories in this work.)

Chapter 1

Fabius tells that he was born in Rome.  The emporer Constantine sent Fabius on a mission to take supplies to “Brittain”.  On his way there, Fabius and his crew encountered a large storm blowing west, and they were lost.  They discovered a new land inhabited by natives with odd “jesticulations”, dancing, and singing.  Often these natives barked like dogs and sounded like bullfrogs.

Chapter 2

Fabius negotiates a treaty with the natives to obtain 6 wigwams.  In return the natives received 50 knives and a scarlet cloth.  Captain Lucian and Fabius become judges over their crew, and built houses of worship.  (Fabius and crew were Christians.)  Trojanus becomes their minister of choice.  Since there were 7 women on board, these women are allowed to make their choice of which man to marry, leaving 6 men single.  Fabius notes that the natives were uncivilized, like an “Orang outang”.  They ate dinner, got drunk, and “retired two by two, hand in hand.  Ladies heads a litte awri, blushing like the morn.”  They also resolved to build a church.

Chapter 3

The language of the natives was Deliwanucks.  They were tall, wore loin cloths and the clothing was made of animal hair.  “The one half of the head of the men was shaved & painted with red and the one half of the face was painted with black.”  Dogs were sacrificed to their god, and Fabius tells of a strange mud wrestling ceremony.

Chapter 4

Fabius begins a strange discussion about whether the sun or earth is the center of the universe.  He decided to go up river to find other civilizations.  Fabius, Crito, and a Delawan interpreter meet the king and bring an animal called a Mammoon back.  A Mammoon is bigger than an elephant, docile, provides milk, and its fur is shaved to make clothing.  Crito notes these people are also ignorant savages, but they are kind like Christians.  They go up the Suscowan River to a city called Owkwahon and received further gifts from the king there.

Chapter 5

After further travels, Fabius and crew meet a new race of people.  They meet a group of farmers with domesticated animals such as elk, horses, turkeys, and “gees” (geese).  This group of people manufactures iron, lead, and steel tools.  They make beautiful pottery, but buildings are very simple.

Chapter 6

Fabius reports that a group of people called the Ohons had an alphabet and wrote on parchment.  “Their constitution & laws are committed to writing.” They loved to write poetry.

“RELION 7”

Spaulding discusses their religion.  They believed in an omnipotent being “who is self-existent & infinitely good & benevolent.”  This being formed 7 sons that “manage the affairs of his empire.”

“There is also another great intelligent Being who is self-existent & possessed of great power but not of Omnipotence.  He is filled with infinite malice against the good Being & exerts all his subtlety & power to ruin his works.”

After death, “Material Bodies are prepared for the souls of the righteous….But the wicked are denied etherial bodies”.  He goes on to describe some of their religious laws, telling them to be kind and not lustful, among many religious laws.

“it is ordained that on every eighth day, ye lay aside all unnecessary labour, that ye meet in convenient numbers & form assemblies, that at each assembly a learned holy man shall preside, who shall lead your devotions & explain this sacred Roll & give you such instruction as shall promote your happiness in this life & in the life to come.  Once in three months ye shall hold a great festival in every great city & town, & your priests shall sacrifice an Elk as a token that your sins deserve punishment, but that the divine mercy hath banished them into shade of forgetfulness.”

Chapter 8 “An account of Baska”

A partial story of a man named Baska is told, “he was celebrated as a man of the most brilliant & extraordinary talents.”

Chapter 8 (yes labeled the same as above.)

Spaulding takes a break from the story “with a few sceches of Biography” and proceeds to tell of

“the great and illustrious Lobaska.  He is the man who first introduced their present method of writing….

As for instance he is represented as forming a curious machine & having placed himself upon it he mounted into the Atmosphere & assended a great hight & having sailed a considerable distance thro’ the air he desended slowly & received no damage that multitudes of astonished Spectators had a number of times seen him perform this miraculous exploit.”

Lobaska was about 40 years old, affable, but not locquacious, and “none could withstand the energy of his reasoning.”  He set up schools of “Schollars”, teaching them writing as well as making tools of iron.  He lived among a group called the Siotans.

A man named Tobaska taught theology “comprised in the sacred Roll.”  The king and chiefs allowed Tobaska to teach throughout the kingdom.  The message revealed to Tobaska by “the second son of the great & good Being…..They forgot their old religion which was a confused medly of Idolitry & superstitious nonsense.”

However, war came because Bombal, King of the Kentucks “had taken great umbrage against Kadokam the King of Siota.”  Kentucks had “exclusive right to wear in their caps a bunch of blue feathers” but the Siotan princes “assumed the liberty to place bunches of blue feathers upon their caps.”  Spaulding discusses war strategy, noting that Lobaska had a cunning plan.  After the battle, a peace treaty was signed that anyone could wear blue feathers.

Chapter 9 Government and Money

The people lived on both sides of the Ohio River, “Excepting the Cities of Golanga & Gamba, whose Kings claimed jurisdiction over an extent of country of about one hundred & fifty miles along the River Ohio…”  Lobaska devised “a system of Government with a design of establishing two great Empires one on each side of the River Ohio.”  The Sciotan constitution is described with “Emporer, Labamack the oldest son of Lobaska.”  Government will pass to his eldest son, and they must marry within the Siotan kingdom.  Money shall not depreciate.  “Lambon the third son of Lobaska shall preside over them & shall have the title of high Priest…”

Chapter 10 – Military Arrangements, Amusements, Customs, & Extent of the Empires

The Sciota and Kentuck Indians believed that a strong military was the best deterrent.  Both groups held military drills for soldiers 4 times per year, with a mock battle once per year.

Then Spaulding starts talking about courting rituals.  Men and women wear different colors of feathers to show they are available.  Once a couple has decided they like each other, they meet the parents and arrange to date 10 times within 60 days.  If all goes well, a marriage follows.

Chapter 11

The Sciota had a son (Elseon) and the Kentucks had a daughter (Lamesa) of marrying age.  Their constitutions said that they were only to marry within the kingdom. However, an exception was made to allow them to marry.  Some were not happy, and tried to disrupt the wedding, but finally Elseon and Lamesa were married in a traditional wedding.

Chapter 12

Following their marriage, Elseon (of the Kentucks) and his bride Lamesa (of the Sciota) surreptitiously leave for the land of the Kentucks.  Apparently this was not part of the bargain of the Sciota.  They demanded that Lamesa return to Sciota, and said if she did not return, they would declare war on the Kentucks.  (It was their understanding that that would remain in Sciota.)  After much discussion, the Kentucks would not return Lamesa, but offered to give the Sciota something as reparations to avert war.

Chapter 13

There are quite a few speeches from the leaders of the Sciota and Kentucks about how to handle the situation.  The Sciota considered reparations, and asked for the death of Elseon.  Of course, that was rejected, and so they made preparations for war.  Lamesa and Elseon felt sad for starting the conflict, but declare their love for each other.

Chapter 14

This is the last chapter, although it doesn’t appear to be finished.  The war grinds on.  There is so much death, at one point the two sides declare a two-day armistice so they can bury the dead.  The leaders begin to work on different “stratigems” to win. They attack at night, assuming the other side is asleep.  Once again, there is more death.  They bury the dead in giant mounds of mass graves.

Sambul, king of Sciota attacks a fort and finds Lamesa.  Cruelly, he kills a woman trying to protect Lamesa.  Lamesa asks him to kill her too because she does not want to return.  Then Elseon leads a counter-attack on the fort, and ends up fighting Sambul in hand to hand combat.  Elseon kills Sambul with a sword, and frees everyone in the fort.  The war appears to be winding down with the death of Sambul, but it is not clear how the story ends.  The story ends abruptly,

Hamback altered his plan & determined to wait for the return of Sambul.  As for Hamboon he concluded to wait until Elseons return.  These determinations of the hostile Emporers prevented for the time any engagements between the two grand armies.  But when the fate of Sambuls division was decided & Elseon had returned with the joyful news of his victory, the Kentucks were all anxious for an immediate Battle.

There is more to the manuscript, but it does not appear to be part of the story. To me, it appears to be Spaulding talking in his own voice, not of the book.  I am only quoting a portion here–See the original manuscript for a full quote.  A note on page 156 that says,

Note – This was found with the foregoing manuscript an in the same handwriting.

But having every reason to place the highest confidence in your friendship & prudence I have no reluctance in complying with with your request.  in giving you my sentiments of the christian Religion….In giving you my sentiments of the Christian religion, you will perceive that I am not trameled with traditionary & vulgar prejudiuce that I do not believe certain parts & certain parts & certain propositions to be treu merely because that my ancestors believe them & because they are popular….But notwithstanding I disavow any belief in the divinity of the Bible, & consider it as a mere human production designed to inrich & agrandize its human production designed to inrich and agrandize its authors & to enable them to manage the multitude.  Yet casting aside a considerable mass of rubbish & fanatical rant, I find that it contains a system of ethics or morals which cannot be excelled on account of their tendency to amiliorate the condition of man….having a view therefore to those parts of the Bible which are truly good & excellend I sometimes speak of it in terms of high commendation.  And indeed I am inclined to believe that notwithstanding the mischeifs & injuries which have been produced by the bigoted zeal of fanatics & interested priests yet that such evils are more than counterbalances in a Christian land by the benefits which result to the great mass of the people by their believing that the Bible is of divine origin.  & that it contains a revelation from God.  Such being my view of the subject, I pre fer my candle to remain under to remain under a bushel, nor make no exertions to dissipate their happy delusion, as

Note to Copyist.–On the other side of the paper on which the above is written & in what seems the same hand is the following:

Itham Joyner privlg to erect Mill, & the pvlg of wtr.  Wright has prefern & he next.  To fix to take out wtr for himslf & to be at one 1/4 expense of keeping dam in repair.  If wishing to sell to gv Wrt pvlg buing if dont buy to sel to another his works but not pvlg of wtr I. Joyner & W. Brigham agree to build a house for their use.  Sd B. to 6 feet on the water below the width of the house & J to have for six feet & B to 12 feet on the same side in the rear bank & 12 feet of the garret.  to be at equal expense in the water works.  To be at equal expense in the partitions of the rooms.

The writings of Sollomon Spaulding Proved by Aron Wright Oliver Smith, John N Miller & others.  The testimonies of the above Gentlemen are now in my possession.

Signed

D. P. Hurlbut.

With that ending and summary, do you think this is really the source of the Book of Mormon?

Daniel Peterson

Dan Wotherspoon put together a 4 hour interview with BYU Professor Daniel Peterson on a variety of topics.  It is available on the Mormon Stories Website or at iTunes.  I really enjoyed the interview, and decided to create a transcript for part 3 where Peterson talked about his (futile) experience trying to improve the church manuals.  On Part 3 at the 34:48 mark:

Dan Wotherspoon, “I sense that there has to be some level of frustration at times with for instance, FARMS has been doing all this work for 25 years.  We have the Limited Geography thing.  That message is not getting out to CES. We still have kids that are coming through seminary and then they’re going to hit this wall.  So inoculation isn’t happening.

Peterson, “Right”

Wotherspoon,”Talk more about that.”

Peterson, “Well, we’ve talked already about the fact that I wish church history were taught better than it is. I served for 8 or 9 years on the Gospel Doctrine Writing Committee for the church, and I remember when I was called (by George P. Lee by the way), I said ‘I’m not sure I’m the person you want because I don’t like the church’s manuals very much.’  [Lee said], ‘You’re just the person we want because we want to improve them.’  Well, when I got onto the committee, in fact, there wasn’t much we could do.  We were constrained within certain limits…”

Wotherspoon, “Was it Correlation Committee or was it certain personalities that had…?

Peterson, “I was never clear—I think it was Correlation, I think it was the Curriculum Committee.  They would lay out certain things about the way they wanted us to do it.  For example, we were doing the Old Testament one year and we wanted to put in some historical background.  People can’t make sense of this if they don’t know what’s going on.  I think a big aid to understanding Isaiah is to understand the politics of his day. Isaiah and Jeremiah were reacting to great power politics, and if you don’t know any of that, you can’t make any sense of it.  A lot of it is talking about their day.

We tried to put some of that in and we were rebuked by someone, some nameless bureaucrat up in Salt Lake who said, “you’re just trying to show off.’  I thought ‘How?  We’re anonymous.  Who would know?  We’re just trying to help people out there by saying, look: one paragraph.

The Assyrians were doing this, the Egyptians were doing that, Israel was caught in between.  Isaiah is warning against x, y, and z. Half the passages make sense once you know that.  It doesn’t take a lot to make sense of those passages, but we weren’t allowed to do it.  We went through a period where we were allowed only to have bullet points, scriptural references, and Life Applicational questions.

I remember some of mine I had put in jokes sometimes.  We all did.  [We would] come and discuss on Sunday morning, [and] critique each other’s proposed lessons.  Mine was Life Applicational Questions.  “Do you think it would be a good idea to be a wicked Judahite king? What steps can you take toward this?”

My favorite was one that I actually told on numerous occasions where they really wanted Life Applications and no history.  I was doing the passage in Acts where you have Uticus up in the rafters at Troas.  Paul drones on and on so long that he falls asleep, and falls out of the rafters. He’s taken up dead it says and Paul has to restore him to life.  So I thought, “Alright, have a class member read Acts–whatever the passage is.  Now, have you ever killed anyone with a Sacrament Meeting speech?  How did it make you feel?  What steps could you take in the future to avoid this?”  The funny thing is that it passed Correlation.

Wotherspoon, “That part did?” [chuckling]

Peterson, “It did, I can only assume that people chuckled at every point and it made it.  When I saw the final draft, final gallies, it was still there!”

Wotherspoon, “No way!  Wow.”

Peterson, “I went through a real crisis of conscience there.  I thought, ‘I would love to see this go into the manual! But I finally called them and said, “I’m not sure that you’d want that particular bundle of questions there.’  [and they said] ‘Oh good grief! good grief! We’ll take it out!  We’ll take it out!’  And I thought ‘it would have been great to see that in Tagalog, Chinese, German, and Spanish all around the world.”

Some of our manuals I think are not very good.  They’re not very deep. I understand the danger.  I think if you allow people to simply go wild, you’ll get some really weird Gospel Doctrine classes out there with people grinding their own axes and having little hobbies, teaching false doctrine, and so I understand the need to sort of reign people in, but on the other hand, the lessons can be really, really pablum and boring.

Wotherspoon, “And completely without any context—no link to context”

Peterson, “Yeah, and I love to give historical context and background.  I don’t care if it’s Doctrine and Covenants, Old Testament, whatever.  Right now I’m back into teaching Gospel Doctrine, which is my favorite position in the church. I mean I love it!  I just have a lot of fun with it. But I remember once, I had a letter once when I was serving on that committee that exempted me from all local callings, which was something that I treasured.

I remember being called in once by the stake presidency and they’re all sitting there and they had me and my wife come in and it was obvious they were up to something.  The stake president said, ‘I understand—I was just told that you’ve got some sort of letter from the brethren?”  I said, “YES!  I do.  Here it is!”

Wotherspoon, “In other words, we’re using up enough of his time that…”

Peterson, “Yep.  Because we met every 2 weeks for 2 or 3 hours every Sunday morning to critique each other’s lessons, and so on.  It was a lot of time involved in that, so that was my church calling for a long time, except I did teach gospel doctrine in my home ward—that I was willing to do because I love it! Now if it had been Scoutmaster, I would have said I’m sorry, I’d love to do it but I can’t.

Well then, at one point the stake Sunday School president came into my Gospel Doctrine class and he sat through the whole thing.  My lessons still is the way I teach them.  I look at the lesson to see what the passages are that I’m supposed to teach, then I put it away.  I mean I mean to read it, but I don’t.  I never do.  Then I read the passages, and then I comment on them and come up with what I think is the theme of the passage and try to give a historical background and so on.

Well this guy sat through my lesson and came up afterward and rebuked me, that I wasn’t using the Gospel Doctrine manual. Did I not realize that these were given by revelation and so on and so forth?  [I responded] Well, you should know that I’m on the committee that writes them, and I don’t like them at all.

So, that would be one of my complaints about church practice.  I would love to see better teaching.  I don’t know if we’re capable of it in a typical ward.  Maybe this is the best we can do and those manuals are necessary.  But there are some places where there are really superb teachers, and I hope they’re not constrained by the manual.

Wotherspoon, “Yeah I hate that fact that the manual mentions no outside sources and some people take that so seriously that people do feel constrained.”

Peterson, “I understand the danger. I’ve been in some pretty weird lessons where people were using it to teach some bizarre form of politics or just plain false doctrine, bizarre racial theories, and things like that so maybe without those manuals, we’d sink to a lower level.  But still, I’d like to see us do better.  I’d like to see us teach out history better.  That is a concern we’ve already mentioned.  I think it does us damage when our people grow up and hear about things that could have been conveyed to them in a faith promoting way.

Even Mountain Meadows, I think can be conveyed in a faith promoting way.  I think it’s a lesson to us about the fallen nature of human beings, and how even good people can get sucked into doing bad things.  I would love to teach a Gospel Doctrine lesson on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.“

I’d love to hear that lesson.  How about you?

In 1835  David Patten was called  to be one of the original 12 apostles.  Patten was known as “Captain FearNot”.  Just 3 years after being called to be an apostle, he was killed in the Battle of Crooked River in Missouri while trying to recover some Mormons captured by a Missouri mob.

A biography of Patten written in 1900 referenced a letter written between two apostles: Abraham Smoot and Joseph F. Smith (future president of the church).  Smith had heard that Patten claimed to have met Cain, and apparently Smith had written to Smoot asking about this experience.  As the letter states, David Patten was on his way to Smoot’s house.  Smoot relates that Patten said,

[I] met with a very remarkable personage who had represented himself as being Cain who had murdered his brother, Abel … I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me … for about two miles.  His head was even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle.  He wore no clothing but was covered with hair.  His skin was very dark … he [said] that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth … He said that he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death … but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men … I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence and he immediately departed out of my sight. [Cited in Lycurgus A. Wilson, The Life of David Patten, the First Apostolic Martyr (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1900) 45-47.  Smoot's 1893 letter was to future Church President Joseph F. Smith.]

Could Cain really be alive after a few thousand years?  Apparently, the apostles believed the tale.  Smith brought the tale to the apostles, and Elder Abraham Cannon wrote  that “he had always entertained the idea that Cain was dead.”  Eliza R. Snow wrote a poem discussing the incident in 1884.

As seen by David Patten, he was dark
When pointing at his face of glossy jet
Cain said, “You see the curse is on me yet.”
The first of murderers, now he fills his post
And reigns as king o’er all the murd’rous host.

Bowman’s essay documents several tales where Cain appeared to anonymous apostles, bishops, missionaries, and stake presidents who were seeking to destroy the church of God.  President Spencer W. Kimball discussed Patten’s account in Miracle of Forgiveness.  Following the 1978 revelation, Bowman states that there have been changes in this legend.  From page 123 of the book,

There is evidence that since the 1978 revocation of its ban on black priesthood holders, there have been social and cultural transitions in the Church that may be the very reason the monstrous image of Cain has been transformed to something else.  No longer an arche-typical racial slur, Bigfoot is more of a curiosity of nature that lacks the weight of nineteenth-century Mormon demonology.  Though the stories seldom do little to rehabilitate Cain’s image in that he is still hostile, the emphasis of the legend has shifted.  The older stories, from Patten’s own experience through the third quarter of the twentieth century….Now Cain rarely speaks.  Now his specific mission to destroy the church has dissolved into the general hostility that one would expect from a wild animal.

In 1980, Bigfoot made some appearances in Utah, documented in the Ogden Standard-Examiner.  From page 125,

On Sunday afternoon, February 3, 1980, a South Weber high school student named Pauline Markham glanced out of her kitchen window and saw what she described as “a big, black creature” climbing down a mountain ridge a half-mile away.  Markham, a Mormon, reported that she simply put her drinking glass down and “went to church”.  Early the next morning, her cousin, Ronald Smith, saw a “big dark figure” in his field.  He fled into the house, leaving an agitated horse in the pasure. The next morning, odd tracks in the show had been trampled by hoof prints.  The story was pursued by an Ogden Standard-Examiner reporter, Jay Barker, who claimed he had also personally encountered Bigfoot three years earlier.  At this point in 1980, none of the witnesses–Markham, who is clearly identified as a practicing Mormon, or Barker, who has devoted a great deal of investigation to the events–seem to have associated Bigfoot with Cain.

..

Another man, Sterling Gardner, compared what he believed to gbe the stench of Bigfoot that agitated his dogs to that of a skunk.  However, ten years after the fact, local historian Lee D. Bell noted that South Weber citizens had begun associating these local sightings of Bigfoot with Cain.  Twenty-three years later, the Deseret News pinpointed this event as the genesis of the Bigfoot/Cain idea.”

Bowman goes on to discusses other Boy Scout stories, seminary teacher stories, and even the Three Nephite legends as popular urban myths. What do you make of these stories of Cain becoming Bigfoot?