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

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

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

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

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

John, “What does that word mean?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On page 8, Harrell describes what a proof-text is.

A proof-text is a scriptural passage lifted out of its original context and given an interpretation other than that which was originally intended–or at least as can be determined by the most reasonable reading of the text.  BYU religion professor Stephen Robinson notes that even Latter-day Saints have a tendency to read Mormon beliefs into the Bible as proof-texts, largely because they assume that the doctrines of the Restoration are all corroborated in the Bible.⁴⁰ Most occurences of proof-texting are the innocent result of careless or uninformed reading of the scriptures, though they can still be detrimental.  When however, one deliberately twists the meaning of a passage in order to justify a personal belief or bias, it is condemned in both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon as “wresting [i.e. twisting] the scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16; Alma 13:20, 41:1).⁴¹

Harrell describes a proof-text well known to missionaries.  Often Christians will refer to Revelation 22:18, and state that the Bible is the end of God’s word, so there is no need for a Book of Mormon.  Missionaries will often counter that a similar scripture is found in Deuteronomy 4:2, and would have left the Bible far smaller if Deuteronomy was the end of scripture.

But Christians are guilty of proof-texting as well.  Zechariah 13:6 reads (quoting from page 9, formatting changed):

And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands?  Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

Latter-day Saints, like many other Christians, interpret this passage as a prophecy of Christ.⁴⁴ The Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 45:51-52) alludes to Zechariah 13:6 this way and even adds wound to the “feet”, which makes the fit more obvious.

According to most biblical scholars, the wounds referred to in Zechariah are actually in the chest (the Hebrew reads “between” the hands) and, in the context of Zecharaiah 13:2-6, were inflicted on “the [false] prophets” in Israel (v. 4).⁴⁵ The NSRV uses the pronouns “they” and “them” thoughout verses 2-6, making it clear that verse 6 is speaking of the same false prophets alluded to in verse 4.  Pagan prophets were often self-lacerated (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; 1 Kgs. 18:28) for reasons that are not entirely clear.  Methodist Bible commentator Adam Clarke censured popular Christian applications of this verse to Christ noting that it was clearly referring to false prophets who alleged that they have received these marks in their own families when, more likely, the wounds “had been dedicated to … idols.”⁴⁶

Harrell notes that New Testament writers often looked for parallels in Christ’s life, and then found them in the Old Testament.  Some examples found on page 10: (formatting changed)

• Hosea 11:1:  ”When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt”; he then applies it as a prophecy of Christ’s infancy in Egypt (Matt 2:15), even though in its original context it had reference to the historical exodus of Israel from Egypt.⁴⁹
• Matthew also cites Jeremiah 31:15 (“A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not”) as a reference to Herod’s slaughter of Bethlehem’s male children, while the original context referred to the slaughtering of Jerusalem’s inhabitants and the Babylonian exile of the children of Israel (Jer. 31:16).

There is no harm in finding shadows and types of Christ in these passages, but one should not confuse later allegorical meanings with the originally intended meaning.

Harrell describes other proof-texts in the New Testament.  He also notes that there is a common misperception about Old Testament prophets.  While many of us like to think that ancient prophets saw our day clearly, Harrell says that ‘Old Testaments prophets were more forthtellers than foretellers, with their attention being focused on immediate times and situations” rather than being prophecies of the distant future.’

A recent comment on Stephen Marsh’s Sunday School post decried the use of “proof texting of modern LDS concepts from the ancient texts”.  However, it seems that the LDS, like ancient and modern Jews and Christians, are all guilty of proof-texting.

In order to avoid proof-texting, one must really understand the ancient cultures of the Bible.  Is it realistic to believe that church members without a degree in theology can really avoid proof-texting?  Is it acceptable to look for parallels between Christ and the Old Testament? Are these proof-texts valuable in finding new meanings from old scriptures?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Griffiths describes the battle on page 92.  Theological liberals are

called “modernists”, and and their conservative enemies, termed “fundamentalists”….In the battle between the two camps, one that hoisted the banner of science and another that decried the abandonment of traditional biblical views, where would the Latter-day Saints land?

In the late 1800′s and early 1900′s, the LDS church established schools.  These schools were tremendously expensive to run.  The church experimented with high school and college seminaries in Utah and Idaho.  These seminaries were much less costly than church schools.  The economic savings and stock market crash of 1929 persuaded the church to turn over nearly all church schools to the state, and focus on funding seminaries for high school, and Institutes of Religion for college campuses.  But there were some problems.  The Utah State Board of Education recommended (on page 96)

that Church seminaries and public high schools be completely dissaciated, release time eliminated, and credit for biblical studies withdrawn.  A major point of Williamson’s criticism was the teaching of LDS doctrine in biblical classes offered for credit.  Williamson charged that such teachings as “the Garden of Eden was located in Missouri;…Noah’s ark was built and launched in America;…Joseph Smith’s version of the Bible is superior to King James version; and…Enoch’s city, Zion, with all its inhabitants and buildings, was lifted up and translated bodily from the American continent to the realms of the unknown” were being taught in biblical classes for which the state offered credit.²⁴

Joseph Merrill was the church commissioner of Education.  He recommended that BYU become a training school for seminary teachers, and that these teachers not only obtain a teaching certificate, but be trained in theology.  Just prior to the scathing Williamson report, some LDS members had received training in theology on their own.  From page 93,

Sidney B. Sperry, on his own initiative, left in 1925 to attend the Divinity School of Chicago.  He received a Master’s Degree in 1926, specializing in Old Testament studies.¹⁰ At the same time, Heber C. Snell, a teacher at Church-owned Snow College, attended the Pacific School of Religion, majoring in biblical studies.

Impressed with this theological training, Merrill issued a call to Daryl Chase, Russel Swenson, and George Tanner to attend the University of Chicago’s Divinity School.  From page 98,

Why the University of Chicago?  Besides Sperry’s already existing relationship with the school, there were several compelling reasons to send seminary men there–and several reasons for concern.  Chicago was among the most liberal divinity schools in the country.  At the time, the divinity school…emphasized research and academic freedom.  The views of scholars there fell highly on the modernist end of the spectrum, stressing historical methodology and critical linguistic, sociological, and psychological approaches to the scriptures.³¹ Many of the conclusions reached by the Chicago scholars ran contrary to orthodox views of the scriptures among Latter-day Saints.

…

Doubtless there were professors on both sides of the spectrum from Goodspeed, but on the whole the young school prided itself as being a “hotbed” of radical theology.³⁴…the school emphasized non-confrontational approaches toward those who held more conservative views on scripture.  Russel Swenson recalled, “In all the time I was there I never heard one criticism by the professors against the fundamentalist of conservative point of view.”³⁶

Page 99 notes the famous Scopes Monkey trial of 1925.  This trial on evolution seems to be the pinnacle of the arguments between fundamentalists and modernists.  From page 99,

When Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan argued in a Tennessee courtroom over evolution and the inerrancy of the Bible, Darrow, a Chicago attorney, was using ammunition supplied by Chicago scholars.³⁸

So once again, this leaves the question, Why the University of Chicago?

Indeed, one of the ironies of the situation may have been that only a very liberal school would accept Latter-day Saints as students in the religious climate of the time.³⁹

Merrill was interested in improving the scholarship of seminaries.  In showing that Sperry was still a conservative scholar, Merrill noted that (pages 99-100)

“Sperry had been back there and apparently this hadn’t hurt him at all.”  He said Daryl Chase had concluded that “Joseph Merrill had so much faith in the gospel that he thought if we went there we’d be able to find the material so that we could just positively lay out the proof for all of our claims.”  Chase believed that “Joseph F. Merrill was naive enough to believe that that would lead us into proof positive of the various positions we had taken.”42  While the men may have believed that Merrill was being naive, there is ample evidence to believe he also knew the risk he was taking.  Each of the men was informed that if they changed their views, they might not have a position when they returned.⁴³ Overall, Merrill’s attitude indicated a cautious optimism about the venture.

Griffiths notes good and bad experiences for LDS students.  Some embraced the school, while others weren’t impressed. Swenson wrote that “the past year will be a bright year in my life” and “They have no diabolical scheme to undermine the truth, but the reverse, to discover it.”  On the other hand, T. Edgar Lyon wrote the professors were “either infidels or agnostics…I fail to see how a young man can come here to school, then go out after graduation, and still preach what we call Christianity.”

Eleven LDS students obtained advanced degrees from the University of Chicago.  Swenson and Sperry became faculty at BYU, and Merrill (not a graduate) was later called to be an apostle.  Chicago graduate Howard Snell created controversy among Institute teachers when he questioned the historicity of the Book of Jonah, and said that God used evolution to create life.  This provoked a strong reaction from Joseph Fielding Smith who was very antagonistic toward evolution.  On page 107, J Reuben Clark, a member of the First Presidency

warned that if unorthodox teaching continued, “we shall face the abandonment of the seminaries and institutes and the return of Church colleges and academies.”  He added, “we are not now sure, in the light of developments, that these should ever have been given up.”⁸⁸

President Clark’s address provoked strong reactions among educators present.  Sterling McMurrin, a young teacher present, remarked, “We divided ourselves up…into liberal and conservative camps…Clark laid it out very firmly, and there was considerable discussion about it around our campfires.”⁸⁹

…

[page 109] At the end of the 1938-39 school year, when Guy C. Wilson retired as the head of the Religion Department at BYU, J. Wyley Sessions, who did not hold a PhD, was appointed as his replacement, which was perceived as a signal that faithfulness was more important than scholarship in Church education.

President Clark wrote a letter stating (on page 110),

“Teachers will do well to give up indoctrinating themselves in the sectarianism of the modern ‘Divinity School Theology’.  If they do not, they will be no longer useful in our system.”  The letter asked teachers to teach “the gospel and that only, and the Gospel as revealed in these last days.”  They were also warned not to use the term “ideology”, which the First Presidency felt placed “the Gospel in the same category with any and every pagan religion or theology.”  The letter continued, “This concept reduced to its lowest terms, may be expressed as conceiving that religion is man-made, that man makes his God, not God his man–a concept which is coming to be basic to the whole ‘Divinity School Theology,’ but which is contrary to all the teachings of the Church and to God’s revealed word.”¹⁰²

Griffiths notes that the Chicago men varied from quite orthodox (Sperry) to liberal (Snell).  It seems quite clear that the church made a swing toward fundamentalism, and away from modernism.  Even apostle Joseph Merrill seemed concerned with some of the more liberal teachers.  T Edgar Lyon was the last person to attend divinity school for the next 30 years.  Griffiths notes some of the good things that happened with the divinity school experiment.  From page 121,

Nearly all of the Chicago men noted that their time at the divinity school opened ecumenical doors for the Church and helped bring Mormonism further into the mainstream of American religious discourse.  At the same time, the scholarly methods learned in Chicago, applied toward modern scripture, led to huge leaps in the quality of Mormon apologetics.  Sidney Sperry, T. Edgar Lyon, Russel Swenson, and other Chicago scholars wrote the majority of Sunday School and priesthood manuals used in the Church for decades after they returned from Chicago.”

I am saddened that the fundamentalists won, but I am encouraged that it seems the modernists are making some headway in the church.  What do you think of this history?  Are you a fundamentalist, or a modernist?

During the Q&A session at the MHA meetings last year for the film Trouble in Zion, a few scholars took issue with the original narration that indicated that early Mormons in Missouri were abolitionists.  They said the Mormons weren’t in favor of slavery, but they weren’t abolitionists either.  Bringhurst expands on this topic.  Mormons became embroiled in controversy in 1833 when WW Phelps published as article called “Free People of Color” in the church’s newspaper, Evening and Millenial Star.  Phelps wrote about “the wonderful events of this age much is doing towards abolishing slavery and colonizing the blacks in Africa.”

Non-mormons in Missouri, a slave state, were already suspicious of the massive influx of Mormons, and this article was the last straw. Despite Phelps’ attempt to minimize the damage by printing the following day that Mormons “had nothing to say…as to slaves”, a mob destroyed the printing press and ordered Mormons out of Jackson County Missouri in 1833.

So while Mormons didn’t like slavery, they didn’t want to be associated with Abolitionists either. Abolitionists were seen as radicals back then.  Bringhurst notes that the Book of Mormon does not support slavery.  Alma 27:9 says “It is against the law of our brethren…that there should be any slaves among them.”

Many saints were from the north, where slavery was unpopular.  Yet Abolitionists were unpopular too. Mormons tried to straddle the fence, and Bringhurst states why Mormons and other church groups did not want to be associated with radical abolitionists on pages 20-21.

Mormon opposition to abolitionism was primarily motivated by a Latter-day Saint desire to avoid any and all identification with the abolitionist movement.  This desire, stemmed, in large part, from Mormonism’s presence in Kirtland, Ohio, on the Western Reserve.  This region was a hotbed of abolitionism during the 1830s.  Oberlin College, located near Kirtland, was the center for abolitionist actions through the Ohio Valley.³⁶ Such abolitionist activity made Ohio the focal point of more antiabolitionist violence than any other state in the Union.

Because of their close proximity to such violence, the Ohio-based Saints were particularly anxious to avoid the abolitionists.  They worried about the parallels that non-Mormons might draw between themselves and the abolitionists…

The Mormons, in avoiding and condemning the abolitionists, were like other northern-based church groups during the 1830s.  The official Mormon antiabolitionist resolution of August 1835 was similar to declarations of other northern-based church groups.  The Methodists in their 1836 national convention adopted a resolution asserting that their members had “no right, wish, or intention to interfere with the civil and political relation as it exists between master and slave in the slave-holding states of this Union.”⁴³ In a similar fashion, the Baptists, Presbyterians, and Catholics, in national meetings of their respective churches, avoided the issue of slavery and abolition.⁴⁴ Even the Quakers, who had earlier pushed for gradual elimination of slavery withdrew from active participation in all antislavery movements and condemned abolition in general.⁴⁵ Several interdenominational organizations, including the Bible, Home Missionary, and Tract Societies, also rejected involvement in the abolitionist movements.

So why were all these churches so opposed to abolition?  Bringhurst states on page 23,

Mormons rejected the abolitionist goals of immediate, uncompensated emancipation for all black slaves.  In addition, the abolitionist desire to absorb these emancipated blacks into the mainstream of society upset those Latter-day Saints obsessed with racial intermixture.⁶⁶ In contrast to these abolitionist goals, W.W. Phelps and other Mormons favored gradual compensated emancipation and colonization of the freed blacks abroad.

In a previous blog post about Joseph Smith’s Presidential Platform, I quoted from Michael Quinn’s book called The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power page 119,

“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.’”

What do you make of the Mormon position back then?

The September Six refer to a group of 6 intellectuals that were disciplined by the church in 1993.

1. Lynne Whitesides*
2. Paul Toscano
3. Maxine Hanks
4. Lavina Anderson
5. Michael Quinn
6. Avraham Gileadi**

*Five of the six were excommunicated with Lynne Whitesides being the exception–she was disfellowshipped.

**Of the six disciplined, only Avraham Gileadi was rebaptized. Lindholm notes in the Introduction,

A conservative biblical scholar, Gileadi consistently refused to speak to the press following his excommunication, and he remains the only member of the September Six to be rebaptized and admitted back into the fold.  In keeping with this precedent, Gileadi did not respond to my interview request for this volume.

Lindholm also interviews 3 others who have been disciplined by the church since 1991:

• Margaret Toscano,
• her sister Janice Merrill Allred, and
• Thomas Murphy.

For balance, Lindholm interviews Donald Jessee, former employee of the LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department.

I really liked the book.  My only mild criticism was the fact that it is apparent these interviews occurred several years ago, but the book is just coming out now.  For example, the author asked every guest if they believed Gordon B. Hinckley was a prophet, rather than Thomas S. Monson.  I asked the publisher why some of the material seemed dated, and he said it took quite some time to get permission from all of the people.  The last interview took place in 2004.

The most interesting topic to me (outside of the excommunications themselves) was learning about the Strengthening the Church Committee (SCMC).  I had never heard of it before.  In describing it, Lynne Whitesides said on page 6,

There is a Strengthening Church Members Committee that we didn’t know about at the time, a Gestapo-like group which press-clipped everything anyone said who might be considered an enemy of the Church, meaning one who disagreed with Church policy.

Footnote 4 on page 181 further clarifies this.

According to Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, the Strengthening Church Members Committee is a “clipping service” that “pores over newspapers and other publications and identifies members accused of crimes, preaching false doctrine, criticizing leadership or other problems.  That information is forwarded on to the person’s bishop or stake president, who is charged with helping them overcome problems and stay active in the Church.”  Quoted in “News: Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy,” Sunstone 92 (November 1993): 69.  The First Presidency further clarified the nature and history of the Strengthening Church Members Committee when it stated, “This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics.  It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.”  Quoted in “News: Church Defends Keeping Files on Members,” Sunstone 88 (August 1992): 63.  Many of those called in for investigatory interviews or discipline have claimed that this committee is responsible for compiling incriminating evidence against targeted members.

Here is what Donald Jessee, former employee of LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department said when asked about the committee.  From page 217-220,

Donald:  It ‘s a committee that seeks information that, in time, if the proper action is taken, does just that–it can strengthen Church members through proper discipline.

Philip:  How so?  Many excommunicants have claimed that it collected files on them in preparation for potential disciplinary courts.

Donald:  They do it by caring about members of the Church.  Discipline is designed to help members who have gone astray.  The Church from its beginning has gathered anti-Mormon literature and derogatory or false information about the Church.  If the source of this information comes from Church members of record, then action is taken.  The Church must be aware of its critics and enemies.  Again, Church leaders must keep the Church morally clean and ethically straight.

Philip:  Should academics avoid publishing research if it could be understood as contradicting the Church’s position on a given topic?

Donald:  Members can publish whatever they want.  There’s no censorship.  It depends on the context and the person’s motives in doing what has been done.  If a BYU professor, whose salary is paid with Church funds and who has signed an honor code of conduct to keep university rules, then publicly goes out and violates them, then that person is subject to discipline, but he or she is free to speak about any issue he or she wants to….

Philip:  What about those topics not yet given much attention by Church leaders?  Do members have free reign on those topics?  Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for doing genetic research that the Mormon Church had yet to conduct.  How much freedom is one afforded on such controversial but relatively unaddressed topics?  Mother in Heaven is another example of a controversial topic upon which people have published and been punished for doing so.

Donald:  Well, in the case of Murphy, he says that because of DNA he has proven that the Book of Mormon is not true.  How does he know?  There were other groups of people here in America before Lehi arrived here….How could DNA prove or disprove the truthfulness of a book brought here under the hand of God?…

I do not know anything regarding those who have been disciplined for publishing on the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven.  Chances are they presented their ideas in a way that ran counter to true religion and to the Church and its teachings.  Speculation on such matters can lead members astray and destroy faith in God the Father.  Praying to a Mother in Heaven is not a true doctrine, no matter how it is defined or presented.  It undermines faith in the true process of offering prayers, which is to pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Christ.

Members can believe anything they want.  Church members may believe they have a Mother in Heaven, but to go out teaching that we ought to pray to her, or that we give details about her when both the prophets and the scriptures are silent–this violates the teachings of the Church…

If Church members go to their friends and start talking about practicing plural marriage, they are not in harmony with the Church.  Yes, there are some things where common sense says, “Don’t discuss it in private or in public.”  Otherwise, hey, I’ve got the freedom to think anything I want, but I need to be careful that I’m not trying to represent the Church with my point of view or convince others that a certain doctrine or practice represents true religion or is what the issue or is what the Church teaches.  As an individual, I can speculate all I want on any issue or topic as long as I keep to myself those matters that are not in harmony with truth and the Church and its teachings.

If I am a prominent or well thought of member of the Church, and I present a paper in the name of religious freedom that one might consider worshiping idols, I can expect Church discipline.  That doctrine is contrary to true religion and the teachings of God.  To bring up controversial topics in meetings such as sacrament meeting, Sunday School, priesthood meeting, Relief Society, etc., could raise questions and jeopardize one’s standing in the Church…

Philip:  Yet Janice Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for her insistence on publishing a clearly speculative paper entitled, “Toward a Theology of God the Mother.”⁴ Why was she disciplined for asserting her opinion?

Donald:  I believe I have already established the fact that I can’t comment on Church discipline, as that is confidential and would violate privacy issues.  As a member of the church, I don’t know.  I wasn’t involved there and don’t know the facts.  Such a doctrine has not been revealed through a living prophet, and it is not appropriate to be a member of the Church and teach to others in any setting doctrines or practices that run counter to true religion and the Church and its teachings, such as practicing plural marriage or other theories that are not mainstream teachings of the living prophets.

I really thought Whitesides “Gestapo-like” comment was a wild exaggeration, but after hearing what Jessee had to say, I’m not so sure.  According to Wikipedia,

The committee was formed during the administration of church President Ezra Taft Benson,[1] soon after Benson became president in 1985.[2]

The existence of the committee became known in 1991, when a 1990 church memo from general authority Glenn L. Pace referencing the committee was published by an anti-Mormon ministry.^[3] The committee was one of the subjects discussed in the 1992 Sunstone Symposium in talks by Lavina Fielding Anderson and Eugene England (then a BYU professor) on August 6, 1992. Soon thereafter, the Salt Lake Tribune published news stories on the subject (Tribune, August 8, 1992 and August 15, 1992). England came to regret his impulsive comments and apologized to all parties individually.^[4]

In response to this public discourse, the LDS Church spokesman Don LeFevre acknowledged the existence of the committee.^[5] LeFevre said that the committee “receives complaints from church members about other members who have made statements that ‘conceivably could do harm to the church’”, then the committee will “pass the information along to the person’s ecclesiastical leader.” According to LeFevre, however, “the committee neither makes judgments nor imposes penalties.” Discipline is “entirely up to the discretion of the local leaders.”^[6]

After reading all this, I wonder how much the apostles monitor blogs.  I find it a little ironic that President Benson started it.  He was quite a conspiracy theoriest, as I mentioned in my post about his anti-Communist rhetoric.  I keep hearing in different settings that the church is much more open now, but I’m not so sure.  For example, at a recent conference at BYU, professor Ronald Esplin said this is one of the best environments to study church history since the “Camelot” era of the 1970s.

However, discipline for intellectuals still seems to occur.   The Wikipedia article mentions that in 2004, the committee put together a dossier on Grant Palmer, author of Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.  (Palmer was disfellowshipped.)  In the introduction, Lindholm notes on page xii, that excommunications of academics has continued beyond the notorious 1993 September Six (formatting changed)

• In 1994, Professor David Wright of Brandeis University and editor Brent Metcalf were excommunicated for their scripture studies in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon:  Explorations in Critical Methodology
• In 1995, author Janice Allred was excommunicated for her writings about Mother in Heaven.
• In 2000, Professor Margaret Toscano was excommunicated for her theological reflections, and
• in 2002, Professor Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for his anthropological work on Mormonism.
• In addition, many other unnamed intellectuals were called into disciplinary interviews that did not result in excommunication.

I know Simon Southerton resigned under pressure from the church following his publication of information on DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Last week, I learned that John Dehlin, founder of Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters, and StayLDS was summoned to a meeting with his Stake President.  He said the meeting went well, and solicited comments to his website.  From my point of view, it bears a lot of parallels with Lynne Whitesides experience in 1993.  John has recently been interviewed on ABC and other news organizations.  Lynne was called in to talk to her bishop following an interview with Chris Vanocur on Channel 4, KTVX.  Here’s what Lynne said on page 4,

In May when my bishop called me to come in to talk, I thought, “Wow…this is great.  Maybe the system does work.  maybe this church really is a place where I can get comfortable.”  I was very excited.  I left early from my feminism class up at teh University of Utah to meet with him.  When I walked in, he was with his two counselors, all in suits, and I’m thinking, “Wow, they really want me back at church.  This is great!”  I sat down, and Virgil Merrill, the bishop, said, “Elder Loren C. Dunn has asked us to meet with you to see if we need to take any ecclesiastical action against you.”

I started to laugh and couldn’t stop.  ”Give me a minute,” I said, “I thought you called m in here because you cared about me.  Let me just have a quick moment to adjust.”  Their faces…you could see that what I has said shocked them, but then we had a lovely talk.  It was not confrontational at all; it was amazing.  At the end, Virgil said he was going to tell Dunn that I was fine.  So, when I received the summons letter I was shocked.

Philip:  Your bishop gave you no warning at all that you were going to be tried by a church court?

Lynne:  No, nothing.  When I found out, I called Lavinia [Fielding Anderson] immediately….We also wrote a letter to the bishop saying that if he went through with the church court, then we were going to let the media know.  Virgil wrote back saying that he wanted to hold it.  He didn’t realize what he was getting into.  He didn’t realize how much press coverage it was going to get.  We heard through the grapevine, he was getting pressure from [Boyd K.] Packer² and other leaders to excommunicate me.

Philip:  Can you elaborate on “the grapevine”?

Lynne:  One of the bishopric counselors involved in my court was relate3d toa  reporter I knew.  Both were at a barbecue once, and the counselor told the reporter, not thinking it would ever get back to me, that they were getting pressure from Church leaders to “do something” about Lynne Whitesides.  Well, it did get back to me, and I knew this going into the trial.

Well, I’ve already quoted quite a bit from the book.  Let me end with a quick summary of things the church apparently doesn’t like us discussing:

• Lynne Whitesides was disfellowshipped for “why I thought it was all right to pray to a female diety.”
• Paul Toscano was excommunicated for defending his wife Margaret.  Basically Margaret was the real target.  To save her, Paul blasted church leaders and was excommunicated for insubordination.  (I’ll discuss Margaret in a bit.)
• Maxine Hanks was excommunicated for her book Women and Authority.
• Lavina Fielding Anderson was excommunicated for documenting ecclesiastical abuse in the Church.
• Michael Quinn was excommunicated for writing a chapter in Hanks book, Women and Authority, and for a Sunstone presentation in 1992 called “150 Years of Truth and Consequences in Mormon History.”
• Janice Merrill Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.
• Margaret  Merrill Toscano was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.  (Note Janice and Margaret are sisters.)
• Thomas Murphy was “nearly excommunicated in December 2002, proceedings halted indefinitely on February 23, 2003.”  Murphy wrote about DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Wikipedia says, “on February 23, 2003, Latimer informed Murphy that all disciplinary action was placed on permanent hold.^[3]“

This book is very timely for me.  I have wanted to get more involved in church history.  I also want to maintain good standing int he church.  Lindholm quotes Armaund Mauss in the introduction.  Mauss is a retired Mormon sociologist from Washington State University.  From page xxii

Even the most careful and diplomatic comments will not be much appreciated by many Church leaders, perhaps by most Church leaders, whether general or local.  We have to understand that much going in.  Do not expect to appear on the short list for bishop or Relief Society president if you have been regularly commenting on local or general Church matters.  If prominent Church positions are important to you, keep quiet.  If you’re going to speak up, whether in oral or written media, first cultivate thick skin, then abandon your aspirations for important Church callings; you shouldn’t have them anyway.  Finally, don’t whine when you’re passed over or looked upon with some suspicion.³⁷

Footnote 45 quotes Mauss as saying,

I have come to feel increasingly marginal to the Mormon community during my adult life, at least in a social and intellectual sense, despite my continuing and conscientious participation in church activity (including leadership) and despite my own deep personal faith in the religion itself.

Lindholm goes on to say on page xxiii that

Mormonism is not alone in its desire to censor.  Most Christian traditions–Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike–have a long history of disciplining vocal dissent,⁴² which is a practice supported by a rather strong biblical basis.⁴³.  The LDS Church, however, is different in that its leaders actively discipline select members in order to sustain the appearance of doctrinal purity for the sake of the Church’s integrity and public image.⁴⁴

What do you make of this church discipline?  Do you have any advice for me?

I don’t believe that LDS scripture allows for a restriction against blacks’ holding the priesthood.  Nor do I think that LDS theology can reasonably maintain that today’s blacks are descendants of Cain or that ancient intermarriage with Canaanites perpetuated any racial curse.  Too many scriptures collide with those ideas for them to be valid.

I found this perspective intriguing and  had to learn more.

LDS people have often believed that marriage to Canaanites (who were believed to be black) excluded one from the priesthood.  Yet Allred notes that intermarriage between blacks and white occurred routinely over centuries.  He notes intermarriage occurred in diverse cultures including Egypt, Portugal and the Greco-Roman world.  He notes a problem with LDS interpretations of scriptures.  From page 40,

Secondly, even though the terms Canaanite and Negro have been used interchangeably in the LDS Church, Canaanites weren’t black and they certainly weren’t African.  Biblically, Canaanites descended from Canaan, the fourth son of Ham.  African blacks are generally believed to be descendants of Cush, the first son of Ham.  This is important because the Canaanites were those who have been referred to as the “cursed” lineage while practically nothing is said about Ham’s other children.  It was Canaan who was cursed by Noah–not specifically Ham and not Ham’s other children.  According to Genesis, Noah cursed Canaan after Ham saw his father naked and drunk and ridiculed his father to his other brothers (Gen. 9:21-25).  Before this time, Ham had been righteous: “And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed and they were called the sons of God.”  (Moses 8:13).  This scripture appears in the Pearl of Great Price, which also contains this statement:  ”And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Moses 8:27; italics mine).

These verses are particularly important because Mormon folklore contains the common belief that Ham wrongly married a descendant of Cain, bringing a curse upon himself and his descendants.  If such a commandment forbidding marriage into Cain’s lineage existed, how could Ham have contracted such a marriage and still have been considered righteous enough to get passage on the ark?   The answer has always been that Cain’s genes needed to be preserved; but this argument does not address the fact that Ham was righteous and “walked with God” after his marriage–a circumstance that, according to tradition, was impossible.

Although Canaan was not born until after the flood, there is a land of Canaan referred to in Moses 7:7 before the flood.  There is also a land of Cainan.  It is likely that both are variant spellings of the same word and refer to the same land.  This is because the Book of Moses was dictated by Joseph Smith and the two terms are homophones.  The decision to spell the antediluvian land “Canain” was entirely editorial.  Enoch came from the land of Cainan and called it “a land of righteousness unto this day” (Moses 6:42).  In Moses 7:4-8, Enoch sees a vision of the world “for the space of many generations.”  He describes how the people of Canaan (Cainan?) destroy the people of Shum.  After this, we are told the land is cursed with heat and that a blackness comes upon all the children of Canaan–it was not inherited from Cain.¹⁵

Allred continues further with this reasoning, and notes that on page 42,

Why curse Canaan for his father’s actions?….LDS theology affirms that children who repent are not punished for their ancestor’s faults.

He then quotes the 2nd article of faith, and notes some contradictions.  There are some spurious sources that claimed that Joseph Smith said that Cain could not hold the priesthood because he killed Abel.  However, if murder is the disqualifier, then all murderers should be disqualified.

If priesthood was withheld from Africans because their ancestor [Cain] was a murderer, why were King David’s descendants allowed the priesthood, for he too was a murderer?  Why are not white sons of murderers kept from the priesthood?

The Book of Abraham states that a descendant of Canaan discovered the land of Egypt and that all the Egyptians are descended from Canaan:

Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of Canaanites by birth.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.  (Abraham 1:21-22)

The problem that is immediately apparent is the fact that Abraham and Joseph each married an Egyptian woman.  One response offered to counter that damaging evidence has been that the Egyptians at the time of these marriages were Semitic Hyksos who had conquered Egypt and so were not really Canaanites.  This explanation contradicts Abraham 1:21-22.  It also contradicts history.  The Hyksos held power in Egypt for a maximum of only one hundred fifty years.  If they were Egyptians during Abraham’s lifetime, it is not possible for them to still have been in power in Joseph’s day.¹⁸

On page 43, Allred notes that Hugh Nibley said that Asenath

“was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis and hence of the pure line of Ham; she was also the wife of Joseph and the mother of our own vaunted ancestor Ephraim.”²⁰ Ephraim, son of a Canaanite mother, acquired the birthright by blessing from his grandfather Jacob.  According to LDS theology, the impact of this blessing cannot be underestimated.  The birthright was the right to preside in the priesthood, as will be explained later.

Allred continues to note other discrepancies about Canaanites in the Bible, and notes that Canaanites sometimes married Israelites–the Canaanite harlot Rahab was saved in Jericho, and is an ancestor of Jesus.  (Matt 1:5)  Allred notes that Edomites (Canaanites) were allowed in the the congregation of Israel (Deut. 23:7-8)  Moses also married an Ethiopian woman.  From the Bible, Allred concludes on page 45,

Little doubt remains that intermarriage between Canaanites and Israelites destroyed any chance for a pure, non-Canaanite race among the chosen seed.  One third of the house of Judah is Canaanite with an unknown portion among the other tribes.  What then can we make of the curse pronounced by Noah and of Abraham’s comments about Pharaoh’s lineage could not have the ‘right of the priesthood’? (Abr. 1:27).  It may be that Mormons have simply misunderstood those passages of scripture.

Regarding Abraham 1:27, Allred says it was Abraham that had the right to preside over the priesthood, rather than Pharaoh.  He notes that Joseph and his son Ephraim had the right to preside even though they weren’t of the Tribe of Levi.  From page 45,

even though the priesthood did not remain exclusively with Ephraim, the right to preside did.  Moses presided over Israel even though he was of the tribe of Levi.  Joseph Smith, however, claimed to be the “lawful heir” because he was of the tribe of Ephraim (D&C 86:8-11).  Since this authority was passed from father to only one son, when Noah gave it to Shem, Ham could not be the heir.  Ham and Japheth, together with their descendants, did not have the right to administer the priesthood because it was given to Shem.  Esau lost the right to Jacob.  Reuben lost the right to Joseph.  Manasseh lost that right when Jacob conferred it to Ephraim.  Each man who lost the birthright did not lose the right to be ordained to the priesthood; [page 46] rather, he lost the right to preside as the presiding high priest in a patriarchal order.  The scripture does not saw that Pharaoh could not hold the priesthood; it says that he could not have the “right to the priesthood” (Abr. 1:27)  This right had been given to Shem, who in turn gave it to his successor in the patriarchal office.

Years after the right of the priesthood had been passed to Abraham, the Pharaohs were feigning claim to it from Noah.  They did not merely claim priesthood; they claimed the right to preside over the priesthood.  Pharaoh, the son of Egyptus, established a patriarchal government in Egpyt; but he was of the lineage by which he could not have the “right of the priesthood” or “the right of the firstborn,” whic belonged to Shem and his posterity.  In response to Pharaoh’s claims, Abraham states, “But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of the priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands: (Abr. 1:31; italics mine).  In other words, Abraham retained the right to preside over the priesthood.

So what do you think of Allred’s arguments?  Is there any scriptural basis in support of the priesthood ban?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a list of the books of the Apocrypha:

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

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

The gospel was translated into English and published by Professor Henry Pike in 1697 in Cambridge.  It dates to at least the 3^rd century.  The gospel is a Gnostic gospel, so the portrayals of Jesus are quite different than traditional Christians would expect to see.  Frankly, some of the things in this gospel are just plain weird.

This gospel is a bit longer than some of the other gospels.  For this post, I’ve quoted some stories, and given short summaries of some of the others.  As you can see, Jesus could speak even in the cradle.

Chapter 1

2 – [Caiaphus] relates that Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said to his mother;

3 – Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God….

Chapter 2

1 – And when the time of his circumcision was come, namely, the eighth day, on which the law commanded the child to be circumcised, they circumcised him in a cave.

2 – And the old Hebrew woman took the foreskin (others say she took the navel-string), and preserved it in an alabaster-box of old oil of spikenard.

3 – And she had a son who was a druggist, to whom she said, Take heed thou sell not this alabaster box of spikenard-ointment, although thou shouldst be offered three hundred pence for it.

4 – Now this is that alabaster box which Mary the sinner procured, and poured forth the ointment out of it upon the head and the feet of our Lord Jesus Christ, and wiped if off with the hairs of her head.

…

Ok, I don’t know about you, but I think that is really gross.

Chapter 3

1 – And it came to pass, when the Lord Jesus was born at Bethlehem, a city of Judaea, in the time of Herod the King; this wise men came from the East to Jerusalem, according to the prophecy of Zoradascht [footnote says Zoroaster—I blogged about Zoroastrianism a few years ago] and brought with them offerings; namely gold, frankincense, and myrrh, and worshipped him, and offered to him their gifts.

2 – Then the Lady Mary took one of his swaddling clothes in which the infant was wrapped, and gave it to them instead of a blessing, which they received from her as a most noble present.

…

5 – But they produced the swaddling cloth which St. Mary had given to them, on account whereof they kept a feast.

6 – And having, according to the custom of their country, made a fire, they worshipped it.

7 – And casting the swaddling cloth into it, and kept it.

8 – And when the fire was put out, they took forth the swaddling cloth unhurt, as much as if the fire had not touched it.

9 – Then they began to kiss it, and put it upon their heads and their eyes, saying, This is certainly an undoubted truth, and it is really surprising that the fire could not burn it, and consume it.

10 – Then they took it, and with the greatest respect laid it up among their treasures.

Chapter 4

1 – Now Herod, perceiving that the wise men did delay, and not return to him, called together the preists and wise men…

…

3 – But an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in his sleep, and said, Arise, take the child and his mother, and go into Egypt as soon as the cock crows.  So he arose and went.

…

6 – And now he drew near to a great city, in which there was an idol, to which the other idols and gods of Egypt brought their offerings and vows.

…

8 – This priest had a son three years old, who was possessed with a great multitude of devils, who uttered many strange things, and when the devils seized him, walked about naked with his clothes torn, throwing stones at those whom he saw.

…

10 – And all the magistrates and priests of the idols assembled before that idol, and made inquiry there, saying, What means all this consternation, and dread, which has fallen upon all our country?

11 – The idol answered them, The unknown God is come hither, who is truly God; nor is there any one besides him, who is worthy of divine worship; for he is truly the Son of God.

…

13 – And at the same instant this idol fell down, and at his fall the inhabitants of Egypt besides others, ran together.

14 – But the son of the priest, when his usual disorder came upon him, going into the inn, found there Joseph and St. Mary, whom all the rest had left behind and forsook.

15 – And when the Lady St. Mary had washed the swaddling clothes of the Lord Christ, and hanged them out to dry upon a post, the boy possessed with the devil took down one of them, and put it upon his head.

16 – And presently the devils began to come out of his mouth, and fly away in the shape of crows and serpents.

17 – From that time, the boy was healed by the power of the Lord Christ, and he began to sing praises, and give thanks to the Lord who had healed him.

…

Chapter 5

1 – Now Joseph and Mary, when they heard that the idol was fallen down and destroyed, were seized upon with fear and trembling…

…

3 – They went therefore hence to the secret places of robbers, who robbers travelers as they pass by…

4 – The thieves upon their coming heard a great noise, such as the noise of a king with a great army and many horses, and the trumpets sounding as his departure from his own city; at which they were so affrighted as to leave all their booty behind them, and fly away in haste.

5 – …Where is that king, the noise of whose approach the robbers heard, and left us, so that we are now come off safe?

6 – Joseph answered, He will come after us.

Chapter 6

[Jesus heals naked woman possessed of devils.  He also cures a bride made dumb by sorcerer, a leprous woman is cured by washing in Jesus' bathwater, a leprous prince is also cured in same manner.]

Chapter 7

[a man who could not enjoy his wife, freed from his disorder]

11 – It was now winter-time, and the girl went into the parlour where these women were, and found them weeping and lamenting, as before

12 – By them stood a mule, covered over with silk, and an ebony collar hanging down from his neck, whom they kissed, and were feeding.

13 – But when the girl said, How handsome, ladies that mule is!  They replied with tears, and said, This mule, which you see, was our brother, born of this same mother as we.

14 – For when our father died, and left us a very large estate, and we had only this brother, and we endeavored to procure him a suitable match, and though he should be married as other men, some giddy and jealous woman bewitched him without our knowledge.

15 – And we, one night, a little before day, while the doors of the house were all fast shut, saw this our brother was changed into a mule, such as you now see him to be;

16 – And we, in the melancholy condition in which you see us, have applied to all the wise men, magicians, and diviners in the world, but they have been of no service to us.

…

21 – As soon as the women had heard the girl’s discourse, they hastened away to the Lady St. Mary…

22 – And said, O our Lady St. Mary, pity your handmaids for we have no head of our family, no one older than us; no father, or brother to go in and out before us.

23 – But this mule, which you see, was our brother, which some woman by witchcraft have brought into this condition which you see; we therefore entreat you to compassionate us.

24 – Hereupon St. Mary was grieved at their case, and taking the Lord Jesus, put him upon the back of the mule.

25 – And said to her son, O Jesus Christ, restore (or heal) according to thy extraordinary power this mule, and grant him to have again the shape of a man and a rational creature, as he had formerly.

26 – This was scarce said by the Lady St. Mary, but the mule immediately passed into a human form, and became a young man without any deformity.

27 – Then he and his mother and the sisters worshipped the Lady St. Mary, and lifting the child upon their heads, they kissed him, and said, Blessed is thy mother, O Jesus, O Saviour of the world!  Blessed are the eyes which are so happy as to see they.

…

Chapter 8

1 – In their journey from hence they came into a desert country, and were told it was infested with robbers; so Joseph and St. Mary prepared to pass through it in the night.

2 – And as they were going along, behold they saw two robbers asleep in the road, and with them a great number of robbers, who were their confederates, also asleep.

3 – The names of these two were Titus and Damachus; and Titus said to Damachus, I beseech thee let those persons go along quietly, that our company may not perceive anything of them;

4 – But Damachus refusing, Titus again said, I will give thee forty groats, and as a pledge take my girdle, which he gave them before he had done speaking, that he might not open his mouth, or make a noise.

5 – When Lady St. Mary saw the kindness which this robber did show them, she said to him, The Lord God will receive thee to his right hand, and grant the pardon of thy sins.

6 – Then the Lord Jesus answered, and said to his mother, When thirty years are expired, O mother, the Jews will crucify me at Jerusalem.

7 – And these two thieves shall be with me at the same time upon the cross, Titus on my right hand, and Dumachus on my left, and from that time Titus shall go before me into paradise;

8 – And when she had said, God forbid this should be thy lot, O my son, they went on to a city in which were several idols; which, as soon as they came near to it, was turned into hills of sand.

….

12 – Thence they proceeded to Memphis, and saw Pharaoh, and abode three years in Egypt.

13 – And the Lord Jesus did very many miracles in Egypt, which are neither to be found in the Gospel of the Infancy or the Gospel of Perfection.

…

[After Herod dies, they return to Israel.]

Chapter 9

[sick children cured by water wherein Christ was washed]

Chapter 10

[Two wives of a man fight over child.  One woman tries to kill son of other woman.  Mary prophecies that evil woman will die.  She falls in a well.]

Chapter 11

[Bartholomew lies on Christ’s bed and is healed]

Chapter 12

[Leprous woman healed by washing in Christ’s bathwater.  Leprous princess is healed by same method.]

Chapter 13

[Girl possessed by Satan is healed by Christ’s swaddling clothes.]

Chapter 14

1 – Another woman likewise lived there, whose son was possessed by Satan.

2 – This boy, named Judas, as often as Satan seized him, was in clined to bite all that were present; and if he found no one else near him, he would bite his own hands and other parts.

…

5 – Then Judas, who was possessed, came and sat down at the right hand of Jesus.

6 – When Satan was acting upon him as usual, he went about to bite the Lord Jesus.

7 – And because he could not do it, he struck Jesus on the right side, so that he cried out.

8 – And in the same moment Satan went out of the boy, and ran away like a mad dog.

9 – This same boy who struck Jesus, and out of whom Satan went in the form of a dog, was Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him to the Jews.

10 – And that same side, on which Judas struck him, the Jews pierced with a spear.

Chapter 15

1 – And when the Lord Jesus was seven years of age, he was on a certain day with other boys his companions about the same age.

2 – Who when they were at play made clay into several shapes, namely asses, oxen, birds, and other figures,

3 – Each boasting of his own work, and endeavoring to exceed the rest.

4 – Then the Lord Jesus said to the boys, I will command these figures which I have made to walk.

5 – And immediately they moved, and when he commanded them to return, they returned.

6 – He had also made the figures of birds and sparrows, which when he commanded to fly, did fly, and when he commanded to stand still, did stand still; and if he gave them meat and drink, they did eat and drink.

7 – When at length the boys went away, and related these things to their parents, their fathers said to them, Take heed, children for the future, of his company, for he is a sorcerer; shun and avoid him, and from henceforth never play with him.

8-15 [Jesus throws a bunch of linens at a shop in the fire.  The store owner is upset, so Jesus retrieves them from the fire unharmed.]

Chapter 16

[Joseph spends 2 years making a throne for the king of Jerusalem.  It is too small, so Jesus miraculously enlarges the throne.]

Chapter 17

[Jesus plays hide and seek with some boys.  Some women throw the boys into a furnace, but Jesus transforms them into baby goats—kids.  Then Jesus transforms them back into boys, unharmed by the furnace.]

Chapter 18

[Serpent bites Simon the Canaanite as a boy.  Jesus causes serpent to suck back the poison, and then the serpent bursts.  Simon is cured.]

Chapter 19

[James is bitten by viper and cured.  Jesus accused of throwing boy off roof.  Jesus causes dead boy to live and the boy acquits Jesus.  Pitcher breaks, and Jesus restores water to pitcher.]

16 – Again on another day the Lord Jesus was with some boys by a river and they drew water out of the river by little channels, and made little fish-pools.

17 – But the Lord Jesus had made twelve sparrows, and placed them about his pool on each side, three on a side.

18 – But it was the Sabbath day, and the son of Hanani a Jew came by, and saw them making these things, and said, Do ye thus make figures of clay on the Sabbath?  And he ran to them and broke down the fish-pools.

19 – But when the Lord Jesus clapped his hands over the sparrows which he had made, the flew away chirping.

20 – At length the son of Hanani coming to the fish-pool of Jesus to destroy it, the water vanished away, and the Lord Jesus said to him,

21 – In like manner as this water has vanished, so shall thy life vanish; and presently the boy died.

22 – Another time, when the Lord Jesus was coming home in the evening with Joseph, he met a boy, who ran so hard against him, that he threw him down;

23 – To whom the Lord Jesus said, As thou hast thrown me down, so shalt thou fall, nor ever rise.

24 – And that moment the boy fell down and died.

Chapter 20

[Jesus sent to school to learn the alphabet, but teaches the schoolmaster, then he is sent to another teacher…]

13 – They brought him then to a more learned master, who when he saw him, said, say Aleph.

14 – And when he had said Aleph, the master bade him pronounce Beth; to which the Lord Jesus replied, Tell me first the meaning of the letter Aleph, and then I will pronounce Beth.

15 – But this master, when he lift up his hand to whip him, had his hand presently withered, and he died.

16 – Then said Joseph to St. Mary, henceforth we will not allow him to go out of the house; for every one who displeases him is killed.

Chapter 21

[At 12 years old, Jesus teaches in the temple about astronomy and many other subjects.]

Chapter 22

[Jesus begins concealing his miracles.  He is baptized at age 30.]

In reviewing my next post, I decided to add some information concerning a very similar gospel titled, Thomas’s Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ.  This gospel is just a fragment containing just over 3 chapters.  Chapter 1 discusses te4h same incident where Jesus animates clay sparrows on the Sabbath Day, along with another story of Jesus clearing water after the rain.  Chapter 2 discusses a boy withering after tearing down Jesus’ fish pool, and Jesus mostly restoring him to health, with the warning,

6 – Then Jesus at the request of all who were present did heal him, leaving only some small member to continue withered, that they might take warning.

Jesus goes on to blind some accusers.  When people complain,

18 – And when they say this action of Christ, Joseph arose, and plucked him by the ear, at which the boy was angry and said to him, Be easy;

In Chapter 3, Jesus astonishes a schoolmaster again with the alphabet.  Chapter 4 is just 2 verses, and appears to tell the same tale as Jesus in the dyer’s shop, though the rest of the book is missing.  As far as background, this is the only background given.

The original in Greek, from which this translation is made, will be found printed by Cotelerius, in his notes on the constitutions of the Apostles, from a MS, in the French King’s Library, No. 2279–It is attributed to Thomas, and conjectured to have originally been connected with the Gospel of Mary.

So what do you make of these stories?  Obviously, some of these are a bit outlandish–humans are turned into animals and back; Jesus kills people that ticked him off.  Jesus seems a bit capricious in some of these stories.

There are some strange stories in the New Testament as well.  What do you make of some of the more outlandish stories in the New Testament–Jesus walking on water, turning water to wine?  Do you think these more accepted New Testament stories could be just as outlandish as the stories in this gospel?

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

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

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

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

Chapter 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 – Why hast thou done this?

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

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

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

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

15 – And Joseph was silent.

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

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

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

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

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

21 – So he sent them away.

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

Chapter 12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 – And Joseph took her down.

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

Chapter 13

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

Chapter 14

…

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

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

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

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

7 – The midwife said, Is this true?

8 – He answered, Come and see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19 – And Salome received satisfaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28 – And straightway Salome was cured.

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

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

31 – So Salome also departed, approved by God.

Chapter 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 16

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

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

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

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

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

6 – For Elizabeth could not climb up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 – Besides know that he shed innocent blood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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