I’ve been listening to a podcast from Yale University discussing the Bible.  There are definite similarities between the Babylonian story of  Gilgamesh and the stories of Adam and Noah.  Some people, such as Bishop Rick, have said

I think it is accurate to state that the flood story in the bible is both myth and a forgery. It is obviously a myth for reasons too numerous to mention here, but it is also copied from other cultures/religions, thus making it a forgery.

It could very well be a myth.  While some scholars believe the story is a myth, National Geographic put together a documentary called “In Search for Noah’s Flood”.  They discuss various flood stories, and make the case that a large, localized flood must have influenced these various cultures to write of this flood.  While there is no proof of a flood, it seems like a plausible explanation.

Recently I discussed a couple of sites in the Dead Sea region that some people believe are the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah.  While some people love to claim the Bible is actually a collection of myths, Dr. Carole Fontaine of the Andover Newton Theological School said, “Archeologists often find themselves hooted and hollered out of town, when they first suggest things like, ‘I’ve found Troy, or look, we’ve found Sodom and Gomorrah.’  But history has shown that in fact, the more you dig, the more you find.  It’s amazing how accurate the Bible sometimes turns out to be.”

Speaking of hooting and hollering, John Hamer recently recorded a famous comment regarding Book of Mormon archaeology.  He said,

The scholarly consensus on the alleged antiquity of the Book of Mormon was expressed way back in 1973 in Dialogue by Michael D. Coe, among the foremost Mayanist scholars, who wrote: “As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the historicity of The Book of Mormon, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group”

The best Book of mormon archaeological site seems to be Nahom.  I’ve previously blogged about Nahom, and Daniel C. Peterson called it a “bulls eye”.  In the video called Journey of Faith (distributed by FAIR), a few BYU scholars state,

Daniel C. Peterson, Professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic, BYU, “The finding of Nahom strikes me as just a tremendously significant discovery.”

Noel B Reynolds, director of FARMS, BYU, “The gazetteers of Joseph Smith’s day listed no such place.”

Peterson, “What it really is, is a kind of prediction by the Book of Mormon, or something that we ought to find.”

William J Hamblin, Professor of Middle Eastern History, BYU, “Now the chances of finding that exact name from the exact time, in that exact place, by random chance, are just astronomical.”

Peterson, “And to find it in the right location, at the right time, is a really striking bulls eye for the book and there are those who say the book has no archeological substantiation. That’s a spectacular substantiation right there, it seems to me.  Something that would have been unexpected. It’s so unlikely that Joseph Smith could have woven into his story on his own.”

Hamblin, “The Book of Mormon has text, has made a complex prediction and modern archeology actually confirms that prediction.”

Peterson, “It’s a direct bulls-eye, as precise as you could wish it to be.”

I don’t think non-Mormon scholars are as impressed with the site as Peterson, but non-Bible believing scholars aren’t impressed with Sodom and Gomorrah either.  So, must we always believe that lack of evidence argues against historicity of the Bible or Book or Mormon, or is there reason to believe that some of these stories that scholars call myths, forgeries, or pious frauds really might have some historical use?  Is it true that “the more you dig, the more you find?”

I did learn that it’s not just the LDS that are picked on, so at least they have that going for them.  When I complained that another person by the handle of Pheobe Ann posted a distorted view of LDS theology, another person there by the handle Skylark said,

Originally Posted by skylark1

If you think that this title is sensational, you should check out some of the headlines in General Theology. There is one titled “I can have sex with the pastor’s wife and still go to heaven.” (The original poster was not actually claiming this!) So far, it has 935 posts, and 7946 views!

I responded

Skylark,

I find that title heinous. I agree with you that Phoebe’s title is relatively benign compared to your example. If such sensationalism is considered normal here, perhaps I am in the wrong place. I thought this was supposed to be a place of discussion, not a place where Tabloid headlines dominate.

I hear you, and sympathize. However, I would much rather have a more scholarly discussion, than waste times with tabloid discussions.

So, Phoebe Ann’s post quoted D&C  84:74-95, along with Pheobe’s commentary that “Those who reject the LDS message here on earth seem to be in a lot of trouble.”  Phoebe believes that the LDS believe that only LDS will obtain salvation (or in Mormon parlance, Celestial glory.)  Phoebe is a former Mormon, but apparently her grasp of Mormon theology is quote distorted.  Currently, she is not a member of any denomination.  She believes that faith in Christ is all that is needed to get into Heaven; she believes all works are unnecessary, and she believes that true Christians are in and outside of many denominations.  I thought you might enjoy a few of our exchanges.  She asked me,

Faith in Christ is very important, but it is not the “end-all” that New Dawn made it sound at first. New Dawn made a clarification, and I understand the position better now. I am glad that New Dawn doesn’t think that someone can profess in Christ and then commit murder in a Crusade and be saved. I agree with that position. I am still trying to understand New Dawn and your position on Hindus, and I still haven’t received an answer saying “Hindus are all damned”, or “some Hindus will get into heaven.” I am sure you understand that Mormons don’t simply believe in only heaven and hell; we believe that honorable men (Hindu or not) will receive some sort of glory, perhaps more than a “faithful” Crusader who engaged in war crimes. I’d like to get a clearer understanding of New Dawn and Phoebe’s position, but it seems like neither of you answer the question directly and make your position clear. I hope I have made my position clear.

I’m surprised by the question, because I think you know the answer: to bring the Good News of the Gospel of Christ, and help them obtain salvation and eternal life.

As a former member, I am surprised that you are asking this question. Christ’s resurrection is freely given to all men–Christian, Non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. All receive this gift that Christ gave us by dying on the Cross and being resurrected the 3rd day.

The gift of Eternal life is another matter. Christ’s blood grants eternal life only to those who have accepted him as a true believer. This gift is not available to Hindus or believers of another god.

This seems to be the point of your very first post here. I can’t find it now, but I remember you said something to the effect that God does not care about denominations. I agree. Certainly Jesus, Peter, Paul, Moses, Adam, Noah, and Abraham were not LDS, so NO, God does not welcome only LDS into the Celestial Kingdom. I feel assured that all of these men will be in the Celestial Kingdom, and I believe that Esther, Ruth, Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Abish will be in the Celestial Kingdom as well.

I like this, and agree with it whole-heartedly.

Well, the LDS believe that accepting Christ is a requirement for salvation, so there’s your problem. You believe something incorrect. Hopefully I have corrected your incorrect belief.

Yes, but he doesn’t always do it in this life.

Absolutely.

None. Romans 3:23″for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Jesus died for both.

I’m not sure I understand the point of the question. I think you are referring to Romans 14:23 “But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” If this is what you are referring to, then all sinners are condemned.

However, those that partake of Jesus atonement are not condemned. As Jesus told the woman caught in adultery in John 8:10-11,

“When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Maybe they thought you looked nice and wanted to talk to you! I think you know the answer to that question, but I’ll oblige. They would like to help you become a better Christian. (It appears you think your version of Christianity is superior to the Missionaries version–am I wrong? “yes” or “no” please.)

I have no qualms with what you just said. This whole grace/works argument is much ado about nothing. It seems to be a heated argument of which came first–the chicken or the egg, and I think the whole argument is silly and pointless. A person with true faith naturally wants to do the works of God. Too many Mormons argue this point and it is silly.

Yes, I remember the above question and answer, and I hope I have answered clearly. I hope you will answer “yes” or “no” as well to my questions.

I agree.

Gosh, I feel like you’ve almost made it clear here, and I think I agree with everything you just said. Am I correct that you believe Hindus are damned?

As you know, Mormons believe that there are 3 degrees of Glory. Those who accept Christ fully will inherit the highest glory, but a good Hindu who does not fully accept Christ will not obtain the highest glory. This means the person who fully accepts Christ is in the Celestial Kingdom. To be in the Celestial Kingdom means salvation. See D&C 76:50-70 for more information. The Hindu will be in either the Terrestrial or Telestial Kingdom. Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms do not equal salvation. See D&C 76:71-119–it is much too long to quote here.

Now you may be wondering about what I said when I said “Hindu who does not fully accept Christ“.

Following Jesus death on the cross, many have wondered where he went, because he did not ascend to the Father. For example, we know that Jesus appeared to Mary after she discovered the empty tomb. Apparently Mary tried to embrace Jesus. (Who wouldn’t?) The Gospel of John chapter 20 verse 17 records, Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.

So if Jesus didn’t go to the Father after he died, many have wondered where he went during this 3 day period? Paul in his Epistle to Peter tells us that Jesus visited those who were disobedient in the days of Noah. 1 Peter 3:18-20 says,

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,)
Furthermore, 1 Peter 4:6 expands on this topic further:

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

Paul discusses this topic again in 1 Cor 15:22-31. I find verses 22 and 29 most interesting.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

31 I die every day–I mean that, brothers–just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

33 Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

Christ taught the dead who were disobedient in the days of Noah. Since Christianity didn’t exist in Noah’s day, these people were certainly non-Christians. More than likely, they were polytheistic. There is a good chance that they had some beliefs in common with our hypothetical Hindu. If a Hindu never hears of Christ in this life, would a loving god damn the Hindu who never heard of Christ? Mormon theology says no. If I understand your theology correctly, the Hindu is damned to Hell, because only true, faithful Christians will be saved.

Your quiz says all men are sinners, including Hindus. God condemns all sinners. Only those who accept Christ will not be condemned. If a Hindu does not accept Christ, the Hindu is condemned to damnation. Therefore, all Hindus are damned, because by definition they worship a different god, and have no faith in Christ. Does this accurately represent your beliefs? (“yes” or “no” would be very helpful here.)

Mormons, on the other hand, believe that Christ will teach to the Hindu as it says in 1 Peter chapter 3 and 4. If this Hindu accepts Christ, he will be baptized as it says in 1 Cor 15. Therefore, Mormons do not believe all Hindus will be damned to Hell.

So, the Celestial Kingdom will be full of people of MANY denominations, and it is not limited to LDS only. This belief fully refutes your erroneous point in your opening post that makes the assumption that non-LDS will obtain “wo” and damnation. It also answers your question,

Originally Posted by Phoebe Ann

Would God welcome only LDS into the Celestial Kingdom and relegate all non-LDS to other kingdoms?

I remind you that even if a Hindu chooses not to accept Christ, then the Hindu will not obtain the Celestial Kingdom. We believe that the same sociality exists in the next life as it does here. If people rejected Christ in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, they have the opportunity to reject him in the spirit prison as well. It is not a slam dunk that someone will accept Christ in spirit prison.

Even if the Hindu rejects Christ in spirit prison, the good Hindu does have an opportunity to receive a higher glory than a Christian that murders in God’s name. This means that a good Hindu could potentially be in the Terrestrial Kingdom, while the Christian guilty of war crimes enters the lower glory Telestial Kingdom.

If I understand your position correctly, you don’t have this “gradient” scale. Either man goes to Heaven or Hell. Hindus have no shot at Heaven, because they do not believe in Christ. Plundering Christian Crusaders probably will go to Hell because they are not “true believers.” If my understanding of your position is correct, then all Hindus are damned. Is this correct?

As a former member, I am surprised that you are asking this question. (Perhaps you do not understand LDS theology as good as you think you do.) Christ’s resurrection is freely given to all men–Christian, Non-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. All receive this gift that Christ gave us by dying on the Cross and being resurrected the 3rd day. (This gift of resurrection is given to all, but is not considered salvation. Hindus will be resurrected, along with Christians.)

The gift of Eternal life is another matter. Christ’s blood grants eternal life only to those who have accepted him as a true believer. This gift is not available to Hindus or believers of another god. (Eternal life means salvation in the Celestial Kingdom.)

I hope that answers your question. Apostle Russell M Nelson gave an address on salvation and exaltation in April 2008 if you would like more information. See his talk titled Salvation and Exaltation.

Phoebe asked,

“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Romans 8:9

If a person does not have the Spirit of Christ/has not been born again of the Spirit, he is not a Christian. If a person belongs to Christ, he/she is being led by the Holy Spirit. Churches don’t save. Christ saves.

I agree. Churches don’t save. Christ saves.

So, what about the rest of you.  Did I preach false doctrine?  Can non-LDS enter the Celestial Kingdom?  Do churches save?

I have no idea how they came up with this list, but all three of us are on it!  (and I like the descriptions of the blogs, which means someone actually has read them closely enough to describe them)

Ray

Known as the “Bloggernacle,” members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have banded together to discuss every imaginable element of their faith. Whether addressing one another, curious potential converts, nonbelievers, or individuals and institutions interested in comparative religion, they bring their belief system to a worldwide audience and shed light on their theology, culture, and customs. Mormon lifestyles – as with all others on the planet, of course – encompass everything from family connections to spirituality to business and everything in between. The following list tries to offer up a little bit of everything when it comes to Mormon living, hopefully allowing for the practitioners and non-practitioners alike to learn a little something along the way.

15. Things of My Soul : Blog entries at Things of My Soul may read as brief, but their messages of inspiration and motivation assist their readers in boosting their spiritual lives.

36. Clean Cut : Follow the life and philosophies of a Mormon history teacher as he reflects upon faith, family, and other victories and trials that crop up along the way.

50. Mormon Heretic : An incredibly challenging read suitable for any LDS members who stick with their faith, but still crave alternate perspectives and overlooked nuances.

28. Mormon Matters : As the title suggests, this blog concerns itself with a wonderfully eclectic range of Mormon topics that appeal to a wide range of visitors.

Well, you don’t exactly write short, concise, fluffy posts!  “Challenging read” is a pretty good description of your blog quite often.  lol

So, in the interest of a short, fluffy post, I’ll stop here.    Comments?

I’ve had a few exchanges with people over there.  Since I spent so much time, I thought I would highlight some of these exchanges here and show a Biblical basis for Exaltation.

While there are distinct differences in belief between the Trinity and the Godhead among Evangelicals and Mormons, I must say that this idea of theosis seems to have some amazing parallels with the Mormon concept of Exaltation. “As Athanasius put it, ‘God became man, that man might become God.’ That’s theosis, or deification.”

Skylark points out the differences between the Mormon concept of God, and the Evangelical nature of God. Yes, Trinity and Godhead are different concepts, and I readily admit that Athanasius didn’t believe in the Godhead. However, this idea of theosis–[Jesus], indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God bears remarkable similarities with Mormon theology. I don’t believe that most western Christians are comfortable quoting Athanasius. Please correct me if I am wrong, but are any other Christians routinely quoting Athanasius and teaching “that we might become God” during church services?

If I may be so bold, I will point to some Bible verses that support this idea of Athanasius idea that ‘we might become God.’

What is the reason Jews were so angry with Jesus? John 5:18 says “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”

Paul tells us in Phillipians 2:5-6, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: “

Psalm 82:6 says, “I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.”

Jesus quotes this scripture from Psalms in John 10:34-39, “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?

If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken–

what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?  Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.

But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.”

Here’s one last scripture and I’ll stop for now because this is too long. In Luke 17:20 we are told, ‘The kingdom of God is within you.’”

Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34 “Ye are gods”

Psalm 82:6 says, “you [are] children of the most High.”

God created us as his children. Jesus said, John 10:36, “Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.”

John 5:19, ‘Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.’

If God created us as his children (an interesting choice of words), then Paul says in Romans 8:16-17 “that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God,”

Therefore, if God can create children, Jesus can create children. If we can be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ, we have that capability too, because Luke 17:20 “The kingdom of God is within you.”

1 Corinthians 11:11 “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.”

Luke 3:22 “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”

(1) Jesus is being baptized in the river Jordan (2) Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, (3) A voice from heaven (God the Father) said, “Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”

You want to interpret this as a trinity. Mormons feel this represents (using your words) “three separate Gods who are the supreme presidency of the universe.” We’re not going to agree Phoebe, and I am fine with that.

Frankly, I think the Mormon Godhead is not as far off from the Trinity as many people think. Please show me a single verse in the Bible that has the word “trinity”, yet the term “godhead” does actually appear in the Bible in Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, and Colossians 2:9. We can get into the trinity if you want–there are some interesting posts over at Mormon Matters and I think Evangelicals and Mormons split hairs too much on this issue. We have more in common that you think, but due to differences in terminology we argue way too much on this issue.

I remind you that ancient Christians were accused of being polytheists by Jews. This gave way to the great debate over whether Jesus and God were homo-uzious (the same substance), or homoi-uzious (of similar substance). The trinity is a direct result of trying to maintain a foundation of monotheism against attacks of polytheism by Jews. I find it ironic that modern western Christians use the same tactic against Mormons (calling us polytheistic), that was once used against ancient Christians.

I know we disagree here, but let me address this again. I already posted the D&C scripture, which is the primary source of Mormon knowledge on this issue. The First Vision account also confirms this. As for the Bible, Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

What image is that exactly? Let’s look at Gen 5:3, “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:” What image was Seth? I think the obvious image of Adam. Therefore, what image was Adam? Using similar logic, Adam looked like God. Adam had a body as tangible as me. Adam is in God’s image. Adam looks like God with a body of flesh and bone.

Needless to say, I didn’t convince anyone over there (at least that I know of), but I thought you might enjoy some of these exchanges.  Comments?

I must say that Brown follows the same basic formula that he used in the 2 previous books I read.  The chapters are short, making you want to read another chapter, but I think the formula is getting a little old.  Robert Langdon must solve a symbolic riddle involving a strange, smart, psychotic killer, an attractive (almost romantic) woman, Langdon submerged in water, a new science discovery, and some sort of police agency that keeps trying to arrest Langdon but in the end realizes Langdon is onto something.  Of course the 500 pages cover just a 24 hour period.  While I liked the formula for the first 2 books, it is starting to get a bit predictable.

So, here are the only 2 overt Mormon references, and nobody will find anything unusual.  From page 79,

Langdon often reminded his students that most modern religions included stories that did not hold up to scientific scrutiny: everything from Moses parting the Red Sea … to Joseph Smith using magic eyeglasses to translate the Book of Mormon from a series of gold plates he found buried in upstate New York.

Joseph Smith and Moses in the same sentence–it’s been done before.  Miracles are not scientific–of course.  There is nothing enlightening in this statement.

The other reference comes from page 437-8,

…realizing that all spiritual rituals included aspects that would seem frightening if taken out of context–crucifixion reenactments, Jewish circumcision rites, Mormon baptisms of the dead, Catholic exorcisms, Islamic niquab, shamanic trance healing, the Jewish Kaparot ceremony; even the eating of the figurative body and blood of Christ.

Ok, I didn’t know what a niquab was.  Wikipedia spells it slightly different: Niqāb, and the short definition is:

a veil which covers the face, worn by some Muslim women as a part of sartorial hijāb. Originally part of aristocratic dress in Byzantine Empire and pre-Islamic Persia, it was adopted into Muslim culture during the Arab conquest of the Middle East.

…

Because of the wide variety of hijab worn in the Muslim world, it can be difficult to definitively distinguish between one type of veil and another. The terms niqab and burqa are often used interchangeably.^[1] Muslim girls are advised by some schools of Islam to wear the niqāb starting at puberty.

Ok, I don’t know what Kaparot is either.  According to Wikipedia, it refers to

“atonements”; a disputed ancient Jewish ritual to save oneself from a harsh Heavenly decree by it being effected on another object. Vegetables, fish, money, and other objects have been used throughout the centuries, and this is done on the eve of Yom Kippur. The service is performed by grasping the object and moving it around one’s head three times, symbolically transferring one’s sins to the object. The object is then slaughtered or donated to the poor, preferably eaten at the pre-Yom Kippur feast.^[1] If one is using a chicken, preferably, a man should use a rooster, and a woman should use a hen for the ritual.

In modern times, Kapparos is performed in the traditional form mostly in Haredi communities. Members of other communities perform it with charity money substituted for the chicken, swung over one’s head in similar fashion. There is an ancient and little known tradition of Egyptian Jewry to use plant life.^[2] Other Orthodox Jews simply prefer to not participate in the custom.

The ritual is preceded by the reading of Psalms 107:17-20 and Job 33:23-24

So, his point is that many religious rituals (such as baptism for the dead) seem strange to those who do not observe the religion.  Sure–I can see that point of view completely.

So that’s all the explicit Mormon references.  However, as I mentioned previously, the book is about a Masonic conspiracy.  Most of you are probably aware that Joseph Smith was a Mason, and there are similarities between the Masonic ceremonies and Mormon Temple ceremonies.  This should not be surprising information to most members, though I’m sure some will find it surprising. Masonry was practiced by many leaders of our country, including George Washington.  There are some who believe that the Masons organized the Boston Tea Party, which set off the Revolutionary War.  Brown doesn’t really delve deeply into Masonic ceremonies, but he does touch on some topics that Mormons will find interesting.

Brown discusses how the founding fathers utilized many religious symbols in buildings, including (page 82):

history’s great gods and goddesses–Apollo, Minerva, Venus, Helios, Vulcan, Jupiter.  In her center, as in many of the great classical cities, the founders had erected an enduring tribute to the ancients–the Egyptian obelisk.

(page 84)  Now centuries later, despite America’s separation of church and state, this state-sponsored Rotunda glistened with ancient religious symbolism.  There were over a dozen different gods in the Rotunda–more than the original Pantheon in Rome.

On page 84, he discusses apotheosis.  I wasn’t familiar with that term, and Brown explains it.  I’m going to cut out some of the dialogue so as not to give away too much plot, though I can’t resist quoting a character who discusses apotheosis:

This transformation of man into God is called apotheosis

….

The word apotheosis literally means ‘divine transformation’–that of man becoming God.  It’s from the ancient Greek: apo–’to become,’ theos–’god.’

…

“Ma’am”, Langdon said, “the largest painting in this building is called The Apotheosis of Washington.  And it clearly depicts George Washington being transformed into a god.”

Apotheosis is an interesting concept, and is similar to the Mormon idea of exaltation, or the Orthodox Christian concept of theosis or deification (which I blogged about previously.)  Brown’s introduction of apotheosis seems much more pagan as he introduces the idea from the Greek gods.  Apotheosis is an idea that is a significant part of the plot.  Yet Brown doesn’t view apotheosis as completely pagan, and illustrates some Biblical scriptures which I was already familiar with.  From page 194,

“I can see your dilemma, Professor.  However, both the Ancient Mysteries and Masonic philosophy celebrate the potentiality of God within each of us.  Symbolically speaking, one could claim that anything within reach of an enlightened man … is within reach of God.”

Langdon felt unswayed by the wordplay.

“Even the Bible concurs,” Bellamy said.  “If we accept, as Genesis tells us, that ‘God created man in his own image,’ then we also must accept what that implies–that mankind was not created inferior to God.  In Luke 17:20 we are told, ‘The kingdom of God is within you.’”

“I’m sorry, but I don’t know any Christians who consider themselves God’s equal.”

“Of course not,” Bellamy said, his tone hardening.  “Because most Christians want it both ways.  They want to be able to proudly declare that they are believers in the Bible and yet simply ignore those parts they find too difficult or too inconvenient to believe.”

A Mormon is going to be pretty comfortable with Bellamy’s statements.  These aren’t the only Biblical references–I was hoping Brown would reference Psalm 82:6, and he didn’t disappoint.  From page 308,

The famous Hermetic aphorism–Know ye not that ye are gods?–was one of the pillars of the Ancient Mysteries.  As above, so below … Man created in God’s image … Apotheosis. This persistent message of man’s own divinity–of his hidden potential–was the recurring them in the ancient texts of countless traditions.  Even the Holy Bible cried out in Psalms 82:6: Ye are Gods!

I am sure that many Christians will find this kind of information about apotheosis as jarring.  But I expect that Mormons and Orthodox Christians will embrace these scriptures and ideas presented by Dan Brown.  Overall, I found Brown to be a bit more sympathetic to religion that he was in the other two books, though I expect Catholics and Protestants to take issue with this idea that apotheosis is truly a Biblical concept.  So, have any of you read the book?  If you haven’t, does this make you want to read it?

LDS president Thomas S. Monson and his two counselors permitted Standing Together, an alliance of 90 Utah evangelical churches, to use the historic Salt Lake City Tabernacle for a September 13 revival meeting. Throngs of evangelicals and Mormons enjoyed gospel songs and prayed together.

This is pretty remarkable.  While I know that church leaders allowed non-Mormon leaders to preach in the Tabernacle in the 1800’s, it has been quite a while since that has ever happened.

Vujicic’s appearance was preceded in 2004 by LDS officialdom’s remarkable go-ahead for an address in the Tabernacle by well-known apologist Ravi Zacharias. His theologically orthodox presentation of Christianity, which some Mormons attended, was overshadowed by Mouw’s introduction. He declared that “we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented” Mormon beliefs and practices. “We have sinned against you,” he said.

Wow.  Of course other evangelicals disagreed.  Even still, that quote deserves a big WOW.

Here is an interesting poll.  (I’ve changed formatting.)

Are Mormons Christian? How Christian groups answer the question?

All Americans

Yes 52%
Don’t know 17%
No 31%

Mainline Protestants

Yes 62%
Don’t know 15%
No 23%

Catholics

Yes 52%
Don’t know 19%
No 29%

Black Protestants

Yes 43%
Don’t know 27%
No 30%

Evangelical Protestants

No 45%
Yes 40%
Don’t know 15%

Hmmm, there certainly is a divide between Mormons and Evangelicals.  Does any of this surprise you?

Here are some other articles concerning Mormons at Christianity Today.  What do you think specifically about this article about Richard Dutcher’s movie, “States of Grace“?

8 We believe the ^aBible to be the ^bword of God as far as it is translated ^ccorrectly;

This has to be one of the most oft-quoted articles of faith by members of the LDS church.  In one of my previous posts on Scripture Literalism, the comments referred to Biblical inerrancy and literalism.  Some evangelicals believe that the Bible is both inerrant and literal, and take great issue with the Mormon stance on the Bible.  They don’t believe there are any mistranslations, and that every word in the Bible was spoken by God.  Many of these people discount any contradictions in the Bible.

The Documentary Hypothesis is a theory that seems to identify at least four different authors/editors of the first five books in the Bible (also called the Torah in Judaism, or the Pentateuch.)  I think many Mormons would find great agreement with the Documentary Hypothesis, though they might not agree with every part of the theory.

Tradition has it that Moses authored the first 5 books of the Bible.  This is somewhat problematic, because Deuteronomy records Moses death in Deuteronomy 34:5, so Moses certainly couldn’t have finished writing that book.  Obviously someone else recorded his death (though there is a Jewish tradition that Moses did actually write the words of his death, and cried while he did it.)

There is an old A&E series called Mysteries of the Bible, and one of their episodes is called “Who wrote the Bible?”  I’d like to quote some of the information referencing the Documentary Hypothesis.  I downloaded the episode from Amazon, but apparently it is no longer available for download.  The documentary starts by looking at some of the stories which are told twice in the Bible, with different (and sometimes contradictory) tellings of the story.

There are numerous examples of the same story told twice, sometimes with conflicting details.  Scholars have long referred to these as doublets.  There are two separate accounts of the creation of the world, two versions of the covenant made between God and the Patriarch Abraham, and even two distinct versions of Moses obtaining water from a rock at a place called Mirabar, during the Exodus.

In most instances of these so-called doublets, the two versions of the story each refer to God by a different name.  In the Hebrew text, sometimes the deity is referred to as Elohim, the usual Hebrew reference to God.  But in the alternative version, the term used is often used is Yahweh, or Lord.  For centuries, scholars have puzzled over the appearance of these distinct differences.

…

Richard Elliot Friedman, Professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature, University of California, San Diego.  “The key piece of evidence in this is that different kinds of Jews converged with each other.  So that you have doublets of stories-that proves nothing.  You have different names of God-that proves nothing.  But when all the doublets of stories line up into two groups, one of which uses one name of God, and the other uses the other name of God, consistently, then that’s strong evidence that something is going on.”

…

By the early half of the 19^th century, many scholars were convinced that the five books of Moses were written by three different authors.  The writer of the version which referred to Yahweh, was named “J” because early European translators were ignorant of the correct pronunciation of Hebrew names.  Many inadvertently referred to the name of God as Jehovah instead of Yahweh, and ironically, the name has stuck.

The author of those texts referring to God as Elohim was named “E.”  A third writer was identified as “P”.  This author was thought to be a priest, and wrote in a different style than J and E.  His passages seemed to be especially concerned with the establishment of the priesthood, after the people of Israel left Egypt.

Friedman, “All these texts are written in Hebrew, but in a different stage of Hebrew that we can identify.  Each has its own favorite terms, words that occur 50 times in P, but never occur in E or J, that sort of thing.  Each has its own style.”

The differences are immediately obvious in Hebrew, the language in which the text was originally written.  The disparities virtually disappear in the English translation.  But this example comes from the book of Exodus.  The text relates how God appeared in a burning bush.  The passage was written by J, who in Hebrew refers to God as Yahweh, or Lord.  Exodus 3:2, “And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked and, behold, the bush burned with fire and the bush was not consumed.”

When the E writer, discusses Moses and the burning bush, the name is now only Elohim, “God”.  Exodus 3:6, “Moreover, he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.  And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.”

Subtle, though the differences may be, the texts clearly seem to reflect a compilation of sources.  In 1807, the German theologian, Wilhelm DeWitt announced the discovery of a possible fourth author.  His examination of the text indicated that the language, tone, and content of the entire book of Deuteronomy were the work of a different person to J, E, or P.  Scholars have since come to this author as D, for Deuteronomist.  Over the years, the theory has come to be known as the Documentary Hypothesis.

Friedman, “Once you have identified a text and said, ‘I think this is J, I think this is E, I think this is P, I think this is D’, then you place it up against other texts in the Bible where we have some idea of the date, and see if there is any development in the language.  It’s not just that you can tell the difference between the way I speak and the way Shakespeare did.  It’s that if you heard someone who lived in the 18^th century, you could tell that that person was somewhere halfway between Shakespeare and me.  So you can see the stages of Biblical Hebrew in growth.”

In a stunning retraction of early church intolerance toward the hypothesis and the issue of biblical authorship in 1943, Pope Pius XII, surprises religious leaders and academics alike.  He issues an edict and encourages the scholars to fully investigate the question, ‘Who wrote the Bible?’  The directive was heralded as a magna carta for Biblical study, initiating unprecedented research into the origins into the holy book.  The quest would open up how the words of the divine have traversed the centuries.

The documentary goes back to the time of Moses, and states that there were no scriptures for the Hebrews at this time.

While the 10 commandments were always in the constant possession of the people, there may have been no other written words at the time, though the Bible indicates that the scrolls of Moses may have accompanied the Israelites.  Many scholars believe that the first 5 books of the Bible had not yet been written.

After the advent of the monarchy in about 1000 BCE,  King David eventually becomes ruler, and establishes his capital at Jerusalem.  It is then, that the matter of authorship enters the story.  The king breaks with tradition, by appointing two high priests, in charge of religious affairs, instead of one.

Friedman, “It’s not so strange to have two high priests; in Israel today, there are two chief rabbis.  The problem you have is that when you have two chief priests instead of one, each one spends more time of his day sitting there trying to get rid of the other one.  ”

Not only are there two high priests, but toward the end of his reign, two of King David’s sons are vying for the throne.  It is uncertain which of them will be appointed the royal successor.  A struggle for power ensues, and this embroils the high priests.  Each one supports a different royal candidate.  When David dies, it is Solomon who is chosen to wear the crown.

Now the question is, will Solomon retain the services of both priests, or return to the traditional practice of having only one man in charge of the religious affairs.  Not surprisingly, the priest who was loyal to Solomon and his candidacy was chosen.  At the same time, the second high priest is removed from power and banished from the kingdom.  “And unto Abiathar the priest said the king, Get thee to Anathoth, to thine own field, for thou art worthy of death.  So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord.” 1 Kings 2:26

Thus the priest retained by Solomon retains an exclusive role.  He and his assistants would soon take on new responsibilities as the king begins constructing the first great temple in Jerusalem.  The deposed priest and his followers enviously watch from their place of banishment.  They are now cut off from any possible new duties in the temple.

Friedman, “They had no place in the royal kingdom in Jerusalem, and so a priest of that priestly house, initiated the rebellion that ultimately led to the formation of the kingdom of Israel in the north, and the Kingdom of Judah in the south.  They wanted their own place where they could get to be the priest as well.

Thus in 922 BCE, the ten northerly tribes sever their ties from Jerusalem, and succession splinters the nation in two: Israel in the north, and Judah in the south.  So two kingdoms born of a nation, oppose one another in an uneasy truce.

Friedman, “Each had its own king, each had its on traditions, its own places of worship.  At the same time, we’re talking about a region that’s the same size as a large American county, so people were close to each other, people had relatives north and south, they both spoke the same language, and they both had the same ancestors of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and events in Egypt, and events at Mount Sinai, and so it is thought that each kingdom produced its sacred text, or at least one person living in each kingdom produced his version of the sacred text.”

If this is so, is it possible that different versions of the Bible were taking place at the same time?

Friedman, “It’s as if in America during the Civil War, a historian in the north, and a historian in the south each wrote a history of North America.  They would cover a lot of the same events and some different events, and they would tell it from their own perspective.

Daniel Smith-Christopher, Professor of Hebrew Bible, Loyola Marymount University, “We think that the J material was first gathered together under King Solomon.  It represents Solomon’s attempt to gather up the stories of a people, to knit them together in a coherent narrative, to tell the story about how the people of Israel came to be a people.  So it became a kind of national epic.  Now here’s one of the interesting mysteries:  was it an official national epic?  Some scholars say, the majority I think, would say that Solomon commissioned this document to be written.”

In answer to Solomon and his history of the people of Judah, the people of the northern Kingdom of Israel, now begin to amass their own collection of historical stories.

Christopher, “What they want to do is they want to add to this material that is more northern in orientation.  So they add material, and we think that this material is what we call E, because they tend to use the word Elohim for God.  Now we have somewhat more sophisticated theological stories.  But interestingly enough, we also have stories that tend to emphasize the significance of the second son.  Many people who read Genesis ask, ‘how come it’s always the second son that comes out better?’  Isaac was after Ishmael, Jacob, Cain and Abel, I mean all of these stories seem to emphasize the second son as the important one, or the preferred son.  It very well could be that the northern kingdom, after their break, wanted to emphasize the second son because in a sense they were the second son.   They were the breakaway kingdom.  So, they wanted to portray themselves as the preferred of the two.

Unlike the Bible’s favored second son, however, the Kingdom of Israel slips into the grip of paganism.  As time passes, people begin to worship Canaanite gods.  They would suffer a long and difficult history under 19 kings, eight of whom would die violently.  Despite the warnings of prophets, moral decay and corruption continue to enslave the people.

Then seven and a half centuries before the birth of Christ, the prophecies come true.  An invading Assyrian army sweeps in from the north and conquers Israel.  Forever scattering the 10 tribes to the winds, never to be seen or heard from again.

….

But an unremitting spiritual downfall has now gripped Judah too.  Without any consolidated religious precepts, no laws, no sacred texts, Paganism becomes rife throughout the land, until King Josiah takes the throne.  He tries to usher in change, by outlawing idol worship, and by a return to the holy covenant made with God at Mount Sinai.

Christopher, “Josiah was the young king who, as soon as he comes to the throne, decides that he wants to reform the religion of the people towards a more spiritual attachment to Yahweh, the national god.  So Josiah starts this campaign:  he even cleans up the temple, he wants to re-employ the people in reconstructing the temple and making it more glorious, and making it more spiritual.  Well, along the way, they discover a book.”

While cleaning out the buildings, the king’s high priests find a temple scroll deep within the temple vaults.  “And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan, the scribe, I have found a book of the Law, in the house of the Lord.  And Hilkiah gave the book to the scribe, and he read it” 2 Kings 22:8

Friedman, “The document that Hilkiah is understood to have read to Josiah on that date is thought by many of us to be the laws of Deuteronomy.  They are laws that say that you should worship God in only one place.  So Josiah destroys all the other places.  These are laws that say that you should not have pagan worship, so he destroys idols, and removes pagan worship from his country.  He is the king that follows that law code, it’s an extraordinary group of laws from ritual matters down to sacrifice to moral matters of how you should treat one another, that you should be just, that you shouldn’t oppress a widow, or an orphan.  They should take care of the poor-it’s an extraordinary body of laws.

Some contemporary Biblical scholars regard the supposed discovery of the Book of Deutoronomy with skepticism.

Christopher, “Was Josiah genuinely shocked at finding the Book of Deutronomy in the temple or was this perhaps the first Academy Award performance recorded in history?  Did Josiah in fact know that that book was in the temple, and that if he assigned his people to begin cleaning it up, that they would find it.  Many scholars suggest that Josiah was in on planting the book in the first place.  What better way to push forward his reform campaign, than to plant a book that suggests that his campaign is based on the very laws of Moses themselves?”

The laws reveal that the people had deviated from their faith.  The author of the book was clearly writing from that perspective, and was concerned with where society may be heading.

Friedman, “He writes in a very definite, observable, style that you can see in Deuteronomy, and see in 2 Kings, and you see it in one other place in the Bible, it’s in the prose of the prophet Jeremiah.  So, I have suggested the likelihood that the same person is the author of the prose parts of the Book of Jeremiah and the history that runs from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings. ”

The Bible tells us that the person responsible for writing much of Jeremiah’s work was his trusty scribe, Baruch.  “Then took Jeremiah another scroll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Naraiah.” Jeremiah 36:32

Could Baruch, the son of Nariah, have been more than a mere scribe?  Could he also have written the Book of Deuteronomy?  His work probably speaks for itself.  Many passages of text he wrote for Jeremiah are strikingly similar to words used in Deuteronomy.  Perhaps the same author may have had a hand in the writing of both books.

Deut. 10:16 “And it will be, if you really listen to Yahweh’s voice…”	Jer. 17:24 “And it will be, if you really listen to me says Yahweh…”
Deut. 4:19, 17:3 “…to all the host of the heavens…”	Jer. 8:2, 19:13 “…to all the host of the heavens…”
Deut. 4:20 “…and he brought you ought of the iron furnace, from Egypt…”	Jer 11:4 “…in the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace…”

If so, archaeology has uncovered an artifact that has finally brought us into direct contact with one of the earliest authors of the Bible.

Friedman, “We in recent years, recovered a clay seal that is now in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem which is stamped in a script that we do identify as seventh century Hebrew script, late 7^th, early 6^th century Hebrew script, and the name on that seal is Baruch, son of Nariah, the scribe.  If it’s true that Baruch is our Deuteronomistic historian, what that means is when you look at that seal, you are looking at nothing less than the autograph of one of the authors of the Bible.

Could this tiny, clay seal be the personal signature of the writer of the Book of Deuteronomy?  If it is, it is a unique object that reaches out to us beyond 26 centuries of history, the only link ever found connected to an actual author of the Bible.

…

Act V

The tangled web of history surrounding the writing of the five books of Moses may one day be completely untwined.  But a loose thread remains:  who was it who gathered the original manuscripts together?  In the course of writing a book, any book, a lengthy process of editing, and alteration is involved.  In our search, it may not be a question of who wrote the Bible, but of who re-wrote it?

Friedman, “People usually talk simply about this as if there’s four sources and as if there were only four writers and that’s misleading because even if we count those as only four writers, there’s still key editors in the stages of this.  Editors are as important as authors in the process.”

If there was an editor, who was he?  To pick up the strands we must return to the Kingdom of Judah, to the days when under a new king, Jehoiakim, the people had retrogressed once again to worshipping idols.  A prophet by the name of Jeremiah has now become one of the most outspoken critics of the weakening moral fiber of the people and he foretells their fate.  “Ye have done worse than your fathers.  Behold, ye walk everyone after the imagination of his evil heart.  Wherefore I will cast you out of this land, into a land that ye know not, neither ye, nor your fathers.” Jeremiah 16:11.

A daunting prophecy, in 586 BCE it comes true.  From Babylon, King Nebudchadnezzer’s army surged down into Judah, and lay siege to Jerusalem.  So begins more than a century of bitter exile for the people of Israel in Babylon.  But eventually, even mighty Babylon falls to a mightier power, the powerful armies of Cyrus the Great absorbed Babylon into the Persian Empire.  But Cyrus is conciliatory towards the exiled Jews.  He issues his now legendary edict of restoration, allowing the people of Israel to return to Jerusalem, and restore their temple, and their faith.

This stone cylinder, dating back to the event five and a half centuries before Christ, bears the text of Cyrus’ edict.  “The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, King of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and put it also in writing, saying, ‘Thus saith Cyrus, King of Persia, the Lord God of Heaven, hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah.” Ezra 1:1

It is a derelict homeland to which the people return.  Much of their religious tradition has been eroded during the long years of exile.  Their faith is it a threateningly low ebb.  According to some scholars, it is time for the great redactor, the final editor of the books of Moses to enter the scene, and leave his mark.

…

In Jerusalem, a party of exiled Jews returns under the leadership of a man called Ezra, a scribe.  He sees the spiritual weakness of the people, and he resolves to reintroduce them to the ancient religion of Moses.  They have not been exposed to the Hebrew laws for almost a century.  So Ezra calls for a mass public gathering in the city.  “And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation, and he read therein from the morning until mid-day before the men and the women, and those who could understand.  And the ears of all people were attentive to all the words of the law.” Nehemiah 8:2

Was Ezra history’s elusive editor?  Perhaps under his guidance, various religious texts were combined and read together for the first time, forevermore to be consolidated as the five books of Moses.

Friedman, “These were laws that had not been publicly read in any way like this before.  The laws of Deuteronomy had been publicly read at least from Josiah’s time, but now we’re talking about the full five books of Moses.  We’re not talking about P or J or E.  We’re talking about the five books of Moses as people read it today.

The compilation of the texts more than 2,500 years ago was one of the most significant events in a long history of persecution and conflict for the Jews.  In the ensuing centuries, they would suffer occupation, defeat, and destruction on an unprecedented scale.  But, the essence of their religious identity would forever be enshrined in the anthology enshrined, known as the Torah, the five books of Moses.  We may never know all the mysteries of the earliest writings of the Bible, but the study of the texts, the so-called Documentary Hypothesis has provided some insights into its origins.  However, the matter is far from resolved.

The hypothesis is only one possible answer.  It is merely a concept.  There is as yet no consensus on the theory.

Christopher, “At this point, I would say that the Documentary Hypothesis is the best explanation for many of the difficulties that are presented to us by the first five books of Bible as we now have them.”

Lawrence Schiffman, Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York University, “In my mind, the Documentary Hypothesis does not really solve the problem that it sets out to solve, in which case we simply get left with the question of faith.  One who wants to believe that the Torah is a divine document and given by God, can do so; one who wants to believe that it’s a human document subjected to documentary or other types of similar analysis can do so.  I think it’s a question, a mystery, to which we’ll never really know the answer.”

As Orthodox tradition has it, the five books of Moses contain the divine words of God, though were written in the hand of man.  The books that follow differ fundamentally from them.  The rest of the Hebrew Bible is generally perceived to be a series of historical documents, a chronology of people written by many authors.  So our search for authorship must now come from another perspective, posing a different set of questions.

At this point, I want to stop.  I’ll probably post again on authorship of other books of the Bible.  So what do you think of the Documentary Hypothesis?  Does it agree with the 8th Article of Faith?

I probably should give a review of these 3 sources.  Of the 3, I liked The Jesus Tomb best.  Jacobovici does DNA tests on the bones, chemical tests on the ossuaries, and uses statisticians to try to locate the probability of find a tomb with Jesus, two Mary’s (mother and wife), a brother James, and son of Joseph.  You may disagree with his results, but he did make a valiant effort to be scientific about it.  (A note about an ossuary.  Apparently at the time of Christ, people were often buried in a tomb.  After about a year, the body would decompose, leaving only the bones.  To save space, it was a custom to take the bones and “re-bury” them in a much smaller limestone box.  The largest bone in the body is the upper leg, so the box would only need to be about 2 feet long, and the bones would be placed there to save considerable space.  Often names were etched into these limestone boxes to identify the bones.)

Bloodline was dreadful.  Honestly, it was so hokey, I actually couldn’t pay attention to the whole thing.  It was supposedly a real life cloak and daggar documentary.  The producers would set up interviews with experts of Jesus’ bones in France, and they would either end up dead prior to the interview, or would just refuse.  Of the experts they managed to actually interview, most seemed like whack-jobs to me.  I give it no credibility.

I have just briefly skimmed the India site–I came upon it a few weeks ago.  I don’t quite know what to make of it yet.  I have heard people compare Christ to Buddha, and some claim they might have been the same person.  I do know of an ancient tradition that the Apostle Thomas (yes, Doubting Thomas) served a mission to India.  (Apparently, these claims about Thomas seem pretty credible.)  I also know that India has an ancient Christian history.  Really, I need to learn more, but it is interesting to me.

So, with Christ being resurrected, Christians would obviously find these 3 sources as problematic.  If Christ was really resurrected, there should be no bones, right?  I must say I was really intrigued by Simcha Jacobovici’s position.  Simcha is a Jew, and said that if the bones were really discovered, then it would actually give credibility to Christianity, because it would in fact give proof that Jesus was an actual person.  (Of course, there are many who claim Jesus never existed, citing lack of evidence.)

So, it got me thinking.  Obviously, all 3 can’t be right.  But what if one of them is right?  Critics of Christianity would loudly trumpet the fact that the resurrection couldn’t have happened if the bones were found.  They already make claims that say this discovery “would shake the foundations of Christianity”, seeming to imply that Christianity would somehow disappear.  But would it really disappear?

I don’t think so.  Let’s assume for sake of argument that one of these positions was scientifically proved correct–Jesus bones have been positively found.  Now, while I am sure it would cause much re-evaluation among Christians, I do not believe Christianity would vanish.  I suspect that many Christians would have to re-evaluate the resurrection.  Here’s some possible scenarios that I see happening.

(1)  The resurrection is actually not a physical resurrection.  I believe many people already believe this.  When we look at it, it’s a little tough to reconcile with the scriptures, because Jesus ate fish and honey after his resurrection.  “Touch me” was his reply–so it does seem to be a fact that he was physically resurrected.  But perhaps this physical resurrection would only apply to him, and not us?

(2)  Perhaps there was some sort of stem-cell/cloning technique for the resurrection.  Perhaps Jesus “corruptible” body is on the earth, but his new “celestial” body looks/feels the same, but is basically a perfected clone of his human body.

(3)  Perhaps the resurrection is not important at all.  Perhaps the Gnostics had it right, and the body is not needed in heaven.  Perhaps, Jesus true purpose is not the resurrection, but rather his purpose was to teach spiritual truths.  In this scenario, the resurrection is meaningless, and Christ’s atonement and teachings are what really matters.

I’m sure there are other options.  Can you think of some?  If Christ’s bones were truly found, would it really spell the end of Christianity, as skeptics claim?

“Smith was forced into politics by the abuse that the Mormons received. As soon as they were driven out of their first city site in Independence, Mo., he turned to the government for redress. He never obtained it. No level of government, from local justices of the peace to governors to the president of the United States – to whom he constantly appealed – ever came to the defense of the Saints. But Joseph Smith became a great devotee of constitutional rights because they seemed like his only hope. He said some very extravagant things about the Constitution being God-given because of those rights and became quite conversant in constitutional matters. He even visited the president of the United States, Martin Van Buren, in the White House in 1839.

Gradually, then, Joseph Smith backed into American politics. In the fall of 1843, as the 1844 campaign began to take shape, the authorities of the church wrote to all of the known political candidates asking them about their views of the Mormons, and none returned a satisfactory answer from the Mormon point of view. The Mormons wanted a pledge that these candidates would protect them if they were attacked again, and they couldn’t get it.

Joseph Smith was nominated as a protest candidate in February of 1844. Like other protest candidates, he began to warm to his work and got quite excited about it. He may have dreamed for a moment that through some strange concatenation of events, he would get elected. Every candidate has to dream such things.

His involvement in politics was manifested in a political platform of which he was very proud. He would bring it out whenever he had visitors and read from it. It is an interesting document because it represents a man whose world had been his own people, whose own project had been to create a kingdom of God, and who now had to turn his mind to politics.”

I want to address some really interesting parts of Joseph Smith’s platform that I found really interesting.  Regarding slavery, Joseph Smith came up with a solution that would have avoided the Civil War.  He advocated low taxes (just like conservatives do today.)  I found most of his points very appealing.  Let me quote from Quinn’s book, page 119,

“Smith’s Views revealed him as more than a one-issue candidate.  For the reform of government, he intended to reduce the size and salary of Congress.  In judicial reform, he advocated rehabilitation of convicts through work projects and vocational training and liberal pardoning.  In economic reform, he proposed less taxation, free trade, secure international rights on the high seas, and establishment of a national bank in every state and territory.  On the slavery question, he advocated compensated emancipation through the sale of public lands.  To cope with resulting social stress, he advocated the relocation of the several million freed slaves to Texas.  In keeping with the spirit of “Manifest Destiny” in the 1840s, he proposed annexation of Oregon and Texas and whatever parts of Canada wished to join the Union.  As a reflection of the Mormon expulsion from Missouri, Smith’s platform also advocated presidential intervention in civil disturbances within states.  As one author noted, this interventionist impulse ‘did not exist until the Civil War and Reconstruction.’”

So I want to address several points, and give my comments.

1.      Reduce the size and salary of congress.  Wow!  Congress continues to grow in size with each census.  I’d love to cut salary, but on the other hand, the only people who go to Congress are the rich.  Perhaps increasing salary would invite more middle class types.  I’m not sure how cutting the size of congress would impact the nation.  I need a constitutional scholar on this one.

2.      Rehab convicts – I like this idea.  While everyone likes to think they’re tough on crime and wants to throw ‘em all in jail and throw away the key, the reality is we can’t build prisons fast enough to keep pace.  And the prisoners we do have end up becoming more skilled at criminal activity.  It seems our current procedures are not working.  I’m with Smith on this one.

3.      Liberal Pardoning – Hmmmm, didn’t we go through that with Bill Clinton?  I’m not sure I like this one as it has the capacity for abuse.

4.      Less taxes – yes, but we need to balance the budget, not simply reduce taxes.

5.      Free trade – I guess he would support NAFTA

6.      Secure International Rights on high seas – It seems pirates are making another comeback.  I’m with Smith on this one.

7.      Establishment of national bank in every state and territory – Bad idea.  We are currently experiencing banking problems with banks getting too big and doing bad mortgages. Joseph has a bad record of running a bank.  See my post on the Kirtland Bank Failure.

8.      Sale of public lands for sale of slaves -  I like it.  That’s a much better solution than the Civil War was.  Richard Bushman commented about this at the Pew Research Forum,

He began by citing the Declaration of Independence, the famous passages about all men being equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, which of course could be a lead-in to religious rights. But he didn’t use it that way. Instead, in the very next sentence, he talked about the obvious contradiction: “Some two or three million people are held as slaves for life because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours.” His platform called for the elimination of slavery, proposing that the funds from the sale of Western lands, a major source of revenue along with the tariff in those days, be devoted to purchasing slaves from their masters in order to avoid the conflict that would otherwise ensue.

Josiah Quincy, soon to be mayor of Boston, visited Joseph Smith in the spring of 1844 when this platform was in circulation. Much later, Quincy wrote about that visit, saying that Joseph Smith’s proposal for ending slavery resembled one that Emerson made 11 years later in 1855.

As Quincy put it, writing retrospectively in the 1880s, “We, who can look back upon the terrible cost of the fratricidal war which put an end to slavery, now say that such a solution of the difficulty” – Joseph Smith’s and Emerson’s – “would have been worthy a Christian statesman. But if the retired scholar was in advance of his time when he advocated this disposition of the public property in 1855, what shall I say of the political and religious leader who had committed himself, in print, as well as in conversation, to the same course in 1844?”

9.      Send all the freed slaves to Texas – Wow, what would Texas be like if that happened?  Remember at this time, Texas was trying to become independent nation from Mexico.  About 1848 came the Mexican-American War, freeing Texas from Mexico and establishing Texas as an independent nation.  (Texas was later annexed into the US.)

10.  Annex Texas, Oregon, and parts of Canada??? I know Canadians like the US, but I didn’t know they wanted to be part of our union!!!  FD, are you aware of this?

11.  Presidential authority to get involved in state disturbances.  As I mentioned in my Sidney Rigdon post, Van Buren refused to get involved in Missouri because he didn’t feel that was a federal mandate.  Joseph was 20 years ahead of actions which resulted in the Civil War.  It’s interesting to see how Joseph would have wanted to handle the federal raid in Waco, and the state raid of the FLDS (both in Texas.)

Finally, let me conclude with Bushman again.

This part of his platform accords perfectly with what modern people like us would have liked a candidate in 1844 to say. But Smith went beyond our sense of political propriety in other parts of his platform: he blended his role as candidate with his role as prophet. He was already mayor of Nauvoo and lieutenant general of the Nauvoo Legion when he ran for the presidency. He seemingly had no sense that church and state should be separated. He gave no hint that he was going to give up his religious offices if he were to become president of the United States.

In the closing peroration of his platform, Joseph Smith indirectly, but I think clearly, offered himself to be the priest of the people, as well as the president. “I would, as the universal friend of man, open the prisons, open the eyes, open the ears, and open the hearts of all people to behold and enjoy freedom, unadulterated freedom; and God, who once cleansed the violence of the earth with flood, whose Son laid down his life for the salvation of all his father gave him out of the world, and who has promised that he will come and purify the world again with fire in the last days, should be supplicated by me for the good of all the people.” He would be the intercessor as priest as well as prophet.

Of course, that is point at which moderns part company with Joseph Smith. We don’t want a prophet with his authoritative words from God governing the nation. That seems to lead to the exclusion of unbelievers and the repression of naysayers. All the alarm bells go off when we see these roles merging.

But I would appeal to you, before you turn away completely from that idea, to pay heed to the underlying theme of that platform and that proposal. I think it can be argued that Joseph Smith actually felt he was fulfilling one of America’s dreams. We think of the American dream as the promise of ascent for the wretched refuse of the teeming shores – the promise that in America, everyone has a chance to prosper and to achieve respectability. That is a dream for the individual.

So, what do you think of Smith’s platform?

Yes Mormons do believe in Easter-I just wish we did a better job of celebrating the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, rather than the Easter bunny.  Related to this current post, I did a similar, smaller post over at Mormon Matters, where I primarily asked the question if there is a Mainstream acceptance of the Mormons’ Easter story?  My post there was very short, but I have much more information here from a National Geographic DVD titled, In Search of Easter, produced around Easter 2004.  Here are some of the things I found interesting.

Discrepancies in the Gospels telling of the Easter story

Three days after the death of Jesus, comes the breathless incident, where God reveals he has awakened Jesus from the grave.  But each gospel has a slightly different version of these moments.  John offers the briefest account.  He writes that Mary Magdalene, the most prominent female disciple, discovers that the stone sealing the tomb of Jesus, has been rolled away.  She is shocked to find that his body is missing.

In Mark’s version, additional women join Mary and they also encounter an angel.  “On entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment.  And they were affrighted, and he saith unto them, Be not affrighted, ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here.  Behold the place where they have laid him.”

Luke’s gospel adds another angel to proclaim the resurrection while Matthew tells of an earthquake which has rolled the stone away.  The sentries that only Matthew mentions have been rendered unconscious.

Alternative explanations of Jesus Resurrection

The ancient Romans were anxious to dispel the rumors of Jesus resurrection.  In Matthew, there is the familiar ancient tale that the followers of Jesus stole the body.  However, the DVD has some other interesting ideas.

Prof of Biblical Studies, Daniel Smith-Christopher, Loyola Marymount University, “Why didn’t the enemies of the early Christians, particularly the Romans who killed him in the first place, simply quash this whole Christian business at the source and simply say, ‘Look, here is the body!  Enough of this nonsense!’  The fact that they cannot do that, this obvious move, lends an even greater mystery to the events that we see as the resurrection of Jesus.”

If the body of Jesus was missing from the tomb, is it possible that it was never there in the first place?

Thomas Sheehan, professor of Religious Studies at Stanford University, “Probably no one knew where Jesus’ body was located because he was executed as a common criminal, the chances are he was buried either in a common grave, or left for animals to devour.”

John Dominic Crossan, Professor emeritus, DePaul University, “The Roman execution and crucifixion tended to leave the body there until there was nothing left to be buried.  That’s what crucifixion meant.  It wasn’t a question of making you suffer; it was a question of annihilating your identity, not even leaving enough to be buried.  That is the awful possibility that that’s [sic] what the Romans did to the body of Jesus.”

Luke Timothy Johnson, professor of New Testament and Christian origins, Emory University, “History has to do with the exceptions, rather than with the norm, that is Jesus had followers, he had sympathizers.  He had people who cared for him. It’s far more plausible to me historically, that something like the version that Jesus was buried in a tomb by somebody who was sympathetic to him, is roughly reliable.”

Women’s role in the Resurrection

Women who announce Resurrection actually lends credibility to the story, according to scholars.

Smith-Christopher, “If you were to make up this story, and to make it more believable, you certainly wouldn’t choose the witness of women, because at the time of Jesus, women’s social standing was very low indeed.  Women would not have been trusted as the most reliable witnesses.”

(Luke 24:9)  “And they returned from the tomb and reported all these things unto the eleven and to all the rest.  And these words appeared unto them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.”

According to John’s gospel, only Peter and an unnamed disciple are curious enough to investigate the empty tomb for themselves.  (John 20:6)  “Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher, and seeth the linen clothes lie, and a napkin that was about his head, not lying within the clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.’  John’s Gospel goes onto report that the amazed Peter, and his companion, depart the tomb, leaving Mary Magdalene to behold the impossible.”

Amy Jill-Levine, Professor of New Testament studies, Vanderbilt University, “A man calls her, she turns and sees, she supposes him to be the gardener.  And she says, ‘please sir, tell me where you have taken the body so that I can claim it.  And when the man calls her by name, Miriam, she recognizes in fact that this is no gardener, this is her resurrected Lord, appearing to her in the flesh.”

Why did people fail to recognize Jesus?

Smith-Christopher, “The way John  goes on to tell the story, Mary has, what we would take to be a very natural reaction-she wants to grasp and hug Jesus, and Jesus tells Mary, ‘no, not yet.  I can’t be touched yet.’  And it lends an interesting any mysterious air to the whole episode.”

Mary’s encounter, according to the Gospels, is only the beginning.  Luke describes another sighting that occurs later that day.  Two of Jesus’ followers, who have just witnessed the crucifixion, are travelling on the road to Emmaus, a road north of Jerusalem.  They are not aware that their martyred teacher intends to extend their education.

Johnson, “The two disciples are walking along disconsolate, after the events that have taken place in Jerusalem.  And they’re discussing what had happened.  And as they’re walking along, they’re joined by a stranger, who they don’t recognize, and who enters into conversation with them.”

Jill-Levine, “They’re surprised that the stranger had not heard about the death of Jesus, and as they continued to talk and to walk, they describe to this stranger, what Jesus had done, what he stood for.  And as day started to progress toward night, the stranger announced that he would leave.  And the followers said, ‘No, no, no.  Why don’t you come and have supper with us?”  And the stranger agrees. And as they’re sitting at supper, the stranger begins to explain to them the truth of the story of Jesus, unpacked through the sacred scripture that all Jews held at the time, what Christians today would call the Old Testament.”

Crossan, “And the stranger gives them almost a graduate course in the interpretation of scripture, showing them that if they understood their scriptures, they would not have been surprised that even the messiah would be executed.  Then comes the crucial point of the story.  Jesus takes the bread, blesses it, breaks it, and hands it out, the Eucharistic formula, and they recognize Jesus!”

Smith-Christopher, “And it’s only  as they begin to comprehend the significance of what this stranger has been saying, we have this movement of comprehension, when they recognize their former teacher.  I think that this is very important, the sense of which, the gospels tells us, it’s when we recognize the importance of what he taught us, that we suddenly recognize him.”

Luke’s account then takes an abrupt twist.  At the very moment that the disciples recognize Jesus, he suddenly vanishes.

Why does Jesus keep disappearing?

Johnson, “This odd appearing/disappearing of Jesus and the appearing accounts has a very important message, and that is the resurrection is not resuscitation.  Jesus does not open an office.  He’s not there permanently.  He’s not there in his former somatic limitedness.  He’s a surprising presence.  He intrudes, he interrupts, he is not predictable, he is not controllable, and in that sense, he shares the life of the living God.”

Smith-Christopher, “The appearing and disappearing are kind of moving us towards the reality that we are going to live with for the rest of time, and that is that we don’t  have the physical presence of Jesus anymore with us, we have as it were the spiritual presence of Jesus with us.  There’s a sense of we’re getting used to the fact that now, the physical presence of Jesus is no longer going to be accessible to us.”

The Mormon Easter Story

Could yet another possibility exist that explains Jesus sporadic appearances.  Is it possible that he did not limit his visits to ancient Israel?  This is the intriguing scenario described in the Book of Mormon.  The book which emerged in 19^th century America is revered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as God’s Holy Word.”

Kathleen Flake, Assistant Professor of American Religious History, Vanderbilt University, “The Book of Mormon is an account of a civilization that lived in the Americas between about 600 years before Jesus was born, until about 400 years after he died.  The centerpiece of this story, is Jesus’ appearance to them, after he died, and was resurrected.  He comes to the Americas with business in mind.  Jesus will say to these people in the Americas, now I said to the Jews in Palestine ‘other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and they misunderstood me.  They thought I meant the gentiles, but no.  I meant you.  I meant you’re the other sheep; I must come visit you, I must manifest myself unto you so that you can bear witness to the world about the nature of God, and how to receive a forgiveness of sin, or more to the point, how you can overcome the circumstances of the world and be made one with God.’”

According to the Book of Mormon, the risen Jesus remains with America’s ancient tribes for 3 or 4 days.  He then vanishes and then makes sporadic appearances for an unspecified period of time.

Jesus appearance to 500

One episode in the New Testament’s eastern narrative cries out as perhaps its greatest paradox.  Why would Jesus’ appearance before the greatest number of people, be described in the fewest number of words?

Johnson, “In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul gives a recitation of those who had experiences and appearance of Jesus.  He includes a puzzling reference to 500 at one time, some of whom are still around and are able to bear testimony to this fact.  The most puzzling thing about this is that there is no story about it in the gospels as such.  We would think that if there were such an event, it certainly would be included among the resurrections stories of Jesus, or the appearances.”

Smith-Christopher, “Now for Paul, he just sort of mentions this in passing.  Now of course, when we moderns read that, we want to say, “Stop!  Wait!  Back up!  What do you mean 500 people?  Who were they?  What were they?  Where were they?  When did this happen?’  And we’re terribly frustrated about the fact that Paul just sort of mentions it in passing.  Clearly, his concerns were elsewhere.  He was already arriving at the issue of ‘what does all this mean’?  Not, ‘did it actually happen?’”

I could write more, but what do you think of some of these things?  Are Mormon scriptures beginning to get some mainstream acceptance?  Were Jesus bones never found because there was nothing left?  Why don’t we know more about this appearance to 500?