I was pleased to be invited to a screening of the film 17 Miracles (click the link to see a trailer). I had seen the billboards on my way into Salt Lake City every day, yet I really didn’t know what the movie was about. I could tell it looked like a pioneer movie, but really had no idea what to expect from the movie. I went with my wife and some friends Tuesday night and I wanted to give a review.   It was interesting to get their reactions to the film as well.  (If you want no spoilers, you should stop reading now.)

At the beginning of the film, the authors made a note that they took some liberty with the sequencing of events, but all of the miracles really happened.  The story follows a pioneer by the name of Levi Savage, played by Jasen Wade.  (My wife said he looks a lot like Brad Pitt, which may appeal to some of my female readers.)

I’ll try not to give away too much of the movie.  My wife said that the beginning of the movie (say first 15 minutes) made her very uncomfortable because it seemed as if this were the sort of movie you would watch at the Joseph Smith Building.  It portrayed all early Mormons as incredibly faithful, and they all desired to come to Zion (Utah).  The movie did not “feel” like a major motion picture.  Once the trek westward began, the people became more realistic.  I liked the movie, because director TC Christensen was able to create a movie that I feel would attract both faithful and intellectual Mormons (and I say this as a guy who generally doesn’t like pioneer stories.)

Savage was called to leave his family on a mission to Siam by Brigham Young in General Conference.  The movie shows the call, but not the mission, resuming the story as Savage is in Europe heading home from his mission.  Wanting to know more, I learned from Wikipedia that Savage never made it to Siam due to a Civil War there.  He did spend some time in Calcutta, India.  (Did you know there were missionaries to the Far East in the 1850′s?)

As part of their migration to Zion, Emigrants from Europe generally took a boat to Boston or New York, boarded a train to Iowa City, and then began the handcart journey to Utah.  Prior to 1856, pioneers crossed the plain in heavy, expensive wagons.  However, emigrants from Europe had little money to purchase these wagons.  In order to solve this problem, Brigham Young came up with the idea of Handcarts that could be pulled by humans rather than animals.  Handcarts were less expensive and more maneuverable than wagons.  Young felt that handcarts would save money and be a faster mode of travel for these indigent travelers.

The first 3 companies proved that Young was right.  However companies 4 and 5 (the Willie and Martin handcart companies) met with the worst disaster of the handcart experience.  Lessons were learned, however, and the next 5 companies over the years learned from the experience–the last handcart company had 0 fatalities.  (Excluding Willie and Martin, the other companies generally experienced 1-13 deaths per trip.)  A new rule was made that no company would leave after July 7, handcarts were improved, and better supply stations were set up along the way.

I must admit that while watching this movie, it felt like I was watching the Titanic in slow motion.  Most of us are familiar with the story of these 2 companies and the many people that perished along the way.  It would be easy to place blame on certain individuals for this disaster, yet the movie showed the complexity of the problem.    I guess I hadn’t realized that most of the emigrants were from Europe.  None of them had any experience with the outdoors.  They trusted in their leaders and in God to help them through the journey.

The movie shows the pivotal point in Omaha, Nebraska.  James Willie was the leader of the group.  Levi Savage was a sub-captain.  Having served previously in the Mormon Battalion, Savage was a valuable resource for the journey because of his knowledge of the trail.  It was getting late in the year, and everyone knew they needed to head west.  There was trouble obtaining wood for the handcarts and they weren’t sturdy.  Willie led a campfire meeting to discuss the departure and promised that God would be with them.  He asked Levi Savage to give a few words.  Savage expressed concern to the group that they were leaving too late in the year, and felt that many would die along the way if they left.  He encouraged everyone to stay put in Omaha.

Willie scolded Savage for a lack of faith, and asked for a vote on whether the group wanted to head west.  Most of the group responded that they wanted to go.  (Wikipedia records that approximately 100 people stayed in Omaha.)  Savage responded with a passioned speech.  In a journal, James Chislett records that Savage said,

“What I have said I know to be true; but seeing you are to go forward, I will go with you, will help all I can, will work with you, will rest with you, and if necessary, will die with you. May God in his mercy bless and preserve us.”

I admit that my heart sank at this point in the movie, because we all knew the deaths that resulted from this fateful decision.  Mormons have a culture of “sustaining your leaders.”  Savage was called out and scolded for not having faith.  In hindsight, we all know that Savage was right, and Willie was wrong.  But it isn’t quite so simple to blame Willie completely for the disaster.  Later in the movie, Willie states the problems with staying in Omaha.  They had no money, supplies, or shelter to stay in Omaha, so staying there was a problem as well.  The problem is not so simple as blaming it all on Captain Willie.  He had to make the choice between two bad options.  In hindsight, it appears that he chose the worse option.  Of course, he didn’t have hindsight to know this.

It is at this point that the movie changed from a “church” movie to a “motion picture.”  As the rains came, handcarts got stuck in the mud and broke down, squabbling among the saints understandably occurred.  They realized that food was in short supply.  They dealt with rattlesnakes, wolves, and poor weather.  There were moments of fun and lightness, but it was clear to the pioneers that this was a much more difficult journey than any of them imagined.  Many times they only had flour and water to eat.  Sickness abounded, and the weak started to die.  Wolves often scavenged upon the corpses.

At Fort Laramie, there were no supplies, so the saints continued westward on increasingly meager supplies.  The bitter cold and snow took its toll.  There was a scene where they dug a mass grave as approximately 13 people had perished in the night.  Some men dug graves for the dead, and ended up being buried in the graves they dug due to exhaustion, starvation, and sickness.  A very touching scene involved the Cunningham family.  The mother returned to the tent to wake up her daughter, but the daughter did not respond, and the family realized she had frozen to death.  The ground was too hard to bury her, so they covered her with sagebrush, knowing wolves would probably devour her.  Heartbreaken, they left.

Then the mother remembered that she had been promised that her entire family had been promised that they would all walk into Zion together.  She returned to her daughter, insisting that her daughter would come to Zion with them.  She offered a prayer over her daughter, resembling a blessing that early Mormon women performed.  Following the blessing, she was inspired to boil some water and put it on her daughter’s neck.  The child revived.  The entire family entered Zion as promised, one of the 17 miracles.

In all, 68 of 404 (17%) died in the Willie company.  It turns out that the Martin company left 10 days after the Willie company and more than 145 of 576 (25%) perished in the Martin company.  As a comparison, 41 of 87  (47%) of the Donner party died.  At the end of the movie, the authors noted that the Willie and Martin companies were “average” for loss of life for pioneer travel.

You can’t help but feel intense gratitude for both Levi Savage and James Willie.  Savage knew the risks better than anyone, and did so much to help everyone cross the plains.  Willie sacrificed as much or more than anybody else to get as many people safely to Zion.  Savage went on to live in Lehi and then Tocquerville, Utah.  Willie was fondly remembered as a prominent church leader in Cache Valley, Utah.

The conflict between following your leaders and following your conscience in the face of bad decisions is wonderfully portrayed in the film.  The Wikipedia article discusses responsibility for the tragedy:

American West historian, Wallace Stegner, described the inadequate planning and improvident decisions leading to the tragedy when he wrote,^[36]

In urging the method upon Europe’s poor, Brigham and the priesthood would over-reach themselves; in shepherding them from Liverpool to the valley, the ordinarily reliable missionary and emigration organization would break down at several critical points; in accepting the assurances of their leaders and the wishful importunities of their own hope, the emigrants would commit themselves to greater sacrifices than even the Nauvoo refugees; and in rallying from compound fatal error to bring the survivors in, the priesthood and the people of Mormondom would show themselves at their compassionate and efficient best.

As early as November 2, 1856, while the Willie and Martin companies were still making their way to safety, Brigham Young responded to criticism of his own leadership by rebuking Franklin Richards and Daniel Spencer for allowing the companies to leave so late.^[37] However, many authors argued that Young, as author of the plan, was responsible. Ann Eliza Young, daughter of one of the men in charge of building the carts and a former plural wife of Brigham Young, described her ex-husband’s plan as a “cold-blooded, scheming, blasphemous policy.”^[38] Stegner described Richards as a scapegoat for Young’s fundamental errors in planning, though Howard Christy, professor emeritus at Brigham Young University, noted that Richards, as the highest ranking official in Florence, Nebraska area, was, in fact, the official who would have had the authority and capability to have averted the tragedy by halting their late departure.^[39]

Many survivors of the tragedy refused to blame anyone. Survivor John Jacques wrote, “I blame nobody. I am not anxious to blame anybody … I have no doubt that those who had to do with its management meant well and tried to do the best they could under the circumstances.”^[40] Another survivor, Francis Webster, was quoted as having said, “Was I sorry that I chose to come by hand cart? No. Neither then nor any minute of my life since. The price we paid to become acquainted with God was a privilege to pay and I am thankful that I was privileged to come in the Martin Hand Cart Company.”^[41] On the other hand, survivor John Chislett, who later left the Church, wrote bitterly of Richards promising them that “we should get to Zion in safety.”^[42]

In May 2006, a panel of researchers at the annual conference of the Mormon History Association blamed the tragedy on a failure of leadership. Lyndia Carter, a trails historian, said Franklin D. Richards “was responsible, in my mind, for the late departure” because “he started the snowball down the slope” that eventually “added up to disaster.” Christy agreed that “leadership from the top, from the outset, was seriously short of the mark.” Robert Briggs, an attorney, said “It’s almost a foregone conclusion … there is evidence of negligence. With leaders all the way up to Brigham Young, there was mismanagement.”^[43] On the other hand, Rebecca Bartholomew and Leonard J. Arrington wrote, “Memories of what was perhaps the worst disaster in the history of western migration have been palliated by what could also be regarded as the most heroic rescue of the Mormon frontier.”^[44]

So, what do you think of this story?  Does it make you interested to see the movie?

I was also saddened to learn that Margo Dydek suffered a heart attack on Thursday at age 37.  There aren’t many women I look up to, but at 7 foot 2 inches, Margo is definitely one of them!  I was a freelance sports writer, and covered the Utah Starzz back in the 1990′s when Margo played for the team.  Margo was a very nice, shy person to talk to.  She was born in Poland, and most recently coached in Australia.  Apparently she is in a medically induced coma in a Brisbane hospital.  I’m afraid of how things will turn out for her, and pray for a speedy recovery.

On a brighter note, I worked on the tv crew for the National Championships in Rugby on Saturday.  If you don’t want a spoiler, stop reading now.ESPN broadcast the National Championship game between BYU and Cal on ESPN, and is re-broadcasting the game on ESPNU on Sunday morning at 8 AM (I believe that is Mountain Time), so you’re welcome to watch it.  It is kind of a cross between football, basketball, and soccer, and there are some quite interesting strategies and rules that seem very foreign to football.

Before the college game started, the high school national championship was played between Highland High School and a team from Alpine, Utah called United Rugby.  Highland Rugby was featured in the film Forever Strong, and it’s a great movie.  Larry Gelwix is the coach, and the movie is based on a bunch of composite stories that Larry is familiar with over his 36 year coaching career.  I highly recommend the movie.

The game was a rematch of last year’s game in which United Rugby beat Highland.  This time, Highland won the rematch, and Larry took home his 20th national championship.  He also announced on ESPNU that he was retiring, and was glad to win his final match.  I watched the first half of the game, and was glad one of the guys on the tv crew knew the rules and strategy.  It’s the first rugby game I have ever watched, so I thought I would share a few rules.

In football, each side plays with 11 men.  In rugby, there are 15 and they play without pads or helmets.  The ball is shaped like an oversize football.  The oddest thing occurred at the very beginning of the game.  United kicked off to Highland in a manner quite similar to a football game.  The Highland player caught the ball, ran a few feet, and then kicked it back the other way!  I was quite shocked.  Field position is very important, so when you’re deep in your own territory, it is common to get the ball upfield to prevent the other team from getting a field position advantage.

A “touchdown” is worth 5 points and is called a “try.”  The score doesn’t count until the scoring team places the ball on the ground in the end zone.  After the score, they get to kick the ball through the uprights in a manner similar to football, but the “extra point” is worth 2 points.  When a team scores a “try”,  the location of the ball in the end zone is very important.  The ball is brought back approximately 30 feet, and the “extra point” is attempted.  There can be some really tough angles, so if it is a tough angle, the “extra point” is no guarantee.

If there is a penalty, a team may choose to kick off a tee (like a field goal) for 3 points.  Like football, it is hard to see the penalties.  There are infractions and penalties, but I can’t remember the difference.  Some penalties result in a scrum, which is kind of like a “jump ball” in basketball.  About 7-8 guys line up against each other, a team-mate rolls the ball in, and each team tries to kick it backwards to a team-mate.  Unlike football, forward passes are illegal.  The ball can be lateralled back to another team mate.  You can advance the ball forward by running.  If a guy is tackled, he sets the ball on the ground.  A teammate picks up the ball, starts running (like a quarterback sneak) or laterals the ball to someone else.  Play continues until the ball is dropped forward, or other penalty.  Fumbles are frequent.   Rugby is a much more fluid game like basketball–there are no huddles slowing the game down.  After a tackle, a team can start playing quickly, or take a little time to set up a play.

In football, you have 4 downs to make 10 yards, but there are no such limits in rugby.  You can be tackled a bunch of times for a gain or loss and it doesn’t matter.  If a lateralled ball is dropped forward, that is called a “knock”.  Play stops and I think a scrum is called.  If your team has the ball deep in your own territory, you generally want to kick the ball down field to get better field position.  Balls that go out of bounds have a throw-in like soccer.  On throw-ins, it is common for 2 players to lift a teammate in the air to receive the ball.

In high school, there are two 35-minute halves.  The clock counts up (instead of down) and never stops even for injuries.  When it reaches 35, the referee can add a few minutes, similar to “stoppage time” in soccer.  In college, the halves are 40 minutes.  I really enjoyed the game, and it was fun to learn.

BYU vs Cal Rugby

The college game was another rematch.  Cal and BYU have met in the finals for 6 consecutive years, with BYU’s only win coming in 2009.  BYU was undefeated at 15-0 going into the match, while Cal was 28-0.  BYU beat Arkansas State last week to reach the finals, while Cal beat Utah.  (I’m sure there are plenty of Highland and United Rugby players on both BYU and Utah’s roster.)  Cal had won 21 national championships going into the match.

BYU dominated the first 20 minutes or so of the game, but couldn’t score.  Cal scored first, jumping to a 10 point lead before BYU finally got on the board, cutting it to 10-7.  Cal scored on a penalty kick going into halftime, making the score 13-7.

Following a short 10-minute halftime, Cal scored a “field goal” (they call it something else) and a try to make it 21-7.  BYU responded with a try and 2 point conversion to cut it to 21-14, but could not score again in the final 10 minutes.  It was a real fun game to watch.  I was glad to learn many rules and strategy from a guy on the tv crew.  If you have a chance to go to a rugby game, I highly recommend it!

The Bible says that 600,000 men left Egypt.  …

However, archaeologist Jim Hoffmeier of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School says the number is probably far fewer, due to a mistranslation dating thousands of years.  The original Hebrew says there were 600 elith.

Hoffmeier, “The word elith can be translated 3 different ways:  it can be translated thousand.  Elith can also be translated to the clan.  The third option is that it’s a military unit, which I think is a more plausible scenario.”

According to Hoffmeier’s interpretation, instead of 600,000 men and their families, there were as few as 5000.

I was a bit surprised that the above quote was not referenced in Bible Battles, because there are quite a few points of agreement between Hoffmeier and Richard A Gabriel, PhD and author of Military History of Ancient Israel.  In the Bible Battles video, Gabriel said,

“If you read the Bible text in Hebrew, it uses the word “avadeem”.  Avadeem is not the word for slave, it is the word for “worker” or even servant.  The fact of the matter is that the Israelites in Egypt were not slaves.”

Narrator, The notion that the Israelites might not have been slaves in Egypt contradicts fundamental Judeo-Christian beliefs.  But by examining the Exodus from a military perspective, new light may be shed on this historic journey.

Aaron Shugar, PhD, Archaeomettalurgy, Lehigh University, “This is a tricky subject because outside the Bible there is no definitive corroborating text that can either support or refute the fact that the Israelites were slaves.  But if we ask the simple question, could a nation of mere slaves, be able to go up against the mighty Egyptian army and survive?  Logically, it doesn’t seem like they could.”

Mark Schwartz, Professor of Anthropology, Grand Valley State University, “Now what if they weren’t slaves?  What if they actually were a group with military experience.  Remember Abraham and some of his military exploits.  Now a group of people leaving Egypt with a military arm puts a completely different spin on the story.”

Narrator, “To better understand the Exodus, one must travel back in time about 200 years to the land of Canaan.  Here Abraham and his Israelite descendants are forced to flee the land because of famine and drought.  They migrate to the eastern edge of Egpyt and settle in the land of Goshen, where the earth is fertile and flocks and crops thrive.

But some scholars believe they are also in this area fighting as mercenary soldiers in the Egyptian army.  Their job would be to serve as a first line of defense against invaders from the north.

Schwartz, “These ‘habiru’ were mercenaries, they were soldiers of fortune.  They would fight for who ever it was in their best interest at that time to fight for.  It seems like they had a good thing going in Egypt for a few hundred years.”

Narrator, “But eventually, a new pharaoh rises to power.  Some scholars believe he is Seti I, and he does not seem to care much for the Israelites.”

Exodus 1:9-10, “And he said to his people, ‘Look the Israelite people are much too numerous for us.  Let us deal shrewdly with them, so that they may not increase.  Otherwise in the event of war they may join our enemies in fighting against us and rise from the ground.’

Gabriel, “The sheer location of where the habiru are in the land of Goshen, sitting astride the key route of invasion or defense of Egypt, probably convinced Seti himself, a professional warrior that something had to be done either to remove them, or weaken their influence, or at least remove them from their geographical area.  Thus it is that Seti becomes, most historians think, the pharaoh in the Bible who first sets the Israelites to physical labor.”

Narrator, “Many believe this physical labor amounts to slavery.  But this may be a historical inaccuracy.  While forced labor is practiced, some scholars believe that ownership of another person is rare at this time.”

Gabriel, “There was no slavery in Egypt right from the beginning until the end of the empire.  Well, if in fact they were not slaves set to labor, what were they?  The answer is corvee labor.  That is the term used to describe, essentially conscripted civilian workers to work on public works projects.  These people were not slaves, they were paid and they were well treated, and we know that from the military medical texts which stations military doctors with the workmen in order to make sure they are well-treated and well fed.”

Narrator, “Whether slaves or not, the demotion from soldier to common physical worker probably signaled to the Israelites that it was time to leave Egypt.”

Gabriel, “They had lost their status as noble allies.  They were now being treated like common workers.  It was time to go!”

Shugar, “So Moses says to Pharao, ‘Listen, God told me personally to lead my people out of here.  So you’ve got to let my people go.  But Pharaoh resists, then what follows is the Passover story and the plagues that wrought devastation upon Egypt.  With the 10th and final plague, the killing of the First Born,  this culminates in the pharaoh allowing the Israelites to leave Egypt.  But the Bible says something very interesting right after this episode, something that actually makes us question whether they really in fact were slaves or not.”

Exodus 13:18, “Now the Israelites went up armed, out of the land of Egypt.”

Gabriel, “It’s very clear, of course, that slaves do not march out armed from their oppressors.  So what we have is the military arm now is formed, as it had always been, to protect the rest of the habiru clan, as it begins to move out of Egypt, and reach its homeland back in Canaan.”

Narrator, “Almost immediately however, Pharoah changes his mind, and sets his army in pursuit of the Israelites.  But it is unclear exactly why Pharaoh does this.  The answer may be found in Exodus 12 verse 35.”
Exodus 12:35-36, ‘The Israelites had done Moses’ bidding and borrowed from the Egyptians objects of silver, gold, and clothing, and the Lord had disposed the Egyptians favorably toward the people, and they let them have their request.  Thus they stripped the Egyptians.’

Gabriel, “Well, it just stretches credibility to think that the Egyptians would have done such a thing, especially so when you read the text.  The term that is used is nes-ai-al in Hebrew, which means to despoil.  What seems to have happened is that the Israelites are fleeing Egypt, they are not equipped to be in the desert.  They need food, shelter, water, animals, and what they do is they take it.  So the reason, I think one could argue, that changed in Pharoah’s mind was news that Israelites were leaving had simply raided a town, and sacked it and took all the supplies, and the text bears me out on this.  For it says, that Pharaoh found the Israelites were leaving Egypt boldly.  Keep in mind, this is not just a group of nomads.  This is a habiru group of some size with a military arm, and they used that military might to provision themselves in order to survive in the desert.”

Narrator, “In response to this possible attack, pharaoh unleashes his army in pursuit.  The hallmark of the Egyptian force is the horse-drawn war chariot.  ”

Gabriel, “The Egyptian army was armed with the lightest, fastest, and most maneuverable chariot in the world. ”

…

Narrator, “With the Egyptian chariot force in hot pursuit, the Israelites quickly leave the Nile delta area.  But now, Moses does something surprising.  According to the Bible, he turns off the main road leading to Canaan and heads into the desert.”

Gabriel, “One can only imagine what the young junior officers must have thought, and that was that Moses had lost his mind.  Why would Moses do such a thing?”

Narrator, “While the move to lead the Israelites into the desert surprises many, it seems Moses has a plan.  Some believe he is luring Pharaoh into a trap.

…

The Bible states that Moses had previously spent 40 years in this desert, and like all good military commanders, has an intimate knowledge of the terrain.  Some believe he knows exactly where he is, and exactly where he is heading, and according to the Bible, God is leading the way.”

Exodus 13:21-22, ‘The Lord went before them in a pillar of cloud by day, to guide them along the way and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light that they might travel day and night.’

Rabbi Jonathan Hecht, PhD, Temple Chaverim, Plainview, NY, “The pillar of cloud, and the pillar of fire that we read about in the Bible are what led the people through the desert and it represented the fact that God’s presence was always with them.”

Narrator, “Though the pillar of smoke and fire has religious significance, it can also be explained from a military perspective.  Ancient Egyptian stone reliefs depict a scene in which Pharaoh Ramses is sitting in front of two soldiers, each of whom is holding up a large pole.

Gabriel, “On top of one of those poles is the hieroglyph for flame, and on top of the other is the hierglyph for a closed brazzier which of course, if you put a cover on a brazzier you get smoke.”

Narrator, “Erected at the front of a marching column, a pillar of smoke and fire is a way for a military commander to communicate with the rest of his troops.”

Gabriel, “So the pillar of smoke, and the pillar of fire is a very common, at least for the Egyptians,  military mechanism for leading troops and pitching camp.”

Narrator, “At the end of the third day of marching, the Israelites make camp.  That night, Pharaoh arrives and sees the pillar of fire directly in front of him.  Pharaoh might believe that he has the upper hand.  Understanding that the pillar of fire always leads the group, it looks to him as though Moses has gotten himself turned around and is heading back to Egypt.

Gabriel, “The first rule of military tactics: always decieve your enemy as to your intentions.  Moses is trying to decieve pharaoh into thinking that he is lost in the desert.”

Narrator, “The placement of the pillar of fire seems to be integral to Moses’ strategy into losing the Egyptians because on the other side of the Israelite army is the Sea of Reeds.”

Schwartz, “Perhaps no event in the Book of Exodus, in fact the entire Bible has captured the imagination much like Moses parting the Sea of Reeds.  I mean who hasn’t seen the Cecil B. DeMille classic with Charlton Heston raising his arms and parting the Sea of Reeds.  It’s an incredible moment.  But I think if you look at it from a critical eye, especially the point of view of a military historian, what you see is that Moses is using an intimate knowledge of the terrain to defeat the Egyptian army without even raising a sword.”

Gabriel, “Night falls upon the encampments.  The pillar of smoke changes to a pillar of flame, and behind that pillar of flame is the escape route that Moses has planned.  Now anyone who’s been a soldier understands at night, you never look into a bright light.  If you look into a bright light, it affects your eyes for as much as 30 minutes.  So here you have a situation of a bright light burning in front of the Egyptians.  They can see the light, but they are blind to anything behind that light.  At the same time, in the midst of the night, and east wind begins to blow.”

Narrator, “An easterly wind mentioned in the Bible likely quite loud convinces Dr. Gabriel that the Egyptian soldiers on night watch might now be deaf, as well as blind.  It is at this point that Moses moves his people across the Sea of Reeds.”

Exodus 14:21, “Then Moses held out his arms over the sea, and the Lord drove back the sea with a strong east wind, all that night and turned the sea into dry ground.”

Narrator, “Some biblical historians believe the crossing of the Sea of Reeds occurs about 20 miles south of the Mediterranean Sea in an alluvial swamp–a swamp subject to tides.  One explanation of this phenomenon is that the tide goes out making the swamp passable.  The easterly wind is likely quickening the process.”

Gabriel, “Very simply, what probably was an alluvial swamp of perhaps 8-10 inches of water suddenly over a period of 45-50 minutes becomes dry.  At that point, the Israelites safely behind their bright light still blinding the Egyptians with the wind howling so they cannot hear, begin to withdraw across the Reed Sea.”

Narrator, “At dawn, Pharaoh discovers an abandoned camp.  He immediately gives chase.  But while the tide may be out, the ground is too soft to handle the weight of pharaoh’s chariots.”

Exodus 14:24, “At the morning watch, the Lord looked down upon the Egyptian army from a pillar of fire and cloud, and threw the Egyptian army into panic.  He locked the wheels of their chariots so that they moved forward with difficulty.”

Gabriel, “Now while stuck in this mud, probably the tide begins to come in–perhaps some people drown.  But what is important is, that tide is going to be in for almost 8 hours now.  There’s no way for pharaoh to pursue.”

Narrator, “Pharaoh would have to march 2 hours north to a crossing at a down called Migdol to continue the pursuit.  By that time, he most likely would have lost the Israelite scent.”

Gabriel, “So here you have a fine Israeli strategic and tactical commander, making great use of his knowledge of the terrrain that he had gathered throough his own life in that area.”

The Hebrews have eluded the Egyptians…”

The film then goes on to discuss Moses training warriors for the future battle for Canaan, as well as the military campaigns of Joshua.  So what do you make of the Sea of Reeds, and this theory of the Exodus?

A former defense attorney (Cameron Diaz) finds herself back in the courtroom when she and her husband (Jason Patric) are sued for medical emancipation by their 11-year-old daughter, Anna (Abigail Breslin), who is expected to donate a kidney to her dying older sister. The subsequent trial tests ethical boundaries and the limits of parental love. Joan Cusack and Alec Baldwin round out the cast in this powerful drama based on Jodi Picoult’s novel.

My wife said the book is quite a bit different than the movie.  If you want to see it fresh, stop reading now.  Otherwise, I have some spoilers below to talk about some of the ethical dilemmas from the movie.The family has 2 children–a boy and a girl.  The girl is diagnosed with Leukemia.  She needs a donor, but none of the family is a match.  The doctor says that the couple could conceive a genetically engineered baby to be a donor.  So here are the ethical questions.

1.  Is it ethical for the doctor to suggest genetically engineering for the purpose of donating?

2.  It is ethical for the couple to conceive a child for the purpose of saving another child’s life?

As the movie goes on, the genetically engineered sister becomes tired of all the medical procedures, and sues her parents for medical emancipation.

3.  Is it ethical for the parents to force a child to donate to her dying sister?

Ok, at this point, this is where the book and the movie diverge, so if you really want to watch the movie/read the book, STOP READING NOW.

The mother (played by Cameron Diaz) is a very determined mother who won’t let anything or anyone get in the way of what she believes is in the best interest of her dying child.  The dying girl tires so much of all the medical procedures and being sick all the time that she asks her younger sister to sue her parents.  They make a pact that the younger girl will take all the blame, because the mother will not accept her dying daughter’s wishes.  The whole family accepts the patient’s choice except the mother.

4.  Is it ethical to keep a person alive against their will?  Does the age of the patient have any impact on the decision?

In case you’re interested, I previously blogged about Euthanasia at Mormon Matters, comparing 4 cases.  What are your opinions?

Dan Wotherspoon did a 5 or so hour-long interview for Mormon Stories.  I am such a fan, I listened to all 5 parts of the interview.  I learned that Richard is producing a new film called Triptych.  (Here’s a preview.)  He has been seeking funding to finish filming, and I considered donating.  (Fundraising ended earlier this week.)  The film is basically 3 short films.  Part 1 sounds really good–a boy in a city takes care of dead animals, giving them a proper burial.  Part 2 is a story about a minister who lost his/her faith and tries to find it again.  Part 3 tells about a woman whose faith is a source of pain, seeking to compensate by “unconventional ways.”  Something strikes me a bit odd about Part 3, and I wasn’t sure I wanted to donate to the film without understand a bit more about the “unconventional ways.”

So, this week Richard Dutcher sent out a message about a screening of another of his films called Evil Angel at the Salty Horror International Film Festival here in Salt Lake City.  I really wanted to go–Dutcher would be there to answer questions after, and film festivals are fun to go to.  Since I’m Facebook friends with Richard, he invited me (and his 1600 friends) to attend.  The screening is tomorrow, November 4 · 7:00pm – 10:00pm at the Broadway Center Theater, 111 East Broadway in Salt Lake City.

I decided to look for a trailer to learn more about the movie.  I have to warn you that I did a Google search, and discovered that evil angel dot com is a porn site, so don’t go there unless you’re looking for porn.  But I did find the trailer on Youtube, as well as an interview of Richard Dutcher about the movie Evil Angel as well.  I was impressed that Ving Rhames (the black guy with sunglasses in this Mission Impossible trailer) is in the film.  I was intrigued to learn that the film had a biblical context: the story of Lilith, Adam’s wife prior to Eve.  I’ve been intending to post more of the story of this [alleged] woman before Eve, but haven’t fully researched it yet so I’ve been holding off.  I thought Dutcher’s film might be some good research for me.  However, while Dutcher uses this semi-biblical story, it is more of a blood and gore serial killer movie.  Lilith, spurned by Adam, is taking revenge on the entire human race.  There does appear to be some gratuitous sex and a tremendous amount of bloody violence.  The trailer appears to have an R rating, though I believe the film is unrated at this time.

I have enjoyed some horror films, but it is not my interest.  For example, I liked Se7en (Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman), and the Blair Witch Project, but these are the exceptions, rather than the rule.  After viewing the trailer for Evil Angel (you can see it here), I decided against going to watch it, and decided I was glad I did not contribute to Triptych because I don’t know if I am interested in supporting this kind of cinema.  But see for yourself, and check out Dutcher’s interview on YouTube.

So, I did some more research on Dutcher.  His other recent film is sort of a semi-autobiographical film called Falling.  He marketed it here in Utah as the “first R-rated Mormon film.”  I thought that was a terrible marketing ploy.  Still I wanted to see it, but never did.  This interview at Cinema Scope describes it a bit with Richard Dutcher as the lead character (named Eric), wondering if he has wasted his life.  Ok, I get that, and it sounds like it could be interesting, but the real problem I have with the film is what I have heard about the film.  Quoting from the interview,

This is Dutcher’s most painfully, even extravagantly agnostic film: a pivotal moment even features [main character] Eric [played by Dutcher] lobbing f-bombs at the Man Upstairs. A grim work of gutbucket artistry, Falling is a masterfully controlled atrocity exhibition that, like its protagonist, eventually flies into a million pieces: one can practically see the blood and sweat, the physical force pushing light through the celluloid in the effort to grab hold of something in a spiritually rudderless world.

This description is making me glad I didn’t see the film.  I am really impressed with Dutcher’s first 3 Mormon films, but these last 3 really leave me scratching my head.  I know he wants to make a film on the life of Joseph Smith.  I want him to make that film, and if he treats the subject matter with the same insightful spirituality of the 3 films I liked, I still would donate to the cause.  But I’m really scratching my head with these last 3 films here.  What are we supposed to think of Richard Dutcher?

Trouble in Zion Poster

The Haun’s Mill Massacre.  The Mountain Meadows Massacre. The Rwandan Genocide.   Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia and Serbia.  How do such terrible atrocities happen?

Kenny Ballantine is in the process of producing a documentary called Trouble in Zion.  The documentary discusses the events leading up to the 1838 Mormon War in Missouri.  It highlights the Extermination Order and Haun’s Mill Massacre, as well as events leading up to these terrible events.  Kenny showed a pre-release version of the film at the Mormon History Association in Independence, Missouri in May, and he is also showing the film at Sunstone here in Salt Lake City in August.  I really enjoyed the film, and highly recommend it.  I thought Kenny was pretty even-handed, and had experts discuss reactions by both Mormons and non-Mormons which escalated the violence.

Following the presentation at the MHA Conference, Ballentine explained that he didn’t want his documentary to look like a Ken Burns documentary.  A fan of comic books, Kenny found a comic book illustrator to show scenes depicting the conflict.  It took me a while to get used to the comic book art, but it is starting to grow on me.  Kenny was kind enough to give me an advanced copy, and I would like to offer some of my impressions about the film and the conflict.  I hope he stops by to answer questions too!

I was really impressed with the lineup of experts Kenny interviewed.  The most famous people include Richard Bushman, LDS assistant historian Richard Turley, CoC Apostle Andrew Bolton, Washington State University Religion and Sociology professor Armand Mauss, and BYU Church History professor Alex Baugh, among an impressive list of guests.  He outlined a series of events leading up to the Hauns Mill Massacre and the Extermination Order.  Some of the key events include:

• July 20, 1833.  Bishop Partridge is told to leave Jackson County immediately.  He refuses and is tarred and feathered.  Three days later, he signs an agreement to leave the county.  Ballentine doesn’t really address the reasons why the Missourians were upset at the Mormons, though he does mention that the first Missourians wanted slavery to be legal, while the Mormons from the North were generally against slavery.  WW Phelps published an article in the Evening and Morning Star that Mormons wanted to welcome people of all color.  This is the reason the Missourians were upset, which is why they attacked Bishop Partridge, and destroyed the Mormon printing press.  (Joseph was living in Kirtland at this time.)
• Oct 31-Nov 7.  Missourians incite hostilities against the Mormons.  Mormons leave for Clay County.
• In 1836, the Missouri legislature declares Caldwell County will be set aside for Mormon settlement.  (This is the home of Far West.)  Ballentine doesn’t mention that the original “Jack Mormon”, non-Mormon Alexander Doniphan brokers a deal to create the county.  (I previously mentioned Doniphan as one of the first Jack Mormons.)
• 1838.  Joseph leaves Kirtland under the cover of night due to the Kirtland Bank Crisis  (I blogged about this earlier).  Upon arriving in Missouri, he finds dissent among Missouri Mormons as well.  John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and WW Phelps are excommunicated.  Many of these dissenters opposed living the Law of Consecration.  (As I mentioned in my previous post on consecration, it won’t work unless all members of the community participate, and many of the dissenters did not want to participate.)
• June 17, 1838.  Sidney Rigdon issues the “Salt Sermon.”  In the sermon, he referenced the scripture about “salt that has lost it’s savor”, and essentially issued an ultimatum that Mormon apostates should leave the county or be forcibly removed.  Most of the dissenters move south to Ray County.
• July 4, 1838.  Rigdon issued another fiery patriotic sermon stating that the Mormons and Missourians would wage a “war of extermination…one party or the other”.  It seems the subsequent Extermination Order by Governor Boggs wasn’t quite what Rigdon had in mind.
• Aug 6, 1838 – Mormons in Daviess County were prevented from voting.  The Whig candidate said Mormons were only supposed to live in Caldwell County and should be ineligible to vote.  He was concerned that Mormons would vote for the Democratic Candidate, because Mormons were overwhelming Democrats back then.  A big brawl broke out that has often been called a “battle”.  There were exaggerated rumors that Mormons were killed.
• Aug 19, 1838 – Mormons were expelled from DeWitt, in Daviess County.  Following the election, Missourians decided to expel Mormons.
• Oct 18, 1838 – The Mormons decide to retaliate.  Known as the Daviess Expedition, a group of Danites (a secret Mormon militia group) led an effort to expel Missourians from Gallatin, Millport and Grindstone Fork.   Mormons plundered the property and burned the stores and houses to the ground.
• Oct 24, 1838 – The Battle of Crooked River.  Mormons attack and scatter the Missouri Militia.  Many of the Missouri Militia erroneously believe all others are killed.  Only 1 Missourian was killed, but LDS Apostle David Patten (known as “Captain FearNot”), Danite leader Gideon Carter were both killed; 9 other Mormons were wounded.
• Oct 27, 1838 – Governor Lilburn Boggs issues the Extermination Order; “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace…”
• October 30, 1838 – The Hauns Mill Massacre; 18 Mormons are killed, ranging in age from 10-year old Sardius Smith, to 62 year old Thomas McBride.  I would like to quote directly from the film.

“On October 30, 1838, a large group of armed Missourians marched on the small and peaceful Mormon settlement known as Haun’s Mill, primarily in retribution for the Mormon gutting of Daviess County.

Alex Baugh, associate professor of Church History and Doctrine at BYU said, “This was a revenge thing.  The sad part about that is that there is not one person in the Hauns Mill community that we can identify as having gone up on that Daviess expedition earlier in the month.  So sadly, on October 30, the Livingston County Militia, along with a number of those who had been kicked out of Daviess County came and attacked the Mormon settlement of Haun’s Mill.

Amanda Barnes Smith was a young Latter-day Saint mother who recorded the events of that day.

“A little before sunset, a mob of 300 came upon us.  The men hollered for the women and children to run for the woods while they ran for the old blacksmith shop.  Our men took off their hats and cried for quarters, but the mob paid no attention and shot them down.  I took my little girls and ran for the woods.  My boys I could not find.”

Amanda’s two little boys, Sardius and Alma had followed their father into the blacksmith shop.  The men had hoped to use the shop like a fortress in the event of an attack.  Instead, it quickly proved to be a death trap.  Seeing no other alternative, the men made a desperate dash for the woods, nearly all of them being gunned down in the process.  Many of the attackers looted, humiliated, and brutalized the wounded and dying.  The oldest victim was 62 year old Thomas McBride who after surrendering his weapon was hacked to death with a corn knife.  And the youngest was 10 year old Sardius Smith.  An enraged Missourian leveled his gun against the small boy’s head, and after proclaiming that ‘nits become lice” pulled the trigger.

Amanda found her husband and 10 year old son Sardius dead, and her 6 year old son’s hip was “all shot to pieces.”Apostle Andrew Bolton of the Community of Christ said,

“Hauns Mill was a tragedy:  17 boys and men are killed and another one dies later from his wounds.  Hauns Mill was a peaceful settlement of Mormons: 15 miles from the main group in Far West, but therefore isolated and vulnerable in the sectarian war that was erupting around them.  Two days before the massacre they reiterated their commitment to live in peace with their neighbors.  This was a genuine, authentic group that didn’t want any part of the violence and suffered horrible tragedy.  The lesson from Haun’s Mill is the innocent get hurt whenever there is human violence.  It spills over, and there is tragedy.

So how does such a tragedy happen?  Why do neighbors turn so quickly on each other?  In my previous post, I discussed the Rwandan Genocide.  Armand Mauss describes the “Moral Panic” in Ballentine’s film.  He is professor emeritus of Sociology and Religious Studies at Washington State University.  He retired in 1999, but continues to be active on Mormon studies.  He is probably most famous for his book The Angel and the Beehive.  The Moral Panic explains how groups turn so quickly violent.

“The Moral Panic refers to a Conflict situation in which a new religion or a fad or fashion presents to the host society a threat to for want of a better phrase, ‘all that they hold dear.’”

…

When a society is gripped by a moral panic, that society is apt to respond as though their facing matters of life and death.  That leads to violence that is considered justifiable in almost any extreme, because of what we see is at stake.  It makes it possible for people who yesterday felt very friendly toward another people, suddenly see those people not only as enemies, but as less than human.”

…

All of the restraints that people normally feel about the way human beings should treat human beings, those restraints gradually melt away, and people who are perfectly nice, decent people, find themselves doing things that they would have never thought that they could do….Under other circumstances a group of Mormons and a group of Missourians might have gone to dinner together and had a good time, but under these circumstances, they faced the Moral Panic.”

It is truly astonishing how quickly neighbor can turn against neighbor.  It is truly a tragedy when cooler heads do not prevail.

As I said before, I really enjoyed Ballentine’s film.  There is much more to the film than I have presented here.  If you get a chance to see this film at Sunstone, I encourage you to see it.  I know Ballentine is still trying to obtain financing to finish the film.  While it is not yet complete, I think it is an excellent film at this point.  I’ve invited Kenny to stop by, and I am sure he would welcome questions and comments.  If you would like a preview, click here for the official Website.  There are some clips to watch.

What I found interesting was the fact that there were many similarities.  The same experts and evidence often appeared in multiple videos, yet often different conclusions were provided.  It reminds me of the debate concerning Book of Mormon evidence.

During Passover celebrations in 2001, Rabbi David Wolpe created international headlines in Israel by proclaiming to his Jewish congregation in Los Angeles, “the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all.”

For more than 1700 years, Christians have been looking for Mount Sinai, the place where Moses received the 10 Commandments.  Constantine’s mother, Helena was probably the first Christian in search of Christian artifacts in the 4^th century.  When Christians came across a strange-looking bush at the base of a mountain on the Sinai Peninsula, they erected a monastery claiming that they had found Mount Sinai.  The monastery still exists today, and you can walk the steps that these early Christians have claimed as the real Mount Sinai.

Prof Philip Davies, University of Sheffield, “When it comes to the Exodus, we have no evidence that it happened, and a good deal of evidence that it didn’t.  They made it up.”

Professor Eric Cline, George Washington University, “We do not have a single shred of evidence to date.  There is nothing archeologically to attest to anything from the biblical story: no plagues, no parting of the Red Sea, no manna from heaven, no wandering for 40 years.”

Dr. Kathlyn M. Cooney, Egyptologist, Stanford University,, “the most likely reason that we’re not finding any evidence for the Exodus in Egypt is that it didn’t happen the way that the Bible said it did, or that it didn’t happen at all.”

Since that famous (infamous) sermon in 2001, Wolpe has gone on to soften his words a bit.  In March 2010, he said it was possible that a small group of people left Egypt, came to Canaan, and influenced the native Canaanites.  Even skeptics admit there could be something to the story.

Cline, “I think there’s a very good chance that what actually took place was a series of migrations waves or migrations if you will, over three or 400 years of people leaving Egypt and making their way up to Egypt in ones, twos, threes, maybe even tens, hundreds at the most.”

So, let’s talk about some of the biggest questions concerning the Exodus.

The Burning Bush.

The Bible says that God spoke to Moses in the form of a burning bush that was not consumed.  As mentioned previously, a strange bush was found at the base of the traditional Mount Sinai.  Is there another explanation for this burning bush?  Colin Humphreys has an explanation for a burning bush, involving real fire.  As we all know, oil and natural gas are prevalent in the Middle East.  Humphreys believes the Acacia Bush is an ideal candidate for the Burning Bush.

“The most common bush in the desert is the acacia bush, and we know that if you burn an acacia bush you get charcoal.”

The Acacia Bush maintains it’s shape and turns to charcoal.  He gives a demonstration using a natural gas barbecue grill and an acacia bush.  The bush maintains it’s shape, even though flames shoot through the bush.

When did the Exodus Happen?

There are two main theories:  the Early Exodus Period, and the Late Exodus Period.  Supporters of the Early Period point to 1 Kings 6:1, ““Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel…that he began to build the house of the Lord.”  Most historians put the Temple of Solomon at 965 BC.  This would put the Exodus at approximately 1445 BC.

Pharoah Thutmoses I reigned from 1525-1512 BC.  Scholars have speculated that his daughter Hatshepsut may have rescued Moses from the Nile.  She served as Pharoah from 1503-1482 BC, and battled with her stepson Thutmoses III (1504-1450 BC) for control of Egypt.  Thutmoses III eventually removed nearly all traces of Hatshepsut’s monuments.  Thutmoses III death in 1450 coincides well with the date of this Early Exodus time period.

Supporters of the late period refer to Exodus 1:11, “And they built for Pharoah store cities, Pithom and Ramses.”  Ramses II seems to be the most likely Pharaoh.  He lived 1290-1224 BC.  He moved the capital from Thebes to the Nile Delta, and built a new city called Pi-Ramses.  Some archaeologists have linked this city built on top of an ancient Israelite city.

Simcha Jacobovici believes the date of Exodus may be earlier.  He believes the eruption of the Santorini Volcano in 1500 BC may explain many of the Biblical plagues.  The Egyptian name Ahmose means “brother of Moses” in Hebrew—an interesting play on words.    At this time, Egypt was ruled by a Semitic people called the Hyksos, people who were hated by the Egyptians.  Since Joseph was of Semitic origins, this may have helped him join the ranks of the Hyksos ruling class.  The Bible refers to a pharaoh that “knew not Joseph.”

Egyptians have recorded and event called “the Hyksos Expulsion” around 1500 BC.  Could it be the Israelites were expelled, rather than left freely?  Perhaps it depends on who writes the history.

Is there an Israelite presence in Egypt?

In 1967 Professor Manfred Bietak, Chair of Egyptology at the University of Vienna, discovered the ancient Egyptian capital of Avaris.  It was the home to many ancient Egyptian pharaohs.  Some believe the architecture of this city bears resemblance to later Israelite/Canaanite architecture.

Jacobovici attributes Avaris to the Hyksos, while Dr Bryant Wood refers to the ruins as “Asiatic”, similar to later Canaanite   Let me quote from the Exodus Revealed video.

Dr Bryant G Wood, Director of the Associates for Biblical Research, “In this small village, there is stratum D2 dating to the time of Joseph.  All the remains are Asiatic in nature, material culture is Asiatic—there is nothing Egyptian.”

A map of the excavation site confirms its distinctive Israelite origins.  Archaeologists immediately recognized that the design of this horseshoe shaped dwelling was identical to structures built in Israel centuries later.  It was a prototype of Hebrew architecture constructed near the time Joseph was believed to have lived in Egypt.

…

There should be evidence of Israel’s arrival in Canaan, the Promised Land sometime between the 14^th and 12^th centuries BC.  Such evidence does exist.  More than 3200 years ago, the Pharaoh Mernepteh, ventured out of Egypt on a military campaign to the Land of Canaan.  Later, in a poem proclaiming his victory, he boasted that “…Israel is laid waste.”  This inscription dates from about 1210 BC, and establishes that the Israelites had arrived and settled in Canaan, well before the Mernepteh’s conquest at the end of the 13th century.

Additionally at Telamarna in Egypt, archaeologists have uncovered a series of letters on cuneiform plates.  Many were authored by Canaanite rulers early in the 14^th century BC.  These letters contain desperate pleas to the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten for military assistance to defend Canaan from nomadic invaders.  One of them warned that if pharaoh does not act, “…all Canaan will be lost.”  The invaders were identified by the term “apiru”.

Wood, “This is kind of a generic term for stateless individuals who weren’t connected with any particular urban center and so the Israelites undoubtedly would have been referred to as either Apiru, or Asiatics by the Egyptians.”

Dr Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University, “I do think that the term Apiru is the origin of the term Hebrew.”

If the name Apiru referred to the name of the Hebrew people, then the Telhermana inscriptions provide strong evidence for the presence of Israel in Canaan.  They also suggest Israel may have entered the country earlier than scholars had previously thought, at the beginning of the 14^th century BC.  Recent excavations of the Canaanite city of Hazor also support a 14^th century Israelite invasion.  Evidence has been uncovered that the city was destroyed at least twice during the period described in the biblical books of Joshua and Judges.

Scattered among the remains of a large palace were Egyptian and Canaanite idols—their heads and hands intentionally chiseled off.  Archaeologist Amnen ben Tour, has concluded by process of elimination that the invading Israelite army must have ravaged Hazor.  For neither the Egyptians, nor the indigenous Canaanite would have purposely destroyed their own gods.

How can we explain the Plagues?

I presented Jacobovici’s position on the plagues in my previous post.  National Geographic (NG) had similar explanations for plagues 2-6 dealing with insects and frogs.  NG even interviewed several entomologists and epidemiologists to further pin down the actual types of bugs most likely in these infestations.

The first plague, turning the Nile to blood has a few different explanations.  Jacobovici believes an underground natural gas into the Nile may have caused caused the waters to turn red and kill all the fish.  Two lakes in Cameroon turned blood red in 1984 and 1986.  Epidemiologist John Marr believes microscopic algae may have turned the Nile blood red.  In 1995, a coastal river in North Carolina turned bright red due to an algae bloom.

Marr, “Wisteria was labeled the cell from hell because it killed millions if not billions of fish.  If that occurred in North Carolina in the 1990’s, why couldn’t it have occurred in Egypt 3000 years ago?”

The last plague has some interesting interpretations too.  Moses prophesied that the firstborn of Egypt would all die, and the Israelites would be spared if they put lamb’s blood on their doorposts.  The Destroying Angel would “pass over” homes with lamb’s blood.  So, how can scientists explain such a selective mode of death?  Some believe the Firstborn is metaphorical.

Epidemiologist Martin Blaser of NYU, “There is no disease that we know of that just affects the firstborns, so I take that it’s a metaphor for a disease that kills one out of every 3 or 4 people.”

Blaser thinks bubonic plague may have been the culprit, because it affects both animals and humans.  Eric Cline of George Washington believes the plagues could refer to a “Sea People” that attacked Egypt.

Cline, “The attack of the Sea Peoples was probably the Egyptians worst nightmare.  They are the fiercest warriors that the Egyptians have faced, and the Egyptians tell us that everybody went down in the face of these sea peoples.  Only the Egyptians were able to stand, and even that was a Pyrrhic victory because the Egyptians were so weakened that they were never the same again.”

Although the Egyptians never mentioned the plagues, they did document these attacks in pictographs on the mortuary Temple of Ramses III.  Archaeological finds match these writings.

Cline, “I see no need to use divine intervention when human intervention can explain it just as well, if not better.”

Others believe the death of the firstborn may have been more literal.  Epidemiologist John Marr recently investigated the mysterious death of children that was due to a mold.  He postulated that following the plagues of locusts and hail, much of the grain in Egypt would have been moist and in short supply.

Rare molds can wreak havoc on human health, and can even cause internal hemorrhaging.  With little else to eat, the Egyptians may have resorted to moldy toxin laced grain.  Death would come suddenly, with no visible cause, as if the victims were touched by an angel of death.  Still, why the first born?  Marr found his answer, the final piece to the puzzle in an Egyptian tradition.

Marr, “During the times of famine, the eldest, the oldest Egyptian child would be given a double portion of food in order to stave off starvation.  Instead of saving them, it killed them.”

Jacobovici has another theory for the selective deaths during this final plague.

SJ, “The final plague took place at midnight, after Moses ordered the Israelites to sit down to what became known as the first Passover meal.  While the Israelites were involved in the Passover ritual, the Egyptians slept, and then it happened: every firstborn male Egyptian died.  Every house was affected.  No one has ever been able to offer up a plausible scientific explanation for the death of the firstborn until now.  According to our scenario, at this point in the sequence of events that began some 6 months earlier, the gas leaks that set the chain of plates in motion would have finally erupted.  Carbon dioxide would have seeped to the surface, and being heavier than air, would have killed animals and sleeping people before it dissipated harmlessly into the atmosphere.

In case you think all this is conjecture, consider this.  It happened in exactly the same way in 1986 at Lake Nyos, Cameroon.  On the fateful night of August 21, the villagers at Nyos went to sleep.  They couldn’t have known that the carbon dioxide gas which had turned the lake blood red, was now reaching a critical point.  As the people of Lake Nyos slept, the top of the lake was keeping the carbon down like a cap in a pop bottle.  But then the earth rumbled, and a landslide took place sending rock into the water, disturbing the surface pressure and releasing the gas.  The gas then rose to the surface, and like some alien monster, emerged from the water, droplets forming on it, turning the invisible gas into a visible fog.  The fog then rolled across the water, and across the land, suffocating everything in its path.  And as suddenly as it appeared, it disappeared, dissolving harmlessly into the atmosphere.

The next day those who had been sleeping on higher ground woke up to find some 1800 people dead, hundreds of cattle and small animals also dead, all around there was deadly silence.

SJ, “After the death of the First born, Pharaoh finally relented, letting Moses take his people out of Egypt.  According to the Bible, what made pharaoh give up was the selectivity of the deaths: the fact that it was only male, firstborn who died.  It was this selectivity that demonstrated to him that God himself was involved.  How can we account for this?

Well, Egyptian firstborn males had the privileged position.  They were the heirs to the throne, to property, title, and more.  They slept on Egyptian beds low to the ground, while their brothers and sisters slept on rooftops, sheds, and wagons.  The Israelites sitting up at their first Passover meal did not feel a thing, while the low traveling gas suffocated the privileged Egyptian males sleeping in their beds.

How many people participated in the Exodus?

The Bible says that 600,000 men left Egypt.  Adding women and children would have increased the total number to 2.5 million people, the size of modern-day Brooklyn, NY.  If the group were that large, there should be some evidence somewhere in the wilderness.

Cline, “if the Biblical numbers are correct, and you’ve got two and a half million people wandering around for 40 years, I would want to find entire landscapes denuded.  I’d want to find hundreds of sheep and goat carcasses, the bones.  Even if they didn’t ask for directions wandering for 40 years, there would be something.”

However, archaeologist Jim Hoffmeier of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School says the number is probably far fewer, due to a mistranslation dating thousands of years.  The original Hebrew says there were 600 elith.

Hoffmeier, “The word elith can be translated 3 different ways:  it can be translated thousand.  Elith can also be translated to the clan.  The third option is that it’s a military unit, which I think is a more plausible scenario.”

According to Hoffmeier’s interpretation, instead of 600,000 men and their families, there were as few as 5000.

Hoffmeier, “we’re talking about a few tens of thousands, certainly not hundreds of thousands, adding women and children making it millions.”

How did the Red Sea part?  Where did the Israelites cross?

There are 3 main theories for the crossing of the Red Sea: a northern, central, and southern route.  Those supporting a northern route point to volcanic activity to explain the parting of the Red Sea.

Geo-archaeologist Floyd McCoy researches tsunamis at the University of Hawaii.  He says a tsunami might have created a land passage for the Israelites across a lagoon.  Although we think of a tsunami as a lot of water, what comes before is the disappearance of water.

Floyd, “Sometimes you get a warning that a tsunami is coming.  Sometimes that ocean disappears, and that’s called draw down.  Remember what a wave looks like; it’s sinusoidal:  bottom, top; trough, crest.  If the trough comes in first, that’s draw down; the ocean disappears.

The Israelites would have crossed on the northern edge of the Mediterranean ocean according to this theory.  However, several Egyptian military outposts have been found along a northern route into Israel dating to the Exodus period.  Many believe the Israelites would have avoided these military outposts when trying to leave Egypt.

In addition to the Biblical mistranslation of elith, Hoffmeier believes the Red Sea is a mistranslation, and the parting of the sea may have occurred closer to home.

Hoffmeier, “The Hebrew Yam Suf literally means sea of reeds.  When the Greek translators took the Hebrew Yam Suf and translated it into Greek, they translated it as Red Sea instead of Reed Sea.  So we’ve been stuck with a faulty translation for over 2000 years.”

Hoffmeier has been working with Prof Stephen O. Moshier, Geologist of Wheaton College.  Together they have pieces together satellite photos and ancient maps to identify a sea of reeds.  They’ve come up with Lake El Balah, on the eastern border of Egypt.  Jacobovici paints another picture of this scenario.

Hoffmeier, “It’s an ancient lake that survived until the 1850’s.  When the Suez Canal was put in, this ancient lake finally died.  Professor Manfred Biatek after conducting a thorough study of this area, proposed that this lake was known to the Egyptians as Ha Tufi, meaning the marshland, the marshy sea.  And the word tuf, the Egyptian word for reeds is the same word as suf in Hebrew.  So Yam Suf, he suggested, was a name derived from this body of water.  Now it is called the El Balah Lake.”  [In Hebrew it means the lake where God devoured.]

…

SJ, “Identifying the precise location of Yam Suf means that we can finally explain the miracle of the parting of the sea. This satellite photo clearly demonstrates that Lake El Balah is close to the edge of the Nile Delta, where soil accumulates and collapses from time to time.  As Pharaoh chased the Israelites to the shores Lake El Balah, the extreme seismic activity that caused the two plates and the Santorini eruption would have now caused the delta to start sliding into the eastern Mediterranean.  As this millions of tons of soil moved forward, the edge of the African plate, which had now released from its burden must have risen between one to one and a half meters.  In other words, the sea parted.

Water would have cascaded from higher ground to lower ground and drained from pools and sinkholes creating dry land for the Israelites to cross.  At this point, further seismic activity, or another collapse of the delta would have sent a major tsunami crashing against the coasts.

Pellegrino, “We get some glimpse of these tidal waves in Turkey where they carved out channel scablands 30 miles inland.  In order to do that at the shore, these waves would have had to have been more than half as high as the Empire State Building, and that’s exactly the description that we do have in the Bible.”

SJ, “If the tsunami went a mere 12 km inland, it would have reached Lake El Balah and engulfed the Egyptian army.  By this point, according to the Bible, the Israelites had advanced beyond the reach of the waves.

Those who support a central route believe Moses and his followers crossed an ancient frankincense trail across the central Sinai Peninsula.  In his younger days, Moses killed an Egyptian while defending a Hebrew slave.  The Bible says he fled to the land of Midian, in Modern Day Saudi Arabia.  It is likely that Moses would have followed the frankincense trail to Midian.  It is the shortest, most direct route to Midian.  If Moses had made the trek before, it is likely he would have followed it again.  Dr Lennart Moller of the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden notes that the Bible says that

In the Book of First Kings, In approximately 950 BC, King Solomon’s is said to have built his navy at Ezion Geber near Elath, an ancient city on the northern coast of the Gulf of Aqaba.  According to the Hebrew text, this gulf where Solomon’s ships were said to harbor, was call yam suf.

He believes Newieva Beach is large enough to hold a large Israelite party, and it has some unusual features that make crossing there more likely than other places.

The geography of the Gulf of Aqaba also resembles descriptions of the Yam Suf God once parted for Israel.  Aqaba is extremely deep, plunging more than a mile in some spots.  It is adjacent to a dense wilderness of rugged mountains.  It is located clearly outside the borders of ancient Egypt, as recognized during the time of Moses.  These similarities to the scriptures have led Lennart Moller and others to theorize the Gulf of Aqaba is the Red Sea of the Exodus story.  If they are correct, then 2 distinct possibilities for a crossing point exist:  the first is located on the bottom of the Sinai Peninsula, on the Straits of Tyron.  This channel 5 miles across is one of the most popular recreation areas on earth, as spectacular reefs and marine life attract divers from throughout the world, but the topography of the sea floor here would have made crossing highly unlikely.

For less than a mile offshore, a subterranean canyon plunges nearly 1000 feet at a grade so steep, passage on foot through jagged coral beds would have been virtually impossible, even if the waters were miraculously removed.  70 miles north of the straits, near the center o the Aqaba coast, another potential crossing site extends into the sea.  It is called the Newieva Peninsula.

Moller was attracted to Newieva Beach because of some interesting coral formations.

Moller, “The first time I was diving there, of course we were then looking for possible artifacts, and I had seen some pictures of what we could look for.  I was skeptical and excited because if this is the place for the crossing, then of course, that’s a big thing, so I was excited about that.  But I was also skeptical because 3500 years—that’s a long time.  But if Newieva is the crossing site, then of course you would expect to find remains of the Egyptian army.”

Like others who had explored Newiva before him, Moller immediately recognized the difficulty of this search.

Moller, “If we assume a number of artifacts were spread out on the sea bed, sooner or later corals would start to grow on them, and of course if you have an array of some coral all growing on something, it’s very hard to distinguish the structure that was there in the very beginning.”

Though the coral complicates any search here, it may have been instrumental in preserving the shapes of artifacts, for coral is a living organism that will not begin to grow on a foundation of sand or silt.  Instead, it must first attach itself to a solid object where it will sometimes conform to the shape of its host.

Moller, “So for instance if it were to grow on a wooden artifact, the wood would normally disappear in the sea waters after a time.  But if you have corals growing on the wooden artifact, the corals could have the shape of the wooden artifact and then the coral would consume the wood and material over a periods of time, but still keep the shape of the wooden artifacts.”

During the course of his exploration, Moller observed the pattern of coral growth at Neweiva differed from other parts of the gulf.  Unlike the coral at the northern and southern ends of Aqaba which often forms large dense reefs, sometimes covering acres, the formations at Nuweiva beach are generally smaller, and scattered randomly across the bottom of the sea floor.  Divers familiar with the area have compared the distribution of coral here to a junkyard, and the aftermath of a disaster.  This description is fitting, and among the strange formations in these waters, many display features indicative of human engineering.

Moller, “When we dive, and when we film, at the Neweiva location, we look for certain structures, and you try to look for 90 degree angles, or circular objects, wheel like structures, so that is what you scan for when you dive.  There are situations where you see something that looks like an axle, a hub, some that looks like a wheel, and you say to yourself, this is a coral reef.  This coral grew on an artifact, and that is what’s different to me when I compare corals at other locations around the world.”

Since the earliest explorations at Newieva, one distinctive type of formation has often been identified on the sea floor, a slender table-like structure, sometimes standing on end with a coral encrusted base, a straight shaft, and a circular top.

Moller, “It’s a 90 degree angle, and right angle between something that looks like an axle and a wheel.  You can see this in different varieties, and it looks very different from normal coral.  It is like a man-made structure with a coral roof on it.

While most of the possible artifacts found on the coast of Newieva are covered with coral, one significant discovery was not.

Moller, “There is one find at the Neweiva location that is of great interest, and this is the gilded wheel.  It is a wooden basic structure of the wheel, and it is covered with gold or electrum, a mixture of silver gold, and corals have not been able to grow on it.  It’s been fairly well preserved, although it’s very fragile.  It seems the wooden content has been dissolved.  You could break it if you try to remove it.”

After its discovery, the fragile wheel-shaped veneer was photographed and left in place on the sea floor.

Later analysis revealed that its dimensions and design resembled four-spoked chariot wheels painted on a 18^th Dynasty tomb wall near the Biblical date of the Exodus.

Moller referenced a southern crossing point as well, but dismissed it because of the steep cliffs and jagged coral.  Proponents of a southern route believe a volcanic land bridge may have appeared at this area.

Stephen J. O’Meara, Volcanologist, Volcano Watch International flies over an active volcano.  “Imagine the Jews, reaching this massive land bridge, formed by lava.  Here we have earth being created before our eyes.  You can see the lava flow going into the ocean on a new bench of land.  This is a very highly unstable platform of land.  The bench will not last for long.  This whole area can fall in just a matter of minutes.  Massive collapses have occurred here in Hawaii almost in the blink of an eye.”

The Red Sea forms part of the Great African Rift System.  The entire region has an explosive volcanic history.

O’Meara, “Although we see a very small lava flow, you have to in your mind scale this up to a massive volcanic eruption 3200 years ago.  It enters the water, the water boils, it disappears.  It’s enough to choke valleys and cause land bridges.”

In O’Meara’s scenario, an underwater eruption could have created a temporary unstable lava bridge.  The surface layer of lava cools quickly when it hits the water.  The Israelites could have crossed over this new land.

O’Meara walking on lava, near bright red lava flow, “But what’s amazing about this lava, even though it’s so hot that I have to keep walking right at this moment, that if I had to, to save my life, I could wait, walk over this lava in 10 minutes.”

This new unsupported land could have quickly disintegrated.

O’Meera, “and then when the Egyptians were on their chariots, [hops around because of the heat] and they tried to cross this same bed, the lava gave way.”

The collapse of this land bridge would have plunged pharaoh’s army into the sea.

O’Meara, “It makes sense.  Volcanoes are the only thing that makes sense.  The Bible is just filled with volcanic references and especially in Exodus out from the plagues to the parting of the Red Sea, and seeing pillars of fire, and mountains quaking, and burning bushes, all of them just in Exodus.  You imagine, you come up here and see this and you are not a scientist.  There were no scientists back then.  Listen to it!  [lava crackling]  It’s talking to you!  It’s written in the Bible, God says, ‘I am the rock.’  There you are!”

Where is Mount Sinai?

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, there are several proposed locations for Mount Sinai.  The traditional location is at the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula.  Tradition for this site goes back to the 4^th Century.  After Moses escaped to Midian, he found the Burning Bush.

Many scholars believe that Mount Sinai is in the Land of Midian in modern day Saudi Arabia.

Separated by the Red Sea and the Egyptian army in the Sinai Peninsula, Moses married a Midianite woman, tended the flocks of his father-in-law Jethro, and lived in obscurity for years, until the day he wandered to the base of Mount Sinai.  There God spoke through a burning bush and revealed his plan to free Israel from bondage.  Given the Biblical record, some believe that Mount Sinai must be in Midian, but is there any other evidence to support this theory?

Several Jewish documents, some written several hundred years before Christian traditions, locate the mountain of God in Midianite territory.  In 250 BC, a council of 70 Hebrew scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek for the first time.  Their translation of the Exodus account presupposed that Mount Sinai stood in the Arabian Peninsula.  Three centuries later, the Jewish philosopher Philo placed the mountain “east of the Sinai Peninsula” and south of Palestine.  At the same time, the apostle Paul, who was educated under the Rabbi Gamaliel, also located Mount Sinai in Arabia (Galatians 4:25).

Kerkeslager, “So Paul and Philo, when they used the word Arabia, they’re not thinking of the Sinai Peninsula.  Once again, I think that point needs to be emphasized very clearly.  In terminology, Arabia in the 1^st century, Greek geographers usually had in mind the Arabian Peninsula.  That’s how that term is used.”

Perhaps that most specific description of Mount Sinai’s location can be traced to the first century historian Josephus, who wrote “it was the highest of mountains…” near “…the city of Madian.”  Shortly after this account, Madian was identified in the Arabian Peninsula by the Greek geographer Ptolemy.  1900 years later, archaeologists excavated this city that according to ancient records had once stood near Mount Sinai.  The ruins of Madian lie just outside the modern day town of El-bod near Saudi Arabia’s northwest coast.

…

Viveka Ponten of Stockholm, Sweden said, “I have always been interested in archaeological finds that could confirm the truths of the Bible.  I have wanted come to Saudi Arabia to see for myself—I want to be able to say ‘I have seen this place’.”

In 1996, Vivika Ponten entered Saudi Arabia on a work permit.  During the following years, she made several trips to Jebel Elboz.

Ponten, “It was very difficult to find the mountain.  I think I had been there for 7 months before I came to the mountain the first time.  We went around looking for it in the desert.  I did 5 long day trips—5 different locations, just looking and looking for this place.”

Throughout her search, Ponten encountered a strong local tradition that Moses had once lived in Arabia.

Ponten, “It seems to be a tradition among the locals there that this mountain range is called Jebel-Musa.  They call it that, and many places have the name of Moses, like their wells, that they call Adien-Musa, or Bijan-Musa, which means ‘the well of Moses’.”

When Ponten finally reached Jebel Alboz, her attention was drawn to specific features of the mountain that resembled the Biblical description.  Most prominent was a jagged peak, more than 8000 feet in elevation, and blackened, as if scorched by fire.  [Deuteronomy 9:18, the Lord descended on it in fire.)

At its base, an enormous pile of boulders, at least 15 feet high and 60 feet across (Exodus 32:5, he built an altar in front of the calf.)  The flattened top of this structure had the appearance of being man-made, and etched into its rock faces were petro glyphs of bovine creatures, cattle and bulls.  The distinctive horns and some of the inscriptions resemble pictures of ancient Egyptian Apis bulls.  Could these stones be the remains of an Israelite altar, once built at the base of a holy mountain?  Conclusive investigation is not possible at this time, for Saudi law severely limits all foreign research.

Ponten, “They have put up archaeological signs that tell this is an archaeological area, and you’re not supposed to trespass here.  It’s evident that the Arabs themselves consider this to be some old site of archaeological interest.

Satellite photos of the area have revealed another geographical feature that parallels the Biblical account: a sprawling plain more than 10,000 acres.  Flat, surrounded by mountains, and adjacent to the dried bed of an ancient river, it could have provided an ideal place for the Israelite encampment 3500 years ago.

Just west of the mountain stands another link to the possible Exodus account: a towering rock, 60 feet high.  It is split from top to bottom, and evidence of water erosion is etched into its base.  Many features of Jebel Alboz reflect the Biblical account of Mount Sinai.  As the highest mountain of northwest Arabia, it matches ancient Jewish historical records.

Kerkeslager, “Based on the textual evidence, Jebel Alboz is as good of a guess as any; it might even be the best guess.  It’s definitely better than anything in the Sinai Peninsula, and probably better than any other guess that we have.  It would be nice to have some excavation, and that’s really [why] we need excavations.  We need somebody who is competent, trained archeologist to go in and record the material carefully, submit it for dispute and debate among other scholars, because there are too many gaps in our knowledge.”

The intriguing similarities between Jebel Alboz, and the Biblical record may indeed stimulate new investigation here. Yet whether or not future excavations confirm this site as the actual mountain of God, a considerable body of documentary evidence indicates that Mount Sinai is located somewhere in northwestern Arabia.

Others believe Mount Sinai is somewhere on the Sinai Peninsula.  Jacobovici discusses another possible location discovered by Prof Uzi Avner.

Holy mountains in the desert are marked by ancient, open-air, rock sanctuaries.  In this area there is only 1 mountain surrounded by sanctuaries.  Today that mountain is called Jebel-Hashem el-Tarif.

Although this entire are is in the middle of a military zone, we got to it.  This mountain perfectly fits all the criteria for Mount Sinai.  It is surrounded by a huge plateau that could have accommodated hundreds of thousands of Israelites.  It is easily accessible.  It literally sits on the main trans-Sinai highway, which follows the topography of the ancient route.

Prof. Uzi Avner, Arava Environmental Institute, Israel, “The Mountain is not very high, only about 200 meters above the plateau, but it is very conspicuous.  You can see it from a distance.  The unique point is that it is surrounded by actually the largest concentration of open air sanctuaries that we now today in the desert.”

Conclusions?

So, do we need to believe that any of these scenarios?  Both skeptics and believers seem to agree that faith and science are two different animals.

Hoffmeier, “For people that have religious convictions, they don’t need proof.”

Cornuke, “it all boils down to, this is a supernatural event, and you can’t explain it in any other way.”

Ultimately, the power of Exodus lies more in faith than in science.

Cooney, “There’s no real scientific proof that the Exodus took place, but as a Christian or as a Jew, you shouldn’t need scientific proof to be a person of faith.  Faith doesn’t need to be scientifically proven, nor should it be; it’s faith.”

Cameron, “It seems that the Bible, geology, and archaeology, are all telling the same story.  But skeptics, who would like to regard the Exodus as myth, might resist the idea that it actually happened, because this would imply that God does indeed exist.  Believers on the other hand may feel that a scientific explanation of the Biblical story takes God out of the equation. “

SJ, “But in the Book of Exodus, God does not suspend nature, he manipulates it.  In other words, according to the Bible, we should be able to understand the science behind the miracles.  The greatest miracle of them all was the parting of the sea.

Rabbi David Wolpe believes that the historicity of the events in the Bible should not matter; faith is not determined by the same criteria as empirical truth.

So, what do you think?  Does any of this convince you of the historicity of the Exodus?  Do you think the Exodus is myth?

This quote comes from an episode of History’s Mysteries: Sodom and Gomorrah.  It was originally aired in 2000 on the History Channel.  (If you have Netflix, you can download it to your computer or television free with your subscription.  Here is the link.)  I’ve really enjoyed learning about archaeology evidence concerning these two Biblical cities.  I’m going to reference 2 videos here, and I’ll color-code quotes from each.  In addition to History’s Mysteries (highlighted in red), I’m also going to reference the 2006 series called Digging for the Truth: The Real Sin City: Sodom and Gomorrah (highlighted in purple.)

The Bible mentions 5 cities of the plain:  Zoar, Sodom, Gomorrah, Adman, and Zeboiim.  These cities date from the Early Bronze Age, approximately 3300-2050 BC.  William F. Albright, the “Father of Modern Biblical Archaeology” (from Johns Hopkins University), led a a team of archaeologists in 1924 into Jordan along the eastern side of the Dead Sea specifically to find evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah.  During the expedition, they discovered massive amounts of pottery dating to the Bronze Age.  They started digging, and discovered a site which is known today as Bab Edh-dhra.

Following the discovery of the site, Albright wrote an editorial indicating this could be a possible site for one of the infamous Biblical cities.  Strangely, Dr Walter Rast of Valparaiso University (Indiana) says that Albright decided to walk away from the site.  According to Rast, Albright decided

“That it probably would have been best if these sites are never found because of the evil that is associated with these sites, in the Biblical tradition.  Don’t undo God’s work.  Let it be left under the earth.”

Due to political instability in Jordan, the site was not studied again until the 1960’s.  Paul Lapp, director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem began picked up where Albright left off, and soon found a massive cemetery.  At first it was believed that this massive cemetery might be the result of the massive destruction and loss of life associated with the Bible story.  However, carbon dating revealed that the cemetery held citizens over a 1300 year period from 3300 BC on down to 2000 BC, nullifying the idea that this large group of people died in a single catastrophe. Unfortunately, Lapp died in a swimming accident in 1970, and was not able to shed further light on the site.

In 1973, Walter Rast (of Valparaiso University) and Thomas Schaub, (a doctoral student at the Jerusalem University) discovered a second city just 8 miles from Bab Edh-dhra, which has been named Numeira.  Pottery remains were similar to Bab Edh-dhra, and this city had a more interesting demise.  There is evidence that the entire city was burned.  Was it arson from a conquering army, or fire and brimstone as it says in the Bible?  Archaeologists can’t tell, but it was definitely burned.  Quoting Schaub from the video,

“At Bab Edh-dhra, we have several things that indicate that the town had a violent interruption in its life.  There are walls severely tilted, almost to a 50 degree angle, walls that have collapsed and slid down.”

The scarred ruins discovered at Numeira, paint even a more shocking portrait of a fiery end.

Schaub, “We find the remains of that destruction right on the surface.  That’s the striking thing about this site of Numiera.  It’s so well-preserved.”

Rast, “When Schaub and I were walking around Numeira, we were able to see already evidence of a tremendous depth of destruction for this site.  Everywhere we have excavated, whether at the East end, or the West end, or the south side, we have found a deep level of destruction and debris.”

Schaub, “There is also along with fire, the collapse of a tower, and under that tower, we found skeletons of individuals—very dramatic exposure.”

Rast, “But they were not buried there, they were caught in some sort of destruction. They had a kind of character that was similar to what we have found much more extensively in Pompei.”

These 2 cities of the plains met their fates together, as in the fates of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Brimstone means literally “burning stone.”  In the Dead Sea region, highly flammable sulfur deposits are easily found in this region.  Josh Bernstein, host of Digging for the Truth, demonstrates how easy sulfur is to find and burn in the area.  If there was an earthquake releasing oil, natural gas, sulfur, and/or tar, it’s easy to imagine fire and brimstone raining down on Numeira.  There have been 17 earthquakes in the past 100 years—it is a well-known area of earthquakes.  National Geographic has a very dramatic simulation of what might have happened in this short 3 minute video.

But that’s not all.  Remember, there are 5 “cities of the plain” mentioned in the Bible, not just the infamous twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Greek Orthodox Church of St George in Madaba, Jordan dates from the 6^th century AD.  The church was restored in the 19^th century.  The stone floor inside the church has mosaic from the Byzantine era containing a map.  The map is not complete, but Zoar, one of the 5 cities of the plan, is shown on the map.  Zoar is significant in the Biblical story, because Lot passed nearby as he escaped from Sodom and Gomorrah.

The map had intrigued Konstantinos Politis, director of the British Museum for years.  When superimposed on a modern map of the area, it seems to be quite accurate.  Zoar is shown to be on the southeastern edge of the Dead Sea, along with the image of another church in the area.

Armed with this map, Politis began looking for Zoar.   In 1987, Politis discovered an ancient monastery in a mountainous region southeast of the Dead Sea.  At the monastery, Politis found a Greek inscription: “St Lot, please bless these servants, April 605 AD.”

Politis, “It’s not a small chapel, it’s quite a large church built in the slopes, so there was quite a lot of effort and money that went into the effort.  The people who built this church were people of the Byzantine period, roughly from the 5^th, 6^th, 7^th centuries AD.  These are the early Christians.”

While an impressive discovery in its own right, a chance accident brings it to the forefront of Biblical archaeology.

Politis, “On September 15, 1991, two workmen were digging in the mountainside on the site and they came across this hall and it turned out to be a cave, and almost immediately I thought of the Old Testament: Genesis.  This can’t possibly be Lot’s cave? [He chuckles]”

As Politis searched the cave, he discovered a discovered pottery dating from 2500-1700 BC.  Apparently the cave was occupied by someone dating to the Early Bronze Age.

According to the Bible, Lot and his 2 daughters flee Sodom in the wake of its destruction.  They pass through the city of Zoar on their way to a cave.  This passage provides a clue to Politis’ discovery.

Politis, “The site is located about 2 km away from ancient Zoar, where Lot escaped the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, which some people have associated with Bab Edh-dhra and Numeira.”

Here’s another archaeological site in the right place and from the right time.  Could this really be Lot’s cave, the place where Lot’s daughters seduce him in order to repopulate the world?”

Wolpe, “If you claim that you found a cave where somebody commit incest 2000 years ago, [this] is a claim which could not possibly by any stretch of the imagination be proved.  It makes no more sense than pointing to any other cave and saying that’s Lot’s Cave because there is no evidence remaining of what happened, or if it happened, or how it happened, or where it happened.”

Politis, “Archaeological, scientifically, I am quite convinced that we have the church and the cave which the early Christians believed was Lot’s cave.  Whether Lot himself lived there and stayed with his daughters, I don’t know.  But to actually prove that this was Lot himself is impossible.”

I have to say, I find it really odd that these early Christians would build a monument where incest occurred.  David Wolpe rabbi of Sinai Temple (Los Angeles, California) explained the mind-set of Lot’s daughters, and why they would try to get pregnant by their father.

Wolpe, “What seems to have happened after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is that Lot’s daughters believed they were the last human beings left on earth.”

Intent on preserving their own lineage and all of humanity, Lot’s daughters devise a plan.  They come to him with great quantities of wine.

Wolpe, “They got their father drunk and had incestuous relationships with him in order to repopulate the world.  It says something very human about the desire to see life proliferate, even after a terrible catastrophe.

This is such an odd idea to me.  I can’t imagine believing what it would be like to think you’re the only human beings left on the planet.  Does it really seem the situation is so desperate that they needed to have incestuous relations?  They really odd thing to me is the idea that the sin of Sodom was sexual relations.  Isn’t this a bit of irony?  Is there any evidence of Sodom’s sinful sexual nature from these sites?

Rast, “You do have a couple of cases of syphilis as evidence in the bone material, but that would be natural for a community back at this time.  Sexually transmitted diseases would have been the case everywhere as a possibility in ancient society.”

Schaub, “But it would take a real stretch of the imagination to relate what we find in the ground to the decadence that seems to be associated with the Biblical story.”

Fontaine, “We sometimes find when we look at Bible stories, that people think they know what they say, but when we look more closely, we sometimes find the text is ambivalent.”

After close study of the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis, many scholars have come to doubt its true intent was to condemn sexual deviance.

Fontaine, “The sin of the Sodomites is one of the biggest mysteries about this whole story.  The Bible deliberately makes it ambiguous in the book of Genesis as to what that sin might be.”

Schaub, “It’s just the one incident where people come and demand that, say in the story about Sodom in chapter 19, that Lot gives these men out to them so that they may know them—a sexual term, or has sexual intercourse with them.  That one incident really has to be tied into the larger picture of the few chapters which is really about hospitality.

Fontaine, “In the Jewish legendary material, again and again when we hear stories of Sodom, it’s not about sexual deviance; it’s about the people’s unwillingness to give charity to their poor, and their wretched treatment of strangers.”

Given the seeming primitive beliefs concerning adultery, taking the name of God in vain, is the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah really the idea that they didn’t take care of strangers very well?

Let’s turn to Lot’s wife, and the story of her turning into a pillar of salt.  Josh Bernstein talked with Rami G Khouri, Author of a book titled, Antiquities of the Jordan Rift Valley.

Khouri, “It’s a message.  It’s a moral message which is personified in these physical remains.”

This 20 foot tall salt-encrusted pillar is known as Lot’s Wife.  Bernstein refers to this pillar as a “Biblical scarecrow.”

Bernstein, “So if we’re looking at this metaphorically, and not literally, what’s the message?”

Khouri, “I think the message from the Biblical text certainly—and it goes throughout the whole Old Testament—is that people should obey God—they should be faithful, and trust God.  If you don’t obey God, you get zapped.   [This is] throughout the Bible.

Bernstein, “So the people could use this as a bogeyman.  They could say ‘you better listen to God when he speaks, because otherwise you’re going to turn into that pillar.’”

Khouri, “That’s right.  I think that’s the aim of the story.  Of course many stories of the Bible are like this.“

Wolpe has another perspective on the story.

“His wife was told not to look back, which has been symbolically taken as the idea that in some ways, when people leave evil practices, they pine for them; they still wish they could do what they used to do.”

So, what are we to make of these archaeological finds?  Is there enough evidence and explanation of Sodom and Gomorrah for you?  On the one hand, Rami Khouri says,

“These stories, these narratives, are based on facts that we can prove in many cases: geological facts, geographical facts, chronological facts, and historical facts…I think there were cities that were destroyed.  You will certainly find sites where the archaeological evidence synchronizes rather compellingly with the Biblical evidence.”

David Wolpe, “It would be remarkable if certain things in the Bible were proved to be archaeologically true, but it wouldn’t prove faith, because faith is by definition that which cannot be proven by empirical evidence.  You don’t use scientific criteria to prove faith.  I’m not looking to prove God through rocks and stones and ancient remains.”

….

Wolpe, “It is impossible to know if these cities are Sodom and Gomorrah even if you find evidence of destruction, because we don’t have in the Bible sufficient description of exactly what was in the cities to correspond to actual archaeological findings.  So, I remain a skeptic.”

Schaub, “Is there any possibility that these 2 sites could be the Biblical sites of Sodom and Gomorrah?  I’d say, ‘yes’, there is probably a connection.”

Dr Walter Rast, Valparaiso University, “But beyond circumstantial evidence, we don’t have much more to go on than the circumstantial evidence.  It cannot really stand by itself as really final proof.  You can set it forth as theory, and I wouldn’t mind setting it forth as theory.”

What do you make of all this?  Are the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah simply fables, or could there be some evidence to indicate some of these events actually transpired?

Burns tells some really interesting things about the Shakers.  They’re called Shakers, a shorter version of the name Shaking Quakers.  They have many Quaker beliefs, and the Shaking part comes into play because they do some ecstatic dancing before God.  Song and dance are a large part of worship services.  They were founded by a woman named Ann Lee in England around 1770.  Ann had a vision of Christ, though the heading in the LDS edition seems erroneous in overstating this vision.  It says, “Some of the beliefs of the Shakers were that Christ’s second coming had already occurred and he had appeared in the form of a woman, Ann Lee.“  This isn’t exactly true.  Her vision was similar in nature to Joseph’s vision of the Savior.  We wouldn’t say that Christ’s second coming already occurred in the form of Joseph Smith, right?

Ann Lee had a vision of Jesus in 1770.  She was welcomed by a small group of Quakers, but was not welcome in England, so she moved to America, settling near Albany, NY.  In 1783, she was accused of treason and witchcraft.  Her sentence caused her to be whipped.  She was attacked by a mob for “stealing” a man’s wife–the woman had converted to the Shakers (the official name is United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing.)  She was born in Manchester, England in 1736 and died in Watervliet, New York, in 1784.

Shakers believed in strict separation of the sexes, and complete celibacy.  The way membership increased was through adoption of orphans.  Burns says that in the 1960′s many states refused to allow adoptions to religious organizations, which greatly hurt membership.  In 1985 when the documentary was produced, there were just 12 Shakers left in existence.  I believe there are just 3 left now.  I loved this quote from a Shaker:  “we bless marriage, because if someone didn’t marry, we wouldn’t have any Shakers.”

Shakers invented some very useful things, most of them were labor saving items.

• Water repellent cloth
• Clothes that needed no ironing
• Clothes pins
• Circular saw (by a woman)
• They turned the round broom into a flat one

The documentary was fascinating.  Shakers were very communalistic (or we would say they believed in consecration.)  They accepted everyone, even those who they called “Winter Shakers.”  These were people that they knew only came to their community for food, and planned to leave in the spring.  Shakers felt Christ would help all people, so they helped them too.

Burns didn’t talk of the Mormons at all, but D&C 49 refers to Leman Copley, the first Shaker to Mormon convert.  A mission was organized to the Shakers.  Apparently, it didn’t go so well.  While the Shakers embraced Sidney Rigdon, apparently Parley P Pratt dusted his feet.  There is an interesting PDF article at BYU Studies.  Some brief excerpts from the Shaker Ashbel Kitchell’s Journal:

Some time in the year 1829 the new religion, (if so it may be called,) of the Mormons began to make a stir in a town not far from North Union.⁴ It created a good deal of excitement among the people. They stated they had received a New Revelation, had seen an angel, & had been instructed into many things in relation to the history of America, that was not known before.

Late in the fall a number of them came to visit the Believers. One by the name of Oliver Lowdree [Cowdery], who stated that he had been one who had been an assistant in the translation of the golden Bible, and had also seen the Angel, and had been  commissioned by him to go out & bear testimony, that God would destroy this generation.

We gave him liberty to bear his testimony in our meeting; but finding he had nothing for us, we treated them kindly, and labored to find out what manner of spirit they were of.—They appeared meek and mild; but as for light, or knowledge of the way of God, I considered them very ignorant of Christ or his work; therefore I treated them with the tenderness of children.

…

We continued on friendly terms in the way of trade and other Acts of good neighborship untill [sic] the spring of 1831 when we were visited on saturday evening by Sidney Rigdon and Leman Copley,5 the latter of whom had been among us; but not likeing [sic] the cross {celibacy} any to [sic] well, had taken up with Mormonism as the easier plan and had been appointed by them as one of the missionaries to convert us.

…

They came into meeting and sat quietly untill the meeting was through, and the people dismissed; when Sidney Rigdon arose and stated that he had a message from the Lord Jesus Christ to this people; could he have the privilege of delivering it? He was answered, he could. He then said it was in writing; could he read it? He was told he might. He then read the following Message. [The text of D & C, section 49, is here quoted with only a few minor wording changes from the way it appears in the Book of Commandments, chapter 52.]

At the close of the reading, he asked if they could be permitted to go forth in the exercise of their gift and office.—I told him that the piece he had read, bore on its face, the image of its author; that the Christ that dictated that, I was well acquainted with, and had been, from a boy; that I had been much troubled to get rid of his influence, and I wished to have nothing more to do with him; and as for any gift he had  authorized them to exercise among us, I would release them & their Christ from any further burden about us, and take all the responsibility on myself.

Sidney made answer—This you cannot do; I wish to hear the people speak. I told him if he desired it, they could speak for themselves, and steped [sic] back and told them to let the man know how they felt; which they did in something like these words; that they were fully satisfied with what they had, and wished to have nothing to do with either them or their Christ. On hearing this Rigdon professed to be satisfied,
and put his paper by; but Parley Pratt arose and commenced shakeing [sic] his coattail; he said he shook the dust from his garments as a testimony against us, that we had rejected the word of the Lord Jesus.

Before the words were out of his mouth, I was to him, and said;—You filthy Beast, dare you presume to come in here, and try to imitate a man of God by shaking your filthy tail; confess your sins and purge your soul from your lusts, and your other abominations before you ever presume to do the like again, &c. While I was ministering this reproof, he settled trembling into his seat, and covered his face; and I then turned to Leman who had been crying while the message was reading, and said to him, you
hypocrite, you knew better;—you knew where the living work of God was; but for the sake of indulgence, you could consent to deceive yourself and them, but you shell reap the fruit of your own doings, &c.—This struck him dead also, and dryed up his tears;— I then turned to the Believers and said, now we will go home and started.—Sidney had been looking on all this time without saying a word; as he had done all he did only by liberty nothing was said to him, and he looked on with a smile to see the fix the others were in, but they all followed us to the house.—Parleys horse had not been put away, as he came too late; he mounted and started for home without waiting for any one.—Sidney stayed for supper, and acknowledged that we were the purest people he had ever been acquainted with but he was not prepared to live such a life.

The journal continues, but suffice it to say, the mission didn’t produce very many converts.  There is an LDS Institute of Religion lesson on this section you may find interesting as well.

So, what do you think of the Shakers?