Neil J Flinders
Brigham Young University
Joseph Smith Academy
Nauvoo, Illinois
2005

This essay was written for all those who might find interest in exploring the relationship between American education and Joseph Smith the American Prophet. It is addressed to anyone who loves education and finds interest in the thoughts and writings of Joseph Smith, as well as to

those who love Joseph Smith and also find interest in the theory and practice of education. My general observations are expressed in the text; more detailed connections to various aspects of

Joseph Smith’s ideas can be found in the footnotes and their references. As the reader may

recognize, the breadth and depth of these two topics far exceed adequate treatment in a limited document by a single author. But what can be accomplished, hopefully, is to present enough of

the story to demonstrate value in considering Joseph Smith as an educator worthy of critical

study. The footnotes will signal to the serious reader, the pervasive and extended nature of this subject matter. I begin with a brief commentary on two topics— (a) education and (b) Joseph

Smith Jr., the person. It is vital to understand both the definition of education used in this

document, and to sense the way this man’s reputation spread throughout the world in such a rapid and remarkable manner. This phenomenon remains a mystery yet to be fully explained.

I

Joseph Smith Jr., the American prophet, and education are a natural fit. Like a hand in a glove, the two combined become an instrument of extraordinary potential. Serious students of either education or Joseph Smith will recognize both subjects are much discussed, but seldom comprehended. I readily acknowledge these topics are challenging, but that seems to be a common ailment in the human condition. Life itself is challenging, but life is also larger than its challenges. Like all children, each of us is worth far more than we realize and we realize far less than we ought to—as we play out our days in this sandbox of mortality. So, with the obvious limitations clearly in mind, I will try to sharpen and deepen our understanding of Joseph Smith as an educator. Whatever else Joseph Smith might have been, he was first and foremost an educator—a leader-like stewardship he shouldered with vigor and enjoyment, clothed in the mantle of prophet, seer, and revelator. This fact alone tends to set him apart.

What is Education?

First, a word about my view of education: Studying the history, philosophy, and definition of education is something like studying the weather. It is certainly important, but seldom understood and hardly predictable. There are many theories why this is so; far more than can be addressed in a simple essay. What I will say, with some degree of confidence, is that education in its broadest sense is the acquisition and appropriate application of the truth. This is the sense in which I use the term. Further, it seems self evident that learning and teaching are universal attributes. Professional educators have no corner on this market. Everyone is a learner and everyone is a teacher. Our social world is shaped and driven by how each person packages, delivers, and makes use of these functions. It is this universal personal agency that causes most of the fuss and a lot of the furor in our lives—at home, at work, and at play. Obtaining, organizing, and applying information or knowledge seems to be the basic function of human life. When this complex process ceases, what is left? Education has to be a core consideration in every person’s life. This was the platform on which Joseph Smith based his life.

Who Was Joseph? What Have Others Said About Him?

Second, a brief comment regarding Joseph Smith Jr. the person. His name is well-known to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; others may be more or less familiar with the man and his mission. In terms of notoriety, however, his name is extraordinary; it pervades every continent. Joseph Smith Jr. is a man whose name is spoken in tones of both good and evil throughout the world. The number and the variation of these descriptions are exceptional and informative. There is a sizable library of books, pamphlets, and articles written about him; perhaps as many, or more, than any other American. Consider the range in perception of just five selected excerpts from recorded observations by his contemporaries. Then, ponder the question: Why did this young man from such obscure origins, who lived just thirty-eight years, evoke such an immediate and widespread interest—a fascination that continues to expand with time? The answer to this question could illuminate the title of this presentation and help frame the relationship between education and Joseph Smith, the person.

Selection One. Thomas Hamilton, a writer from England visited America in 1831. He published a travelogue entitled: Men and Manners in America (1833). Mr. Hamilton never personally met Joseph Smith but willingly expressed his opinion as if he had. He relates his own experience of traveling toward the Ohio frontier in the early 1830s. He describes the village of Canandaigua at the edge of a beautiful lake, viewing Niagara Falls where the eccentric Sam Patch jumped 125 ft. to his death from a rock below the Horseshoe in 1829, and notes in detail the variety of human traffic he encountered while moving along the Erie Canal.

He writes, “We passed also several parties of . . . Mormonites, going to a settlement established by their founder, in Ohio.” Hamilton acknowledged he had never heard of this sect before, but willingly passed on considerable imaginative, here-say commentary such as,

I gleaned the following particulars from one of [my fellow] passengers. A bankrupt storekeeper, whose name I think was Smith, had an extraordinary dream. It directed him to go alone to a particular spot . . . where he was to dig to a certain depth. This dream was of course treated as a mere delusion, and, as is usual in such cases, was thrice repeated . . . Having dug to the requisite depth . . . he found a book with golden clasps and cover, and a pair of elegantly mounted spectacles . . . astonishing magnifiers . . . . Smith had some difficulty in undoing the clasps of this precious volume, but on opening it, though his eyes were good, it appeared to contain nothing but blank paper. It then occurred to him to fit on his spectacles, when, lo! The whole volume was filled with certain figures and pothooks to him unintelligible. Delighted with his good fortune, Smith trudged home with the volume in his pocket and the spectacles on his nose, happy as a bibliomaniac . . . lucky enough to purchase a rare [document] dog cheap from an ignorant proprietor.

In the same vein Mr. Hamilton continues his explanation of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, which he attributed to “a converted Rabbi, who flourished in the days of our Saviour . . . that continues to puzzle theologians” (pp. 310-313). This is one view of Joseph from the perspective of a rather flippant wayfaring soul intent on entertaining his readers.

Selection Two. A second, more serious view of Joseph Smith appears in the Dublin University Magazine of March 1843. This article from a venerated Old World academic institution is entitled, “Mormonism; or, New Mohammedanism in England and America.” The treatise begins,

We are accustomed to boast of the intelligence of the nineteenth century. . . . Mormonism is a bitter reply to our self-laudation; . . . it exhibits to us a convicted swindler received as a prophet by thousands in both hemispheres—a literary forgery so thoroughly absurd . . . yet recognized as revelation, and placed on the same level of authority as the Bible itself. . . . Hundreds of our countrymen annually quit their homes to join the ranks of the impostor in the wilds of Illinois. . . . We have conversed with these deluded men; on all subjects, save religion, we have found them shrewd, clever, and well-informed; but, when reference was made to Mormonism, they at once became insensible to reason and argument; neither clergymen nor layman could turn them from their error, or convince them of the absurdity of their proceedings.” p. 283.

Consider the overt implication of these two accounts. They demonstrate that in both hemispheres, less than 20 years after he became known beyond his hometown village, people in very common walks of life as well as highly esteemed social circles, felt compelled to say something about Joseph Smith—whether they had met him in person or not. And this was in a day when communication was very slow, sometimes dangerous, and often difficult and expensive.

Selection Three. A third observer, Samuel A. Prior, a Methodist minister, visited Nauvoo, Illinois in 1843. Reverend Prior writes that he “left home with no very favourable opinions of the Latter-day Saints,” thinking of them “as being of quite another race from the rest of mankind and holding no affinity to the human family.” He speaks of his disappointment when he arrived in Nauvoo in 1843. Instead of finding a few “miserable log cabins and mud hovels,” as he expected, he was

surprised to see one of the most romantic places that I had visited in the west. . . . I heard not an oath in the place, I saw not a gloomy countenance; all were cheerful, polite, and industrious. I conversed with many leading men—found them social and well-informed, hospitable, and generous. ¹

Nowhere, reported Reverend Prior, did he find evidence of the deprecation and villainy he had heard applied so often to this people.

Selection Four. A fourth witness was Josiah Quincy, a well-educated attorney from Massachusetts, who served as the mayor of Boston (1845-1848). Mr. Quincy, in company with Charles Frances Adams, made an unintended visit to Nauvoo, Illinois in May of 1844. Josiah was impressed with what he saw and marveled that a frontier city of 15,000 or more, could be built in less than half a decade. The location and setting was striking; a mile long Main Street that began and ended on the same river—a fact as unique as the city’s name. These two visitors saw a university in the making, a large imposing temple under construction, and some 2,500 log, frame, and brick buildings on the edge of a wilderness. Mr. Quincy said he felt the energy of a peculiar people. The site and the circumstances amazed this politician, a man very familiar with America in her infant state. But, more than anything else, he was struck by the founder of this unusual enterprise. As viewed by Josiah Quincy, Joseph Smith was an admirable mystery.

Four decades later, after due reflection, this prominent legislator was still inclined to write: “Joseph Smith . . . a rare being” has exerted a “wonderful influence” and notwithstanding unsavory criticisms, he is a “phenomenon to be explained.” The mayor went on to project that the day may come when Joseph Smith, the American Prophet, could be recognized as the historical figure of the nineteenth century that “exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen.” Mr. Quincy asserted that “the most vital questions Americans are asking each other today have to do with this man and what he has left us . . . [and admitted that] a generation other than mine must deal with these questions. Burning questions they are.” Mr. Quincy noted that Joseph Smith “talked from a strong mind utterly unenlightened by the teachings of history.” Though not always complimentary of the Mormons, Josiah was careful to state, “I have no theory to advance respecting this extraordinary man.” (Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past: From the Leaves of Old Journals (pp. 376-400).

Selection Five. Finally, an observation from a man who, in June of 1844, shared the tiny room in Carthage Jail where Joseph and his brother Hyrum were murdered by an angry mob. John Taylor testified of the victims’ innocence and proclaimed: “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.” (The Doctrine and Covenants 135:3)

So, here we have a range of views—the ridiculous to the sublime. At one end Joseph is disparaged and on the other he is eulogized. It is the making of an enigma; a puzzle caused by an inscrutable and mysterious personality. Why is Joseph not just summarily dismissed by his peers? Why, after 200 years, is America’s Library of Congress now co-sponsoring a symposium in honor of his bicentennial birth? These are among numerous questions that have yet to be adequately resolved in the minds of many people. Perhaps these and other questions, if we had appropriate answers, could shed some light on this quandary. Consider just these six selected from an extended parade of legitimate queries:

Why did this young, unschooled, energetic, frontier boy, who grew to be such a charismatic man, attract so much positive and negative attention?

Why did his notoriety spread world-wide in less than two decades?

What did he do or say that impacted so many individuals so deeply?

Why did the established social order react so violently toward him?

Why did the Church he founded evolve from a small persecuted band to a major religious influence in the United States and the world?

What did Joseph Smith learn and teach that has had such a powerful impact?

This list of questions could be expanded many times over. My immediate interest, however, is the central element of the last question. Does what Joseph Smith learned and taught qualify him to be considered America’s Greatest Educator? In response, I propose that Joseph be viewed as a Minister of Education and let his record speak to the question. No other educational title seems to better describe his mission.

II

Joseph Smith as a Minister of Education

Joseph Smith fits well the definition traditionally applied in many lands to Ministers of Education. Socially, a minister is one who attends to the needs and wants of others. He looks, sees, and then does what is necessary, considering available resources, to respond to the welfare of those whom he is appointed to serve. Legally, in the historical sense, a minister is a person responsible to the King who appoints him. He is the highest officer over the stewardship bestowed upon him; he represents the Sovereign and is invested with the authority to implement the benefits of his ministry among the people.

Joseph Smith certainly fits both the social and legal descriptions of a Minister of Education. His appointment came from a Heavenly King. ² He worked with the resources at hand and carefully bestowed them for the benefit of the people he served. His entire life was devoted to learning, teaching, ministering, and organizing others to do the same. He did what he wanted others to do. He was what he wanted others to become. He never compromised his mission or violated his office.

As a minister of education, Joseph Smith can be defined and ranked both in terms of (1) the propositions he espoused, and (2) the ongoing consequences of what he initiated. These matters may be compared to a variety of elements associated with educational endeavors in human society. This task is a little spongy because education is such an amorphous subject; it is real but it has no definite form. People view education in a wide variety of ways. There are remarkable degrees of difference. Nevertheless, some common categories exist. Among these, would be:

Every family, church, and school has its own version of these elements. But the extent to which they become formal and explicit varies dramatically. Nevertheless, these are among the fundamental criteria by which one can assess an educator and his or her educational efforts. It is with these elements in mind that I make a few cursory comparisons. A book or several books would be required to treat all the relevant topics as they might apply to Joseph Smith. What follows is only a snapshot of Joseph Smith as a minister of education; it is a brief description of his ideas and performance compared to some other beliefs and practices. The contrasts are rather stark, but they help illustrate the uniqueness of Joseph’s educational thought.

In order to appreciate the significance of these contrasts, it is necessary to recognize two or three of the most fundamental assumptions driving educational thought in western society—particularly as they are manifest in America. Several basic educational squabbles have been etched on the American scene since the birth of Joseph Smith. They each emerged from serious questions about what is real, who should be in charge, and why people act like they do. Joseph had considerable to say about such notions. His views were often at variance with what was commonly accepted at the time, and they remain so today—notwithstanding how the popular options change from time to time. His insights are unique and sometimes disturbing to the status quo. To some people they may appear uncomfortable, if not heretical; for others they can be considered standards for evaluation, foundational elements on which to build.

III

Authority

At the very root of all educational processes lies the question of authority. When authority raises its head all other issues tend to pale into insignificance. The presence and acceptance of power is essential to the longevity of any educational effort. The modern world cites a variety of “authorities” for its educational programs: the individual, the family, a particular group, the state, society at large, a governing person—king, ruler, and magistrate have all been mentioned. The person or group that fashions the critical decisions in an educational endeavor is central to nearly all the other functions that could or do occur. Authority is the fuel that sustains the function of education in human society. Where there is no authority there can be no formal, definitive education—there can only be confusion and chaos.

Western culture can be viewed as generating four general responses to the question of authority. These perspectives are like platforms upon which people have stood to launch their respective programs and proclaim the reasons for pursuing education the way they do. The basic assumptions people make regarding education are not in agreement. Education in America has been and still is shaped by four rather distinct approaches. Each of these views can be easily envisioned in principle by considering two basic axes of concern.

The first axis contrasts the view that there is a supernatural and a natural dimension to reality, with the notion that there is only a natural domain and nothing else. In other words, there are people who believe the universe is composed of two building blocks—spirit stuff and physical stuff—to put it bluntly. Then, there are people who believe there is no spirit stuff, only physical stuff. The result is somewhat like the two ends of a teeter-totter, there is a continuum along which degrees of differences have been strongly expressed. But at center point the issue shifts, the basic assumption changes, and the difference is exclusive.

Supernatural No Supernatural

and a _________________________________________ only a

Natural Domain Natural Domain

Second, there is another axis of belief that views the individual as the primary authority in educational matters, versus the notion that the society or the group is the primary source of authority in these endeavors.

Individual ___________________________________________ Society

When these two axes are diagramed to intersect at the center, one vertical and the other horizontal, four quadrants—directions or domains—for the development of contrasting educational programs emerge. These quadrants of belief in differing assumptions drive people in different directions. It doesn’t require a great deal of probing to discover a person’s preferences. Although these mutually exclusive domains vary by degree within each quadrant, the views between the quadrants are markedly different. They do drive people in different directions. Where a person stands on these matters largely determines what type of educator he or she will endeavor to be.

It makes a difference if a person believes there is a supernatural domain or there isn’t. It makes a difference who one believes authorizes and is fundamentally in charge of education—the individual or the society—regardless of whether that society is a church or a secular institution. Proponents and opponents to these differing views have been very active in the history of American education, as well as in other nations. ³Notwithstanding a considerable variety of programs may appear in each of the quadrants, the basic premises are easy to discern.

1. The lower left quadrant of authority sponsored the traditional form of schooling in early American history. It was religious or parochial in nature. Those who favor this realm believe there is both a natural and supernatural dimension to existence. They also presume the authority of the church or some similar social institution takes precedence over the preferences of the individual. These assumptions are manifest in the organization, implementation, and methodology of instruction that is created, promoted, and utilized. Hence, authority is manifest in a hierarchal pattern:

2. In the lower right quadrant, people reject the notion of a supernatural dimension to existence and presume reality is simply a natural or physical domain. The assumption is clothed in a purely secular, naturalistic wardrobe. In this realm society also prevails over the individual as the primary source of authority. The society controls education, not the individual.

3. In the upper right quadrant, people also reject the notion of a supernatural dimension to existence and presume reality is simply a natural or physical domain. In this realm the individual, not the society, is the primary source of authority. The individual dictates education. The function of the child is to live his or her own life, not the life that his government, anxious parents or some teacher who thinks he knows best, feels the child should live. The teacher, school, and government exist to serve the individual’s desires. Autonomy and self determination reign supreme. This type of education is often discussed, occasionally pursued, but seldom established.

4. In the upper left hand quadrant, people accept the reality of both a supernatural and a natural domain. They may also acknowledge that each individual is composed of both a spiritual and physical dimension. In this realm, primary authority and responsibility for personal education resides with the individual, but there are limitations and external expectations that need to be acknowledged. The individual is subject to and has an imperative interactive relationship with God. The individual may also have a vital, interactive, and responsible relationship with other persons who may assist in the teaching/learning process. Individuals also may have an interactive relationship with society—but society exists to serve and support rather than dictate in educational matters. Authority is derived from and manifest through each of these relationships. The family institution may play a vital role in this approach to education. (D&C 68:25–34)

In this quadrant, the individual is viewed as an agent with inherent freedoms for self- determination. But he or she also acknowledges a supernatural influence that gives context to his or her actions. Individuals are not autonomous; they are independent but have a shared relationship with authority. An individual in this domain also accepts and honors the fact that others who may be the teachers also are accountable as individuals to the superior influence of supernatural authority. Therefore, all individuals stand on equal ground; each perceiving that social institutions exist to serve the interests of the individual and not the other way around. ⁴

A third axis could be added to this pattern for thinking about education. It would be the Nature versus Nurture axis. The question underlying this axis is: Are individuals basically determined by their nature to become whatever they become, or are they basically nurtured into what they can become with wide and varied possibilities? Are people basically formed by some genetic or an acquired functions? Where one positions himself or herself on this third teeter- totter, which also intersects the previous two concerns, does influence the kind of educational path one will travel. But I will forego adding that visual complexity in this discussion; it would be a great topic in another forum. Suffice it to say, there are fundamental questions that affect educational practice. Recognizing the different and often conflicting answers to these questions helps one understand Joseph Smith’s views of education and the foundations upon which these views rest. He was aware that no educational enterprise can safely extend beyond the foundation upon which it is built. And the foundations of an educational program do invite unavoidable consequences; the influence of foundations is significant. It is folly to assume otherwise.

IV

Historical Options

The foregoing issues generally shape the educational efforts of humankind. What people believe about God, Nature, and Man dictate in one way or another how education is perceived, designed, and delivered. The consequences are numerous and significant. Three historical examples that have influenced American society illustrate this point. (A) The ancient Hebrews had their views, as did (B) the Greeks, and so does (C) our Modern society. The differences in these three world views are fundamental and often dramatic. Western culture is now a social conglomerate of all three vying for attention and allegiance. Some people would say our contemporary society is a hodge-podge of various combinations of these three intellectual tributaries. American education did emerge from this multi-dispensational drainage of ideas—in Joseph’s day as well as our own. This flood of conflicting notions has washed over but failed to erode the premises held by Joseph Smith.

It is helpful to understand the basic ideas underlying these three divergent traditions of belief, as they have tumbled down through time. Such a perception sets in relief and highlights the unique significance of Joseph’s view of education. A brief summary of the conflicts could read like this:

The Hebrew premise is that God created (1) man, (2) the world on which humankind lives, and (3) the universe in which Earth is situated. Contemporary Western culture has now essentially rejected these premises because the referent is God. The path leading away from this world view, which envisioned God as a person, offered several evolving options: (a) from God is a mystery to God is an un-embodied force; (b) then toward God is nature; (c) a current notion that perhaps Man is god—if one has to apply the title. The educator John Dewey expressed the latter view as, “god” is the power to create mental images and convert those images into action ⁵. Whatever path was followed, modern American education no longer holds that the prime educational value is to become like God is, by doing what God says and does. Many people still favor this view, but it is no longer acceptable as a national ideal or an educational objective in the public domain.

The ancient Hebrew notion that God is a person, an immortal being, our Father, the same yesterday, today, and forever—has now been replaced with secular humanistic policy. The old Hebrew view was significantly blurred; first, by the people’s rejection of authorized prophets and apostles, then by substituting a merger of Christian theology with Greek philosophy during the early centuries A.D. The Hebrew/Christian concepts of Sin, the Fall, a need for a Redeemer, an Atonement, a physical Resurrection, or God as a person with body parts and passions, all became debatable. These topics were repeatedly fashioned and refashioned over the centuries. Subsequently, such doctrines have essentially been set aside in American public discourse. Court rulings during the 20th century separated religious doctrines from government related practice.

America’s “Christian” heritage is now increasingly disavowed in public education, state, and federal institutions. It is an old story with familiar outcomes. Today’s social secularization of education would have troubled Joseph as deeply as did the conflicting creeds of the religions during his day. ⁶ Joseph saw education as a way to honor, not avoid God’s role in human affairs.

This modern transition from a sacred to a secular perspective in western culture was a rerun of a similar change in ancient Greek society. However one may view the imperfect supernatural characters described in the Iliad and the Odyssey—Zeus, Hera his wife, and their twelve children, the gods of Mt. Olympus—they did represent a cultural image of supernatural authority; an image that was ultimately rejected by the intellectual community. The philosophical ideal expressed in Plato’s Republic and the works of other Greek enlightenment theorists moved people away from the concept of Deity as a person. The Golden Age of Greece embraced a new view of authority, a type of secular psychology founded on reason and rhetoric. Basically, it was the notion implied in the Greek word encyclopedia: put your foot in the center of the universe and seek knowledge, in order to admire, appreciate and celebrate the Cosmos. Knowing became the prime educational value. The Sophists, a new vocation of teachers, made a profession of promoting this emerging society. The celebration and appeasement of the traditional anthropomorphic “gods” faded. The idea of “God” was no longer conceived as a person. Greek culture was “modernized.” And the concept of human destiny changed. The new idea of the individual becoming a disembodied transient intellect, capable of fusing with the Cosmic Mind, rather than an eternal embodied personality, flourished. ⁷

Society changed because basic beliefs and education changed. This seems always to be the case.

The new view was exhilarating; secular excitement in Greek culture stimulated admirable temporal achievements that dazzled not only Rome, but ultimately modern Western education. Science, art, music, and a great variety of divergent schools of thought flourished. The power and the fruits of the human intellect were compelling. As a consequence, influential people reveled in the idea that man’s ultimate positive destiny was to abandon his or her personal identity and become one with the Cosmic Mind. It was the Cosmos that was eternal—the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, not the individual. This fit well with the secular mood of that day. It sustained the Platonic notion of philosopher/kings and complemented the science of the day. Knowledge based on reason was the key to this eternal connection; everything else seemed temporary. Crime was possible. People could commit errors. But there was no word for Sin. The idea of a Fall, a Redeemer, an Atonement, or physical Resurrection, simply didn’t fit into the mindset of Greek education or the Roman version that followed (see Acts 17:16–21). The merging of this Greco-Roman perspective with early and late medieval Christianity was indeed philosophy mingled with scripture. The transition from the past to the then unforeseen future was set in motion. An influence that was to tantalize modern education was born.

The seemingly random merging of these two old contradictory world views with the conflicting perspective of the modern post-industrial world has created an indescribable tangle of educational ideas. An intellectual trip through modern educational thought for many, if not most people, creates a distinct feeling. It is akin to viewing an old house composed of multiple and indiscriminate add-ons—a room here and room there. There is a sense of ongoing striving to assemble something from a loose assortment of rather jumbled factors. The clearly documented history makes it evident why such could be the case. The traditions from which most aspects of contemporary education are formed constitute a jumble of ideas and practices that were not derived from, or even associated with, the same basic assumptions. Little wonder that today’s educational edifice looks like it does—a structure without an architect. The resulting sense of existing uncertainty alone, offers a fairly compelling reason for one to wonder how we got from where we came from to where we are now. At least it seems so to me. That is one good reason to consider Joseph Smith’s views.

V

From There and Then, to Here and Now

The larger historical path that led from the ideological conflicts of antiquity, to the perplexity in Joseph Smith’s day, and on to present-day educational concerns is quite clear. The trek was away from (a) revealed doctrine, principles, and practices through (b) philosophy, logic, and rhetoric, to (c) hypothesis, experiments, and scientific theory. The intellectual divide over which education passed was precarious; it traveled through deep canyons between three great peaks: the Reformation, Renaissance, and Enlightenment. These three monuments to change emerged from the landscape of Western culture during the 15th through the 18th centuries. These striking alterations in the cultural landscape, the results of socially seismic activity, helped fashion the formation of modern education. Reasons for sending children to school changed and changed and changed. So did the nature of their schooling. The various developments created an exciting epoch of both positive and questionable outcomes. Certain basic issues born long ago, however, lived on.

Many positive results appeared. For example, these three great movements sufficiently uprooted autocratic and dictatorial rule, to lay a foundation for individual freedom and a democratic social order. This was new. The leverage for this change was provided by a spirit of personal exploration, a remarkable increase in literacy, and an advanced vision of human transportation. The printing press was invented, explorers seemed to go in every direction, and individuals flexed their capacity to decide for themselves in both religious and secular matters. The real but battle-scarred result was the discovery of a new world, new opportunity for individual growth, and a redistribution of governing powers. A major impetus for these activities seemed to be a pervasive spiritual exhilaration not associated with any particular religious organization.

The Greek influence, among others, was evident; an ancient pattern apparent. It was like a larger than life rerun of her Golden Age (@ 5th century B.C.) As it had before, an energetic Enlightenment gave forth a modern science; an exhilarating Renaissance provided a new humanities; the liberation of a Reformation of protest in personal belief gave birth to a multitude of new religious sects and a powerful urge for civil freedom. Elements of the past became deeply entwined with concepts of the future. The tension lines escalated and vibrated with violence when plucked. Education was hardly equal to the task of establishing order, equity, or justice. The gateways to greater civilized conduct burst open, but people were hardly prepared to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. Temporal prosperity over-ran moral discipline. As it had been, so it was again; flooding freedom carried with it a significant amount of chaotic debris and confusion. The social order grew and expanded as the moral order wobbled with a new form of dizzy indifference. The fresh options in religion, professions, and social relations seemed to invite new forms of apathy.

This was the world into which Joseph Smith was born (1805)—19th century America. In his day the great shift, that moved people away from a belief in a universe created from two building blocks—spirit and matter—to a belief that all reality is simply physical matter, was just an embryonic image in the New World. It was still in incubation. But the stage was clearly set in American culture for the birth of secularism; a monumental transition in the power structure was about to occur. Religionists in Joseph’s day could not explain what spirit was and they did not agree on how to define an abstract God. This deficiency was to prove indefensible in the face of a rapidly changing scientific and technological world. And so the shift occurred during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, first among the academic intellect and subsequently on Main Street U. S. A. Between 1880 and 1920 the transition in thought became comfortable among a critical mass of intellectuals. Control of higher education changed hands. It was now convenient to believe and to teach that creation could be viewed as spontaneous, accidental, evolutionary, or benevolent chance. To the skeptical mind this view was more persuasive than belief in a mysterious, incomprehensible power that fashioned the universe out of nothing. ⁸

Religious instruction and belief in Joseph’s day was poised on the edge of this turmoil. He lived on the cusp of the great change that was destined to spawn a full-fledged secular society in America—a society based on what has been called the secularization hypothesis: the more we learn about the secular, the less need there is for the spiritual. And this brings us back to the issue of authority, which can now be considered within a context that displays greater clarity and appreciation for what Joseph Smith espoused as a Minister of Education. His views were radical to the educators and religionists of his day. Now, two centuries later, they appear even more sweepingly prophetic and perhaps to some frustratingly enigmatic—hard to understand, difficult to ignore. Today’s theory and practice of education is considered by many to be a quivering structure. When placed next to the propositions Joseph Smith put forth, this enterprise fades in comparison, seemingly ignoring crucial issues. Both in its scope of purpose and its vision for learning and teaching, contemporary American education falls dramatically short due to one major flaw: Current educational methods, media, technology, and achievements, admirable as they may seem, increasingly appear out of touch with a viable moral order. Mark 8:36) Joseph Smith offered a clear and simple solution.

VI

Joseph Smith’s Tutors

No person can become a truly great educator, without first becoming an effective student worthy of becoming authorized. Joseph learned this lesson early. And the quality of a student’s education is significantly related to the teachers under whom the individual studies—those who empower his or her qualification. Joseph Smith was a focused learner; his deepest desire was to become qualified and perform well. He had an extra-ordinary preparation, as well as remarkable and continuous in-service training. This exceptional instruction is obviously the key to the unique educational enterprise he initiated. In just twenty-four years he laid the foundations and sketched the future pattern for a remarkable teaching/learning institution upon which his successors have built. This was no ordinary venture; it was an endeavor that not only spanned the continents of this world, but extended into eternity. This is why he needed a special faculty to prepare him to be a minister of education—a minister who perceived and pointed toward an expanding program of education as:

• An Individual Function
• A Family Obligation
• A Church Responsibility
• A State Interest

Joseph was born into a supportive family. Whatever his native talents, they were enhanced by the love and emotional support of his immediate family. The social and financial circumstances of his parents, however, restricted his exposure to formal education. His boyhood schooling was limited or shielded, which ever one chooses to believe. But during his teen-age years, the desires of his heart led him into an unusual and unique personal experience. He sought and received an audience with God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and felt the influence of the Holy Ghost. This experience was followed with numerous tutorials by former prophets and servants of God who had long since passed beyond the veil of mortality. This cadre of teachers constituted the faculty from which he obtained his knowledge and direction. They were individuals with divine commissions to prepare him for his work. Though Joseph sought no personal recognition by identifying himself with his teachers, the records of their influence remain.

Among the additional personalities mentioned who enriched his knowledge were Adam [?Eve]; Seth, Enoch, and Noah; Moses, Elias, and Elijah; Peter, James, and John; John the Baptist, others of Jesus’ Twelve Apostles in the Holy land, and the Twelve appointed Disciples in the New World; Paul the apostle, Moroni, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and apparently many others. These were instructors who understood humankind. They knew the origin, nature, and destiny of God’s children and all that pertained to them. A primary result of this process of preparation was, as Joseph Smith could say to his earthly associates, “I have the whole plan of the kingdom before me, and no other person has.” This was not a statement of braggadocio, it was for him simply a statement of fact. Not only did it reflect his knowledge, it revealed the authenticity of his authority. ¹⁰ It was an authority he seldom referred to but always seemed to emulate. He didn’t flaunt his credentials, he simply loved and served the people because of them.

VII

Fundamental Propositions

The uniqueness of Joseph Smith’s view on education is rooted in the dramatically different perspective he expressed on the nature of God, spirit, matter, space, and light. His proclamations on these fundamental issues struck like lightning through a dark sky. They still do.

Who or What is God? The discussion of God in America has flourished under a canopy of abstraction. Amidst the conversations appear such phrases as:

• Unmoved Mover
• Undefined being with certain described qualities
• A Mystery
• Nature
• The Universe or Cosmic Mind
• A transcendent influence that created the world but does not intervene
• Incomprehensible perfect being
• The human power that transforms thought into action
• Love
• A spirit, an essence, without body parts or passions
• An absentee Landlord

Most of these ideas had been circulating for hundreds of years. None of them were really definitive; applied to God, they are mental abstractions. The terminology offered word symbols but nothing concrete and unifying. They were naming explanations, not explaining explanations. People talked about God. They gave him descriptive names, but who claimed to know who he was or what he looked like? God was a mystery—even to those who proposed to represent him. If there is an eternal God and if it is the key to eternal life to know him, that must be important.

Joseph Smith erased this quandary in simple, straightforward language. He had the answer. He taught what he knew by his own experience: God is a person; he is our Father, the literal father of our spirit bodies. His name is Elohim and he has a resurrected body of flesh and bones as tangible as man. Jesus Christ is his Son, who also has a resurrected body just like the Father. The Holy Ghost is a person, but he does not have a body of flesh and bone—he is a personage of Spirit. They are all separate beings; they constitute the Godhead and all share in the same purpose—bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of all who reside on this earth which they created and maintain for us. Humankind existed as individuals in a pre-mortal estate with God. This information sent shock waves through the theological world that continue to this day. “It can’t be,” the critics cried. Why not? It was only what sacred scripture had proclaimed from the very beginning. (Genesis 1, 2; D&C 130:22–23) “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God” (TPJS, p. 345), said Joseph. This should be the most treasured knowledge of all. What could be of greater value?

What is spirit? The term spirit, frequently used by theologians and early philosophers also come trailing conceptual uncertainty. Spirit is mentioned in a variety of ways, for example:

• Thought
• Air set in motion by breathing
• Conscience, fellowship, and intuition
• Life, living substance
• Immaterial, immortal part of man
• A disembodied soul A supernatural being
• Energy
• A disposition of the human mind
• An organ that receives and contains God the spirit
• Principle of conscious life
• The incorporeal part of humans as opposed to matter

Again, there was and is an intellectual reach, but little or nothing to grasp.

Joseph answered the question simply and directly. He said “All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure” than physical matter “and can only be discerned by purer eyes . . . We cannot see it, but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (D&C 131:7–8, italics added). This concept alone would revolutionize most contemporary education; the implications for perceiving the student and constructing curriculum are immense.

Along with the fundamental questions about God and spirit, Joseph also spoke out on the ambiguity associated with matter, space, and light; issues that also relate to deeper educational concerns. He explained that light from God’s presence fills the immensity of space. And all existence is subject to law. There is no space in which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified. He was given to understand by his teachers that only that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same. (D&C 88:34–39) Light is a necessary companion to the truth, and truth is a knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they will be. To seek the truth without the light is folly. Light enables a person to understand the proper application of knowledg— which is the beginning of wisdom. (D&C section 93) Concepts like these could and should influence how one views education.

Such thoughts, which were understood by Joseph, could also make the minds of the most gifted physicists and mathematical theorists tremble with curiosity. ¹¹ He was taught how God governs and what we should do in response to that divine governance. He revealed how God speaks, what constitutes his voice, how we may hear that voice, and what impact this can have on our personal being. (D&C 88:66–68) Joseph did not proclaim himself an elitist in his educational thought. What he was given, he offered freely to others. All who were willing to qualify themselves could know what he knew. This knowledge was not his creation; it was given to him and his ministry was to share it with all who would accept. In fact, he said this was the purpose of education on this mortal sphere— “to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another,” because “when we understand the character of God, and know how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.” (TPJS pp. 345, 350) His view of education was not restricted to this exalted realm; he connected that lofty view to this earth and the issues of everyday mortal life. In addition to the eternal designs, Joseph proclaimed to his community the purpose of education was to “diffuse that kind of knowledge, which will be of practical utility, and for the public good, and also for private and individual happiness.” ¹²

Man is Eternal. Joseph was taught not only that God was a person, the literal father of our spirit body—a being we can know and converse with—but that each human being is eternal. Death will not cause us to cease to exist; it will not result in our losing personal identity; rather, it is a doorway to a more exalted sphere of personal opportunity. Not only is this to be the case individually, but it also comes with an invitation to preserve family relationships—husband and wife, parents and children, generation to generation. That which is on earth in its pure and undefiled pattern is and will be in heaven. This was the grand purpose that comprehended the aims of education. Education was to be a means for perpetuating the existence of family relationships in the eternal context. Such vision puts the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic into an entirely new role and elevates the significance of learning to a whole new level. It was an extraordinary perspective then and remains so today.

Man is an agent, free to choose. In the face of “doctrines” that maintained humans were not independent agents free to choose right from wrong such as:

• Man is a fallen creature, predestined to either heaven or hell by an arbitrary God.
• People are essentially products of their environment.
• Humankind is shaped and controlled by genetics, which may be engineered.

Joseph proclaimed another view. He had learned that humanity was, at its very core, unique from the rest of creation. People did not belong to the (a) kingdom of minerals, (b) kingdom of vegetables, or (c) kingdom of animals. Humans were of divine origin, children of God, inherently members of the kingdom of God and potential heirs to all its rewards. Joseph knew there were “things that act and things that are acted upon;” that humanity was created to act, not to be acted upon”—[except] by the law of justice according to the commandments of God. (2 Nephi 2:26.) People are free to act; God has given humankind to know good from evil and has made them free to act according to their own desires. (Helaman 14:30–31) Hence, the most important of all education, was the education of a person’s desires.

Joseph Smith’s doctrine of human agency and freedom can be summarized in eight fundamental statements: (see D&C 93:29–31)

The Phoenicia 600 B.C ship replica

The History Channel recently released a documentary called Who Really Discovered America? which explores a number of possible incursions into the America’s by the ancients.  In the film they discuss the Book of Mormon account of the voyage of Lehi and his family.  Unfortunately, they consulted with Mesoamerican theorists in concluding that Lehi’s voyage would have taken them from the Saudi Arabian peninsula to the western shores of Mesoamerica.  This resulted in oceanographic research which showed, using ‘drifters’ (floating bouy’s that transmit their positions to satellites orbiting earth) that the route would have taken at least 580 days!  That is only four months short of two years.  They then rightfully conclude that a ship could make such a long voyage, but the occupants could not store enough food and water for such a lengthy trip, and thus the Book of Mormon and Church upon which it is based, is summarily dismissed as being impossible.  Watch the clip from the History Channel by going to the VIDEO GALLERY and clicking on #16.  Thus, because of using Mesoamerican theories, the Church and the Book of Mormon are discredited.

Those who attended the FIRM Foundation’s National Conference in April were treated to a first-hand account by Keith Johnson of an incredibly important expedition for Book of Mormon enthusiasts. Keith, one of two members of the Church who joined the expedition, sailed for three weeks from the Comoros Islands to Mozambique, gleaning invaluable information relating to Lehi’s voyage in the process. The idea for what is now known as the Phoenicia Ship Expedition, began when several non-Mormon explorers learned of portions of ancient Phoenician ships that had been recovered from the mud of the Mediterranean sea and determined to see if they could confirm the writing of Herodotus in 500 BC who claimed that the Phoenicians (who he also called Israelites) were making circumnavigations of Africa since 600 BC (Lehi’s era).

  This astounding voyage has now demonstrated and corroborated the research proposed by Rod Meldrum in 2006 that Lehi’s group may have left the Arabian Peninsula and sailed around Africa to the America’s rather than attempting to cross the earth’s largest ocean at its widest point, as proposed by Mesoamerican theorists.   The expedition embarked on this ocean-going journey in a re-created wooden sailing ship patterned after the remains of ancient Phoenician vessels that were plying the oceans around Lehi’s time, near 600 B.C.  The expedition has unequivocally demonstrated that a circumnavigation of Africa is not only possible; it is the most likely route for Lehi’s voyage coming from the Old World to the New. The expedition, which left from Oman on the Saudi Arabian peninsula Oct. 26, 2009, reached its final destination less than one year later on Oct. 12, 2010 as it arrived at the Port of Sidon near Beirut, Lebanon in the Mediterranean.

Route intented

The ships captain has been desperately trying to sail north and east toward the Mediterranian from their position just east of Puerto Rico, but the prevailing winds in the Atlantic continued to blow the ship within miles of America!

On the journey between South Africa and the straights of Gibraltar the ship came within a few hundred miles from making landfall in North America! They intended to sail north along the western coastline from Cape Town, South Africa toward the Mediterranean, but the prevailing winds in the southern Atlantic blew them in a northwesterly direction, veering thousands of miles away from the African continent and toward the America’s.  Once they crossed the equator into the North Atlantic the winds continued to blow them to within a couple hundred miles of Puerto Rico, off the southern tip of Florida in North America!

Click on the map and then click ‘track the ships progress.‘  Zoom out using the scale bar on the upper left.

The assumption that Lehi’s family crossed 10,000 miles of the open waters of the Pacific Ocean to land on the west coast of South America is one that must now be re-examined or discarded.  Never before has this level of evidence been available to demonstrate by actual experiment the route most likely to have been taken by Lehi’s family to the Promised Land.  Such profound new evidence potentially validating and verifying the Book of Mormon journey has never before been demonstrated and is truly unprecedented in Book of Mormon geography research. You can track this expeditions progress , see photo’s of the ships construction and learn of the ancient sea-faring Phoenician people who left their homes in the Mediterranean Holy Land near Lebanon, Syria and Palestine by ship to circumnavigate Africa in search of trade goods.  You can read more about their history by clicking HERE.

Such a high level of actual evidence is mostly lacking for routes proposed by Mesoamerican theorists. In fact, the History Channel documentary called Who Really Discovered America actually dismissed the Book of Mormon because of the satellite buoy “drifters” that follow ocean currents, beaming data to scientists who study their movements. Dr. Nikolai Maximenko, Physical Oceanographer with the International Pacific Research Center  estimated that an ocean voyage bearing east from Saudi Arabia across the Indian and Pacific oceans “would have taken 580 days…that’s more than a year and a half!”  Dr. James Delgado with the Institute of Nautical Archaeology then summarizes the problem; “I don’t think there is a question of ships making it.  A vessel can make it with dead people.” With that, the entire premise of the Book of Mormon was dismissed.  How disappointing that they were misguided by information from Mesoamerican theorists when, had they used the research from the Heartland Model geography, they would have found ample evidence and now even direct validation, that such a voyage was not only possible, but probable.

An article titled Sailing with Nephi, in Meridian Magazine by Mesoamerican theorist Warren Aston, discusses an expedition by another ship patterned after a much later 800 AD vessel with a deeper keel which helps it to better sail against contrary winds.  In contrast to the Phoenicia, this ship set sail in February from the Arabian Peninsula in an easterly direction towards their final destination of Singapore, off the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula of Southeast Asia.  The ship, deemed the ‘Jewel of Muscat’ after the port city where it was constructed, completed its journey across the Bay of Bengal arriving in Singapore, Southeast Asia, July 3rd, 2010.  During the voyage they experienced contrary winds and currents that slowed their progress significantly from reaching their destination, which was only made possible by the ships ability to ‘tack’ against the winds.  This is something the earlier design of the 600 B.C. Phoenicia could not have done effectively, due to its shallow hull design. The Phoenicia literally was “driven forth before the wind toward the promised land” (BoM 1 Nephi 18:8) just as described by Nephi.

Aston, a Mesoamerican theory adherent, assumes the route of the Jewel of Muscat for Lehi’s voyage as he states that this ship launched in February of this year, “sailing eastwards across the Indian Ocean toward Singapore in much the same direction that Nephi likely did.“  According to Aston, Nephi  “headed in a different direction” from the Phoenicia expedition. He provided no indication why he believed this to have been the route, nor any evidence to support it. Contrary to Aston’s assumptions, the Book of Mormon provides some critically important clues about when they embarked on their journey.  It was a time of harvest of fruits and honey.

“And it came to pass that on the morrow, after we had prepared all things, much fruits and meat from the wilderness, and honey in abundance, and provisions according to that which the Lord had commanded us, we did go down into the ship, with all our loading and our seeds, and whatsoever thing we had brought with us,… “ (BoM 1 Nephi 18:6)

The summer rainy season along the coast of the Saudi Arabian peninsula occurs in the spring and summer. Date palms bear their fruit after these rains and are harvested from late June through early October.  Flowering plants bloom, enticing bees to produce honey which is harvested in June and November.  Lehi’s family harvested fruits and honey just prior to embarking on their epic journey.  To do so would require they leave during late summer to early fall.  The prevailing winds along the southern Saudi Arabian peninsula alternate from blowing northeasterly in the spring and summer, to southwesterly in the fall and winter months. Were Lehi to cast off for the land of promise after gathering fruits and honey, the winds would naturally have been blowing from the northeast toward the southwest.  A sailing ship would have, of necessity, been blown by the wind south along the coast of Africa, rather than east toward India.  The natural Indian Ocean currents move in a counterclockwise rotation southward along the east African coast as well, making it the most logical direction for travel in a sailing ship.

This route also allows for periodic stops along the coast of Africa to acquire fresh water, food and a break from the monotony of weeks at sea. The Phoenicians actually planted crops for future expeditions along this route.  While rounding the tip of South Africa, about 115 miles from the Cape of Good Hope the good ship Phoenicia encountered a mighty storm that ripped the main sail in pieces amidst 6-7 meter high massive waves.  After repairs were made and the ship resupplied, they left South Africa March 22, 2010 headed north along the west coastline of Africa.  It was then that the route took a dramatic turn…to the northwest.  The ship was being continually blown northwest, carried by the ocean currents and surface winds that circulate counter clockwise in the southern Atlantic, often making nearly 100 miles a day!  They continued north over the equator where they then entered the clockwise rotation of the northern Atlantic which continued to cause the ship to veer further and further west until they found themselves only 300-400 miles off of the coast of Puerto Rico.  Had they not been so determined to fight against the currents and continue north, at the rate they were traveling, they could have made landfall in the America’s in four days.  Instead they continued north, making their farthest westerly point on June 12th.  By this time they were about the same latitude as Florida and they began to gain the northeasterly currents that then swooped them back east toward the Azores in the mid-Atlantic.  From the Azores they sailed north in order to catch the southeasterly currents that eventually took them south to the straits of Gibraltar and finally across the Mediterranean Sea to their destination.

The longest leg of their journey, from South Africa to their most westerly point near North America took 74 sailing days, less than three months at sea.  They did make two stops on this leg at St. Helena Island and Ascension Island, which may have been stops for Lehi’s group as well, since they were being led by the Lord through the Liahona.  The ship, about 60-70 feet in length with a crew of between 9 and 18 could accommodate enough fresh water and food for such a journey.  There would have been no requirement to cross the mighty Pacific Ocean, the largest on the planet at its widest point against the known currents just so that they could land on the west coast of Central or South America somewhere as speculated by some LDS theorists.

Some have claimed, incorrectly, that there is a scriptural requirement for a west coast landing.  However, nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it state that they sailed east in their ship or that they landed on the west coast of the promised land.  This assumption is unfortunately based on a false report that Joseph Smith claimed that Lehi “…landed on the continent of South America in Chile, thirty degrees South Latitude” and has been thoroughly refuted by Church scholars (See Robert J. Matthews article on the subject HERE).  This account has been shown to have been written in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams in the margins of the Bernhisel Manuscript.  It was a false report that was then promulgated time and again by faulty research, claiming that Joseph was its author.  That this claim, thought to be made by Joseph Smith, has been shown through historical documentation to have been falsely attributed, is further evidence for the need of solid historical documentation for all claims regarding the mind of the prophet.  More on this will be discussed in the upcoming book, Joseph Knew.

L. Hannah Stoddard was home and privately educated.  She started early, at age 11, working with her father on her first documentary video as graphic design artist.  At 13, she became a primary researcher with her mother for the Joseph Smith Foundation FAQs and InspiraWiki projects.  By 14, she was starting her own web design and development business while continuing software development on Inspira Timelines and Maps with her younger brother, James.  She started taking UVU college courses at 16 while intensely researching the link between the prophetic signs of the times in the latter days and Book of Mormon history.  She is currently directing the documentary video, For Our Day: Prophetic Parallels in the Book of Mormon and is the co-founder of Maidens with a Mission.  She also co-directs Joseph Smith Foundation projects including Joseph Smith Forum, Joseph Smith Academy, ZionVision and Brigham Young Academy.

Author Papers

• L. Hannah Stoddard
• Book of Mormon Passages for Biblical Christians

The Scriptural Basis for the Heartland Model

Rod L. Meldrum

Many proposed Book of Mormon geography theories were originated using a method proposed by Dr. John Sorenson and others who taught that the first step was to create a hypothetical or “internal” map using the 500+ geography related passages. This has lead to more than 150 different proposed geographies. The book was not written for its geography, but for its prophecies. Can we learn more about its geography through its prophecies than we can by speculating using hypothetical maps? Following is a brief synopsis of the scriptural basis for the Heartland Model geography of the Book of Mormon.

How Many Promised Lands Are There, When Were They Established, And Where Are They Located?

The first recorded instance in scripture of a “land of promise” is a land called Cainan, named after a great-grandson of Father Adam (PGP Moses 6:17). Three years prior to his death, Adam called his righteous posterity together, including Cainan, and gave them his last blessing in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman (D&C 107:53). Thus, the original or pre-flood “land of promise” was a land near what is today the state of Missouri, USA (D&C 116:1).

Following Noah’s flood God gave Abraham a land known as Canaan (Gen. 13:14–15, Abraham 2:18–19), which is present day Israel (see map), for his posterity, together with a covenant that as long as his children would keep His commandments, they would be blessed with posterity (seed), security (protection) and prosperity (economic) Gen. 13:14–16, D&C 132:30, 1 Kings 2:3, 1 Chron. 22:13. This covenant, according to Abraham, “came down from the fathers…before the foundation of the earth” (Abraham 1:2–3) and was provided by God for the purpose that His covenant people, whilst they lived on their covenant promised lands, could be a blessing to “all the nations of the earth” (Gen. 22:18).

These two covenant lands, one New World and one Old World, would be provided with the necessities for their success and would be located conducive to the fulfillment of this responsibility. Just as ancient Israel was situated amidst the civilizations of Egypt, Babylon, Assyria and Persia, yet remained among the later civilizations of Rome and Greece at the time of Christ, so too the New World covenant land would be provided with all things necessary for its success. It would also be situated to best take advantage of its location to bless other nations and peoples, to become a shining beacon of hope and light and bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world as had ancient Israel. These two lands were covenanted and promised by God for the inheritance of His covenant people throughout the history of mankind and these same two promised lands are designated as the final gathering place for God’s chosen people, Israel. They are, namely, Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem. Both of these physical locations are known through history and through revelation respectively, and are not speculative (D&C 84:1–4).

The Book of Mormon is Consistent With Recorded Old Testament History

According to Christ’s recorded words to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon, there are only two covenant lands of promise for the house of Israel; Jerusalem (3 Nephi 20:29) and New Jerusalem (3 Nephi 20:22). It is known by revelation that the location where the New Jerusalem will be built is currently the state of Missouri, USA (D&C 84:1–4). Missouri is also the location of the ancient land of Cainan, the original “land of promise.” The scriptures have been consistent throughout time because these covenant lands of promise were established before the foundations of the world.

2 Nephi 1:5 speaks directly of a “land of promise” that is “choice above all other lands” that the “Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me and to my children forever.” Christ reiterates His commitment to Lehi’s posterity as He again proclaims, “And behold, this is the land of your inheritance; and the Father hath given it unto you.” (3 Nephi 15:13)

Prior to Lehi’s arrival, the Jaredites, another people led to the promised land by the Lord, record that “this land” the land their civilization occupied, is reserved for the “remnant of the house of Joseph” and that this same land will be the location of the “Holy City,” the New Jerusalem of the latter days (Ether 13:8). Ether confirms that after the waters of Noah’s flood receded off the face of this land, it became a “choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord” and then affirms that “it was the place of the New Jerusalem…” Moroni, the narrator of the record of Ether, then proclaims that “Ether saw the days of Christ, and he [Christ] spake concerning a New Jerusalem upon this land” (Ether 13:2–4). Therefore, the lands of the Jaredites were, according to Christ, on the same lands as those of the New Jerusalem of the latter days. Ether also reiterates that the knowledge of the Father’s covenant with the house of Israel, that has been “hid up from the foundation of the world,” will be remembered (Ether 4:14–15).

What Was the “Covenant” Spoken Of?

Both of these covenant lands were established before the foundations of the world. The covenant was initiated by Adam in the Garden of Eden on the American land of promise (Moses 5:11–12). It was invoked anew in the Mediterranean region by Noah and Abraham (Gen. 6:18, 8:20, 9:9, Abraham 1:2–3, Ether 13:10–11). Those brought by the Lord back to His land of promise in the America’s re-invoked the covenant upon the people through their prophet leaders, the brother of Jared of the Jaredites (Ether 2:7–12, 15), and Lehi, father of the Nephites and Lamanites (2 Nephi 1:5–9).

Covenant Requirements and Promises

The Lord‘s only requirement, in order to receive all the promised blessings of posterity, security and prosperity associated with the covenant, is simply to obey his commandments. Any society or people who will live by these rules of conduct provided by the Lord cannot help but enjoy these blessings since their people would not be bearing false witness, they would be honoring their fathers and mothers, refraining from stealing, not committing adultery or coveting another’s possessions and so on. Nephi records that “if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath give, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity (security); if so, it shall be because of iniquity” (2 Nephi 1:7) Lehi “obtained a promise” that as long as his people would keep His commandments they “shall prosper upon the face of this land: and they shall be kept from all other nations” and have the land for themselves. If they will but keep those commandments they “shall be blessed upon the face of this land” and no one will molest or be given power to take away their covenanted lands and “they shall dwell safely forever.” (2 Nephi 1:9)

Breaching of the Covenant, Judgments of God and Subsequent Re-Invoking of the Covenant

Each time that the singular requirement, obeying the commandments, is ignored by the people, the Lord allows breaches in their security, then their prosperity, and finally the taking away of their posterity, usually through war. This is done in a merciful effort to turn their hearts and minds back to Him; to cause them to repent and ask for His protection and guidance. Each time the covenant is ignored and the judgments of God fall upon the people, in order for the covenant to be reinstated, the people and their leaders must re-invoke the covenant. Such has been the case with prophets throughout Old Testament history as well as those who were directed to the American promised land. The Book of Mormon provides multiple examples of such re-invocations such as Limhi (Mosiah 21:32) Lachoneus (3 Nephi 3:12–25) and Captain Moroni (Alma 46:10–13).

Only Two Promised Covenant Lands

Thus, there are only two “Promised Lands” mentioned by Christ in the Book of Mormon; Jerusalem of the Old World (3 Nephi 20:29) and New Jerusalem of the New World (3 Nephi 20:22). Both of these covenant lands of promise were given by the Lord to the house of Israel for their latter day gathering place. The New World Promised Land would be the location of the gathering place for the House of Israel in the America’s. Where is this gathering place? It will be at the New Jerusalem. And where is the New Jerusalem going to be located? We know through revelation that the New Jerusalem will be built in Jackson County Missouri, in the Heartland of North America (D&C 84:1–4). Did the Book of Mormon history take place on the same land as the New Jerusalem? Multiple passages establish that Lehi’s family was lead to and remained on this Promised Land throughout their entire history (1 Nephi 13:30, 22:7, 2 Nephi 1:5, 3 Nephi 20:22, 21:2-4, 21:22-23, Ether 13:2–6). Therefore the land the Nephites, Jaredites, Mulekites and Lamanites lived upon was their “covenanted” land of promise and must by covenant include the Heartland of North America because it is the revealed location of the New Jerusalem by the Lord Himself.

Promised Land Limitations

The Book of Mormon itself limits the Nephite “Promised Land” to a latter-day “nation” (1 Ne. 13:30) that would be “set up,” (3 Ne. 21:4) “lifted up,” (1 Ne. 13:30) “raise[d] up,” (1 Ne. 22:7) “established,” and “delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations” (1 Ne. 13:19) in the latter days. Eight times the text refers to this particular nation as being a “land of liberty” (2 Ne. 1:7, 10:11, Mosiah 29:32, Alma 46:10, 16, 17, 3 Ne. 21:4, Ether 2:12), which would become a “mighty Gentile nation” (1 Ne. 22:7) “above all other nations” (3 Ne. 20:27). Being a “nation” is the scriptural limiting factor. It is not referencing an entire hemisphere or a particular nationality of people, but a new nation that would be among other nations. That it is speaking of this nation as a political entity is also clear because it states that this nation will be raised up within the population known as the Gentiles on the face of this land (1 Ne. 22:7) and it will have “no kings upon the land” and the Lord “will fortify this land against all other nations” (2 Ne. 10:10–12) such that it would be “delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations” in order to establish a “land of liberty” upon the land.

America’s Founding Father, George Washington and President Abraham Lincoln Invoke the Covenant

These prophecies are clearly making reference to the establishment of the United States of America on what was then the Nephite land of promise. This is the only nation wherein the Lord raised up men “for the very purpose” of its establishment (D&C 101:80) so that the gospel could be restored again to the earth as so many ancient (3 Ne. 21:22) and latter-day prophets have prophesied and testified (D&C 10:53). Amazingly the Founding Fathers of the united States understood that they were establishing a new Israel, that they were also of the covenant people of the Lord, and thus the American Covenant, as it is now being called, was invoked by the nation’s first president as his first official act. George Washington’s inaugural address was the re-invocation of the covenant on the land and people of America. Following the breach caused by the sin of slavery and the ensuing Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln again invoked the American Covenant in his second inaugural speech which was given shortly after the end of the war.The Lord Himself stated that the New Jerusalem, which we know by revelation will be built in Missouri, USA, would be built on these same lands (3 Ne. 20:22, Ether 13:2–6, D&C 57:1–3). These lands are the sacred sites of events throughout history and prophecy, from the Garden of Eden and the restoration, to the New Jerusalem and Adam-ondi-Ahman. These are all New World sacred sites, and all of them are located within what is now the nation of the United States of America.

Summary

The discussion above, because it is entirely scriptural prophecy based, is undeniable. This is simply a very robust scripture chain and it does not promote any one theory, but scripturally indicates that the promised land of the Nephites is the same land as where the future New Jerusalem will be built, which has been absolutely established through revelation to be in what is known as the “Heartland” of North America. Therefore the Book of Mormon lands had to have been located here. Would Christ’s statement make any sense when he said that “this people (the Gentiles) will I establish on this land (the land of the Nephites) and it (this land) will be a New Jerusalem (3 Nephi 20:22), if those lands were located in Japan, Russia or Central or South America? No, simply because it has been revealed that the New Jerusalem will be built in North America and will never be on those lands, therefore those lands cannot have been the primary lands of the Book of Mormon.

Book of Mormon Passages for Biblical Christians

In our age, the truth and authenticity of the Bible is greatly under attack. Academics and those considering themselves educated ridicule the Biblical account of the Creation, the life spans of the Patriarchs reaching nearly a millennia, the literal Fall of man and the literal Flood. Intellectuals also dismiss the miracles of the ancients as well as the miracles of Jesus Christ and the early saints as myths and deceptions. What if there were additional witnesses that the Bible was truly revealed and was the word of God? How much value would the modern Christian world place upon additional testimonies of the Creation, the Fall and the Atonement of Jesus Christ as well as other Biblical truths including freedom and the family. We hope that additional testaments will be welcomed by the honest in heart.

We would like to introduce Christians throughout the world to another witness for the Biblical record. There is great evidence that ancient Hebrews lived in North America in the millennia prior to and succeeding the birth of Jesus Christ, as attested by artifacts which have been found. ¹ Accepting these evidences as authentic, the Hebrews inhabiting North America would certainly know of Christ and have their own story. This history would include their testimonies of the Savior and the record of their obedience and/or forsaking of the commandments of God. This record would be another testament of Jesus Christ.

The true test of the understanding possessed by these ancient inhabitants of America should be in the comparison of their writings with the Word of God. All teachings, if they are to be valued, should be in complete harmony with the revealed word of God as contained in the Old and New Testaments. Clearly the 10 Commandments are a standard that can be trusted because they are Biblical.  We would like to bring to your attention other writings written by ancient Hebrews in North America between 600 B.C. and 400 A.D. These writings were found and translated into English. Some feel that these writings are a fraud while others believe that they are authentic. As to whether the writings are good or bad, we have put them to the test of scripture for several years.

Below we have taken some of these writings and compared them with similar passages in the Bible. We believe that you will find striking the correlation and power of these words with the revealed Word of God as contained in the Old and New Testaments. We are asking the honest in heart to read through the several passages asking the question, “Are these writings good, and are they in harmony with the word of God in the Bible?” The Bible advises:

Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:19–21)

Here is a small sampling of comparisons:

If you found this comparison interesting we would like to invite you to further investigate the similarities in the two records, the Bible and the Book of Mormon, yourself. Online audio and text resources are freely available.

The Lord’s Church was restored according to eternal patterns and order. The first seven members of the Church seem to fit the same Pattern of Seven as do the seven chief angels.

The Lord’s restored church was born on Tue 6 Apr 1830. At the time of its founding it had six members, and more were baptized that same day after the organizational meeting. The first person baptized that day, when added to the ordered list of the original six, fits a very interesting pattern. Let us consider what has been proposed to be the Pattern of the Seven which applies to the chief angels of the Lord. It is apparently a priesthood pattern. The manner in which the first seven members of the Church fit that pattern is discussed, along with the Melchizedek and Patriarchal Priesthoods.

1. Pattern of Seven

Pattern of Seven.

The pattern that has been proposed for the duties of the seven chief angels of God is that the first four form a “presidency” over the spiritual and the bottom four over the physical.  ¹The first four are listed in order downward with #1 as President, #2 as First Counselor, #3 as Second Counselor and #4 as Secretary (see illustration). The bottom four are in order from bottom to top with the President at the bottom, listed as #7. His First Counselor is #6, the Second Counselor is #5, and he shares the same secretary #4.

These seven work together as a team, just like the spiritual and physical parts of any living being. ² The two presidents are not quite equal in authority because there is always one who must preside over all. In this pattern, it is the last who is first. That is, it is #7 which presides over the other 6. This part of the pattern is included in the scriptures. There is a priesthood Quorum of Seventy, and it has seven presidents. It is explicitly stated that the seventh presides over the other six (D&C 107:94). Thus, this pattern appears to be a priesthood pattern.

2. The Seven Angels

Now let us see how this pattern works with those who have been proposed to be the seven chief angels. Looking at the table below, we see under the “Angel” column that the first four names constitute a presidency of the Kingdom of Heaven, where Peter holds the keys of the Celestial Kingdom, Moses is the counselor over the Terrestrial, and Abel over the Telestial. Enoch is their scribe and executive secretary.

Then, counting upward from the bottom, the pattern is that it should form a presidency over the physical. Here we see Adam is in the President’s slot, #7. Following the order of the pattern, Adam presides over not only the bottom four, but over all the other six, as is explicitly stated in scripture (D&C 88:112). Adam is the President of the Family of the Earth. Note that one of his main roles is that of being Father Adam, that is, he is the Patriarch of the entire human family. This seems to be part of the reason he is the president of the “physical” half of team. He is physically the father of all. He has a first counselor over the eastern hemisphere (Noah) and a second counselor over the Western Hemisphere (Joseph Smith). Enoch is his scribe (D&C 107:56–57). Now let us look at how the first seven members of the Church fit this pattern.

3. The Seventh Member

There were six baptized members when the Church was organized. The records indicate that the seventh member, and the first to be baptized after the birth of the Church, was none other than Joseph Smith, Sr., the Prophet’s father. He was baptized later on the same day that the Church was organized, Tue 6 Apr 1830. All of the first 38 members are known with the exception of one or two, along with the date of their baptisms and who performed the ordinance.

D&C 20:2).

Look at the first column of this table of the first seven members and notice how it fits the same pattern very well.

Those first four on the list were cornerstone members present at the founding of the Church. They were all indeed key foundational stones of the “spiritual” structure of the Church. Joseph was the President of the Church and Oliver was the first Assistant President. Later Hyrum filled that position until his death. The first slot is for the President of the Church, who is also the President of the High Priesthood. The High Priesthood, also called the Melchizedek Priesthood, is the “spiritual” priesthood of the Church. That is the priesthood that Peter, along with his counselors James and John, restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, giving them the authority of an apostle and the keys to organize the Church. Thus, it appears that the top slots are closely related to the Melchizedek Priesthood and the governing of the Church.

Before looking at the bottom four, you need to know that Joseph Smith, Sr., the father of the Prophet, was called by the Lord to be the first Presiding Patriarch to his Church. The Patriarchal Priesthood is discussed somewhat below, but the principal point here is that it is the same priesthood headed up by Adam, which was also the priesthood of the Old Testament “Patriarchs” such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In a sense it is a “physical” priesthood because it is handed down from father to son according to the physical family lineage of the priesthood holders.

Now look at the bottom four of the seven, considering Joseph Smith, Sr., as presiding over the “physical” Patriarchal Priesthood. Note that Father Smith is in the same slot as Father Adam. Both head the Patriarchal Priesthoods. Moreover, Adam was the first man in the newborn world and Joseph Smith, Sr., was the first member baptized after the birth of the newly born Church.

As currently understood, a Patriarch has no counselors, ⁴so David and Peter are apparently only filling slots in this comparison. The key point is that, at his death, Hyrum in the fourth position was both an Assistant President to President Joseph Smith Sr., and he was also the second Presiding Patriarch of the Church, succeeding his father. So position #4 is indeed shared between both the Presidency of the Church presided over by Joseph Smith, Jr., and the Patriarchal Priesthood presided over by Joseph Smith, Sr. It is this sharing of the fourth position that is the trademark of the Pattern of Seven. It has been unique in Church history that one man held two such high offices as Hyrum Smith did. His calling to the double role in this priesthood pattern explains it.

This pattern of the first seven Church members matching so well the pattern of the seven chief angels is a witness both of the Lord’s hand in inspiring even the order of the first baptisms, and also of the importance of the Patriarchal Priesthood and its interaction with the Melchizedek Priesthood. ⁵

4. The Patriarchal Priesthood

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that there are really three great orders of priesthood. In addition to the Aaronic and Melchizedek, there is the Patriarchal Priesthood (TPJS, p. 323). He also explained that not much has been revealed about it. The principal duty traditionally associated with it is the bestowing of Patriarchal Blessings. The Patriarchal Priesthood is included in the higher Melchizedek priesthood, but is passed down from father to son. The Aaronic Priesthood in Old Testament times was also a priesthood which was physically passed down from father to son. In that sense, both are “physical” priesthoods.

7. Joseph Smith, Sr.

As stated above, Father Smith was called by the Lord to be the first Patriarch to his Church. That priesthood office continued in the Church when Joseph Smith, Sr., ordained his son Hyrum to the same office according to the proper order. At Father Smith’s death, Hyrum became the Presiding Patriarch. Hyrum was martyred before his young son John was ordained, but after a couple of interim Presiding Patriarchs filled the office until young John Smith matured, the lineal order was recommenced when President Brigham Young ordained Hyrum’s oldest son John to be the Presiding Patriarch. President Young’s actions followed the order established by the Prophet Joseph Smith who ordained the first Presiding Patriarch. Thereafter, following the example of the Prophet Joseph Smith, in the cases where the Presiding Patriarch died before ordaining his son to be the next in succession, the new Patriarch has been ordained by the President of the Church. The last Church Patriarch ordained was John Smith’s great-grandson Eldred G. Smith, who is still alive today at age 104.

5. Conclusion

The restoration of the Lord’s Church adhered to strict protocols of priesthood and ordinances. Even the order of baptism of the first seven members seems to reflect the divine order of the seven chief angels that is called the Pattern of Seven in this article. This precise order in all things in the Church testifies that the true Church of Jesus Christ was indeed restored according to eternal patterns and the ancient order. Moreover, it witnesses of the importance of the both the Melchizedek and Patriarchal Priesthoods and of their interaction.

Neil J Flinders

Introduction

This critical essay examines three traditions of scholarship and considers their impact on the foundations of education and the nature of the University. The author’s conclusion is that the evolution of scholarship has formed the foundations for three different patterns of education. One pattern is characterized by science. It is reason based, research centered, and politically flavored. A second pattern emerges from the humanities. It is tradition based, rhetoric centered, and philosophically flavored. The third pattern includes but extends beyond the physical and humanistic. It is faith based, scripture centered, and research flavored. Rather than emphasizing philosophy mingled with scripture, the third approach to scholarly work stresses the utilization of divine revelation mingled with research. It stresses the role of inspiration, the limitations of disputational education, and describes the scholar as primarily a witness. This pattern holds that the finite should not circumscribe or dictate to the infinite.

Examining in full detail the complexities of scholarship would require volumes of information across many disciplines. For the sake of brevity and convenience to a general reader this review of the topic has been reduced to a single essay. Hopefully, it will be of some value to the interested and careful reader. It is worthy of note to mention that professional literature is largely devoid of serious evaluations and comparisons of the scholarly process. Much is made of scholarly terminology in institutions of higher learning, but there is little or no direct, ongoing, serious critique and comparison of the various “scholarly” traditions. Quite to the contrary, scholars in the respective disciplines simply lock into the “expectations” and “rules” that dominate in their particular fields of study. Although the words: scholar, scholarly, and scholarship are familiar, what they represent is much more vague and mercurial. These terms are often used to convey elements of authority and quite frequently prestige or class distinction. In reality they do impact our practical and daily lives in some very important ways.

The highlight of this essay is its focus on the challenges that face the academic intellect— including those in the Latter-day Saint community. Forces are present in these competing scholarly traditions that push and pull the human soul between starkly divergent oppositions. For example, one entrenched view of scholarship places the process above and beyond the person. This premise was clearly expressed by the prominent psychologist B. F. Skinner: “There is no place in the scientific position for a self as a true originator or initiator of action.” ¹ In contrast, we have Michael Polanyi’s traditionally less popular contention that “The personal participation of the knower in the knowledge he believes himself to possess takes place in a flow of passion.” ² In other words, what one knows is always an extension of what one is. Transcending both of these views is the ancient supposition that places the human search for understanding subservient to divine assistance. From this perspective, the search for truth is and ought to be acknowledged as a partnership. Prophets in the sacred society consistently maintain this position: True knowledge comes from God. Joseph Fielding Smith put it bluntly:

The Lord gave inspiration to Edison, to Franklin, to Morse, to Whitney and to all of the inventors and discoverers, and through their inspiration they obtained the necessary knowledge and were able to manufacture and invent as they have done for the benefit of the world. Without the help of the Lord they would have been just as helpless as the people were in other ages. ³

The currents that drive contemporary scholarly activities are many and varied. Ironically, they are seldom evaluated, despite the significant control they wield over a seemingly unwitting intellectual community. Perhaps Ortega y Gasset’s observation has merit: We may not know what is happening to us and this could be precisely what is happening to us. Could it be that academia is “walking in darkness at noonday;” ⁴ and that “we stumble at noonday as in the night?” ⁵ At the very minimum, this personal review of the nature and function of the scholarly traditions has pushed me to confront the sobering fact that pessimism is inevitable when I limit myself to an ideology circumscribed by and limited to the secular and the physical. If nothing else has come from this study, it has caused me to recognize in a professional way that optimism by definition requires that I at least consciously consider the eternal and the spiritual. To do otherwise would be naive or intentional self deception.

The central theme of this essay focuses on five critical questions regarding the nature of scholarship:

1. Is the scholar a pawn, a player or a free agent?
2. Should the paradigm for modern scholarship be redefined?
3. Has secularization contaminated the scholarly atmosphere?
4. Where should loyalty (allegiance) in scholarship be rooted—in hubris or humility?
5. How do answers to these questions influence the nature of education and the purpose of schooling?

(Major portions of this essay were delivered in their original form as presentations to the Far Western Philosophy of Education Society and first appeared in the Proceedings of that organization (1991-92-93). They are referenced in ERIC—Educational Resource Information Center, along with other articles by the author. [see  http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal--search by author's name.] A summary segment of these three paperspapers on scholarship also appeared as a guest editorial in the Journal of Research on Christian Education, Fall issue 1993).

Part I:

The Scholar: A Pawn, a Player, or a Free Agent?

Scholarship is a term now applied to various functions, among them investigative, confirmatory, integrative, and creative. The relative value of these and other associated functions in the current system differs from place to place. Consequently, the word scholarship has no consensual definition across disciplines; its meaning is generally determined by the context in which it is used. I will try to clarify my uses of the term as I apply it in the context of this essay.

Notwithstanding the numerous applications, all scholarship ultimately derives from two fundamental sources of knowledge: human and divine. All scholarship based on human knowledge can be reduced to questions that are answered by guesses. The frontier in this domain is always bordered by questions, answers are ultimately encounter guesses. This is true in every discipline. All scholarship based on divine knowledge can be reduced to questions that are answered by faith– pursuing “the substance of things hoped for” by utilizing “the evidence of things not seen.” ⁶ It is written, “The just shall live by faith.” ⁷ At bottom line it is a matter of accepting or rejecting revealed answers. We can be agents of divine as well as our own intelligence. There are “precepts of God” and “precepts of men.” It does make a difference which precepts we are taught by and which precepts we teach. ⁸

Scholarship is important and always has been. Much of what we enjoy or otherwise experience is the fruit of some form of scholarship. Because humans have the capacity to reason and the freedom of agency, the quest for comfort and action is continuous–both by study and by faith. The activity associated with scholarship is vital to the human family. But this activity involves a process that requires continuous maintenance, no neglect. I believe, however, that modern society is guilty of that neglect–both laymen and professionals. We have been content to be immersed in a scholarly tradition that is largely unexamined by most of those who are employees in its service or recipients of its benefits. Most participants in modern scholarship are pawns, some are players, and a few are conscious agents. Because I use these terms purposefully, definitions are in order.

A pawn is a person or entity of limited status, used to further the purposes of those with greater status. A player is a participant in a process or event who uses skills, awareness, and cleverness to gain advantage in a particular context (usually a contest). An agent is one who has the perception, power, and disposition to act responsibly, but independently. Pawns are people who unwittingly serve the ends of those in higher orders of power. Players are sophisticated participants who knowingly participate in some system that often demands that they bracket personal values in order to receive the rewards offered by those who make the rules and govern the activity. Agents are personalities of moral and intellectual courage. They possess and display “the courage to affirm principles, beliefs, and faith that may not always be considered as harmonizing with such knowledge–scientific or otherwise–as . . .[their] educational colleagues may believe they possess.” ⁹ But even agents can be subject to deception. The issue of integrity remains at every level.

Scholarship as a pursuit can be fickle, and it is frequently characterized by infatuation. “There are fads and trends in classical scholarship as in other human endeavors,” writes Zeph Stewart, “and our studies are no more immune than others to broader changes in society and in the intellectual climate.” ¹⁰ Just as stable and mature love may develop out of infatuation, meaningful scholarly contributions may emerge from fads and trendy interests. It is vital, however, that love and infatuation not be confused; too often they are. Perhaps never before this century has the vulnerability of so-called scholarly work been so manifest. Who and what to believe is a paramount concern. The character and moral viability of scholarship is inextricably linked to the personalities, practices, and commitments of those who create it.

Since mid-century, most western scholars have followed the wake of political funding like seagulls behind a fishing boat–seeking every scrap, every entrail, under the most tedious controls and amidst strange, ephemeral topics and content. Directly or indirectly, the entire scholarly enterprise of modern society has been shaped and directed more by the fashionable materialistic interests of those in control of funding than by the spiritual vision and moral character that communicate and sustain the basics of solidarity.

The consequences have often been less than positive. In the broadest sense scholarship has become, in too many instances, the [willing] victim of bureaucracy. For example, one writer describes how American anthropology during the early decades of the twentieth century was “a small field dominated by personal and collegial relationships.” This soft and pliable system was “increasingly bureaucratized as it expanded in size. Students are thus implicitly socialized into ‘organization man’ values subversive of academic values.” ¹¹ This description is a common pattern. Led by the hard sciences of earlier decades, which immersed themselves in wartime projects, the social sciences and later the humanities willingly followed the postwar beaten path to the troughs of public and a few private sources of special interest funding. The controls over scholarly energies imposed by these entities can only be described by the word ominous.

Ultimately, the centralized sources of financial support for scholarly research changed the nature of scholarship. “For decades the U. S. government poured billions of dollars into our universities to support a wide array of basic and applied research.” ¹² One of the most negative results of this arrangement has been an increasing amount of personal, professional, and institutional corruption. ¹³ Another debilitating outcome has been the decline in the status and quality of teaching compared to researching in most of our universities. There were also positives. But the impressive temporal advances that have been generated by the expenditure of these massive amounts of resource have not, on balance, compensated for the decline manifest in the moral and spiritual side effects. The gains from research do not compensate for the loss of instruction in moral and spiritual growth.

The demise of quality teaching has spawned widespread discussion in professional circles. A key document in this discourse is Ernest Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, a publication of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. This document argues for an expanded definition of faculty scholarship to include four components: (1) discovery of new knowledge, (2) integration of knowledge, (3) application of knowledge, and (4) teaching. Although Boyer’s expanded definition is a positive move, the focus of his discussion, as manifest in numerous conferences, has centered on what constitutes scholarly productivity for the purposes of rank advancement. This view misses the primary mark. We need more than a discussion of the relationship of scholarship to rank advancement; we need to look at scholarship per se in a more expansive way. Nevertheless, the window for discussion has been pushed open, and new sounds from within the academy can be heard. ¹⁴

The view from this window reveals a pressing need to broaden the definition of scholarship; a need that is recognized in many disciplines. But to redefine scholarship raises the question of what scholarship actually is. Ironically, the word scholarship does not even merit a heading in the International Encyclopedia of Education (1985). The question of the meaning and application of scholarship needs to be raised at a sufficiently fundamental level to challenge the context that now protectively shelters the scholarly process in every field. This essay calls for a discussion that will review the most fundamental issues. Current efforts to revise the definition of scholarship are themselves too narrow and restrictive. They hack at branches when it is the root structure that needs to be examined. The contextual issue deserves more attention than it now receives.

A Serious Examination of Scholarship is an Examination of the Foundations of the University and the Schooling it Spawns.

Any serious investigation of scholarship must go beyond concerns about rank advancement; it should question the very foundation of the University as it is now perceived, protected and promoted. Circumstances strongly suggest that what we now call the University may very well be wholly inadequate to safely sustain the intellectual endowment of humanity through the coming millennium. We live in a moral vacuum that modernism has tried to fill with rationalism alone. And rationalism is substantially failing in the moral domain. Immanuel Kant’s proposal that the “categorical imperative” was a satisfactory substitute for faith in and obedience to God’s moral law is not proving to be a satisfactory solution. As Charles Colson testified, he meticulously lived by this Kantian proposition, and “[Look] what happened [to me], I went to prison.” ¹⁵

Any critique of the university must begin, it seems, with an open discussion of its primary if not its only claim, to legitimacy–scholarship. Furthermore, any legitimate definition of scholarship must not avoid the issue that reality involves more than physical matter. At present, it can be argued, the entire enterprise of scholarship in western culture is imprisoned in a materialistic paradigm that ignores, denies, and seeks to avoid the implications of a higher order of intelligence. This paradigm now holds in thrall the functions of the university. It seems paradoxical that America, a nation whose tradition and highest Court has acknowledged Jesus Christ to be the God of the land, whose citizenry by a large majority (one study reports 85%) identify with a Christian denomination, who consistently declare to pollsters a belief in God and a life hereafter, whose founding documents and state constitutions acknowledge a transcendent power, would succumb to a scholarly paradigm that is devoid of such assumptions.

The modern view of scholarship falls far short of the inclusionary perspective held by Spencer W. Kimball, who noted: “Secular knowledge, important as it may be, can never save a soul, . . . nor create a world, . . . but it can be most helpful to that man . . . who can now bring into play all knowledge to be his tool and servant.” ¹⁶

The question of how scholarship should be defined has particular significance for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and others who choose to believe in a supernatural as well as a natural domain of existence. The central issue, of course, has to do with God and his role in the scholarly process. The conflict and the responses to the conflict on this issue are as old as our records. The Hebrew prophet Moses reviewed the issue with his people in the context of their covenant and the ordinances associated with that covenant. His rationale is simple but compelling.

In brief, the account of Moses ascribes the origin of mankind to a divine source of power. The principal characters in the narrative are Adam and Eve, who represent the origin of the human race. They lived at first in a garden prepared for them in a place named Eden. Disobedience to the instructions of their Heavenly Parentage resulted in expulsion from the garden. A heavenly messenger was sent to Adam and Eve to offer a solution to the problem they faced: a Savior who had the power to deliver them from the deaths they imposed upon themselves by their disobedience. An atonement was wrought for them by this Savior. He was the means by which they could be spared the negative consequences of their disobedience. Adam and Eve were to accept this gift of atonement and to teach all their children to do likewise, because they too were in jeopardy. The parents did teach the children; some accepted, some did not.

Moses explains that those who rejected the atonement and substituted some other belief system in place of this divine solution became subject to a perspective marked by three characteristics: “And men began from that time forth to become carnal, sensual and devilish.” ¹⁷ Here Moses poses the consequences of the human predicament [the Fall] and implies the philosophical disposition of those who reject the solution to that predicament [the Atonement]. The metaphysical response is to define reality in terms of the physical (carnal), the epistimological response is to limit knowledge to what could be garnered through the physical senses (sensual), and the axiological consequence was to be at variance with God and his instruction (devilish). This secular stance produces policies that create curriculum devoid of any reference to God, the moral law (Ten Commandments), or Jesus Christ. ¹⁸

Moses includes abundant evidence to support his assertions such as the story of Cain and Abel. He also recounts God’s assignment to Enoch to reclaim those who rejected the divine paradigm and substituted an alternative in its place: “Enoch, my son, . . . [say] unto this people . . . repent . . . for these many generations, ever since the day I created them, have they gone astray, and denied me, and have sought their own counsels in the dark.” Moses explains that they “rejected the greater counsel which was had from God” and substituted their own philosophies in the place thereof. ¹⁹ It is these philosophies that have influenced the currents of human affairs and been mingled with scriptures. In place of the initial order and unity, diversity and apostasy were inserted. The Judeo-Christian tradition of western culture is a derivative of this Hebrew heritage of conflict.

From the beginning, the counterargument has always been the same. Korihor, an ancient antagonist, expressed it clearly. Like many, he rejected the divine paradigm and substituted another in its place. When asked, “Believest thou there is a God?” he responded, “Nay,” asking what role “some unknown being” could possibly have, who some “say is God–a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be?” ²⁰ Belief in God and in an individual’s access to his higher order of intelligence has long been suspect by many of those who are learned and who prefer to learn and to teach “by the precepts of men” rather than the precepts of God. ²¹

When the overt or covert definition of a scholarly enterprise requires ignoring or denying divine intelligence, that definition must be qualitatively different from a definition which accepts such intelligence. As Nephi foresaw, the foundation of the scholarly community in our day is “Hearken unto us, and hear our precept; for behold there is no God today.” ²² It is easy to be pacified and lulled into carnal security. ²³ As Korihor realized, humans are enticed by the notion that “every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.” After all, “when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.” ²⁴

One might easily conclude that to acknowledge the divine is “a foolish and a vain hope.” Acknowledging a living God appears to be unacceptable in this century because those who control the scholarly community, and those who conform to those who control it, ignore or despise “these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.” Like Korihor, they ask how anyone can know of their surety. “Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see.”<ref>Alma 30:14–15.</ref> This mood has permeated modern scholarly circles, and its presence is clearly felt in the various journals and editorial policies. It prevails in textbooks, curricular materials, and in most classrooms in public and higher education. It dominates the academic mindset of modern society. And the agnostic aura is largely tolerated in deferential silence by those in the scholarly community who in other settings staunchly maintain they believe otherwise. Why so?

John Taylor understood this human frailty and commented on its painful consequences:

One great reason why men have stumbled so frequently in many of their researches after philosophical truth is that they have sought them with their own wisdom, and gloried in their own intelligence, and have not sought unto God for that wisdom that fills and governs the universe and regulates all things. That is one great difficulty with the philosophers of the world, as it now exists, that man claims to himself to be the inventor of everything he discovers. Any new law and principle which he happens to discover he claims to himself instead of giving glory to God. ²⁵

 Joseph F. Smith expressed the same concern in these words:

The world says, “we have done it.” The individual says, “I have done it,” and he gives no honor or credit to God. . . . Because of this, God is not pleased with the inhabitants of the earth but is angry with them because they will not acknowledge his hand in all things. ²⁶

 In modern scholarship it is normative to dissociate one’s scholarly work from any divine assistance that may have occurred. Theodore Roszak describes this distinction in his article “The Monster and the Titan: Science, Knowledge, and Gnosis.” ²⁷ He begins by noting how those in the modern scholarly traditions have tried to depersonalize their scholarly reports:

Nothing in modern science would have appalled Plato more than the way in which a professional scientific paper seeks, in the name of objectivity, to depersonalize itself to the point of leaving out all reference to that “experience of excellence”–that fleeting glimpse of the higher Good. ²⁸

Roszak calls specific attention to the long-standing posture of denial exhibited by those who know they have received divine assistance. He cites, among others, the example of Descartes:

What was it . . . that inspired Descartes to regard mathematics as the new key to nature? An “angel of truth” who appeared to him in a series of numinous dreams on three successive nights. But in his writing he never once mentions the epistemological status of dreams or visionary experience. Instead, he turns his back on all that is not strict logic, opting for a philosophy of knowledge wholly subordinated to geometric precision. Yet that philosophy purchases its apparent simplicity by an appalling brutalization of the very existential subtleties and psychic complexities that are the living substance of Descartes’ own autobiography. ²⁹

 How many of those associated with modern “scholarship” would find themselves in league with Descartes in distorting the records of scholarship’s true ancestry? Perhaps it is time scholarly circles openly encourage the recognition, at least by those who desire to do so, that John Locke gave to the foundation of education. He observed that the works of nature are the product of a wisdom that so far surpasses human faculties to discover or conceive that Natural Philosophy–the knowledge of principles, properties and operations of things as they are in themselves–can never be fully reduced to a science.

He certainly did not discourage the search into nature, which he called “other bodies.” But he said that a spiritual context was requisite to the study of nature. He was of the opinion that our clearest and largest discoveries are “imparted to us from heaven by revelation” and that this revelation is “a good preparation to the study of bodies [nature]. For without the notion and allowance of spirit, our philosophy will be lame and defective in one main part of it, when it leaves out the contemplation of the most excellent and powerful part of the creation.” ³⁰ Francis Bacon shared this view. It was his feeling that scientific work should augment, not replace “God’s word” or revelation. “Let us begin from God, and show that our pursuit from its [science's] exceeding goodness clearly proceeds from Him, the Author of good and Father of light.” ³¹

Amidst the current context of denial there is ample testimony from significant witnesses that inspiration from God is real and does contribute to scholarly endeavors. This spiritual contribution has been acknowledged in the humanities as well as the sciences. The composer Brahms, for example, explained that he set the stage for inspired creation by asking God the three great questions pertaining to life in this world: “whence, wherefore, [and] whither.” He said this helped him focus on a perspective that invited inspiration, “so that I can compose something that will uplift and benefit humanity—something of permanent value.” The result was that “ideas flow in upon me, directly from God, and not only do I see distinct themes in my mind’s eye, but they are clothed in the right forms, harmonies, and orchestration. Measure by measure, the finished product is revealed to me when I am in those rare, inspired moods.” ³² Admittedly, everyone does not choose to invite this type of inspiration. Beethoven confessed that he was conscious of being closer to his Creator than some other composers were: “I know that God is nearer to me than to others in my craft; I consort with Him without fear.” ³³ It seems wrong for us to categorically deny the acknowledgment of this source of light and truth; but we do. Modern western culture, it seems, has almost made it a mandate to avoid referencing God as a contributor to the scholarly process. At best, the secular power structure has an estranged relationship with the spiritual; at worst there is a complete divorce.

Inspiration from Divinity, however, does not excuse one from acquiring the basic skills associated with a given field, although those skills alone may be insufficient. Richard Strauss observed, “A good composer must also be a skilled craftsman . . . but no matter how clever the workmanship, no composition will live unless it is inspired.” Without inspiration, Strauss maintained, “nothing of lasting value can be put on paper.” He recognized that Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Weber, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Wagner were all inspired composers who “also had great technical skill.” ³⁴ Yes, the most effective scholarship certainly requires perspiration as well as inspiration. Neither, alone, is sufficient.

In his own case Strauss agreed with Puccini who noted that “the great secret of all creative geniuses is that they possess that power to appropriate the beauty, the wealth, the grandeur, and the sublimity contained within their own souls, which are parts of Omnipotence.” ³⁵ Said Strauss, “When in my most inspired moods, I have definite, compelling visions, involving a higher self-hood. I feel at such moments that I am tapping the source of Infinite and Eternal energy from which you and I and all things proceed. Religion calls it God.” ³⁶ Mozart went so far as to declare that “no atheist has ever been or ever will be a great composer.” ³⁷ There needs to be room for individuals, like Haydn, who declared “Never was I so devout as when composing the Creation; I knelt down every day and prayed to God to strengthen me for my work.” ³⁸ Sincere scholars in every field should feel free to acknowledge, without censure, the inspired dimension of their scholarly creations. But how many students in schools today feel this or are taught that it is appropriate? Some contributions may be fashioned from extant knowledge, others cannot.

It is the need to legitimize and enhance this broader conception of scholarship and its subsequent import for the idea of education and university that this essay addresses. It is a search for productive unity amidst what increasingly seems to be a divisive and destructive diversity. It is unity not alienation that nurtures the greatest success in the very nature of existence—whatever the field of exploration one might be pursuing.

Unity vs. Diversity

Ultimately the quest for truth derives its strength from unity, not diversity. Recently it has become fashionable to celebrate personal and cultural diversity as an end rather than a means. Individual diversity is being cultivated at the expense of volitional unity. This may excite the intellect to the point of intoxication, but it can be a fatal indulgence for the scholarly community. The acquisition of truth is constructive insofar as it draws unity from diversity. Such benefits are manifest in all forms of construction—from writing a song to building a bridge. It was in this forge that the foundations for the American experiment were formed and tempered: E Pluribus Unum; out of many, one—even in the secular order. The opposite of a unifying, constructive order is deconstruction and its wake of chaos. ( Deconstructionism has been described as a powerful postmodern movement currently in vogue on major college campuses and among the intellectual elite. Its influence seems to permeate nearly area of our culture. This contemporary movement has been linked to tribalism, political correctness, re-imaging, multiculturalism, culture wars, and as a hammer for smashing traditional values.) Scholarship cannot remain constructive outside a context that acknowledges and encourages unity.

Part II

Scholarship:  Time for a Redefinition

Will Durant observed early in the twentieth century that human knowledge had become too vast to manage, too great for the human mind. The academy was divided between scientific specialists who knew more and more about less and less and philosophical speculators who knew less and less about more and more. This schism blurred an important distinction between philosophy and science: Science is analytical description, philosophy synthetic interpretation. Durant argued that “analysis belongs to science, and gives us knowledge; philosophy must provide a synthesis for wisdom” ³⁹ Science, he explained, is content to describe things as they are: to be equally interested in the leg of a flea and the creativity of a genius. Philosophy, on the other hand, seeks to go beyond the facts as they can be perceived, to determine meaning and worth, to combine things into an interpretive synthesis. “Science gives us knowledge, but only philosophy can give us wisdom.” ⁴⁰ Certainly, Durant sensed a problem.

As the 20^th century concludes and the new century begins , I believe Durant’s argument can be extended to explain much of the enigma in today’s education. His discontent, however, only focuses on part of the problem. He is considering only one of three traditions of scholarship common to Western culture: the philosophic- scientific tradition. He does not acknowledge either the oratorical or the faithful scholarly traditions in this analysis. Hence, two important legs of the schooling stool have been removed, leaving the intellectual community to sway amidst the winds of change. Decades of increasingly critical literature have provided ample evidence of a dizzying distortion of perspective. Never have we written more and agreed upon less. One way to help correct our imbalance is to broaden our perspective, to include these additional aspects of what we know, understand and believe —the oratorical and the faithful. To accomplish this inclusion will require a broader concept and definition of scholarship.

The thesis of Part II of this essay is that modern academe has adopted and sustained a destructively narrow and often obscure definition of scholarship. I believe the clear and balanced approach necessary for a constructive rather than destructive dialogue is presently lacking. Moreover, current scholarly tradition avoids critical self-evaluation: A review of the literature reveals that modern scholarship has produced critical histories of everything in sight—everything, that is, except a critical study of itself. Although journal articles appear from time to time that touch on some aspects of scholarship, they seldom if ever cause the reader to step back and question the foundations. There is little attention given in college courses to a critical review of scholarly assumptions and essentially nothing in the curriculum of the public schools.

Contemporary education, I believe, is precariously unbalanced because of this myopic view. Modern academia suffers from visual cataracts that reduce the light and obstruct the view of the scholarly voyage. C.S. Lewis used the word in another sense: he spoke of “the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and microphone of one’s own age.” ⁴¹ I believe a major treatment for this condition would be to build a dam and then channel the flow of his view of the cataract by consciously redefining scholarship to encourage rather than disparage philosophical synthesis in our scientific work and to legitimize both the oratorical and faithful traditions of scholarly work. The timing for such an effort I believe is appropriate. An unsettling has occurred regarding fundamental questions in the philosophy of various disciplines. An open debate flourishes over modernist and postmodernist philosophy in a number of settings. There is an apparent spirit of search and limited efforts toward reconciliation regarding new answers to old questions. ⁴²

To improve the current perception of scholarship, I believe we must reestablish the tripartite check and balance system that comes with an acceptance of all three scholarly traditions. This check and balance system is as vital to the health and welfare of academia as our government’s check and balance system is to the U. S. republic. The alternative in the school, as in the government, is to succumb to special interest groups and drift toward some form of bureaucratic paralysis or rebellious tyranny. Is this unprofitable squabble really necessary? I do not believe it is. It moves us in counterproductive directions.

Three Scholarly Traditions

It has been said that the content of all the books ever written on philosophy can be categorized under three headings: God, humankind, and nature. Our heritage clearly values all three of these components, and scholarship may be described as the means of comprehending messages (of understanding the relationships)–between God and people, between one person and another, and between people and nature.

This essay suggests the necessity of establishing a pattern of scholarship that (a) encompasses all three of the relationships and (b) that functions as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Scholarship is a tool used to search for the message (truth); it is the message, not the tool, that has primary value. With the variations in messages, the tool must be flexible and subject to modification. When the focus on the tool (scholarship) eclipses the message (truth), that tool becomes a liability rather than an asset.

Three traditions of scholarship have been significant in the formation of Western culture. The first tradition, faithful scholarship, rooted in our Hebrew heritage, places a central emphasis on the human relationship to God. This approach presupposes that God reveals general truths to those whoseek them. These truths become assumptions that direct and sustain scholarly effort in all areas.

Transcendent testimonial evidence blends with reason and sensate experience. For example, the Pentateuch, attributed to Moses, ⁴³implicitly accepts an order of reality composed of spirit and matter that transcends temporal mortality. Human beings, earth, and time are significant shadows of God, heaven, and eternity. Jewish scholarship speaks of the vertical in contrast to the horizontal ; modern vernacular uses supernatural and natural to indicate this distinction. The premise is that we should presume a spiritual as well as a physical domain and the scholarly process ought to reflect and honor this supposition.

A second form of scholarship emerged as seekers endeavored to find knowledge by combining the oral and written accounts of human experience. This oratorical or rhetorical tradition, which comes to Western thought by way of ancient Greece, focuses primarily on relationships between and among human beings. As the Greeks worked to purify, preserve and transmit the message of thepoets of antiquity, they sought to discover, participate in and vicariously share the human expression of experience. Hence this tradition focuses on the search for truth through the expressed wisdom of our human ancestry. The objects for this scholarship are found in language, art, and music. Essentially a naturalistic (horizontal) approach, this rhetorical tradition may be exercised independent of transcendent (vertical) influences such as those common to the Hebrews.

A third approach to scholarship developed from efforts to understand and communicate the human relationship to nature . Western culture attributes this outlook to Greece, specifically toAnaximander, Anaxamenes, and Aristotle. This scientific or philosophical tradition focuses on the “reality” of the natural world, external to the human mind. As with the oratorical tradition, this approach may be but does not have to be applied independent of the supernatural, presuming scholarship to be a conceptual design, a tool for discovery, separate from and above the message it seeks to reveal. Seemingly, it was this perspective that fueled the enlightenments—both ancient and modern.

Scholarship Defined

This essay calls for a definition of scholarship that focuses on illuminating the message— between (a) God and people, (b) between one person and another, and (c) between people and nature. In this view, scholarship is intended to function as a tool in search of that message; it is subordinate, not superior, to the truth that it finds. Scholarship is the search; message is the discovery, knowledge, or realization that comes from the search.

This view of scholarship develops from the premise that the most comprehensive understanding of reality recognizes interrelated natural and supernatural worlds. When we reject this “dualistic metaphysics” and claim the physical domain as the only reality, we deny a significant dimension of possibility and diminish and change the nature of the search and the discovery. This appears to be the current state of affairs in modern academia.

Exclusionary, rather than inclusive, definitions of scholarship deny the purported connection between scholarship and truth; truth becomes only that truth which the limited definition permits. This can hardly be considered an open search. The restrictive definition of scholarship now popular in many circles makes the method and the paradigm it serves more important than the message they are intended to discover. Any definition of scholarship that divides subjectivity from objectivity and then excludes one or the other is faulty—if one really wants to know the truth. To successfully share in a full search and in the discovery it requires both integrity and trust among those who constitute the scholarly community. At present this context appears to be seriously flawed.

Recognizing the Limitations of Scholarly Traditions

Claims of “purity” in applied scholarship are unrealistic, for they depend on subjective compliance to what are, after all, symbolic cues to what represents the “best effort” but cannot be objectively established. Scholarly activity, whether on the mountain (as the prophets), at the library (as the orators), or in the laboratory (as the scientists), cannot be adequately described in the parameters of a “scholarly report”; the recipient must judge or accept the judgment of someone else judgment—”on faith.” Integrity and trust are indispensable.

Some aspects of the scholarly search are inevitably (at times intentionally) left out of the report; others are assumed to be present because an overt symbol suggests that certain things occurred. A log or journal of scientific laboratory procedures, for instance, does not ensure every quality associated with those procedures. Michael Polanyi makes this point clear in his discussion of tacit functions in the domain of science. ⁴⁴  Within the oratorical tradition, reports by philologists are similarly affected: Mental constructs shaped by subjectively based world-views necessarily influence interpretive reports but are not mentioned explicitly; thus a linguistic theory common to a scholar’s field may guide interpretation without being acknowledged or defined. Likewise, in the faithful tradition, what is recorded and then proclaimed can be circumscribed by limitations: proficiency in writing, prohibitions by Divinity, and peculiarities of the culture to which the word is given. Who knows all that Moses experienced on Mt. Sinai?

All three scholarly traditions are fragile because each of them must pass through human limitations to deliver its message. Perhaps some messages and some processes should not and others cannot be reduced to reportable language. Another limitation occurs when those who are comfortablewithin one tradition may find procedures and evidence compelling which fail to impress those outside the discipline. Consequently, wisdom would dictate that true scholarship should tend more toward humility than to certainty or pride. Scholarly traditions, like any human traditions, can be manifest only through an individual personality; they have no life of their own and are therefore subject to the limitations of personality. This causes me to conclude that scholarship should be used, but not abused—or used to abuse others. Scholarship is to be valued, but not worshiped.

Perhaps the use of scholarship as an instrument of “power” rather than service is the most serious limitation. Confusion becomes inevitable when methods of scholarship are captured and circumscribed by special interest groups. Guilds that commandeer some form of scholarship and then function like religious orders have created some of the greatest distortions in humanity’s search for happiness. But this topic deserves its own treatment (see Part III).

The Oratorical Tradition

Joseph L. Featherstone offers the following explication and critique of the scholarly tradition which focuses on poetry, rhetoric, and oratory:

The tradition of the orators . . . emphasizes the public expression of what is known, the crucial importance of language texts and tradition—linking to and building up a community of learning and knowledge. This is the line of Isocrates, Cicero, Isidore, the artes liberales of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance humanists, the vision of Matthew Arnold, of some teachers of the liberal arts today, especially humanities teachers, and, of course, of many religious colleges. The glory of the orator’s line is its links with the texts of the past and its focus on re-creating learning communities as the central business of education; its problem, as in educational philosophy, is its dogmatic and anti-intellectual idolatry of the past and its frequent assumption that virtue resides in the texts, not in what we the living make of them. ⁴⁵

Rudolf Pfeiffer ⁴⁶  emphasizes the significance of the language application within a historical context among the Greeks, pointing out that oratorical scholarship was originally the product of critical concerns with poetry. Texts were scrutinized for accuracy; allegories and hidden messages were systematically identified and described. ⁴⁷

But the strictly linguistic analysis could not hold its own against the onslaught of the “scientific” dimension of proclaimed by Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Aristophenes and others. In the middle of the third century B.C., these two viewpoints began to merge, and the oratorical tradition expanded to include aspects of the culture beyond language.

This change in perception is reflected, for example, in the work of Eratosthenes, reportedly a man of varied interests and numerous accomplishments in many fields—a type of renaissance personality. He wrote on Old Comedy, but also on chronology and geography, and on mathematics and astronomy as well. Pfeiffer states that he “fully deserves to be honoured as the founder of critical chronology in antiquity.” ⁴⁸ When he applied his scientific- rationalistic perspective and refused to accept Homer as a historian or as a geographer, he stepped hard on the toes of the oratorical tradition of scholarship. He stepped even harder when he generalized the position to poetry overall, ⁴⁹  proclaiming that poetry should be entertainment, not instruction. The poets of the day did not like this intrusion of “science” into their oratorical perspective. Eratosthenes became the target of clever mockery; but the influence of his new perspective survived. (Findings of modern archeology, such as the rediscovery of Troy, have vindicated Homer and played havoc with 2000 years of scholarly analysis—nevertheless, Eratosthenes had already made his point, notes Pfeiffer.)

Eratosthenes’ criticisms were absorbed in the division between “scholarship” and “poetry” previously introduced in the work of Aristophenes, who, Pfeiffer says, “was neither a scientist nor a poet; he was a perfect scholar.” ⁵⁰  An expert in texts, language, literary criticism, and antiquities, he is credited with establishing the scholarly process characteristic of the rhetorical tradition, stressing creative concentration on textual and literary criticism, bowing to science for its role in strengthening critical considerations. He set a standard for identifying, purifying and validating ancient texts, in order that the messages of the past would be preserved, polished, and presented with appropriate scholarly commentary by the caretakers of the literature—the scholars. Thus the foundation was laid for Rhetoric among the Greeks and Oration among the Romans. A scholarly tradition was born that was to sail from antiquity into the modern world, where it is now generally harbored in what we call the humanities.

Although the composition of the rules has varied, this tradition has remained fairly constant. Occasional brushes with the philosophic (scientific) tradition have shifted emphasis toward discovery over preservation and caused a little friction over methodology—and perhaps, as in Eratosthenes’ time, a little cross-pollination. The New Haven Scholars of the nineteenth century illustrate some of this brushing effect. Having studied in Germany where the impact of nineteenth century positivism and rapid developments in the physical sciences were introducing a new rigor into classical scholarship, the New Haven Scholars hoped to bring this stance from Europe to America and use it to save Christianity from naturalistic modernism. Their position is represented by Noah Porter, whose work demanded “exact observation, precise definition, fixed terminology, classified arrangement, and rational explanation.” They emphasized the scholar as a member of a discipline and of a community of scholars, with historical facts and stylistic rules as canons, although those facts were facts that could be discerned by “the soul.” ⁵¹

This attempt to elevate the structure of oratorical scholarship as independent of and perhaps more significant than its content was rejected by individuals like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Porter’s contemporary. Emerson felt the most fruitful path to the truth about human beings should be a careful, honest, and intuitive scrutiny of life itself. To Emerson, arranging facts according to an argument format for the sake of disputation was not true scholarship and could only lead to “appearances,” not to significant insights about life. In his 1837 Harvard Phi Beta Kappa address, “The American Scholar,” Emerson explained that the true scholar’s methodology will reveal “in the secrets of his own mind” those truths which are in “the secrets of all minds,” and that this need not take place in the confines of a college. ⁵²  He revolted against the elitist notion that an externally observable methodology embraced by a select school of adherents should rule over and be perceived as the only reliable way to discover what is true or most valuable.

The subsets of the oratorical tradition represented by the New Haven Scholars and by Emerson illustrate the range of difference within this tradition, even within the same time period. They also illustrate the dilemma of the modern rhetorical scholar: Many universities today would have little criticism of Noah Porter’s rigorous requirements for a scholar, but what form of academic arrogance would dare deny that title to Ralph Waldo Emerson? ⁵³Thus the contests within as well as between the scholarly traditions continue. These conflicts seem to wage primarily within the confines of academia, well beyond the concerns of the ordinary people on the street.

The Philosophic or Scientific Tradition

While the oratorical tradition seeks “truth” in the writings of the past and desires to share these with the present, the philosophic or scientific tradition seeks truth by linking the telescopes and microscopes of the past and present. Featherstone notes that the orators “see rightly, that all teaching is at some level a moral enterprise,” but that scientists and philosophers “are uncertain about this.” He continues the comparison: “When the philosophers ask, soaring like predatory hawks, ‘what is virtue?’ the orators tend to point blindly to tradition.” ⁵⁴ This does not impress scientists and philosophers—they delight in preying upon tradition; it is one of their standards of progress.

Attempts have been made by individuals like Alexander Meikeljohn and Robert Hutchins to use “the orators’ curriculum to promote the philosophers’ goals,” which Featherstone calls having “married a classics curriculum to the aim of developing the critical intellect.”  ⁵⁵Mortimer Adler’s Paideia Proposal (1982) and the recent curricular guide for high schools proposed by the National Office of Education (1988) are further examples of this trend. Peter Shaw calls this “the undermining of the humanities” by modernists who quote classical material while disavowing its traditional form and intent, replacing it with “poststructuralism [that] divorces literature from life.” Shaw further notes that the National Endowment for the Humanities was launched to promote “such enduring values as justice, freedom, virtue, beauty and truth.” But today, he laments, academics argue over “Whose justice?” “Whose freedom?” “Whose virtue?”– The white man’s? The slave owner’s? Patriarchy’s? ⁵⁶ The oratorical tradition didn’t worry about such technicalities; while technocratic politically correct minds seem obsessed by these differences. Consequently, we are currently embroiled in a very divisive battle. Today, harmony is not a common commodity in today’s University unless an administration screens its hiring of faculty to only one school of thought—which is often the case. ⁵⁷

In World Views: A Study in Comparative History (1977), W. Warren Wager speaks of the interplay of the oratorical and scientific traditions in the discipline of modern history:

In the broadest terms the new movements divide into two schools: [a] the quantifiers and [b] the explorers of consciousness. The quantifiers are the heirs of Descartes and Newton; the explorers of consciousness descend from Kant and Hegel. The new historical sociology and demography belong to the first school; the new psycho-history and intellectual history belong to the second. One views humankind as a measurable social animal, the other as spirit or mind. It is the old clash in Western culture reenacted in new costumes with new possibilities of fruitful interaction or mutual invalidation.  ⁵⁸ Wager points out one fruitful interaction as he discusses the discipline of intellectual history:

It investigates humankind in its existential mode of being, as real men and women acting in the real world. It seeks to describe and explain events. Its goal is not to produce an abstract model of human behavior, or human nature, or society; it does not proclaim laws with predictive power; it has no license to identify the good the true or the beautiful. Even though much of its subject matter is the work of social scientists and philosophers, its methods and purposes are those of history. It seeks to know mankind existentially.  ⁵⁹

Although this is not the type of history taught in the history departments of most modern universities, which are dominated by a purer form of the scientific tradition, its presence and its influence attest to a variety within the scientific tradition.

As intellectual history skirts the dividing line between the two traditions by coming close to the humanism of the oratorical tradition within parameters acceptable to the scientific community, other scholarly pursuits likewise come close to closing the gap. The New Haven Scholars insisted on an almost “scientific,” philological approach within the oratorical tradition; in contrast contemporary phenomenologists advocate a nearly subjective, observational, analytic approach within the scientific tradition, with an emphasis on understanding, meaning, and discovering which veers away from the explanation, prediction, and control of their more orthodox scientific compatriots.

Beneath the surface of the oratorical-scientific continuum, another pendulum in Western intellectual history continues to sway: the pendulum between supernaturalism and naturalism. Discovering, preserving and sharing the values of either or both has continuously been at the core of human action; efforts to establish or defeat one or to somehow compromise the two generate continual tension in all areas of scholarly pursuit. At various times the struggle has been labeled poetry vs. philosophy, romanticism vs. rationalism, or irrationalism vs. positivism; but none of the resulting debates has successfully committed either academe or society to a lasting perspective. For many, the debate between competing “schools” has become a greater focus than the pursuit of their original search. A great deal of time and effort is spent on fiddling with the tool while the work the tool should be accomplishing is neglected.

Because scholarship has been unable to resolve this basic metaphysical question (the reality of the supernatural), the conventional scholar is left with a basically secular, but ill defined, ambiguous position, unable to satisfactorily confront some of the most significant issues that face humanity. What is considered “scholarly” at a given point in time is a particular view that some currently prevailing power structure or highly persuasive individual or group of individuals is able to perpetuate and publicize to the satisfaction of others. This kind of selection (often socioeconomic) manages to be embraced and followed (sometimes blindly). But as John Locke observed, “Without the notion and allowance of spirit, our philosophy will be lame and defective in one main part of it, when it leaves out the contemplation of the most excellent and powerful part of the creation.”  ⁶⁰ The “lame and defective” element assessed by Locke has been verified and perpetuated, not lessened, with the passing of time. Very few mainstream journals publish scholarly work that presumes and seeks to account for supernatural influences.

Even those who seek and defend the supernatural find that the “accepted” scholarly stances leave them “lame and defective.” For example, the New England Scholars found the oratorical tradition consistent with their self-defined mission to defend and promote the moral imperatives of Christianity, which they felt were under attack by a modern naturalistic worldview. They brought to this challenge the academic posture and methodological rationale of their German-acquired positivism. The attempt failed, and the very methodology they borrowed eventually became the instrument of defeat (possibly an important lesson for others who would do the same—even at Brigham Young University). Scholarly traditions, once they become more than a tool, can be compulsively turf-centered and unforgiving.

Despite the sincerity and the skill of those who would attempt to rescue religion by “reason” or “empirical evidence,” perhaps neither the oratorical nor the scientific-philosophic tradition—or even a clever combination of the two—could ever contribute a safe, secure, or truly meaningful foundation; despite our inescapable attraction to the idea of message in its transcendent sense. For this reason, I believe that the conception of scholarship needs to be expanded to include the third perspective: the faithful tradition. My reason is that this tradition fosters an attitude not common to the two other traditions, but necessary to avoid the “lame and defective” result of which Locke warned, illustrated in the well-meaning but “lame and defective” attempts of the New Haven theorists. I also believe that this third tradition of scholarship has attributes in its methodology that could and should be absorbed into the previously discussed traditions because it would strengthen—not invalidate—them. Contemporary academics, however, seem hardly warm to such offers because of the prevailing paradigm to which they are accustomed, committed, and one might say “converted.”

The Revelatory, Testimonial or Faithful Scholarly Tradition

The revelatory, testimonial or faithful tradition of scholarship differs from the oratorical and scientific traditions in two fundamental areas. First, the scholar begins his search and delivers his report by overtly attributing at least some, if not all, of his premises to a divine source. Second, the primary burden of proof for validating the claims of his or her report is on its recipient, not its creator. In contrast, the oratorical and scientific traditions are essentially disputational: Discussion is carried out for the sake of ratification. The faithful tradition urges discussion for its value in clarification. The former says: “this proves”, the latter says: “I testify”. Confirmation in the faithful tradition is personal and may or may not become acceptable to a general public. Social acceptance, however, does not determine its end value or its truthfulness.

The first contrast, as previously cited, is pointed out by Theodore Roszak. He notes how those in the scientific tradition have tried to exclude personality and deity from their scholarly reports:

Nothing in modern science would have appalled Plato more than the way in which a professional scientific paper seeks, in the name of objectivity, to depersonalize itself to the point of leaving out all reference to that “experience of excellence”–that fleeting glimpse of the higher Good. . . . There is a haunting and troubling strangeness about this interval in our history. One might almost believe that perverse forces which baffle the understanding were at work beneath the surface of events turning science into something that did not square with the personalities of its creators. What was it, for example, that inspired Descartes to regard mathematics as the new key to nature? An “angel of truth” who appeared to him in a series of numinous dreams on three successive nights. But in his writing he never once mentions the epistemological status of dreams or visionary experience. Instead, he turns his back on all that is not strict logic, opting for a philosophy of knowledge wholly subordinated to geometric precision. Yet that philosophy purchases its apparent simplicity by an appalling brutalization of the very existential subtleties and psychic complexities that are the living substance of Descartes’ own autobiography. Newton, a man of stormy psychological depths, spent a major portion of his life in theological and alchemical speculations; but all this he carefully edited from his natural philosophy and his public life. . . . Arthur Koestler is not wide of the mark in calling the early scientists “sleepwalkers”–men who unwittingly led our society into a universe whose eventual godlessness they might well have rejected vehemently. ⁶¹

The validation feature of the faithful tradition is also abundant in the literature. After properly acknowledging the source of the premises, the faithful scholar presents the message as clearly and honestly as possible, clarifying where necessary. Then the hearer is left to determine for himself or herself the validity of the message. The value of the message [truth] is independent of its submission to a process of public disputation. There is a place for questions and corroborative testimony, but the value of a message does not depend on its winning the approval of a selected group of peers. Thus Jesus advised the students of his day that if they wanted to know the truth of a proposition, once they understood it, they would need to validate it for themselves (John 7:15–17). They did not need to wait until that proposition had received the sanction of a scholarly body–which might or might not happen, depending on popular theology or politics. Peer review is a means, not an end. And it does not dominate.

Aspects of the witness pattern are illustrated in Galileo’s efforts to share his discovery of the telescope with the people of his day. Some refused to look in the telescope and see for themselves, unwilling to risk validating Galileo’s testimony, which would contradict the rules of their scholarly tradition. Discussing this human tendency to consider only what is already acceptable, Roszak observes, “After all, if Galileo was right to call those men fools who refused to view the moon through a telescope, what shall we say of those who refuse Blake’s invitation to see eternity in a grain of sand?”  ⁶²

Many individuals appear to have sensed the contribution of the faithful tradition , though they might not have embraced it fully. In his Thoughts on Education, No. 190, John Locke observes that the works of nature are the product of a wisdom that so far surpasses human faculties that Natural Philosophy—the knowledge of principles, properties and operations of things as they are in themselves —can never be fully reduced to a science. The search into nature, he felt, must be pursued within a spiritual context:

I think it ought to go before the study of matter and body, not as a science that can be methodized into a system and treated of upon principles of knowledge; but as an enlargement of our minds towards a truer and fuller comprehension of the intellectual world to which we are led by both reason and revelation. And since the clearest and largest discoveries we have of other spirits, besides God and our own souls, is imparted to us from heaven by revelation, I think the information that at least young people should have of them, should be taken from that revelation. To this purpose, I conclude, it would be well, if there were made a good history of the Bible, for young people to read; . . . there would be instilled into the minds of children a notion and belief of spirits, they having so much to do in all the transactions of that history.  ⁶³

John Locke would be appalled at the curriculum which the scientific tradition of scholarship and the modern naturalistic worldview have substituted for the history of the Bible and notion of spirits he recommended. Some of today’s researchers point to the obvious discrepancy. W. P. D. Wightman in his two-volume work Science and the Renaissance ,  ⁶⁴ D.J. Wilcox in his In Search of God and Self,  ⁶⁵ all make the point that the modern scholarly tradition distorts the records of the religious commitments of its own ancestry.

Inclusive vs. Exclusive Scholarship

Scholarship must be redefined if it is to contribute to clarifying contemporary moral confusion. I believe that all three scholarly traditions should be professionally legitimized, not canonized. They should be endorsed as tools and the concept of scholarship itself recognized as a means and not an end. Within this type of definition we may find it easier to realize that honest, thoughtful, personal admission of ignorance is very constructive in the academic community. We cannot long teeter on an unstable academic stool. We need the strengths inherent in each of the three scholarly traditions. If we are to successfully confront the challenges of our day, we will find it self-defeating if we allow one tradition to say to the others, “I have no need of thee.” Jesus made the point very clear to the “scholars” of his day when he chastised them for their narrowness, a narrowness that resulted from seeking truth without seeking light. Light and truth, though companions, are not synonyms. The pursuit of one without the other is dangerous. Jesus warned the intellectuals to whom he spoke that they had forsaken what he called the “key of knowledge” and persecuted those who sought intelligence through that key. ⁶⁶ These individuals had rejected “the fulness of the scriptures” or light of the gospel. Without this light, the truth soon became perverted or was lost to them. Human reason without divine light is a dangerous guide. A search for truth without a search for light is a vain expedition, regardless of how useful, popular or convenient it seems at the moment. It leads to pride, vanity, and error. Humility—not affirmative action, diverse role models, politically correct expression, gender preference, or unbridled sexual expression—is our greatest resource. All scholarship is subject to some difficulty, but exclusive scholarship can be particularly dangerous.

Part III

The Scholarly Atmosphere: A Magnificent Deception?

An organism that grows and dies in a given environment is influenced by the existing atmosphere. Conditions external to it may determine whether it thrives, struggles, or fails to develop in a normal way. Intellectual as well as biological life is subject to atmosphere. Because external conditions may nourish or kill it, any serious examination of human intellectual activity in general and of education in particular, requires some analysis of the surrounding atmosphere or climate. This exploration is simply a matter of attending to the ecology of education; it is a philosophical necessity, a requisite to an effective examination of academic endeavors. The intellectual environment is critical to the vitality of scholarship and the vitality of scholarship is essential to healthy education.

Educators have long believed that a supportive scholarly atmosphere is essential for true education to flourish. I believe this premise is accurate; education devoid of trustworthy scholarship is faulty education. There is a discipline associated with productive seeking, learning and sharing of knowledge, and this discipline is central to educational endeavors.

But “scholarship” is more than using procedures and tools to search and research, examine and create, analyze and synthesize, ponder and appreciate. Scholarship is also a mindset that is shaped and driven by personal intentions, commitments, and allegiances; it is an activity driven by some mental “order” or paradigm, often involving deeply felt, personal considerations and commitments. These two domains, (a) the academic procedures and (b) the dominant mental paradigm, generate the atmosphere in which learning and teaching occur. They are primary aspects of the educational environment.

In Part II, I outlined three major traditions of scholarship: the philosophic or scientific tradition (the study of humankind’s relationship to things), the oratorical tradition (the study of humankind’s relationships one to another), and the faithful tradition (the study of people’s relationship to God). I also suggested that as scholarly traditions take on the aura of a religion they may generate distortions that obstruct an individual’s search for truth and happiness. This issue of allegiance deserves a very careful consideration by anyone who engages in scholarly activity because distortion can impact one’s personal as well as one’s professional life. It may in fact have eternal significance.

An example of the type of distortion to which I refer, is the failure to acknowledge belief systems as religions when they function as religion in the life of a person or a group of persons. The result is frequently a form of pollution in the academic atmosphere; the impact might be likened to creating a hole in the intellectual ozone. Ideas can be contaminants. In this part of the essay, I call specific attention to the way recent Western culture has abused the scholarly atmosphere through an abusive and deceptive use of secularization ; a phenomenon sometimes called the secularization hypothesis. It is possible to contaminate an atmosphere.

Scholarship as a Form of Religion

Scholarly activity is not embedded in neutral belief systems as some have supposed. This is clearly evident in the promotion of the secularization hypothesis, in which the underlying assumption is that “society moves from some sacred condition to successively secular conditions in which the sacred evermore recedes.” ⁶⁷  This novel notion may be intriguing, but the ultimate consequences of its implementation are hardly well understood. The price tag may be significantly detrimental. And it does seem curious if not ominous for a society to propose, promote, and celebrate the death of the sacred order—particularly when the chief morticians are gifted and privileged members of the scholarly community. Why? And for what purpose?

This particular secularization notion, popularized by theorists like “Marx, James, Durkheim, Freud, Malinowski, and H. R. Niebuhr,” has significantly influenced modern social, legal, and political thought. But it is now a thesis enveloped in turmoil. A flurry of confusion is apparent, and some writers are striving to resolve the dilemma by word definitions. Phillip E. Hammond, for example, reports: “the scientific study of religion has been shaken to its roots” and “the secularization thesis—as traditionally understood—is not sufficient to allow us to understand why.” ⁶⁸ Hammond’s book illustrates some of the linguistic distinctions that writers are making to preserve the secularization hypothesis and still honor concepts of traditional religion. But these distinctions do not solve the problem; it is much more fundamental.

I do not believe, for example, that making fine- lined distinctions between terms like “sacred” and “religious” and between “secularization” and “secularism” resolves the fundamental problem. A more appropriate answer to Hammond’s concern is to understand both “secularization” and “secularism” as being essentially a form of religion (albeit non-conventional). Popular combatants commonly ignore the fact that almost any scholarly activity is connected to forms that tend to function as “religion.” This fact does not change because the debaters call these forms secular and refuse to acknowledge them as religious. When a belief takes the place of religion, it is functioning as a substitute religion. Mislabeling simply promotes a subtle form of self-deception. Perhaps I can illustrate.

From its beginning, scholarship has been a craft in the service of some venerated order. Numerous writers have recognized and recorded this perspective. Given the evidence, it is amazing that scholarly activity and the communities generated by it are not perceived as religious activities and organizations. But in Western culture they are not, and this is the root of the difficulty. When I say “they are not” I mean generally this is not what we teach ourselves. But there are those who have recognized that intense belief systems, even secular belief systems, do function as religions. The elements are very similar if not identical.

If the authorities who describe the sociality of scholarship as religious activity are correct, and I believe they are, this viewpoint helps to explain much of the intellectual turmoil in our society. The intensity of conflicts over alternative lifestyles, sexual preference, definition of family, censorship, environmentalism, academic freedom, etc. can be more easily understood when they are viewed as expressions of divergent religious belief systems. Recognizing these belief systems as religions also levels the playing field. Social and academic diversities are more honest, and their competitions are more fair when modern secular belief systems have to play by the same legal and cultural rules as the traditional religious belief systems. Today they do not play by the same rules.

Clearly, a major incentive exists for some participants to not call secular belief systems religions. But this incentive needs to be exposed; it needs to be better understood by this generation.

Historical distortion is more evident when one examines the emergence of secularism in terms of a belief system separate from but comparable to traditional religion. Many of those most closely associated with the secularization of scholarship did view it in this way. For example, Georgio de Santillana refers to the early Greek forms of science as “scientific religions” and implies that conflicts would be natural between such religions. ⁶⁹ This may explain why later “sciences” have considered departures from their doctrines as heresies.

Karl Popper carries the theme to our day when he notes that modern science originated as “a religious or semi-religious movement and Bacon was [its] prophet.” ⁷⁰ John Dewey agreed, observing that whatever “concerns the spirit and atmosphere of the pursuit of knowledge, Bacon may be taken as the prophet of a pragmatic conception of knowledge.” Dewey also argued that if scholars would carefully observe and follow this prophet “many misconceptions of [the] spirit . . . and the end of knowledge” would be avoided. ⁷¹ The common doctrine in the new religion was what Bacon and Dewey identified as the “social factor.” This factor attributes the origin of all acceptable knowledge to man. Herein lies the uniqueness of secular religion.

August Comte’s writings, as Robert Nisbet explains, portray how the “reigning scientists have become priests in name and fact.” Under the banner “the Religion of Humanity,” society became the new “Grand Being;” exactly what Christianity had been for those of the Middle Ages. In Comte’s vision the new religion was to “forever replace in mankind’s consciousness all earlier and false deities.” ⁷² It was his conviction that humanity, “scientifically defined, . . . is the truly Supreme Being.” ⁷³ John Dewey agreed. In his articulation of “A Common Faith,” he carefully explains “another conception of the nature of the religious phase of experience.” The new explanation puts man in the center and eliminates any “necessity for a Supernatural Being and for an immortality that is beyond the power of nature.” ⁷⁴

This perspective gives an added dimension to Ernest Boyer’s recent claim that in order for “America’s colleges and universities to remain vital” they must develop “a new vision of scholarship.” ⁷⁵ Boyer’s injunction, in the foregoing context, becomes a call to religious service, but service to what religious order? This appears to be a critical question.

I assert that practitioners of scholarship, knowingly or unknowingly, are in fact disciples of something, and the nature of that something often requires a commitment of a religious form and intensity. Life in our modern scholarly community, attests to the fact that scholarship is more than collecting and using tools to search for understanding and wisdom; invariably, scholarly activity becomes an instrument of some existing paradigm—a belief system that governs its application. Sometimes “scholars, scientists, or philosophers” admit their discipleship and describe the “world picture” to which they are committed, and sometimes they intentionally hide it. “But in the majority of men,” writes W. C. Stace, “it works unseen, a dim background in their minds, unnoticed by themselves because [it is] taken for granted.” ⁷⁶ Nevertheless, commitment to these belief systems as Thomas Kuhn observes, is the result of a “conversion experience” ⁷⁷ –not just willful adherence to an objective accumulation of fact.

The Problem

The problem is hard to discern but easy to comprehend: Scholarship is entangled in a magnificent deception; quietly generation after generation is led into mindsets that function as religious orders without their being recognized as such. This deception promotes neither good scholarship nor good religion; it nurtures social, legal, and political confusion and conflict. And in its wake the nature and the purpose of education are changed and the function of the University becomes obscured if not suspect.

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz argues that the heart of religion “is the conviction that the values one holds are grounded in an inherent structure of reality.”  ⁷⁸ Modern expressions of scholarship make the same claim. Einstein’s statement that “belief in an external world, independent of the perceiving subject, is the basis of all natural science” and Michael Polanyi’s assertion that “science or scholarship can never be more than an affirmation of the things we believe in” illustrate this point. Faith founded in ” ultimate beliefs [that] are irrefutable and unprovable” is the common foundation of both religious and scholarly traditions.  ⁷⁹ Neither religion nor scholarship can exist without faith in such presuppositions.

Basic Thesis

With the perspective of this biography of scholarship it is my thesis that all varieties of scholarship are in fact forms of religious activity. The individual personality links the product of scholarship, its method(s), and the paradigm it serves. They become inextricably bonded. Otherwise both integrity and responsibility are fractured, bracketed, or compartmentalized. Consequently, the paradigm that drives the method and interprets its outcomes is crucial.

In approaching this thesis, it is important to discern clearly between the tools of scholarship and the belief system or tradition that drives the person using those tools. Scholarly tools can and should be viewed as instruments of service, subject to a belief system that provides the context for their use. What should not be ignored is that the “belief system” is inevitably a “religious” order— regardless of the language one might use to describe it.

An implication of this thesis is that scholars are very susceptible to the practical problems associated with serving two or more masters. A person may be adept in applying the tools of scholarship, but ultimately this application will serve some “religious order,” the one to which the scholar grants the greatest allegiance. “Truth in scholarship” includes full disclosure of the driving order as well as the procedures and outcomes of scholarly endeavors. But this is not how academia now operates; it has enclosed itself within a bastion called secularism. The popular assumption is that academic procedures and outcomes are independent of religious commitments. I do not believe this is true or defensible. Not for the chemist, psychologist, historian, artist, attorney or the scholar in any of the disciplines.

Religion Defined

This essay assumes a view of religion that includes four components: (1) a system of basic or ultimate beliefs which constitute a formative world view, (2) a personal commitment by an individual or a community of mutually supportive believers to this belief, (3) a pattern of moral practice resulting from adherence to this belief, and (4) an ethic that provides “a means toward ultimate transformation.” ⁸¹

Transformation is a compelling human quest; it is the core of intentional experience. Defining religion in terms of the striving for transformation is inclusive rather than exclusive, conferring civic recognition equally on “traditional religions” and on “secular belief systems” that function as religions. R. N. Proctor draws attention to this likeness when he observes that modern academic theory tends to be “a kind of secular theodicy.” Most modern social theory evolved from religious concerns; it reflects religion-like suppositions and, as Proctor indicates, “has been subject to the charge of theodicy.”  ⁸⁰

The University as a Religious Center

All universities, in addition to housing the tools of scholarship, function as religious solariums where devotees of selected orders and potential members for these “sacred” orders gather in a clustered if not cloistered community. These are individuals dedicated to or in search of some means of transformation, whether it be actualization, recognition, certification, graduation or some other academic symbol or process. The search, when dutifully followed, results in subtle or overt commitments that invite the scholar to give singular recognition to a particular mental paradigm
81 ⁸¹ accepted by the community.

According to this pattern, a university sponsored by the Catholic religion may expect its scholars to apply their scholarly tools for the benefit of the Catholic church. However, a scholar in that university may experience greater loyalty to the governing paradigm of a particular discipline, society, or “secular order” than to the Catholic church. David W. Lutz portrays such a conflict at Notre Dame University as “a battle for the soul of the university,” with “the Catholic character of the University” at stake. Lutz, a non-Catholic professor at Notre Dame, sees the battle as “between traditional Christians and people whose worldview is rooted primarily in the Enlightenment,” those who have embraced “the post-enlightenment, non-theistic faith” that Justice Hugo Black called “secular humanism.” ⁸²

Arguing from the thesis of this paper, I would designate the problem Lutz describes not as a struggle between religion and non-religion, but as a contest between two religions—or “churches”–a traditional church and an academic church. The process underway among the professoriate is the process of determining which of these “churches” is going to command their primary loyalty—the choice can be significant. This problem is no less a dilemma at Brigham Young University or for the religious believer who might be enrolled in the most secular of Universities, whether the participants recognize it or not.

Characteristically, academic work is ritual work in the service of some belief system— overtly or covertly. All scholarship is linked to suppositions that are related to some “religion” or “church.” J. J. Cohen compellingly demonstrates the “absurdity of trying to pin ‘religion’ down to a single theology or a single institutional form.”  ⁸³  And William B. Williamson clearly demonstrates the artificial nature of dividing modern “isms” into religious and non-religious categories. “Man’s religious beliefs are expressed in many forms,” Williamson says; he then proceeds to list a range of these expressions: “traditional theism; ethical theism; limited theism; existentialism; the ‘end of theism’; naturalism; humanism; pantheism; agnosticism; and atheism.”  ⁸⁴  All can function as religious orders.

Another valid and useful list of religious forms could include the various curricular disciplines in which students become disciples—beginning with anthropology and ending with zoology. Those who have observed the zealous defense of organic evolution in the face of challenges put forward by creationists or the application of the doctrine of free speech to protect art forms and literature that are challenged as pornographic may recognize the deeply “religious” nature of individual commitments on both sides of these debates. The zeal often extends far beyond the data base, intellectual preference, or commitment.

But this “religious” conflict is not limited to modern vs. traditional views, it is waged with similar intensity between the academic sects. In spite of modern efforts to promote academic ecumenism, the deep division of “turf” is familiar to those who have attempted any form of interdisciplinary fusion. The commitments and allegiances that continue to separate the disciplines can be interpreted as manifestations of religious ardor as real as those that characterize a Southern Baptist revival, a Latter-day Saint conference, or any of the various ecumenical councils.

This religious zeal and sense of congregational community extends beyond the scholarly domain and is manifest in political parties, the press corps, unions, legal and medical professions, and other organizations that function as religion for many of those in their respective memberships. The experience for individual participants is as real in public life today as it was in Athens for Paul, the Christian apostle, who was invited to the “press conference” on Mars Hill by the Stoics and the Epicureans.  ⁸⁵  The experience is very personal.

For each scholar or consumer of academic scholarship, a question emerges: What “religion” or “church” sponsored this work? To correctly understand an act, insight, or condition, one must understand the motive behind it. Each scholar’s fundamental allegiance, loyalty, and commitment resides in some “church”; and the scholar, like the laborer, cannot serve two masters equally. One may not agree with John Dewey who prescribed faith in science as the way to acquire beliefs as well as the “method of changing beliefs.” But he was open in declaring that for him “supreme loyalty” was to be vested in the “method” as perceived through his particular paradigm.  ⁸⁶  Although such commitment may not significantly affect every product of scholarship, the potential for it to do so should be explicitly acknowledged.

To be academically “honest,” the scholar should disclose the religious commitment behind the act or treatise of scholarship. For example, it is fair and appropriate for you to know that I am presenting this essay from the point of view of a believer in a supernatural as well as a natural domain —as a committed and practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The belief system that drives my use of the scholarly tools and procedures is not neutral. I trust that this application is fair, honest, and open to scrutiny, but I do not claim it deserves special treatment under the doctrine of secular neutrality—there is no such thing. Scholars who claim their secular work is or should be immune to the scrutiny of religious knowledge are seeking cover behind an arbitrary exclusionary perspective. It lacks candor.

As philosophers of education recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the various tools of scholarship—such as guileless inquiry, disciplined reason, honest search and research, meticulous record keeping, limited scope, subjective interpretation, sincere reporting etc.–they should also have the courage to identify and anticipate the influence of the religious order that governs the individual who uses those tools. When this responsibility is ignored, deception may occur; and youth may be unwittingly absorbed into “religious orders” of which they are not aware and to which they may not wish to commit. Being open and forthright strengthens and protects the true scholarly process.

Religion as Belief Systems and Belief Systems as Scholarly Tradition

Characteristics common to such recognized religions as Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism are clearly discernible in their literature and in the behavior of the respective disciples. And the same general characteristics are equally self-evident in the literature and disciples of physical science, social science, linguistics, law, medicine, and other forms of scholarship. These parallel orders display similar if not identical elements: robes, rituals, sacrifices, rites of entry, and levels of priestly authority.

Both religion and scholarship strive for harmony and promote personal encounter; both seek creative interaction and sensuous experience; both are characterized by rewards, punishments and elements of mysticism. Likewise, they share a hunger for rebirth, devotion to community, and conformity to cosmic law. They seek freedom through discipleship, self-integration, and the achievement of human rights. They strive to conquer inadequacy, to achieve the abundant life. The experiences of a committed graduate student and a novitiate in any of the traditional religious orders are very similar. The focus and sacrifice, submission and performance, obstacles and language, ceremonies and rewards are common components. And the places assigned in the resulting hierarchy reflect a shared pattern.

Scholarly activities can and indeed do reflect religious orders. These orders build houses in which to worship, promote mandated liturgies, proselyte and initiate prospective members. August Comte clearly reflected the religious nature of scholarly traditions when he announced: “Thus positivism becomes, in the true sense of the word, Religion; the only religion which is real and complete; destined to replace all imperfect and provisional systems resting on the primitive basis of theology.”  ⁸⁷  He did not try to hide his allegiance. Every scholar who cherishes membership in some religion of the conventional sort will at some time have to choose between a fundamental allegiance to that conventional religion or to some academic religion that would seek to supplant it.

The confrontation must eventually come—as it did for Charles Darwin (to the deep-felt dismay of his wife Emma, who feared for his soul and said she “would be most unhappy if I thought we did not belong to each other for ever”). Early in his life Darwin admitted being a “quite orthodox” Christian. However, as time passed, he said, “I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but it was at last complete.” He described how “the old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley” failed “now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.” Darwin’s new “theology” changed his thinking and his former commitment. “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true,” he said; it “is a damnable doctrine.”  ⁸⁸  Darwin rejected one religion to embrace another.

Julian Huxley described academic religion as “religion without revelation” and declared, “The god hypothesis has ceased to be scientifically tenable, has lost its explanatory value and is becoming an intellectual and moral burden to our thought.” He testified of the enormous “sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a superhuman being.”  ⁸⁹  Huxley, like Darwin, Watson, Dewey and many others, agreed that the new intellectual order required new doctrines. As Albert Einstein concluded: “In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God.”  ⁹⁰

Huxley elaborated other doctrinal changes, among them “new religious terminology and reformulations of religious ideas and concepts” adopted by the modern world of scholarship. He noted that the idea of “eternity” was replaced with “enduring process,” the concept of “salvation” with ”attaining . . . satisfying states of inner being,” and the idea of “prayer” with “aspiration and self-exploration.” Huxley maintained, “There is no room for petitionary prayer,” because there is no personality to petition. Rather, society is to “enlist the aid of psychologists and psychiatrists in helping men and women to explore the depths and heights of their own inner selves instead of restlessly pursuing external novelty.”  ⁹¹  John Dewey, like Huxley, preferred a religion without Deity in which man played the central role. Man has the capacity to imagine and to transform his imaginations into actions. “It is this [power],” said he, “to which I would give the name ‘God.’”  ⁹²

Emile Durkheim extended the explanation of religious order and, like Comte, identified its source as society—any society. Everything, according to Durkheim, that conforms to the conventions of society is made holy. Public sanction is the power that makes things sacred.  ⁹³  Carl A. Raschke et al. argue that whatever “composes a universe in which the supreme values and goals of a particular community of individuals are transformed into real elements of cosmic order” constitutes a religion.  ⁹⁴  The U. S. Supreme Court has tended to agree, defining religion as a belief system or worldview with or without reference to God.  ⁹⁵  Modern scholarship has plenty of “Priests” who helped design and shape the doctrines that dictate its operation.

A Day of Many Churches

Thus one could conclude that any definitive perspective or belief system that (1) conveys a description of reality, (2) offers evidence for the validity of that description, and (3) reflects some pattern of “moral” beliefs and (4) provides skills and tools for survival within the scope of such reality may function as a religion in a person’s life. This pattern is evident in both ancient and modern times. With established requirements for membership and insistence upon offerings, all such “churches” or bodies of believers depend on a continuous flow of adherents to survive. Hence, proselytes are recruited, trained, and empowered according to strategies created by those who govern the system. Many such “churches” have been built up in response to changing world views among humankind.

Students of western culture have noted the ever-changing views that shape and seek to unify this society. Edward Harrison refers to this in his review of cosmology—the study of universes—in terms of masks. He suggests we see the past as a procession of these masks, a parade of rising and falling “cosmic belief-systems.” ⁹⁶  In his view we have come from a mythic past through Ionian, Pythagorean, and Aristotelian world-systems to a modern post-Newtonian world view: A captivating and colorful parade with an intoxicating Mardi Gras aura about it. Considered in this light, suggestions of modern, socially indoctrinated “mass psychosis” are not as far-fetched as they otherwise might seem. Thus Ortega y Gasset describes the enigma of our society: “We do not know what is happening to us, and that is precisely what is happening to us—the fact of not knowing what is happening to us.”  ⁹⁷

Richard Weaver cautions observers to recognize that this parade of history is not necessarily a march of progress, although he admits that to suggest otherwise is highly unpopular. Weaver maintains that “it is extremely difficult today to get people in any number to see contrary implications.” When “we ask people to even consider the possibility of decadence, we meet incredulity and resentment.”  ⁹⁸  Such a response is very consistent with the dominant theology attributed to modern scholarship: Its adherents seek safety and power in their claim that scholarship is objective and value-free, not dependent on vulnerable presuppositions. The contemporary trend in the scholarly domain, despite some obvious historic examples of openness, appears to be intentionally less than transparent. Politically it must have its advantages.

Whether we see regress or progress, however, one factor in these many studies is clearly evident: the autonomy that modern man has ascribed to himself. Whatever the theoretical framework (Marxist, Freudian, Deweyian or some other), the conclusion within Western thinking has been almost unanimous. As Weaver put it, “For four centuries every man has been not only his own priest but his own professor of ethics.”  ⁹⁹  I would say, that at least in in western culture, a growing consensus appears to be that each person has the prerogative to walk in his own way, in the image of his own “god,” which image is in the likeness of the worldview he or she constructs. The traditional objects of idolatry may have disappeared, but the practice seems to be alive and well. Paige Smith describes some of the new altars: “presentism—that tireless lust for the new,” “excessive specialization,” “knowledge for its own sake,” “relativism . . . equal importance or unimportance,” and “finally . . . the brute fact of size, the disease of giantism.”  ¹⁰⁰  There are others that could be named.

The alleged demise of traditional transcendental religion as an acknowledged core concept in modern western culture  ¹⁰¹  does not mean there has been a decline in religious orders. An abundance of “churches” continue to cry “lo here,” and “lo there.” The war of words and the tumult of opinions are as prevalent today as they were in New England during the early 1800s. The names of the “churches” may differ, but the nature of the competition is essentially unchanged. The central issue is the same today as it was in antiquity: “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.”  ¹⁰²

Thus academic disciplines have assumed the role of religion in the lives of millions of modernists and postmodernists. These modern sects now dominate the public power structure through schools and professional organizations that are extensions of university-based disciplines. Their variant “[the]ologies” are fashioned from the respective traditions of scholarship and these “theologies” are debated and defended vigorously and emotionally. The semantics may differ, but the practice is remarkably constant.

John Dewey very candidly discussed the new “Education as a Religion,”  ¹⁰³   and Alfred North

Whitehead observed that “the essence of education is that it be religious.”  ¹⁰⁴  To ignore the religious nature and the “theological” power of modern belief systems is to ignore the social reality in which we now live, and to deceive those we educate to live under it. Youth should be free to ask forthrightly, “Which of all these churches is right?” They deserve the opportunity to seek a personal answer to this question. And this search should not be confused by camouflaging some religious belief systems as non-religious because they have identified themselves as secular.

Impressive campuses dotted with “cathedrals” have been established or conveniently “occupied,” as W. B. Riley lamented in the 1920s. He claimed even then that “liberal bandits” had robbed the fundamentalists of billions of dollars of real estate and facilities. “Ninety-nine out of every hundred” dollars spent to construct the great denominational universities, colleges, schools, seminaries, hospitals and publication societies in this country “were given by fundamentalists and filched by modernists.” “It took hundreds of years,” he said, “to collect this money and construct these institutions. It has taken only a quarter of a century for the liberal bandits to capture them.”  ¹⁰⁵

Whatever the mode of acquisition, large and small congregations now fill these facilities. Meetings—numerous and regular—are conducted to define, disseminate, and direct the work of these ministries of modern academe. Prospective members are recruited, instructed, and formally accepted into the various orders. This process seems very normal, natural and easy to accept because the “new orders” are not called religions; they are perceived as secular scholarly associations. But as George Sheehan has observed, “Every man is religious. Every man is already acting out his compelling beliefs.” “Religion,” he says, “is the way you manifest whatever is urgent and imperative in your relationship to yourself and your universe, to your fellow man and to your Creator.”  ¹⁰⁶  In this context, scholarship is always a tool in the service of some personal or professional religious order. How could it be otherwise?

Individuals destined for leadership in the various disciplines are carefully prepared. They are screened, tested, and sent on developmental missions of internship, clerkship, and eventual partnership as they are trained for a particular priestly order. Recognition and advancement are ceremoniously bestowed. Loyalty, commitment, and devotion to the order are prescribed and carefully monitored. Once accepted, adherents are expected to be supportive witnesses and valiant defenders of their designated “faith.” And all this occurs in a context that James Turner calls “human and worldly”   ¹⁰⁷  –a context that designates the human race as the primary focus in a universe composed solely of physical matter. The result is attorneys who say, “I see no relationship between my Sunday religion and my practice of the law.” Or chemists who proclaim, “On Sunday or at home I may be a member of the Church, but in my lab I am a Chemist and my students need to understand that,” etc., etc. Compartmentalization, popular as it is, does not resolve the issue.

Consequently, it would be an intellectual error to label today’s academic and social controversies as purely secular and objective or as conflicts between the sacred and the secular. Politicians would call this disinformation. Disputations over creation, birth control, abortion, maturation education, sexual lifestyles, political correctness, academic freedom, woman’s studies, ecology, life support systems, etc. are the product of different religions contending one with another. To view them otherwise is to become a willing victim of a magnificent deception. It not only distorts the issues, it confuses the people who confront them.

One of the many results of accepting scholarship as a form of religious commitment is that it reveals a major dilemma. Was Walter Lippmann correct when he suggested that “only the universities” can fill “the modern void resulting from [our] emancipation from the ancestral order?”  ¹⁰⁸

It has been fashionable in this century to see the university as the new caretaker and expositor of the moral order in society. As Dave Dodson, a student columnist at Berkeley, put it several decades ago, “In a sentence, the University must today be our Church.” The rationale for Dodson’s position is a logical outcome of the historical data described in this essay. He wrote to his fellow students and the faculty:

Here at the University where Science and the Humanities can be approached in an integrated fashion, where commitment and understanding can be attained together, and where both culture and critical reason can be explored simultaneously— only here can we achieve our social and even religious salvation. For it is only at the University that a peoplecan acquire the knowledge and motivation prerequisite to the formation of real community.  ¹⁰⁹

When one assumes membership in a religion committed to this type of theology conflicts may emerge within the individual and between the different institutions with whom he/she affiliates. Institutions do not readily relinquish their intellectual and moral leadership, nor do we allow them to do so. How does the individual choose which to follow and which to change? Or does one fragment into multiple and relative “moral” or “spiritual” value systems and apply them according to need, ignoring or redefining the issue of integrity.

Is the compulsive struggle for so-called “academic freedom” actually a struggle for freedom to apply the tools of scholarship, or is it a struggle for license to apply them according to the tenants of an order or society in which one has chosen to make his primary commitment? Is the question one of freedom, or one of permission to follow a popular rather than a traditional religious belief system? The answers to this questions frame many of the moral dilemmas of our day. It frames the timeless question: An eye single to whose glory?

Among the “churches” that emerge around scholars, a common article of faith is that each of these orders insists on being its own highest court of appeal; its own expertise is the supreme authority in its chartered domain. All who question this authority are pretenders to a throne which holds unquestioned dominion. As scholars build these “churches” unto themselves, they tend to function as laws unto themselves. In this sense they seem to offer a non-unique answer to Joshua’s question regarding whom to serve: “But as for me and my house we will serve ourselves.” It seems to me we are in need of a higher common cause. And this sense of need leads me to conclude this section with the question To whom or to what does the scholar owe loyalty?

Part IV

Loyalty in Scholarship:  Hubris or Humility?

Scholarship may be one of the most sophisticated forms of camouflage human culture has ever invented. The current use of the word scholarship covers a wide variety topics and processes. Much of what the word represents is often hidden or disguised. Like the term love, scholarship can be used in many different ways—ways that are vital, nurturing, supportive, fickle, deceptive, or destructive. Additional uncertainty occurs with the tendency for contemporary culture to make some words appear to shift meanings—according to various “political” pressures. It is quite evident that the rapid ideological change that accompanied modernity has produced a confusion capable of fostering intellectual pestilence. The presence of this pestilence is readily apparent to those who read the current critiques of the Academy or recognize the “culture wars” that envelope us.   ¹¹⁰  The issue of loyalty in scholarship resides in this troubled context. It is a challenge to anyone who comes to an understanding of its role in our society.

This essay raises a particularly disturbing question: In this field of conflicting loyalties, to whom or to what should the scholar be true?

My earlier sections addressed the need to (a) consider the role in which a scholar finds himself or herself, (b) redefine scholarship, and (c) recognize the pollution of the academic atmosphere caused by the secularization hypothesis, which holds that as society moves from a sacred orientation to successively secular viewpoints, the sacred must continually recede.   ¹¹¹  Part II described three major traditions of scholarship: the faithful tradition (the study of the human relationship to God), the oratorical tradition (the study of humans’ relationships to each other), and the philosophic or scientific tradition (the study of humans’ relationships with things). The thesis of this section was that modern academe has essentially rejected the faithful tradition and left the oratorical tradition at the mercy of the philosophic or scientific tradition. Part III provided evidence that the modern definition of scholarship is narrow and restrictive. The emergence of the popular view of scholarship has been accompanied by a proliferation of secular belief systems that often function as traditional religions do but avoid calling themselves religions because it provides a political advantage.

Caution is in order, it seems, when the academy shrinks the definition of scholarship until it represents far less than the libraries of knowledge the academy purports to examine. I believe there is cause for concern when almost anything defined as scholarly activity is connected to social forms and systems of belief that can and often do function as covert religions. Labeling these forms as secular and winking at the consequences only exacerbates the problem. From its very beginning, scholarship has been a craft in the service of some venerated order. Mislabeling to avoid acknowledging allegiance simply promotes a subtle form of self-deception.

The issue of loyalty in scholarship cannot be validly addressed unless both the definition and the function of scholarly activity are explicit and clearly apparent. This becomes evident if one takes the time to carefully examine each of the three scholarly traditions.

For example, Rudolph Pfeiffer notes that the term scholarship is Greek in origin and owes its existence to the presence of the book. Without books, according to Pfeiffer, the possibility of scholarship is lost—“the very existence of scholarship depends on the book.”   ¹¹² Curtis Wright joins Pfeiffer in arguing that the art of understanding, explaining, and restoring the literary tradition was “a critical art with uncritical antecedents in the oriental cultures that nevertheless matures only in the Alexandrian period following the Golden Age.”  ¹¹³  Both of these writers maintain that scholarship did not arise from the efforts of scientists to understand and explain the world, but that it was a separate intellectual discipline created by the poets to preserve and to use their literary heritage—the classics.

This classical perception of scholarship—the oratorical tradition—continues to function in limited circles but does not prevail in the modern academy. Today, scholarship is shaped into its most exclusive forms by rules of order within the scientific or philosophic tradition. It is this type of scholarship, with its empirical overtones, that dominates the academy and controls the majority of western research budgets. The “scientists,” not the “poets,” determine the emphasis in twentieth century schooling. Modernity is obsessed with learning about people’s relationship to things, and despite the demise of logical positivism and the rise of post-modernism, the locus of control remains intact. What has come to be known as the “scientific method” prevails. The internal challenges to this view, stimulating as they might be, have yet to significantly change the larger intellectual environment. Meanwhile, the faithful order of scholarship, which includes communion with and deference to a transcendent authority, remains despised or largely ignored in Western culture: learning by study is respectable, learning by faith is not.

The current use of the term scholarship veils a variety of activities in various disciplines. But despite the spongy meanings associated with the term scholarship, I believe a common ground underlies its various applications. This common ground is the motive of the scholar. It is the influence of this motive, expressed through the scholar’s personality and his or her application of the “rules” that determines the basic quality and governs the eventual outcomes of scholarly work—whatever tradition of scholarship the scholar chooses to follow.

I repeat that scholarship tends to go beyond collecting tools to use in searching for understanding and wisdom; invariably, scholarly activity combines personal motives with the method of the scholar’s discipline. It is motive more than method that makes the scholar an instrument of some existing paradigm—a belief system that governs the scholar’s application of both the tools and subsequent interpretation of the findings. Personal intention is the mother of action, and it is this intention that determines the focus of loyalty in the scholarly endeavor. On a descriptive scale, the intrinsic quality of this intention may run from hubris to humility—the inevitable teeter-totter of human discourse. Ultimately, there may be only two churches in or out of academia—each driven by one of these two forces.

Pride is a term that conveys more than one meaning. It may be used to denote a feeling derived from recognizing efforts to excellence without regard to personal advantage. But it can also mean hubris. Hubris is a type of pride that is rooted in loyalty to human power and autonomy. Scholarship driven by hubris takes on a much different tone than scholarship that develops in humility, which ascribes the ultimate source of wisdom to a higher power. Certainly, there are those in the intellectual community whose personal intention is characterized by humility. There are wonderful men and women in our universities who are contrite people of real integrity. But as Martin Anderson explains, “this world is badly flawed. Too many of our universities and colleges have acquired . . . the same kind of smug arrogance that comes to people who are never seriously challenged, the kind of elitist mindset that makes its leaders feel they are above the laws and values that govern others.”  ¹¹⁴  Scholarship in such settings is enveloped in hubris.

Anderson maintains that the “avalanche of books and articles that have poured over us in recent years has demonstrated convincingly that not only is all not well on America’s university campuses, but that some things are really rotten.”  ¹¹⁵  Few would deny the distinct presence of a disturbing odor; pride thrives in the fertile warmth of decay, and its presence is easy to detect. This type of intellectual environment could be a problem for any scholar. Avoiding pride and embracing humility can be a personal dilemma. Consider some of the subtleties that frame this quandary.

The Personal Dilemma

By logic, Aristotle arrived at the principle of goodness as a mean flanked on one side by an excess and on the other by a deficit. He applied this rationale to a number of virtues—fear, temperance, liberality, magnificence, friendliness, justice, and pride. “In the matter of honour the mean is ‘proper pride’ the excess ‘vanity,’ the defect ‘poor spiritedness.’”  ¹¹⁶  As expressed in W. T. Jones’ The Classical Mind, pride is placed as the ideal between vanity on the one hand and humility on the other.  ¹¹⁷  This comparison, I believe is suspect and needs to be questioned.

Aristotle’s argument seeks to describe positive virtues, one of which is labeled as pride. At best pride may be the wrong word to apply in the comparison, and at worst his conclusion regarding the described condition may not be a virtue at all. Regardless of how carefully one describes what pride is, the argument may be flawed—depending on the context one uses to arrive at the operational definitions of these terms. Describing feelings with words is not a simple task as Aristotle admitted.

J. A. K. Thomson points out that Aristotle did enter “a caution”: Just because “virtue observes the mean in actions and passions, we do not say this of all acts and all feelings.” Some actions and passions, he admits, “are essentially evil and, when these are involved, our rule of applying the mean cannot be brought into operation.”  ¹¹⁸  Pride may very well fall under this caveat, depending on just what spirit and disposition Aristotle had in mind. It may be that the term pride is not the most appropriate designation. This becomes increasingly apparent as one reviews the efforts of those who have attempted to develop more fully the description of this word in a philosophical context.

Richard Taylor, for example, offers a very explicit rationale to affirm what may be asserted as building on Aristotle’s premise—that pride is a virtue, a laudable ideal. Taylor claims that pride is not arrogance, conceit, vanity or other such vulgar manifestations. Pride is not a “matter of manners or demeanor”; rather pride is “a personal excellence.” For instance he argues:

Genuinely proud people perceive themselves as better than others, and their pride is justified because their perception is correct. Thus, they love themselves, not as children and ordinary people do, for these do not possess the kind of worth that justifies such self esteem, but because they really are, in the classical sense of the term, good. Their virtues are not assimilated ones, nor do they consist merely in the kind of innocence that wins the approbation of others. Instead they are their own in the truest sense: that they come from within themselves and win the approbation of the only judge who counts—oneself.  ¹¹⁹

If this is what Aristotle meant by pride, then the root remains in human imperfection. It is flawed, fully capable of creating the contemporary academic scene that Anderson describes. Taylor is probably correct when he asserts that “proud people have little interest in the admiration of others except for what they are; and even that admiration must come only from such persons, always relatively few, who are themselves proud people, in the truest sense, and hence better.”  ¹²⁰  But this perception is a form of elitism that becomes a law unto itself. It has no counterbalance and claims none. Can this be a virtue?

Taylor continues his argument by asserting that “proud people . . . care nothing at all for the opinions of insignificant persons, but are instead concerned with what they think of themselves.”   ¹²¹  Who would deny the presence of such a mood in our society—at every level where personal prestige and achievement rather than humility and service reign supreme. Greed and selfishness do abound. Humility seems to be a rather rare commodity. How characteristic of many academic settings is Taylor’s observation that some things are “easily recognized by other proud persons, though not understood by the meek and the foolish. A proud person is, for example, serious, but not solemn, whereas a meek person’s efforts to be serious results only in a laughable solemnity.”  ¹²²

At this point the educational dangers are more clearly manifest. Exclusionary elitism is a mark of proud scholarship. Narrow answers are given to those telling questions: To whom am I willing to listen? From whom am I willing to learn? Who of us hasn’t felt the discomfort that gives personal meaning to Taylor’s description of the social context in which pride prevails:

Proud people delight in the company of other proud and worthwhile persons, and seek above all to discover and appreciate their strengths and virtues. . . . A person is not worthy of esteem just by the fact of being a person but, rather, by the fact of being a person of outstanding worth, which is something quite rare. . . . They ask [only] what will please themselves.  ¹²³

The moral order that evolves from this type of scholarly atmosphere makes no claim to universality; it has to be deferential to the individual on his or her terms. Moral value is relative and situational in the most humanistic sense. Taylor describes it well:

With respect to what is popularly called “morality,” a proud person is in the best sense the creator of his or her own. Nothing is done merely because it is recommended and done by others. Rather, something is done because he or she sees it as worthy of being done, and especially because it is worthy of himself or herself.  ¹²⁴

When this moral infrastructure governs the scholar’s intent, loyalty to selfish pride is the only alternative for personal governance. And when selfish pride governs—however subtle—humility is always absent.

If, on the other hand, one chooses to seek out and cultivate humility, a very different paradigm emerges. Humility offers a different atmosphere for scholarship because it is nurtured by a different motive than is pride. Humility presupposes a belief system that permits authority to transcend the individual, a particular group, or even mankind.

Merold Westphal illustrates this option with the work of Kierkegaard.  ¹²⁵  His treatise asserts that scholars are boxed in by the current narrow “scientific” definition of scholarship. For example, if one accepts the arguments along the paths that lead from Heideggar to Derrida (that objective knowledge is an illusion) or from Wittgenstein to Rorty (that certainty is an illusion), modern “scientific” scholarship is insufficient in its philosophical breadth. Those who resist expanding the definition, says Westphal, “see the anti-scientific mood of contemporary philosophy as inevitably culminating in nihilism.” They are saying in effect that if one leaves the narrow view of scholar as scientist, “the sophist is the only alternative model for the philosopher.” Kierkegaard disagreed, holding that “philosophers should not think of themselves primarily in terms of the “scientist” or in terms of the “sophist” who engages knowledge in the service of egotism, or service without responsibility; “the Hebrew prophet provides a better model.”  ¹²⁶

Westphal emphasizes Kierkegaard’s position by demonstrating that even phenomenology is an insufficient alternative. To illustrate, he shows that “the phenomenology of religion . . . is a descriptive enterprise. It is concerned with truth, but not with the truth of religious assertions; and it brackets questions of transcendence in order to describe the form and content of religion as an observable phenomenon.”  ¹²⁷

Phenomenologists take Immanuel Kant seriously. They believe that philosophy of religion can be a science, not “in the transcendent sense, giving objective truth about God, freedom, and immortality” but “as an immanent science describing the structures of human experience.” The resulting problem is that instead of trying to “bracket their religious interests, values, and commitments in order to discuss the truth of religious assertions objectively [as traditional scientists], they bracket the question of religious truth in order to describe religious phenomena objectively.”  ¹²⁸

This approach is only a variation on the old system of scientific scholarship. It is not the way the Hebrew prophets handled their encounter with truth. In fact, Westphal notes, “Part of the phenomenologists’ motivation may be derived from a sense of the gulf between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Phenomenologists know that “talking about the believer’s putative encounter with God is not the same as encountering God.”  ¹²⁹   This contrast offers a significant distinction.

This is the same distinction I heard Mortimer Adler make when he told Bill Moyers that the God he “proved existed by logic wasn’t worth praying to.” It was Adler’s observation that the “leap of faith is going beyond argument.” This is what is unique about the Hebrew alternative. The question is simply this: how do you respond to truth if you do not (a) provide a formally valid proof from universally self-evident premises, (b) deduce from pure reason some imperative, or (c) launch into a description of the observable phenomena? The answer to this question is a key point in this essay. It marks the direction for linking scholarship to humility.

Consider This Alternative

One way to respond to truth, other than or in addition to the the three alternatives in the foregoing question, is to acknowledge a higher power that transcends man and nature. Immediately this introduces the possibility of humility rather than hubris as an inherent foundation for motives in scholarship. Absent this recognition, the search for humility becomes much more difficult.

Acknowledging that we stand in the presence of such a power does not mean we must claim the authority or the responsibility to be an apostle or a prophet. Rather it means we recognize our finite relationship to the Creator’s handiwork, humankind, and acknowledge the superiority of infinite knowledge to our own finite views.

For example, Kierkegaard “sought to hear God’s truth in a personal way and then pass it on, albeit without authority, in an equally personal way. It is not surprising that this is precisely the alternative that Socrates chose over Gorgias’ rhetoric.”  ¹³⁰  The Hebrew prophet, like Socrates, does not take a scientific stance, not even as a phenomenologist “of the word of the Lord. That word has come to [him] too personally and directly” to treat it objectively. He simply accepts and then delivers the message in a “personal, untimely, political, and eschatological” manner. He presents himself as a particular person “addressing a specific audience in a particular situation.”  ¹³¹  There is no attempt to assume that objective, scientific position Thomas Nagel calls “the view from nowhere.”  ¹³²

This may not be a popular position; the performance of pride in the face of humility is seldom docile. It has led to the killing of many prophets, and as Harold Ravitch notes, it contributed to the death of Socrates. Socrates, states Ravitch, chose to listen to the divine “voice” despite the fact that this listening caused “his speech and demeanor to antagonize the jury and aggravate the prejudice against” him.  ¹³³  Loyalty to humility in scholarship may require a high price.

Scholars in this mode would understand the message they want to deliver but would not pretend to know of themselves, to claim that what they know is due to their own wisdom. They will seek to obtain understanding, but not to ascribe unto themselves all the credit for the knowledge they receive. The scholar’s personal ownership in this pattern is simply the responsibility to share the knowledge they have received with others, free of coercion, permitting them to accept or reject the offering. This perception of scholarship provides a foundation for humility; scholarship that is rooted solely in human power and knowledge does not. This position also allows the scholar to be a scholar within the religious order held to be most primary in his or her personal life.

The critical factor is one’s personal orientation. Always we derive perspective from some referent. Temporal referents alone are incapable of inducing humility simply because they are finite. They may sustain deference, but not humility. Spiritual referents, by contrast, are capable of inducing humility, if we so desire, because they are infinite. No form of scholarly endeavor can be truly humble as long as the contextual belief system ascribes the ultimate source of power in that endeavor solely to mankind. This is why “rhetoric . . . is . . . a form of flattery, . . . [and] in order to win the agreement of the crowd and in this case give the appearance of being scientific, [it] resorts to flattery by appealing to the preferences of the audience.”  ¹³⁴  Flattery is telling people what they want to hear; it is born of pride and perpetuates pride. Such rhetoric is a major flaw in contemporary scholarship. As Brigham Young observed, “When a man is proud and arrogant, flattery fills him with vanity and injures him; but it is not so when he is increasing in the faith of God [i.e., humility].”  ¹³⁵

The philosophical significance of the loyalty question in scholarship can be illustrated by recognizing the historical difference between talent and genius. I believe that the current view of these terms is a direct result of the narrow definition of scholarship that envelopes us. A specific example is John F. Gardner’s treatment of this difference: “It is generally assumed [by modernists] that while every child possesses some talent, genius can be ascribed to very few.” Gardner contends that this is the reason “the development of talent rather than genius has become the goal of education.” He argues that this is a reversal of “the true order of things, turning them upside down, to the harm of society as well as of the individual.”  ¹³⁶  More than a century ago Ralph Waldo Emerson called attention to this inversion as he wrestled with the nature of scholarship; arguing that a person’s “health and greatness consist in his being the channel through which heaven flows to earth.” He concluded that collective humanity is dependent on “genius not talent; hope, and not possession. . .” Mankind does not control elusive truth. “There is the incoming or the receding of God: that is all that we can affirm; and we can show neither how nor why.” And when the scholar, as a receptive agent, ceases to experience the incoming of the super-incumbant spirit and notes only its receding there is an inevitable dimming of the intellect.  ¹³⁷

In the original sense of the word, genius was not considered as restricted to a few, but was the rightful possession of all individuals. The Oxford Universal Dictionary, for example, defines the ancient view of genius as “an attendant spirit allotted to every person at his birth to preside over his destiny in life.” Gardner emphasizes that the similarity among “Greek, Roman, Arabian, and Hebrew views of genius is much greater than their difference.” Expanding on this definition, he writes:

For all these peoples, genius was the norm, as well as the crown, of full human development. Genius was the spiritual possibility of every man. It was not, however, a natural endowment but a supernatural grace, even the greatest talent. Thus for ancient man, genius was an agency of the divine spirit that descended upon him from above; while for modern man genius is no more than a name for a human talent raised to its highest degree.  ¹³⁸

I agree with Gardner when he says that for a person to prepare so that genius can work within, the individual must first acquire confidence in the existence of an order of being higher than self. Then the seeker of genius “must develop obedience . . . and humility.” When this does not occur, he says, “ambition, pride, and self-will cut the soul off from its divine source.” He believes there is ample evidence to show that the pagan idea of immortal genius and the Christian idea of divine grace are very closely related. “Both acknowledge: ‘It is the Lord that doeth the work.’ . . . Both seek perfection of the earthly vessel.” Despite “certain differences, the Christian saint and the pagan hero are much alike,” Gardner claims. They both act for the benefit of humanity,  ¹³⁹  and I would add they both demand a broad rather than narrow definition of scholarship.

Until the twentieth century, the ancient view of genius had a place in our schools and among our scholars. Genius had little to do, specifically, with the intellect. It had more to do with the heart and will. Its workings depended more on the development of character than on the abilities or talents with which the person was endowed at birth. “Indeed,” Gardner says, genius “withdrew from the person who was pleased with his outstanding endowment, while it approached the person who knowing how inadequate his own faculties were, yet continued with compassion and valor to do what he could for his fellow man.”  ¹⁴⁰  Here is the foundation for loyalty in scholarship. Here is the foundation for true self-discipline. As Gardner argues, it is impossible to conceive of self-discipline, in any real sense, without the idea of a purpose that resides outside the self to motivate control.

The paradoxes of progress in modern society must become ever more outrageous, until men make the free choice to live from this higher source within themselves. We are being taught by events that it takes genius simply to live well the ordinary life of man. There is no man so poorly endowed that he cannot achieve the good he truly wants, if he will acknowledge the self above his self and invite that being to overshadow his life.  ¹⁴¹

I conclude this section of the monograph with a like observation: There is no scholar or body of scholars so well endowed that they can safely serve humankind, or that nature which sustains the human family, while ignoring loyalty to the foundations of humility and spending themselves in a lifelong affair with hubris. There is a much better option, but it requires a type of courage from those who adopt it that is not typical in academic circles. This courage is manifest as personal valiance. It is loyalty to a context of meaning that transcends the systems that govern the “perks” of a particular discipline or the indulgence of personal ego. It fosters humility in perception and a spirit of service in performance.

Part V

Postscript:  A Careful Look in a Clean Mirror

The Carnegie Report on scholarship, in its brief historical description of American scholarly activity, acknowledges the existence of three different personal dispositions or motives: (1) striving to “bring redemptive light to all mankind,” (2) being “responsible for . . . intellectual, moral, and spiritual development,” (3) questing for money and recognition—e. g., my “degree [from] Harvard College is worth money to me in Chicago.”  ¹⁴²  The report quickly drifts away from the implications of these motives, however, and slips into a preoccupation with the objectives of scholarship and how to relate these objectives to the frustrations within the scholarly professions and the needs of a secularized but diverse democracy. The objectives described are (1) “building character and preparing . . . civic and religious leadership,” (2) providing service in the form of “applied research” that can build the nation’s economy, (3) publishing “basic research” that expands the borders of knowledge, thereby insuring the “health, prosperity and security of America in the modern world.”  ¹⁴³  Abandoning the centrality of the first three motives and substituting the three flossy objectives is, in my view, a major strategical error. Or, it was a very clever move—depending on one’s basic commitments. This shift in emphasis certainly validates the description provided in this essay regarding the current state of scholarship and its application in our contemporary society.

The discussion in the Carnegie report is an intensive examination of scholarship within the current secular paradigm. Transcendent themes, although parenthetically mentioned, are lost in a preoccupation with how to legitimize a broader application of already secularized scholarly practices. It seems ironic that Boyer and Rice, who are calling for a more expansive definition of scholarship, would fail to build on the initial spiritual motives for scholarship which they acknowledge existed at America’s founding. I believe this is a substantial error and will prevent the development of important and needed changes in the disposition of scholars and their work. It makes the answers to the five questions posed at the beginning of this monograph seem even more discomforting. (1) Scholars are most often pawns and players rather than free agents. (2) The paradigm for modern scholarship is too restrictive. (3) The scholarly atmosphere is polluted by the religious fervor of secularism and the prideful (hubritic) attitudes it fosters. (4) Humility is not the cornerstone of our contemporary learned academy. (5) The cumulative affect of these forces are deconstructing the nature of education and confusing the purpose of schooling.

Manipulating applications of scholarly tools within the narrow secular paradigm will not solve the problems we face. This is clearly evident at Brigham Young University, the University of Notre Dame, and other institutions of higher learning that proclaim a greater spiritual mission and then conform to a scholarly process that denies or ignores the relevance of the spiritual.  ¹⁴⁴  Acceptance of a broad-based definition of scholarship which includes the faithful tradition certainly is not evident in the environment or the language, topics, and publications that dominate the practice of scholarship in these institutions. The modern secular paradigm prevails, and it is this paradigm that must be modified or replaced. And we must be more forthright in clarifying this need. Building on Boyer’s initial observations, I suggest the following description of scholarly intents as a useful perspective for self-assessment—a type of careful look in a clean mirror.

Intents of Scholars

Three distinct dispositions characterize the intent of scholarly practice—as in all of life. (I recognize that calling attention to, let alone applying, categories as proximate standards is disturbing to moral relativists who dislike imperative hierarchies of value.) These contrasting dispositions, however, viewed through the lens of lived lives are graphic and significant.

First, there are scholars who expend themselves in searches that lubricate the gears of a telestial society—a society that distances itself from higher order principles and altruistic attitudes. They may give little thought to the ultimate consequences of their work beyond the immediacy of the search and the anticipated rewards expected from a society geared to the present—the here and now. This view has been characterized by a mentality of eat, drink, and be merry because tomorrow we die and shall exist no more. Productivity in this context can be impressive; hunger for power, recognition, comfort, and gratification may be a source of intense personal motivation. Remarkable physical discoveries and social developments have come to humanity from this competitive endeavor. Elitist patterns characterize communication in this environment; reinforcing the tendency to learn only from those in select circles. Pride prevails. The governing motives in this popular association was cryptically described by an ancient prophet who described the primary impulses that drive this elite and popular crowd: “And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain” do they labor, “and not for the glory of God.”   ¹⁴⁵  Scholarly activity may flourish in such settings; it may contribute to physical comfort and social efficiency as well as causing counterproductive and destructive outcomes. This is evident.

A second dimension of life served by scholarship attracts those individuals who are committed to more than just seeking telestial truths; they strive to connect those truths to a moral order—a terrestrial but more responsible order of responsibility. These scholars recognize that submitting to principles that protect the rights and welfare of others as well as self is essential to the preservation of social order and the resources that sustain humanity. They strive to bridle their scholarly energy and direct it toward the fulfillment of some moral mission. Every age has its honorable men and women who speak out to the social intellect in a moral language. Greece had her Solon and Socrates, Rome its Marcus Aurelius and Cicero, and the modern age its Madam Curie, Schweitzer, and Mother Teresa. Those who sense a moral mission use personal sacrifice to rise above the rewards and recognition of the strictly utilitarian telestial order. When they pursue scholarship they do so in a different manner than the rank and file of researchers who bury themselves in the telestial system and the jargon of a professional vocabulary that operates essentially on the fuel of self interest.

Early in this century scholarly forces sought to discount the application of the moral disposition toward learning. Even the liberal progressive Woodrow Wilson expressed a warning.

Scholars who stick too closely to “the facts,” he said, will “miss the deepest facts of all, the spiritual experiences, the visions of the mind, the aspirations of the spirit that are the pulse of life.”   ¹⁴⁶  David Ricci has referred to the demise of this disposition to serve a moral order among political scholars as The Tragedy of Political Science. He cites changes in their research language as evidence of the change in focus. Old words “like ‘justice,”nation,’ ‘rights,’ ‘patriotic,’ ‘society,’ ‘virtue,’ and ‘tyranny,’” were replaced by new words such as “‘attitude,’cross-pressure,’ ‘conflict,’ ‘game,’ ‘interaction,’ ‘cognition,’ ‘socialization,’ and ‘system.’” In sum, Ricci says, “political studies suffer from overemphasizing science while paying insufficient attention to the realm of morals, where men may be impelled to behave well and inspired to resist wrongdoing.”  ¹⁴⁷  Humanity does need more scholars capable of operating in a moral context, but there is also a critical need for scholars who are capable of contributing to the search for truth at an even higher level.

A third type of scholar appears in the form of those who promise to use all their time, talent, and energy in preparing a generation to rear a generation who will accept the Creator of this earth when he comes to claim those who accepted his invitation to become one with him. For this segment of the scholarly enterprise, moral order is not enough; there is something more. The “more” is a matter of covenant. These scholars seek to be valiant. They recognize that allegiance is more than compliance because it is willful; more than attention because it is binding; more than interest because it requires an investment that elicits nurturing and protection. For them, it is insufficient to assume the attitude some have ascribed to Thomas Jefferson, i. e. that one’s deepest moral and spiritual commitment should remain professionally unexpressed and verbally unshared, displayed only in the deeds of one’s daily life. Rather, those who aspire to a celestial context of scholarship hold that the core of their belief system should be manifest “at all times, and in all things, and in all places”—not hidden “under a bushel.”  ¹⁴⁸  Without guile or insensitivity, rather with tact and consideration, this personal expression of commitment to a divine order is manifest for the purpose of contributing to the building of a greater cause than mere temporal improvement or a stronger moral order. Such scholars recognize that it is spiritually impossible to walk in the light while they pull the shades down.

Legitimizing all three levels of scholarly pursuit is the premier challenge for those who think and feel that scholarship is a significant contribution to the ultimate welfare of humanity; at present these three levels of scholarship are not all honored. Level one prevails, level two may be tolerated, level three tends to be excluded, ridiculed, and persecuted. Consequently, such scholarly investment is suffering and lacking. We are in great need of a capstone that will legitimize the search for and the discussion of matters that go far beyond the physical, measurable, and rhetorical dimensions of schooling. We are in need of scholarly endeavors in every discipline that consciously seeks to engage the Spirit of Deity in their scholarly endeavors. The price for success in this type of scholarly effort is really a matter of covenant consecration. It is truly self-less and service oriented.

Differing Patterns of Education

The foregoing dispositions of scholarship form the foundations for three different patterns of education. The first pattern is characterized by science. It is reason based, research centered, and politically flavored. The second pattern emerges from the humanities. It is tradition based, rhetoric centered, and philosophically flavored. The third pattern extends beyond the physical and humanistic. It is faith based, scripture centered, and research flavored. Rather than emphasizing philosophy mingled with scripture, the latter approach stresses the application of divine scripture mingled with research. Assumptions that drive scholarly activity come from somewhere and are extensions of something. Faith-based scholarship in any and every discipline recognizes the finite should not circumscribe and seek to dictate to the infinite.

Science and the humanities are important, useful, and necessary. The application of scholarly tools and processes in these fields are vital to the refinement of a civilized society. But they can carry the human cause only to limited heights; a greater vision is necessary to maximize human destiny. “Science is trustworthy as far as human senses and reason are trustworthy—no more.”  ¹⁴⁹  Spencer W. Kimball captured the spirit of this type of scholarship when he suggested that the highest quality of education occurs when every professor and teacher . . . keep[s] his subject matter bathed in the light and color of the restored gospel, and has all his subject matter perfumed lightly with the spirit of the Gospel. Always, there would be an essence and the student would feel the presence.”  ¹⁵⁰  Only when an atmosphere prevails that encourages this aroma in scholarly circles will scholarship find itself able to convey a sufficiently broad and healthy definition.

Contemporary society now confronts a growing conflict between what some have called modernist and post-modernist thought. Modernism: patterns of linear, information processing, reductionist theory have dominated our immediate past. This paradigm is now being challenged in nearly every field by complexity theory: non-linear, meaning-making patterns of thought. The definition and application of scholarship will be revisited in the coming decades. It is vital that this visit enhance rather than inhibit the ability of the Academy to serve the highest purposes and aims of education. It seems to me there is a mission here for the rising generation of Latter-day Saint scholars. At the very least we stand at a threshold which invites a serious discussion of (a) what scholarship is,

(b) should be, and (c) the way it shapes the various forms of education. A serious discussion such as this is now lacking; the resulting vacuum is an invitation for change—uncomfortable as that might be.

Abraham’s great vision on astronomy revealed the design of the heavens and can be summarized as three truths.

Is the universe ruled by intelligence or chance? Modern science is currently enamored with the theory that chance rules the universe, from the tiny atomic scales of quantum mechanics to our entire universe of the supposed “Big Bang.” The Lord, however, has made it clear that intelligence governs. Even for believers, however, the question arises, “Just how much of a role does chance play?” For example, did our solar system form naturally according to God’s laws from a condensing cloud of interstellar matter with planets having more or less random periods of rotation and revolution, or was it designed as a precision timepiece? This article proposes that Abraham’s vision on astronomy ^[1] is the key to understanding that the Lord designed our solar system to be a Great Timepiece.

When the anti-Christ Korihor refused to believe in God, Alma used the high degree of order found in the solar system as a proof of the existence of a Creator. Alma refuted Korihor’s agnostic teachings by declaring, “all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator”^[2]. Atheists today would not be convinced by Alma’s argument because most scientists believe that our solar system formed according to natural law and that all can be explained without God. Indeed, scientists have discovered many wonderful natural laws such as Kepler’s laws and Newton’s laws which the planets all faithfully follow. Computer studies have shown how a random collection of particles could form into a solar system, with a sun and planets very much like our own. So how would Alma’s argument fare today, with new age atheists claiming that the solar system simply created itself, according to these apparently self existent laws of physics? Should the witness of the planets be relegated to an unenlightened age during which Korihor was forced to remain mute only because he didn’t have today’s scientific responses at the tip of this tongue? If Korihor had lived today, and had quoted all the modern laws of physics and principles of self-organization, could Alma have had an answer for him?

This article proposes that Alma could respond today that the solar system is far more orderly than the known laws of physics would predict, and hence a Creator is still required to explain it. This order leads to the proposal that the solar system is indeed a Great Timepiece, designed to display time very much like an ordinary clock. This huge clock in the sky is a testimony that there is indeed a Watchmaker who created it. Moreover, as we have seen in past articles, it appears that the Watchmaker is using his Timepiece to schedule key events of history.

The Lord has prophesied that

This passage makes it clear that the times of revolutions of the sun, moon, and stars have not only been appointed, but that their “set times” shall be revealed in this current dispensation. Moreover, even the timing of when those set times would be revealed was planned in the great Council before this world was created. Modern astronomers have discovered the periods of rotation and revolution of the planets in our solar system to a very high precision, which seems to qualify as at least partially fulfilling this prophecy that their times of revolutions would be revealed in our days. The keys to discovering the incredible order and precision of the solar system, however, and each of the “set times,” are given in the great revelation on astronomy in the Book of Abraham.

Let us begin by discussing some of the ways that scientists recognize intelligent forces in action, review some examples of order found in our solar system, and then begin to explore in detail how the Book of Abraham unfolds the workings of the Lord’s timepiece.

Law and Order

When order is observed in nature, it usually indicates to a scientist one of three things: either 1) there is a natural law which explains it, 2) it is the result of blind chance, or 3) there is an intelligence which created the order. For example, if a lot of acorns are found at the foot of an oak tree, the law of gravity most likely was influential in arranging them on the earth’s surface. If acorns are found in a hole in the tree, where no natural law is known to explain it, then one might argue that the arrangement is the result of mere chance. Perhaps the wind blew the acorns into the hole as they fell. In many cases the probability of a certain arrangement can be calculated, and a simple appeal to reason can be made. In this case, the wind explanation is so improbable that the third alternative of an organizing intelligence, such as a squirrel, is far more likely to be correct.

Of course, when scientists make the distinction between an intelligence and a natural law, they usually avoid the question, “Who wrote the laws of nature?” The scriptures tell us: “God … hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons” ^[4]. Thus, in reality, at least two of the three explanations of order actually involve intelligence because God wrote the laws of nature.

Let us now discuss some of the higher order found in the solar system, and decide for ourselves whether or not it should be attributed to “natural laws,” to mere chance, or to the hand of the Creator ^[5].

An Organized System

The solar system is composed of the sun, a number of planets which revolve around it, their moons, and other miscellaneous objects including comets and asteroids. One of the greatest signs of order in the solar system is that the sun and all of the principal planets are located nearly in a plane and all revolve around the sun in the same direction.^[6] A similar phenomenon is seen throughout our universe: there are many flattened disks of stars, which apparently are nearly all revolving in orbits in the same direction around a center. Statistically, that is so incredibly unlikely to have happened by chance that either a law or an intelligent ordering is clearly indicated.

Science and scripture agree on the explanation of this ordering: orbiting bodies all follow a law ^[7]Newton’s laws of motion and his law of gravity explain all but the tiniest deviations in their orbits, and Einstein’s modifications account for the rest. Thus, these laws greatly simplify God’s creative work, because his law includes self-organization. That is, even if one starts with a random accumulation of particles, there will almost always be some amount of spinning of the group as a whole. As the particles interact with each other, they will tend to fall into the plane of rotation and stay there in an orbit as the gravitational force toward the center is balanced by the inertial reaction away from it.

Kepler’s Three Laws

Three other regular motions discovered in the solar system were articulated by Kepler. His first law is that the planets do not move in perfect circles around the sun, but in ellipses. His second law is that the speed of the planet revolving around the sun is slower when it is farther away from the sun and faster when it is closer, according to a precise mathematical law. His third law is that a planet’s orbital period is determined solely by an average distance from the sun, again according to a mathematical law, and not by its size, shape or mass. When Newton arrived on the scene, he showed that all three of these laws were derivable in turn from his three laws of motion and his law of gravity. These self-organizing natural laws provide for a very orderly universe.

Bode’s Law

Another observation of order in the solar system is called Bode’s Law, which states that the distances of the planets from the sun tend to approximately follow a mathematical equation. This result has been harder to explain as being the result of Newton’s laws because the equations of motion are much harder to solve when many bodies are involved. Computer studies have now shown that Bode’s Law also seems to follow from Newton’s laws.^[8] Moreover, planets also tend to lock into orbits which are approximately small integer multiples of each other. For example, five Jupiter orbital periods of about 12 years each approximately equal two of Saturn’s period of about 30 years.

The order of the solar system just reviewed summarizes most of the ordering which has been discovered by scientists in the solar system.^[9] It can all be achieved by beginning with a random set of particles governed by the known laws of physics. Hence, no compelling evidence for including a Creator in the history of the formation of the solar system has been scientifically required.

There is one important area, however, where most scientists have not noticed any order and therefore have not needed to explain it. That is in the precise periods of revolution of the planets around the sun. Both the earth’s period of rotation (the day) and of revolution (the year) have been assumed to be simply random periods of time, determined by whatever chance initial angular momentum our planet happened to have when the solar system formed. Similarly, the periods of revolution of all of the planets are thought to be essentially random numbers, except for being within approximate whole-number ratios. Interestingly, that is precisely the area where the Lord revealed to Abraham that there is a high degree of order designed into our system. Let us now look in detail at what is contributed to this subject by the Book of Abraham.

Abraham’s Truths

Even as we have Kepler’s laws, Newton’s Laws, and Bode’s Law, the Lord revealed to Abraham what could be called “Abraham’s Truths.” These three truths differ somewhat from the other laws in that they each have to do with design principles for the solar system, rather than deduced mathematical relationships. I refer to them as “truths” rather than laws because they enjoy a privileged status not common in science. Science deals with theories, and makes no claim to have absolute truth. Most scientists have not had the privilege of being invited to see the design of the entire system, as taught by the Designer himself. Let us review just what the Lord showed Abraham in that marvelous vision, and restate the results as Abraham’s Three Truths.

Abraham’s First Truth

Abraham gazed into the Urim and Thummim and describes the following marvelous vision:

And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord’s time, according to the reckoning of Kolob. ^[10]

Here we are given a great truth, directly from the Creator, who told us what would otherwise be incredibly hard to discover by ourselves. The period of one earth year (365.242 days) is not a random number at all, but was designed to be such that 1,000 of our years is equal to a day of the Lord. Scientists may not have even discovered Kolob yet, much less its period of revolution. And if we had, how could we know that the earth’s orbit was designed such that 1,000 years is one revolution of Kolob, rather than it just being a chance coincidence? The place where the Lord’s revelations are the most important seems to be in the areas where man could never discover those truths by himself.

Although we have been told elsewhere that a day unto the Lord is as a thousand years ^[11], one could get the impression that a “day of the Lord” might be a vague term, meaning simply a “long time.” When Abraham actually saw Kolob, and heard the Lord explain the design, he must have clearly understood that one revolution of Kolob precisely determines one day of the Lord, even as one rotation of the earth determines one day on earth.

Kolob, which governs all of the stars of the order to which we belong, apparently also is the master clock of the entire order. It is “first in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time” (Fac. 2, Fig. 1). As an example of Kolob being a time standard, we are told that, “Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation” has a time period “which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time” (Fac. 2, Figs. 2, 4). Thus, Kolob is like the heart of the order of stars to which we belong. It both governs the order, and its heartbeat rate is the time regulator even as a quartz crystal regulates our watches.

Thus, let us summarize this information as Abraham’s First Truth:

One revolution of Kolob is one day unto the Lord, being 1,000 earth years.

The significance is that the length of the year is not a random unit of time, but was designed to be 1/1,000th of one day of the Lord. We are not told the precision of this statement, so it is not clear whether a revolution of Kolob is 365,242 earth days, or perhaps 365,000. The important point here is that the length of our year is not a random number but was carefully designed.

The fact that the Lord has synchronized the earth’s orbit with one day on Kolob suggests that the Lord might actually be using the earth’s orbit for measuring time. That is, when someone goes to the trouble to synchronize his watch with someone else’s, it is usually because he has an appointment with them, and wants both parties to be on time. Why make a clock if it is not going to be used?

Abraham’s Second Truth

But what about the sun, moon and other planets in the solar system? Are their periods just random numbers, or were they also designed? The Lord told Moses that the lights in the firmament, which includes the stars and planets, were designed to be “for signs and for seasons” ^[12], but that could mean only that they are useful for reckoning time, even with random periods. Let’s look more at Abraham’s revelation, which was received over five centuries before Moses.

The Lord showed Abraham more of the workings of our solar and stellar systems. Abraham was given to know the “set times” of the sun, moon, and earth:

And the Lord said unto me: The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years.

And the Lord said unto me: Now, Abraham, these two facts exist, behold thine eyes see it; it is given unto thee to know the times of reckoning, and the set time, yea, the set time of the earth upon which thou standest, and the set time of the greater light which is set to rule the day, and the set time of the lesser light which is set to rule the night. ^[13]

Let us restate this as Abraham’s Second Truth:

There are set times for the earth, moon and sun which were designed to reckon time.

What does “set time” mean? Grant Athay, one of the first L.D.S. astronomers to attempt any interpretation at all of the Book of Abraham, tentatively proposed a meaning for the set times of the earth, moon and sun. He said he suspected that the set time of the earth refers to the day, the set time of the moon to the lunar month, in which the moon completes its cycle of phases, and the set time of the sun to the tropical year, in which the sun makes its annual excursion through the north and south parts of the sky, causing the seasons. However, he took that interpretation no further, noting that, “Those parts of the Book of Abraham that discuss set periods of time for the sun, moon, and planets do not invoke a strong interest from astronomers.”^[14] He must be correct, because very few other professional astronomers have commented at all on the Book of Abraham.

It appears that Athay’s proposed interpretation for the set times of the earth, moon and sun is correct for the reason that those three periods form the basis of the lunisolar calendar, which the Lord later commanded Moses to use. It is called “lunisolar” because its months are determined by the phases of the moon (luni = “moon”) and the years are determined by the seasons of the sun (solar = “sun”), both of which are measured by the average solar day (based on rotation of the earth). Thus, the “set times” of the earth, moon and sun, which were designed for reckoning time, most likely refer to the fundamental periods of the Hebrew lunisolar calendar.

The Hebrew calendar also includes the time interval of the week of seven days built into it. ^[15] Mathematically, the 7-day week is the best interval for measuring both the month and the year because a month is nearly 4 weeks and a year is nearly 52 weeks. Again, this shows the consistency of the Lord in telling Moses to use 7-day weeks and also to use a lunisolar calendar.

The importance of Abraham’s Second Truth is that no one needs to apologize for the Hebrew calendar being more complicated than our simple (Gregorian) solar calendar. It is the result of design, not chance. Moreover, the Designer seems to be using such a lunisolar calendar, as we would expect. That is, many key events in religious history have occurred on days of the Hebrew calendar which the Lord has designated as holy, as I have discussed at length in my other articles.^[16]

The set time of the Earth. The set time of the earth apparently refers to the mean solar day. The day is a very stable unit of time because the rotating earth is such a good clock that it only slows down by about 1.5 milliseconds (thousandths of a second) per century.^[17]

The set time of the moon. The Lord stated that Abraham knew the set time of the moon. The value for the average length of the lunar month on which the Hebrew calendar has long been based is 29.530594 days.^[18] That value is far better than any other used in antiquity, and today’s calculation of the average value (29.530593 days) only differs by 0.000001 day, which is less than a tenth of a second. The Hebrew value is so phenominally good that I’ve believed for years that it must have been revealed and that the lunar orbit was designed to come out even in Hebrew time units.^[19] This revelation to Abraham might explain the origin of this super-accurate value. It is also possible, however, that the value had been known by Enoch, and was contained in the records in Abraham’s possession ^[20]. The revelation states only that he knows it, not that it was being revealed at that time.

The set time of the sun. Abraham also knew the set time of the sun, which apparently means the length of the seasonal year. Our best modern estimate for a historical average is 365.2425 days,^[21] which is the value used in our modern Gregorian calendar.

The length of the year is not nearly as fixed as the length of the lunar month, although it is still a very precise unit of time. The current value for the length of the year is 365.2422 days, which shows a variation of 0.0003 days from the 7,000-year average value of 365.2425. In contrast, the current value for the length of the month is 29.530588 days, which shows a deviation of only 0.000005 days from the historical average value of 29.530593. That means that a calendar based on a fixed length for the cycle of the moon, as is the Hebrew calendar, is a much more accurate calendar than one based on a fixed length for the sun’s seasons, like our Gregorian calendar.

The reason for this difference in stability might be worth noting because it again suggests design in the solar system. Various frictional effects, especially the tides, cause the earth to slow down in its rotational speed very slightly, causing the day to lengthen by about 0.0015 seconds every century. That effect causes the length of the year as measured in days slowly to decrease because the number of rotations of the earth is less in every orbital revolution, meaning a smaller number of days per year. There is also another effect equally as important to the length of the year. As the earth encounters frictional drag from encountering particles in its path as it speeds around the sun, it loses energy and the distance to the sun sightly decreases (by less than an inch per year), which also causes the length of the year to shorten by about the same amount caused by the lengthening of the day. Thus the two effects combine to double the shortening rate of the length of the year as measured in mean solar days.

On the other hand, as the tides slosh around, they tend always to rotate ahead of the moon which is causing them, and this effect actually accelerates the moon in its orbit around the earth, causing the moon slowly to recede from the earth. This effect slowly increases the length of the month and tends to compensate for the lengthening of the day. In other words, even though the length of the month is getting longer, so also is the length of the day, so that the number of days in a month is nearly constant. Hence, the month is a much better length of time on which to base a calendar than is the sun, which again points to the Hebrew lunisolar calendar as being inspired by the Designer.^[22] So far, however, the atheist will not be impressed with the “set times” of the earth, moon and sun, because they still appear to be random numbers. It is as we explore the Third Truth that the design of the “set times” will become more apparent.

Abraham’s Third Truth

The revelation to Abraham continued, revealing perhaps the most important concept. The Lord told Abraham, as they talked face to face,

“Now the set time of the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest.

And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still;

And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time…” ^[23]

Let us restate this concept more briefly as Abraham’s Third Truth:

The planets form a progression of increasing set times, designed to reckon time, beginning with the earth and moon and ending with Kolob.

Thus, it is not just the orbits of the earth and moon which have been precisely designed, but also the periods of reckoning of the other planets in our solar system, and even of a progression of stars, which take us right to Kolob. This is a huge piece of news for the astronomical community, who would not otherwise suspect that the orbital periods of the planets are anything other than random numbers. Armed with this knowledge that the lights in the heavens were indeed designed with timekeeping in mind, we can proceed to consider the set time of each of the planets. Before doing so, let us understand where the system was designed to be viewed from.

Earth-based View

One key point from the revelation is that the progression starts from the earth, from which it was clearly designed to be viewed. What use would a great clock in the sky be to man if it had to be viewed from the sun? When the Lord told Abraham to begin at the earth and to count the moon as second in the progression, he was not implying that the earth is fixed nor that is in the center of the universe. He was simply explaining the design of the solar system, namely that there is a progression of planets designed to keep time, as seen from the earth. In that progression of “one planet above another” the moon “standeth above the earth” because it “moveth in order more slow,” meaning the earth is first and the moon, in the slot above it, being second in the order of increasing periods. The Lord implied that the sun stands above the moon in this progression because its period (the year) is greater than the moon’s (the lunar month).

The year can be thought of two different ways. It can be thought of as the period of the sun’s annual motion through the sky which causes the seasons, which is the view of the Book of Abraham. We moderns tend to think of the year as the period of the earth’s orbit around the sun, rather than the sun’s motion relative to the earth. These are simply two ways at looking at the same relative motion. The Lord is explaining that the system was set up to be viewed from the earth, and that the period of one earth year is referred to as the “set time” of the sun.

Abraham was shown the governing stars near to the throne of God, and they were a long way away from the earth. Clearly, Abraham did not think that the earth was the center of the universe, for it was dwarfed by the brilliant stars near to the throne of God. It is Kolob, which is near the center of government and of time-keeping, which is most likely also near the center of the Lord’s creations. The prophets have long known that “it is the earth that moveth and not the sun” ^[24]. The Lord was merely explaining that the Great Timepiece of the solar system was designed to be viewed from the earth.

Next month’s article will take a detailed look at the planetary progression in our solar system, referred to in Abraham’s Third Truth, which progression also continues with certain stars, until we come nigh unto Kolob.

1. ↑ Abraham 3
2. ↑ Alma 30:44
3. ↑ D&C 121:30–32
4. ↑ D&C 88:41–42
5. ↑ D&C 59:21
6. ↑ Pluto’s orbit is inclined about 17

Isaiah prophesied that in the Millennium “the child shall die an hundred years old.” Modern research suggests that antioxidants often found in fresh fruits and vegetables may be the key to longevity.

Isaiah provides us with a surprisingly detailed description of life during the Millennium. One of the features he describes is that infant death will become a thing of the past, and that adults will live for a century, even to the age of a tree:

The Lord confirmed Isaiah’s prophecy in modern times:

Let us review scientific advances both in infant mortality as well as longevity, to see how this prophecy of Isaiah is already beginning to be fulfilled even before the Savior comes again to “reveal all things.”

Infant Mortality

When the Lord gave the above revelation the infant death rate was that over 40% of children in the United States didn’t live to be age 10. That means a parent with five children could expect to lose two of them in those early years! We can now only imagine what it was for a parent to live with such devastating odds of being allowed to raise even half of their children, because now the child mortality rate has dropped to be a mere 1%.^[3]

Many wonderful advances in modern medicine have helped this miracle to occur. Louis Pasteur’s discovery that many diseases are spread by germs greatly improved infant survival. Many babies and their mothers perished simply because a physician would deliver a baby right after handling a cadaver without so much as washing his hands in between. According to the law of Moses, someone who touched anything dead was “unclean” and should be purified by either waiting seven days or washing his hands ^[4]. Even though the Lord does not always explain his reasons to us, he does provide us with many helpful health hints that work whether or not we understand them.

An important point here is that the part of Isaiah’s prophecy concerning infant death has been nearly totally fulfilled by advancements in medicine before the Lord has even come to begin the Millennium. Apparently after he arrives he will reveal what is necessary to save even that other 1% so that no children will die prematurely. Now let us consider Isaiah’s prophecy of longevity.

Degenerative Diseases and Longevity

As quoted above, Isaiah also prophesied that men would no longer die before their allotted time, but would live to be a hundred years old. That may be a two-part prophecy. First, the diseases which often cause early deaths will be done away with, and second, the normal aging process may be slowed down so that an “old man” will then be at least a hundred years old rather than seventy.

In 1850, if a person succeeded to survive infant mortality problems and arrived at age ten, then he could expect to live to be 58 years old on the average. In 1900 that had only increased by two years to 60. In the following century, it increased by 15 years so that an adult can now expect to live to be about 75 years of age.^[5]

While medicine has made wonderful advances both in prolonging the length of life as well as the quality of life, the question arises as to whether or not 75 appears to be the upper limit for a “ripe old age.” The answer is clearly negative. Medicine discovered cures for the leading diseases of the early 1900′s but three new causes of death have surfaced during the last century for which no wonder drug has been found. Neither heart disease, cancer nor stroke accounted for even 8% of deaths in 1900. Since 1960, heart disease and cancer account for over half of all deaths, with stroke a distant third as shown by the following table. Stroke is closely related to heart disease because both are caused by arteries becoming clogged with rancid cholesterol. Whereas in heart disease the arteries to the heart get clogged first, in stroke it is those to the brain. Thus, for the last fifty years, clogged arteries and cancer have accounted for more than a staggering 60% of all deaths. Not shown in the table are the many other degenerative diseases such as arthritis and Alzheimer’s disease, which do not cause death immediately but greatly reduce the quality of life.

The question arises as to why have heart disease and cancer risen to dominate the death scene when they were not even serious contenders before 1900.

Antioxidants

Scientific research over the last four decades is now producing answers to the question of what causes heart disease, cancer and stroke. Some researchers noticed that one thing which has changed dramatically since 1900 is the American diet. In our fast-paced society, we have turned to prepared foods and fast foods, and away from fresh fruits and vegetables grown in our gardens. At first scientists were loathe to believe that a mere change in diet could bring on such killer diseases, but now the conclusions are based on sound scientific data.

The Antioxidant Miracle by world-famous researcher Lester Packer summarizes the last four decades of research.^[7] Dr. Packer has written 700 scientific articles and 70 books on the subject, but this is his first book for the layman. Only a tiny part of the findings are summarized here from that highly recommended book.

In a nutshell, the findings are that our bodies are under constant attack by free radicals, which are unstable molecules that damage our cells. We have a natural defense mechanism to protect us from this continual onslaught: antioxidants. These are molecules which neutralize the free radicals before they can do their damage. The damage that causes clogged arteries is cholesterol turning rancid (being oxidized) which then sticks to the artery walls leading to heart disease and stroke, and a host of other problems such as impotence and Alzheimer’s disease. The other principal damage is to the DNA within the cell which governs all of the cells activities, including reproducing and even self-destructing when needed. When the governing DNA itself is damaged, it leads to cancer, which is the unchecked multiplication of cells which would have died a natural death if their DNA had not been damaged.

So what are these antioxidants which are supposed to protect us? Two of the main ones are vitamin C (water soluble) and vitamin E (fat soluble). The word “vitamin” refers a substance which is required to sustain life which is not produced within the body, but which we must get from the foods or supplements we eat. There are actually hundreds of antioxidants needed, which can be obtained largely from a diet including plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables. However, in this modern day of depleted soils and over-processed foods, Dr. Packer points out that food supplements are necessary in order to receive optimum amounts of these antioxidants. The quality of research being performed is so impressive that this author has written a more detailed book review complete with a table summarizing optimum amounts of each antioxidant recommended.^[8]

Today no one questions the fact that vitamin C prevents scurvy, but for hundreds of years it was a great mystery to know what caused half of the crews of the great world explorers of the 1500′s to die a horrible death. It turns out that since the 1200′s, voyagers had been advised to take plenty of fresh fruits along with them, including lemons, to avoid scurvy. Many failed to do so, perhaps finding it hard to believe that such a simple thing as eating an orange could prevent a killer disease. Finally by 1800 the British navy required sailors to eat limes, and now the disease only occurs where vitamin C sources are not eaten.

The evidence relating vitamin E and other antioxidants (such as lipoic acid and coenzyme Q10) to clogged arteries and cancer is almost as strong as that relating vitamin C to scurvy. When a scientist wants to induce heart disease in laboratory animals, vitamin E can simply be withheld and the animals get heart disease. It’s a simple as that. When vitamin E is restored, they improve dramatically. That sounds a lot like withholding vitamin C to induce scurvy. To me this means that in the next century heart disease and cancer will become a thing of the past, as scurvy is now, for those who heed the warnings and make simple changes to their diets. Packer’s book also details how many other diseases such as adult-onset diabetes and arthritis can be greatly reduced by proper antioxidant intake.

Natural Foods

Because many scientists don’t believe in the Creator, they have no reason to think that foods come packaged as a set of nutrients that were designed to work together. Thus they seem constantly to be trying to isolate one ingredient, either as a drug or as a nutrient. For example flavonoids, another group of antioxidants, come packaged with vitamin C in citrus fruits and other natural sources. Vitamin C is often sold as the single chemical ascorbic acid, but some companies left the natural flavonoids intact with it. Today those who included the flavonoids even before science had demonstrated their importance have been vindicated. The flavonoids have been shown to boost the effectiveness of vitamin C.

That scenario is repeating with vitamin E. It was first found the human liver prefers the “alpha” or principal tocopherol. So most vitamin companies supply only that one part of vitamin E, and often it is created synthetically from petroleum. The natural form is labeled with “d-” as “d-alpha tocopherol.” Now it has been found that the entire vitamin E complex is necessary for health because each of the four tocopherols has a different use. Moreover, the tocotrienols which are part of the complex are also very important because they help scrub out arteries which are already clogged. They are found in the bran of grains which so often has been removed in the “refining” process, having been thought unimportant. Thus, as scientific research advances, we find that those are vindicated who have believed all along in a Creator who provides nutritious food pre-packaged for us in healthy combinations and proportions.

Longevity

Given that many of the degenerative diseases can be controlled, if not eradicated, by proper vitamin, mineral, and antioxidant intake, what about the length of life in general? Isaiah also said that many would live to be the age of a tree in the Millennium. Can the length of live be increased from our current 75 years? The answer throughout history is that there have been many groups who have routinely lived to be 120 years old, with virtually no incidence whatever of degenerative diseases. The Essenes at the time of Christ and the Hunza in Tibet are well-known examples. What they had in common was that their diet consisted of fresh fruits and vegetables from their own naturally fertilized gardens which were rich in minerals. Various researchers have attributed their success to either the minerals, water, or fresh foods, but it might well be due to a combination of these simple healthy living practices.

Our bodies are known to produce fewer antioxidants with age, so that our defenses against free radicals diminish with time. About fifty years ago the theory was advanced that perhaps antioxidants are not only the key to fighting degenerative diseases, but also to slowing down the aging process in general. Further research has confirmed this hypothesis. For example, the life of certain cells in the laboratory has been doubled by giving ample antioxidants. If similar results could be obtained in humans that could mean living to the age of two centuries rather than one. That sounds even more like the age of a tree, and is reminiscent of the extremely advanced ages of the antediluvian patriarchs.

The Tree of Life

So now that we have discovered that antioxidants found in many healthy fruits and vegetables can prolong life, one might ask what is in the fruit of the tree of life? The Book of Revelation tells us that the sides of the crystal river will be lined with the tree of life which bears twelve different fruits, each in a different month, and that its leaves will heal the nations ^[9]. It sounds like fruit and green leaves are going to be a key to health and longevity. The “universal antioxidant” is called lipoic acid because it is both water and fat soluble and it helps to recycle several other antioxidants. Studies have shown that as much as 100 mg of lipoic acid per day may be optimum to protect against disease and prolong life. The problem is that although spinach is a good source of lipoic acid, it takes seven pounds of spinach to provide 1 mg of it. This is why the researchers say that for maximum benefit we need to supplement our diets. What has occurred to me is that perhaps the leaves of the tree of life are much richer in antioxidants so that during the Millennium simply eating the foods available could extend life considerably. Of course, that is only speculation, but the scientific facts are that these antioxidants greatly decrease the chance of contracting the main killer diseases and also prolong the average life of cells.

Grapes

Note that grapes are specifically mentioned in the context of longevity in the first quote from Isaiah which began this article: “they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them” ^[10]. That verse occurs between those stating that people will live to be 100 years old and to the age of a tree. As is well known today, it has been discovered that important antioxidants are contained in both the skins and seeds of grapes. So again, Isaiah hit the bull’s-eye in a verse where it may have looked like he lost his train of thought for a moment. In fact, he even said “eat” the fruit, presumably including the skins and seeds, rather than merely “drink the juice of.”

Word of Wisdom

Of course, some of these discoveries may not surprise the LDS people who were told by the Lord in the Word of Wisdom back in 1833 that we should eat “all wholesome herbs” and “every fruit in the season thereof” ^[11]. It even explicitly mentions the “fruit of the vine” as healthful ^[12]. We were told that if we follow this wise advice, and also avoid meat except in times of famine or cold, we will have health in the navel and that the “destroying angel” would pass us by. I for one am going to make more of an effort to dodge the destroying angel by eating more fresh fruits and vegetables and taking antioxidant supplements.

Conclusion

Isaiah’s prophecies that infant death would disappear and that men would not die early but live to be a century old is already beginning to be fulfilled. Many of the diseases and other causes of infant death have been overcome by modern medicine, to the extent that the infant mortality rate has dropped from 40% in 1850 to 1% today. Research in the last few decades now indicates that the three leading causes of death, heart disease, cancer and stroke can now be greatly reduced by the proper intake of antioxidants which are found in the fresh fruits and vegetables advocated by the Word of Wisdom. Moreover, it appears that antioxidants may also hold the key to counteracting aging processes in general, so that the expected life span of mankind is now rapidly approaching the century mark prophesied by Isaiah.

1. ↑ Isaiah 65:20–22
2. ↑ D&C 101:30–32, compare D&C 63:50–51
3. ↑ According to the Time Almanac 2001 (p. 133) the life expectancy of a newborn in 1850 was 38.3 years, whereas a 10 year old at that time could expect to live to be 58.0 years old. In 1998, the average newborn should live to be 74.5 whereas a youth of 10 expects 75.2 years. Those numbers imply the results quoted.
4. ↑ Lev. 11, 15, 22
5. ↑ Ibid.
6. ↑ The expected ages are from the source in footnote 1. The percentage of deaths from the three leading diseases are from The Amazing Almanac (Woodbridge, Conn.: Blackbirch Press, 2000), p. 251.
7. ↑ Packer, Lester & Colman, Carol, The Antioxidant Miracle (New York: Wiley & Sons, 1999).
8. ↑ Pratt, John P., “The Antioxidant Miracle” (1 Feb 2003), [1].
9. ↑ Rev. 22:1–2
10. ↑ Isa. 65:21
11. ↑ D&C 89:10–11
12. ↑ D&C 89:16

Israelites will return from the north on a highway cast up in the midst of the great deep.

The tenth Article of Faith of the LDS Church begins, “We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes . . . ” One aspect of the restoration of those tribes is that a highway will be “cast up in the midst of the great deep” for their return ^[1]. Let us consider just what that might mean.

Ten^[2] of the twelve tribes of Israel were taken into captivity into Assyria over seven centuries before Christ. They did not return, and have become known as the “Lost Ten Tribes” of Israel. The Lord has made it clear that he has not forgotten them and that some of their descendants will receive all of the blessings of the restored gospel.

There is uncertainty about the extent to which the lost tribes might have stayed together. What is certain is that some of the tribes were scattered to the four winds over much of the earth ^[3], and that some of the tribes will return from the north ^[4].

This article does not speculate about the location of the lost tribes, nor the degree to which they remained as one body. To be unambiguous, in this paper “lost tribes” refers to the entire group that disappeared, “scattered tribes” refers to those who became dispersed, and “northern tribes” refers to those who will return from the north. There may be a lot of overlap among the tribes counted in each of those definitions.^[5] Having thus attempted to define terms, let us now turn to what the scriptures tell us about the return of the northern tribes.

Prophesied Return

There are many scriptures which prophesy the return of the northern tribes. In the Old Testament, Isaiah and Jeremiah are probably the principal exponents ^[6]. When the Angel Moroni first appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith, he quoted this verse from Isaiah and announced that it was soon to be fulfilled ^[7]:

So there will be a “highway” for the tribes to return from their Assyrian captivity that will in some way be like the highway that the Lord produced for the children of Israel to escape from Egypt. What was that highway? One feature was that it divided the sea, so they could pass over. Is that the way in which the new highway will be similar to it?

Another prophecy of Isaiah was later explained by modern revelation:

One key to understanding this somewhat enigmatic allusion to the northern tribes, and especially to the highway, was revealed in modern times. The Lord explains:

Note how clearly the Lord explains the verses from Isaiah 35 quoted above, which also mention the “parched ground,” “songs of everlasting joy,” and the focus of this article, the “highway” ^[11]. It is this passage that contains the cornerstone verse which this article seeks to understand, that a “highway shall be cast up in the midst of the great deep.”

Highway of Holiness

Because D&C 133 so clearly refers to and explains Isaiah 35, we can also infer that the other details which Isaiah adds also refer to the highway. In particular, Isaiah states that “it shall be called The Way of Holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it” and “the redeemed shall walk there.” That would be an unusual highway indeed, if only the righteous could walk on it.

One Literal Interpretation

Early in the Church, D&C 133 was usually interpreted literally, that is, “highway” means a major road, “ice” means ice, “walk” means walk, and “great deep” means ocean, suggesting a picturesque scene something like the above painting.^[12] For example, the apostle Orson Pratt, commenting on those verses, explained:

Figurative Interpretation

Elder Pratt’s interpretation was given in 1875, while there were still many unexplored areas in the north countries. As time went on, Robert Peary’s expedition claimed victory over the North pole in 1909. The accuracy and coverage of our maps improved, and there appeared to be fewer and fewer places where the northern tribes could be residing. As that happened, some LDS writers shifted to a more figurative interpretation. For example, B.H. Roberts concluded that D&C 133 was not the Lord speaking about actual events to be interpreted literally, but rather figurative events were described with hyperbole. He did not suggest just what figurative interpretation might be correct, but only warns us not to fall into the trap of believing that such fantastic events might actually occur.^[14] So which is correct? Are those verses literal or figurative? Or both?

What Does Science Say?

What does science say about a literal interpretation? Could there be multitudes of people living in areas so far north that ice could flow down at their presence? Are there areas in the north that are still uncharted? Are there known scientific processes that could quickly cast a highway up in a deep ocean? Could enough heat be generated to cause large blocks of ice to melt quickly? And what about that requirement that only the righteous can walk on the Highway of Holiness?

First, the idea of multitudes of people existing at some unknown location on the earth is now so remote that scientists would allow virtually zero chance of that happening. We can all browse satellite images on the internet of north countries without finding any uncharted areas.

As for the question about the rapid formation of a land bridge, that would also require a process unknown to modern science. Of course, volcanoes can form rapidly and produce enough heat to melt ice, but they tend to form mountains rather than land bridges. They do often occur along a fault line, such as the string of volcanic Aleutian Islands off the coast of Alaska, or the volcanoes in Oregon and Washington.^[15] But the best examples science has to offer are strings of isolated volcanoes which are more like stepping stones than a land bridge. The “highway” described in D&C 133 sounds like a mountain range that arises from the depths of the ocean so that the peaks protrude from the water and ice to form a land bridge. That matches a feature like the isthmus of Panama, but such a land bridge is believed to require a long time to form. Thus, science knows of no way to produce a highway in the depths of the sea quickly by natural means. A more modern form of transportation such as airways or a transit system does not seem to fit the description that the redeemed will “walk” on it ^[16], much less the requirement that only the righteous can do so.

Thus, modern science would say there is virtually no chance of a literal fulfillment of the prophecies of a highway being cast up in the deep ocean on which the northern tribes could return from an unknown location in the arctic. If it were to happen, many scientists would call it a miracle indeed.

What if?

Now let us consider a very unlikely hypothesis, at least from the scientific perspective. What if the literal interpretation is correct? What if a scene very much like Mary Pratt Parker’s illustration above actually were to take place? To me it would explain a lot of other unusual scriptures, so it is worth considering as a possibility. Such an event may be out of the reach of modern science, but surely not beyond the powers of God.

A Major Miracle

First of all, if a land bridge suddenly appeared out of the depths of the ocean, connecting the North American continent to some island or other continent in the north, and the ice flowed down, and the northern tribes were to return across it, bringing their treasures, and if their enemies could not impede them, nor even walk on the highway, then it would be a miracle indeed! In fact, think about it for a moment. If that were really to happen tomorrow, it would be on all world news coverage for months. But it would be much more than just a major earthquake or volcano. This would be an event of worldwide impact which would clearly “make bare the arm of the Lord,” that is, it would clearly show the hand of God.

The Second Coming will be preceded by many great signs and wonders, but this one would be different from most of them. When the crops of the earth are destroyed by a hail storm or the sea heaves beyond its bounds, it will appear only to be an unfortunate natural disaster. When the sun is darkened and the moon turns to blood, scientists will also no doubt have a natural explanation. When the great sign of the coming of the Son of Man is given, the Prophet Joseph Smith explained that scientists would call it a new planet or a star.^[17] If a land bridge suddenly came up in the ocean, then even that could be called a natural event, although very unlikely.

What would make the hand of God manifest would be multitudes of people appearing from places unknown, with only the holy able to walk on the highway. Combining that with so many of the prophecies in Isaiah of the return of the northern tribes being fulfilled, as well as those in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, means people worldwide would have to be spiritually blind not to see the hand of God.

Greater Than Parting the Red Sea

In fact, this would be one of the greatest miracles ever performed by the Lord. When Jesus healed the sick, it was a sign of his identity, but many remained unconvinced. One comparable event is when Moses parted the Red Sea for the children of Israel to complete their exodus from Egypt. But even that looked like a natural event to pharaoh, as had all of the other miracles of Moses, and he led his troops into the highway across the sea. Because he could not see the hand of God, he paid a great price, and he and his armies were destroyed.

But if the northern tribes were to return on a highway cast up in a deep ocean, it would far overshadow even this great miracle of Moses in magnitude. In fact, it would appear in retrospect that Israel passing over the Red Sea on a highway through the deep was merely a type foreshadowing the great passing over which would occur on a much grander scale in the last days.

Moreover, it would perfectly explain a somewhat mysterious scripture. Jeremiah prophesied that,

Think about that. Every year the Jews celebrate Passover, remembering the exodus (on the first day of Passover) and the parting of the Red Sea to pass over to freedom (on the last day of Passover). What would it take to get them to cease referring to those events and replace them with another? When Joshua parted the waters of the Jordan River for Israel to pass over into the promised land, did that become the new miracle which defined their Lord? No, because it was not nearly so impressive. Would it not take an even more miraculous event to eclipse the great miracles of Moses? The rising of a highway from the depths of an ocean would definitely qualify to explain the prophecy of Jeremiah because it would both be truly a wonder, and would also reveal the arm of the Lord.

A Marvelous Wonder

The prophet Nephi in the Book of Mormon describes a great and marvelous work that will occur in the last days. It relates to the appearance of new scriptures which will testify of the truthfulness of the Bible and of Jesus Christ as the Savior of mankind. The beginning of this work refers to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, the ancient Nephite record which is another testament of Jesus Christ ^[19].

But as has been pointed out, the appearance of the Book of Mormon is just the beginning of this work.^[20] After Nephi describes his vision of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon ^[21], it is only in the following chapter that he describes the Lord’s marvelous work and wonder:

For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken. ^[22]

Also referring to this great and marvelous work, Nephi added:

And after our seed is scattered the Lord God will proceed to do a marvelous work among the Gentiles, . . .

Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to make bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations, in bringing about his covenants and his gospel unto those who are of the house of Israel.

Wherefore, he will bring them again out of captivity, and they shall be gathered together to the lands of their inheritance; and they shall be brought out of obscurity and out of darkness; and they shall know that the Lord is their Savior and their Redeemer, the Mighty One of Israel. ^[23].

Before these verses, Nephi talked about the Book of Mormon being restored, and how readers would be blessed if they accept the new scripture, and cursed otherwise. But these verses seem to be saying that after a sufficient time had gone by, the Lord will work a truly astounding miracle which will make it clear that the restoration is indeed his work. It will be tied to the coming forth of new scripture and to the bringing of Israel “out of obscurity.” A land bridge coming up out of the ocean would fulfill this prediction perfectly because a) everyone should call it miraculous, b) the hand of God would be revealed, c) it brings Israel out of its obscure hiding place, and d) if the treasures brought include scriptures ^[24], then it also would help bring forth yet another witness for Jesus Christ. In other words, an important part of the Lord’s marvelous work might be raising this land bridge, which would either convince people to accept the gospel or to harden their hearts against it.^[25]

The First Coming

Concerning Nephi’s prophecy of a marvelous wonder which will cause a great division among the people, causing them to see the hand of God and either accept or reject the message, note that there was a similar occurrence in the Book of Mormon.

The coming of Christ to the Nephites was clearly a small-scale similitude of his Second Coming to the entire world. It was preceded by entire cities being destroyed by fire, or wind, or being buried in the ocean or by mountains. In fact, there was a complete destruction of the wicked of that area. The survivors still had much need of repentance, but when the Savior arrived, they were all converted.

Some thirty-three years earlier, there had been a great and marvelous work performed wherein all could see the hand of God revealed. Up until that time, believers had clung to prophecies that Christ would come, but they had little hard evidence and much faith was required. A day was set apart for the believers to be executed. Then the astounding miracle occurred, exactly as prophesied. After the sun went down, it stayed as light as mid-day all during the night ^[26]. Because it precisely fulfilled prophecy and was such an unlikely event to have occurred naturally, it caused a huge division in the people. Many more now believed, but many others hardened their hearts even more. After the hard-hearted had several years to repent, they were finally destroyed so that an era of peace could begin.

If the Highway of Holiness were to arise in the great deep, would it not have a similar effect?

Hidden, Not Lost

An important concept here is that the Ten Tribes are not just lost, they were actually hidden by the hand of the Lord ^[27]. Several LDS authorities have explained that the lost tribes had indeed been hidden. For example:

“Restoration of the Lost Tribes. From the scriptural passages already considered, it is plain that, while many of those belonging to the Ten Tribes were diffused among the nations, a sufficient number to justify the retention of the original name were led away as a body and are now in existence in some place where the Lord has hidden them.” — James Talmage^[28]

“Ministers Among Lost Tribes. When the Savior taught the Nephites, he informed them that he had “other sheep” which were not of the Nephites, neither of the land of Jerusalem, and these also were to hear his voice and be ministered to by him. It is reasonable for us to conclude that among these others, who were hidden from the rest of the world, he likewise chose disciples — perhaps twelve — to perform like functions and minister unto their people with the same fulness of divine authority.” — Joseph Fielding Smith^[29]

Note the huge difference between these two concepts of lost and hidden. If someone is just lost, then rescue crews can search the area, and be somewhat confident that a thorough search should find him. But if a person is hiding, then locating him can be much more difficult. The modern satellite system with high resolution anywhere on earth has not yet located Osama bin Laden. If the Lord is hiding someone, then who would be so bold as to say that a certain location is ruled out as the hiding place because it has been searched. When the Lord wanted to hide the entire western hemisphere from the rest of the world, no one could sail across the ocean to find it ^[30]. When the Lord wanted to hide himself, he could walk unnoticed through a crowd of people to whom he was just preaching, who wanted to kill him ^[31]. If he can do that as part of his daily routine, surely he can hide whatever he wants from whomever he pleases. Let us remember that we are talking about God, who created the heavens and the earth and all things which in them are, as well as our eyes and minds.

Conclusion

The scriptures clearly teach that Israelites will someday return from the north countries. The Lord has revealed that they will do so on a highway that is cast up in the great deep. If that is interpreted literally, science has no explanation of where they might be located, much less for the sudden appearance of a land bridge across a deep ocean. Therefore, if the prophecy in D&C 133 of their return as a group along a highway is fulfilled literally, it would be a miracle. Such an event could cause many more to believe in the restoration, and others to vow to fight against it more vehemently. Time will tell just how literally the Lord meant this prophecy of a highway to be interpreted, but in any case it should be a marvelous event to witness.

The author thanks William L. Walker, Jr., James F. Pratt, Avraham Gileadi, Ronald P. Millett, and Thomas W. Mackay for enlightening discussions and most of the good ideas presented. And our beloved prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, must be thanked for challenging us all to reread the Book of Mormon, which led directly to this article.

1. ↑ D&C 133:27
2. ↑ The Bible describes a simple division of the twelve tribes into two and ten. The nation of Judah was Judah and Benjamin, whereas Israel was Ephraim, Manasseh, Dan, Naphtali, Asher, Reuben, Simeon, Gad, Issachar and Zebulon. The priestly tribe of Levi was spread throughout all the tribes and not counted in this enumeration. Many Bible commentators have chosen to add Simeon to Judah’s group. Moreover, it is usually understood that half the tribe of Benjamin went with Israel and only half stayed with Judah. Thus, scholars tend to count the lost tribes as either being ten and a half tribes (James Talmage, The Articles of Faith, SLC: LDS Church, 1961, p. 315) or nine and a half, if they count Simeon with Judah (Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah, p. 221). The problem is discussed by John Tvedness in “The Other Tribes: Which Are They?” Ensign (Jan 1982), p. 31. As for Judah, after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, they were also scattered to the four winds. Thus, all twelve tribes have been outcasts.
3. ↑ Amos 9:9, 1 Nep. 22:3-5
4. ↑ D&C 110:11
5. ↑ For the following reason, it appears to me that not all ten of the lost tribes later went north. The revelation in Zechariah 6:1–8 seems to imply that Dan, Naphtali and Asher went north, as represented by the black horse. (Those tribes were assigned to the north in Num. 2:25–31, and Dan’s color is black, as discussed in my “Cornerstone Constellations” article.) It also states the tribes assigned to the west (Ephraim, Manasseh and part of Benjamin), represented by the white horse, followed after them, also going north. But the grisled (multi-colored) horse, most likely representing several of the other tribes, went south, likely led by Reuben (leader of the south, Num. 2:10–16), which might well include southern Europe from Romania to Spain. The bay horses, which wandered to and fro in the earth, seem to represent Judah, who at that time had gone to Babylon and back (“to and fro”). That interpretation is expanded in Zech. 1:8–10 that those who wander “to and fro” are even better represented by three horses: a red, speckled and white. From the colors derived for the tribes last month, those would be Judah (red), Benjamin (red and white striped), and Ephraim/Manasseh (white). The latter may have been included here because Lehi (of Manasseh, Alma 10:3) also left just before Judah went into captivity, and they grew into a great nation, worthy of being included, but separate from the lost tribes.
6. ↑ Isa. 11:10–16; Jer. 3:18; 16:14-21
7. ↑ JS-H 1:40
8. ↑ Isa. 11:16
9. ↑ Isa. 35:7–10
10. ↑ D&C 133:26–33
11. ↑ compare Isa. 11:16, 62:10
12. ↑ “The Northern Tribes Return,” an oil painting by Mary Pratt Parker, designed by the author for this article. The leading prophet who smites the rocks and ice wears white, symbolic of Ephraim, as does the second man who carries one of their treasures, their scriptures. A steamy mist rises from the melting ice. The four men sounding the trump are dressed in the colors of the four winds (and four principal tribes of Israel), whereas both men carrying the banner wear black, symbolizing Dan. Dan is the leader of the tribes of the north (Num. 2:25), so black is the color of the prominent St. Andrew’s cross on the flag, and also the principal color of the hats. The white cross on the flag symbolizes Ephraim and Manasseh, and the other colors represent the other tribes as discussed in last month’s article. (See Pratt, John P., “Twelve Sons, Twelve Stones,” (3 Aug 2005.) Those colors are yellow-green (Zebulon), tan (Issachar), orange (Gad), green (Simeon), purple (Levi), royal blue (Reuben), light blue (Naphtali) and yellow (Asher). The multitudes who follow are singing songs of everlasting joy.
13. ↑ Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol.18, p. 24 (April 11, 1875).
14. ↑ B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1912) Vol. 2, p. 481, states: ” . . . we of course must be prepared to take into account the figurative language they speak. It is possible that if we fail to do this, we shall misapprehend, in part, some material fact of their message. Especially should one be on his guard in such highly picturesque matters as the return of the lost tribes from their long dispersion—from the lands of the north. In such an event not only will ‘mountains of ice flow down’ at the presence of their prophets, but highways will be cast up in the midst of the great deep—their enemies will become a prey unto them—in barren deserts shall come forth pools of living water—the parched ground shall no longer be a thirsty land—the ‘boundaries of the everlasting hills shall tremble at their presence!’ (Doc. and Cov., sec. 133.) We must make some allowance, I repeat, for the hyperbole of that language in which the message of these prophets is delivered . . .”
15. ↑ Pratt, John P., “Devouring Fire: Volcanoes and Scripture,” (17 Dec 1999).
16. ↑ Isa. 35:9
17. ↑ Smith, Joseph, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), p. 287.
18. ↑ Jeremiah 16:14–15.
19. ↑ 1 Nephi 22:8–9, 2 Nephi 25:17–18
20. ↑ Gileadi, Avraham, The Last Days (Orem, Utah: Book of Mormon Research Foundation, 1998), Chapter 2.
21. ↑ 1 Nephi 13:34–37
22. ↑ 1 Nephi 14:7
23. ↑ 1 Nephi 22:8, 11–12
24. ↑ 2 Nephi 29:12–13
25. ↑ It is interested that Joseph Fielding Smith used both of the words “marvelous” and “wonderful” when he described the highway. He said in The Way to Perfection, p. 125: “When the ‘lost tribes’ come — and it will be a most wonderful sight and a marvelous thing when they do come to Zion — in fulfillment of the promises made through Isaiah and Jeremiah, they will have to receive the crowning blessings from their brother Ephraim, the ‘first-born’ in Israel.”
26. ↑ 3 Nephi 1:19
27. ↑ Jacob 5:14
28. ↑ James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, ch. 18, p. 340-341.
29. ↑ Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 159.
30. ↑ 2 Nephi 1:8
31. ↑ Luke 4:30, John 8:59

Genealogy from Adam to the Twelve Tribes (including their wives)

John P. Pratt

Contents

_
Adam_ _Japheth _Nahor_&_Lot_

     |       |          _Serug__|
     |_Noah__|_Shem____|        |           _Ishmael_
             |                  |_Abraham__|
             |_Ham___                      |_Isaac_
                     |                             |_Jacob_
                     |_Seir_

Explanation

[Modifications of the original 1968 edition required for the internet edition are explained in brackets, as is this comment.]

These seven [twelve] charts contain the genealogy of all mankind for his first 1700 years, and of the “chosen line” down to the sons of the twelve sons of Israel, about 500 years later. The genealogy of the wives of these twelve is also included, as well as that of the wives of many of the patriarchs such as Noah, Lamech, and Shem. The actual intermarriages of our first ancestors at times became complicated, but the relationships should be clear from these charts if a few simple rules concerning notation are understood.

The first basic rule is that [if a vertical bar connects the right side of two individuals, it means they are the parents of the children to the right of them. If a vertical bar connects the left side, then it means are siblings.] All women have (f) for female following their names. Thus, Example 1 below means that Adam and Eve were the parents of Cain, Abel, and Seth. Sons are listed in the order of birth; daughters, when included, are generally added to the end of the list, not necessarily implying that they were all born after the sons.

When a man had more than one wife the children are connected to the vertical bars between the husband and the corresponding wife. Wives are listed in order of marriage unless otherwise specified by a number preceding the wife’s name. Accordingly, Example 2 indicates that Reuben was Jacob’s son by his first wife Leah, and Dan was his son by his third wife Bilhah.

      Example 1                         Example 2 

__Adam____ __Cain___ __1._Leah_(f)___

         |  |                                     |__Reuben__ 
         |__|__Abel___            __3._Bilhah_(f)_| 
         |  |                                     |__Dan_____ 

__Eve_____| |__Seth___ __Jacob_________|

Three of Adam and Reuben was the son of Jacob
Eve’s children were and his first wife Leah; Dan
Cain, Abel and Seth was the the son of Jacob

                                              and his third wife Bilhah.

The second basic rule is that when a wife is not specified, a man’s offspring are connected to him by a [vertical] line in the case of one son, or by a branched set in the case of more than one. In order to maintain this notation consistently throughout, especially that of the order of birth, it is often necessary to cross the vertical marriage bars. This is accomplished by either breaking the bars or the line crossing, depending on what relationship is being stressed. The fact that the lines do not connect with the vertical bars is important because the line continuing through the bars is not a son, but a continuation of the same person. For example, Example 3 shows that Lamech married Cainan’s daughter Adah, and their child was Jabal. Jared, however, was the son of Mahalaleel, Adah’s brother. The only exception to this rule of parents and children being actually connected to the vertical bars is Lot (page 5), whose line does not touch the bars to emphasize that the line to the right of the marriage still refers to Lot and not to a son.

           Example 3.
         
           __Lamech______     __Jared__        
                         |   |
           __Mahalaleel______|
__Cainan__|
          |              |______Jabal__
          |__Adah_(f)____|

  Jared was Mahalaleel's son,
  but Jabal was the son of Lamech 
  and Mahalaleel's sister Adah(f).

The only other needed explanation is that one straight line, regardless of length, always refers to just one person. If he was known by more than one name, the other is listed in parentheses, either below or to the right of his other name. Bible spelling of all names is used whenever possible. Also, all birth and death dates are counted in years after the beginning of Adam’s mortal life. Dotted lines indicate that the person is a direct descendant, but that the exact relationship is uncertain.

A complete list of references for all the information found in these charts is found [after the charts].

References

[In the references on each page,] “Jas.” refers to the Book of Jasher, “Josephus” refers to Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, by Flavius Josephus, “Abr.” and “Moses” refer to the books of Abraham and Moses found in the Pearl of Great Price.

[Note to internet edition: Much of the information in these charts comes from the Book of Jasher, which is not a scriptural source. Continued research over the last three decades, however, has vindicated the use of this book. It was taken from a very ancient source indeed, and is much more reliable than is Josephus. I was unaware of the Book of Jubilees, which also has much genealogical information, when I produced these charts. Since that time I've looked at the Book of Jubilees in detail and have found it to be unreliable in chronological and genealogical information. Thus, most of the information in these charts still looks correct to me, so I feel it is worth republishing on the internet. The entire Book of Jasher can be found on the internet, formatted by chapter to allow easy checking of all the references given.]

The Book of Mormon and sacred calendars provide keys to understand the patterns of the Biblical Exodus.

One of the strongest types or patterns in the Book of Mormon is that of an exodus similar to that of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. This recurring pattern is interesting not only because of the similarites to the archetype for which the book of Exodus was named, but also because of many differences. Some of those differences are now explained in this article because the Lord’s sacred calendars provide the keys to understand two separate Passover patterns more fully.

Exodus Examples

First let us review three cases of the Lord delivering his people to discover some of the essential elements of what could be called “Passover Patterns.” There are many examples of exodus/passover events from which to choose, including Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem, the meridian Passover at which the Savior was born and the believing Nephites were delivered from death, the great Passover at which the Savior delivered the captives from the spirit prison, the time when Joshua passed over the Jordan River into the promised land, and even the exodus of the ten tribes from their captivity in Assyria,^[1] and their future return when a highway will be cast up in the midst of the great deep for their deliverance from obscurity and captivity into light and freedom.^[2] In an effort to keep this article short and simple, let us pass over all of those examples and focus only on three: the Exodus from Egypt, and the deliverances of both King Limhi and also of Alma as described in the Book of Mormon ^[3]. Sacred calendars are employed to explain the differences in the details of the deliverances and increase our understanding of the Passover Patterns.

Exodus from Egypt

The Exodus of the enslaved Israelites from Egypt is the classic archetype of Passover. We are told the story in the Bible in some detail ^[4], but it is not clear just which parts of the history are essential to the pattern and which are incidental. It is only by looking at what is included in several incidences of deliverances that the entire pattern emerges.

Many mighty works and wonders were done for Pharaoh to convince him to let the children of Israel leave their slavery in Egypt. The tenth plague was that all of the firstborn of Egypt died on the night that began the Passover week that year. The Lord “passed over” the houses which were marked to be saved by the blood of the lamb, and they were spared. Pharaoh then commanded the Israelites to leave quickly, lest even more die. Later Pharaoh had a change of heart and decided to pursue the escaped slaves and restore them to captivity. He caught up with them on the shores of the Red Sea. That night the east wind blew all night while a pillar of fire prevented Pharaoh from attacking. On the seventh day, the Red Sea was parted and the Israelites passed over on dry ground. When Pharaoh followed, he and his army perished as the sea returned to its place.

Limhi

Now let us apply this pattern to the story of the deliverance of the people of Limhi from captivity as described in the Book of Mormon ^[5]. First of all, note that the Book of Mormon leaves absolutely no doubt that this is a classic pattern of the exodus, or Passover Pattern. For example, a phrase similar to “Lord delivering them from bondage” is used almost every time the account is mentioned.

The people of King Limhi found themselves enslaved by the Lamanites, having to pay a stiff 50% income tax. When Ammon came from Zarahemla in the fourth year of King Mosiah’s reign, they looked to him to deliver them from bondage. The plan was proposed to get the guards drunk and to have the captives all escape through the back pass to the city. The plan was executed like clockwork and the people escaped with their animals and goods. The next morning the guards and city awoke and pursued them, but amazingly they lost the tracks of thousands of people and animals, and indeed they themselves became lost in the wilderness. In other words, the pursuers were unable to follow the path of the righteous. But Limhi’s group did successfully walk the path back to the desired land of Zarahemla, and entered its gate to live in peace and safety.

Meanwhile, the Lamanite pursuers, lost in the wilderness, stumbled first upon the village of Amulon, headed by the escaped priests of King Noah. After they joined forces, the combined group next discovered the town of Helam, where Alma’s followers had been living for some time. The Lamanites captured the town and put the wicked priest Amulon as head taskmaster over Alma’s people. Thus, Alma’s people became enslaved also.

Alma

After an unspecified amount of time, the oppressed people of Alma prayed unto the Lord for deliverance. Finally the Lord answered their prayer, and told Alma he would deliver them from captivity. This time, instead of using wine to get the guards drunk, the Lord said he would accomplish the same thing by simply putting the guards, and indeed all of the Lamanites, to sleep. The people prepared for their escape all through the night, then the Lamanites continued to sleep all during the next day, while the people of Alma escaped and traveled all that day to the Valley of Alma.

Then the next day the Lamanites all awoke and discovered that their slaves had bolted, so they began in hot pursuit after them. That day, while the people of Alma were rejoicing and praising the Lord for their freedom, their festivities were interrupted when the Lord advised Alma that the Lamanites had awakened, and his group must make haste to avoid being recaptured. He was promised that as soon as they had left the Valley of Alma, that the Lord would stop the enemy there, and their deliverance would be complete. That happened, and the people of Alma followed the path back to the desired destination of Zarahemla, where they too entered the gate to live in a city of peace and safety.

Similarities and Differences

There are some obvious similarities and differences in the details provided in these three accounts. Similarities include the fact that all three groups were captive Israelites. After each group cried sufficiently to the Lord for help, a deliverer was sent, who led the people out of captivity. In all three cases, the enemy finally began to pursue them, but was then stopped by the Lord, completing their escape from bondage.

One thing that prompted this article was the desire to explain some of the obvious differences. It was surprising to me that in two of these three cases, the captors were stupefied, either by drink or sleep, into letting the captives escape. If that had happened in only one case, it would not be so unusual, but it was mysterious to me that the Lord used this method twice, when it seemed to have nothing to do with the pattern established in the Exodus from Egypt.

Now let us turn to calculating the precise dates of the deliverance of Limhi and Alma. While those exact dates may not be especially important to know, they will explain what the sleeping symbolism is all about, and even show how it is in the story of the Exodus from Egypt, but has been overlooked. Once we understand it, it adds greatly to the Passover symbolism, and might also help us recognize possible future exodus patterns, such as the return of the Ten Tribes, and perhaps even the return of the Latter-day Saints from the wilderness to redeem Zion ^[6].

Passover Dates

Now let us propose precise dates for all of these events, and see what is implied by the Lord’s sacred calendars. Before doing so, let us review the symbolism of Passover season on the Hebrew calendar.

Easter and Passover

There are four important sacred days associated with Passover. The first is 10 Nisan (the tenth day of the first month of spring), the day on which the sacrificial lamb is chosen and set apart ^[7]. That day was not designated to be a holy day in the law of Moses, but a variety of important events has led me to count it with the holy days, and to name it “Consecration.” The next holy day is Passover, 15 Nisan, or more formally, “The First Day of Passover.” The sacred Passover meal is eaten on the preceding evening after the sacrifice of the lamb on that afternoon, and no leavened bread is eaten during the entire Passover week following. The last, or seventh day of Passover, 21 Nisan, ends the sacred week. It is also a sacred day of rest, on which there is a holy convocation. The fourth important day is Easter, which on the Hebrew calendar is the Sunday following Passover.^[8] It usually falls sometime during the Passover week, but if Passover falls on a Sunday, then Easter is the following Sunday, after the entire Passover week has concluded. In the law of Moses, it was not a holy day, but there was a special ceremony called the Waving of the Omer, which was an offering of the firstfruits of the ground. After the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it became clear that this waving on Sunday morning was symbolic of the rising of Jesus from the dead, as the firstfruits of them that slept. In my reckoning of holy days, that day is simply called Easter (it nearly always coincides with our Easter) and is treated as if it had been a holy day from the beginning. Thus there are four holy days associated with Passover.

The Exodus

Precise dates have already been derived for the Exodus from Egypt. The Bible makes it clear that the Exodus occurred on a Thursday, because the manna began to fall 31 days later on a Sunday, establishing the pattern of the week. Counting back 31 days from a Sunday brings one to Thursday. The precise date indicated on our calendar is Thu 9 Apr 1462 BC.^[9] Looking at the sacred calendars for that date tells us that there was only one really important day that spring, as far as being a holy day on multiple sacred calendars. That was the night the wind parted the Red Sea, Tue 14 Apr 1462 BC, which was a holy day simultaneously on at least four sacred calendars. It began the Last Day of Passover (Hebrew), and was 1 Wind (Sacred Round), 1 Birth (Venus), 1 Creation (Mercury). That made it a rare day indeed and a major miracle occurred on that day.

As for the other days, Consecration was a double holy day, being also Passover on the Enoch calendar. That is not very unusual, and that day is only mentioned as having the lamb chosen that day, which is just part of the standard ceremony. Easter Sunday was not particularly special that year, being holy on only one other calendar (the Priest cycle).

Limhi

What allows this entire study to be done is that the precise year of the deliverance of the people of Limhi is implied in the Book of Mormon. We are explicitly told that after King Benjamin’s son Mosiah had reigned for three years, that Ammon led a party of sixteen to see if he could discover the people that Zeniff had led back to the land of Nephi many years earlier ^[10]. After Ammon successfully found them, the account seems to imply that it was not more than a month or so before the people were delivered.

Fortunately, one of the few precise dates known in the Book of Mormon is that of the great speech of King Benjamin at the Feast of Tabernacles, where he announced that his son Mosiah would immediately become the new king. That speech was almost certainly given on Sat, 2 Oct 126 BC.^[11] If so, then the three years of peace which followed would have been 125 to 123 BC and we should look for Limhi’s flock to have been freed in late 123 BC or in 122 BC.

That brings us to the calendrical hypothesis. Because the Book of Mormon emphasizes so clearly the Passover pattern in Limhi’s escape, should we not look to the very week of Passover 122 BC for the rescue of Limhi to have occurred? The people of Limhi were keeping the law of Moses which celebrates that very concept. Would they not have prayed to the Lord especially hard at that time for deliverance?

So the idea suggests itself to look at the calendar to see if anything interesting was happening at Passover in 122 BC. Were there any special alignments that year, such as several sacred calendars lining up with simultaneous holy days, such as happened at the exodus from Egypt?

The answer is a resounding yes! There was something very special about two days of Passover that year, which is a confirmation both of the year and exact time of the event. Passover itself was on Tue 25 Mar 122 BC. That day was apparently not significant at all on other sacred calendars, and the day Consecration was not special either.

Easter Sunday of Passover week, however, was an extremely significant day. Easter Sunday morning (Sun 30 Mar 122 BC am) was also 13 Grass (Sacred Round), where Grass refers to new grass growing out of a dead skull, symbolic of the resurrection. It was also 0 Prime (Mercury), 1 Spring (New Year’s Day, Enoch), and 1 Autumn (Trumpets, Enoch Fixed). Moreover, it was the holy day that begins the Priest cycle, 1 Jehoiarib. So it was a holy day on six sacred calendars, with that of the Sacred Round being especially symbolic of death and resurrection. Moreover, it was in the sacred year of the Winter Equinox (0 WINTER) on the Enoch Fixed calendar, so it was a rare date indeed.

The next day, Mon 31 Mar 122 BC, was not only the Last Day of Passover, it was also 1 Reed on the Sacred Round, symbolic of the completion of the Resurrection, and the day of birth of Jesus Christ. It was also 1 Prime (Mercury), so it was holy on three sacred calendars, again with special emphasis on the resurrection.

So how does any of this help explain anything in the history of Limhi’s exodus? Should we conclude that the deliverance happened during Passover that year or not? Before deciding, let us look for the date of Alma’s deliverance.

Alma

The Hebrew and Enoch calendars sometimes approximately repeat after three years, and such was the case after Limhi. In fact, the calendar three years later was even more impressive than for the escape of Limhi. Could Alma’s deliverance have occurred three years after Limhi’s? Yes, because three years gives ample time for Amulon to have oppressed the entire town of Helam enough for the inhabitants to have been crying mightily to the Lord for deliverance. So let us look at that date more closely.

First of all, the calendar was the same in that Consecration and Passover were not impressive, but Easter and the Last Day of Passover were. Easter morning that year (Sun 26 Mar 119 BC am) was holy on seven sacred calendars, being also 13 Dragon (SR), 0 Cre (Mer), 0 Birth (Venus), 1 Spr (Enoch), 1 Aut (EF), and 1 Hup (Priest). The next day was not only the Last Day of Passover, it was also 1 Serpent (SR), 1 Birth (Venus) and 1 Creation (Mercury). Even though that is only four sacred calendars, what is impressive is that three of those four dates are identical to the Last Day of Passover at the Exodus from Egypt. In particular, that day was also the Last Day of Passover, 1 Birth (Venus) and 1 Creation (Mercury).

Just how rare is such an alignment of those three calendars? These calendars are discussed in more detail in my earlier articles, but here let it suffice to say that the day 1 Birth (Venus) only coincides with the Last Day of Passover about twice in 584 years, and for that day to also begin the Mercury cycle, one must wait about 2,628 years on the average. That means we would only expect about three such dates to occur in the 7,000 years of the earth’s temporal existence ^[12].

That statistic prompted me to do an exhaustive search to find all such dates. Using my current models for those three calendars, there are only three dates between 4000 BC and AD 3000 on which the Last Day of Passover coincides with 1 Birth (Venus) and 1 Creation (Mercury). That is exactly the number we would expect. Two of those three dates are Tue 14 Apr 1462 BC pm* and Mon 27 Mar 119 BC.

To me the fact that there are only three such dates in history, and that the Parting of the Red Sea occurred on one, and a very likely date for Alma’s deliverance occurs on another, is very strong evidence that we have indeed found the time of Alma’s deliverance.

Argument for Design

Here is the where the argument for the Lord’s designing the solar system to be a great master clock comes in. If chance ruled the universe, then were would expect three occurrences of such a date in 7,000 years, and indeed we have found three. That alone does not imply there is a God. But when we find that one of those dates occurs precisely on the very day indicated by totally separate evidence^[13] to have been the day of the parting of the Red Sea, then that is strong evidence that the Venus and Mercury calendars are important in the Lord’s plan and that it was not a chance coincidence, but rather a demonstration of the foreknowledge of God. Now we find that the second such date fits perfectly with another scriptural account of a very similar deliverance by the Redeemer from bondage. To me that is astounding and leaves no doubt in my mind that we have found the correct timing of Alma’s deliverance. That is totally beyond random chance.

Passover Patterns

Now let us turn to just how these sacred calendars can help explain the anomalies in the accounts of the exodus of Limhi and Alma. In particular, what is the significance of the guards getting drunk or going to sleep? Is that part of the Passover Pattern or not?
To explain this, let me introduce a guiding principle the might help explain it.

Sacred Day Principle

Let me here suggest what could be called the “Sacred Day Principle”:

As an example of what I mean by that, recall that there are four sacred days every year during the Passover season. Sometimes one of those four days is especially sacred because it is simultaneously a sacred day on several other sacred calendars. In some years two or three of those days may be especially sacred. The Sacred Day Principle states that if there are special sacred events in those years, the events will often be especially appropriate for the most sacred days. Let us look at some examples.

The Exodus

Let us apply the Sacred Day Principle to the events of the Exodus from Egypt. There was really only one extremely sacred day that year, and it was the Last Day of Passover. That was the day on which the arm of the Lord was truly made bare in showing forth his power of deliverance, by not only parting the Red Sea, but also by entirely destroying Pharaoh’s army. The slaying of the firstborn of Egypt on the evening of Passover was also a great miracle, but it was much more subtle, with the arm of the Lord still remaining rather hidden. If there is any doubt in your mind as to which was the greater miracle, ask yourself, “When was the climax of the movie The Ten Commandments?” Surely it was the dramatic Parting of the Red Sea.

Now consider the details of just how the Red Sea was parted. That was accomplished by the east wind blowing all during the previous night ^[14]. What day was that? It was the day “1 Wind” on the Sacred Round. The Sacred Day Principle suggests that one reason the wind was chosen to do the miracle was because it was to occur on 1 Wind. Or perhaps the day 1 Wind was chosen to match the miracle. Either way, the miracle was appropriate for that sacred day. If that were the only example, it could be a chance coincidence, but when we see that the Savior was baptized on “13 Water,” transfigured on “13 Light,” and the Brazen Serpent was raised on “13 Serpent”,^[15] then we recognize that the meanings of the day names can closely relate to the events.

Limhi and Alma

Now let us return to the unusual way in which the escape was effected for both Limhi and Alma. That was accomplished by the guards being drunk or asleep respectively, after which in both cases they awoke and pursued. Now, in the light of both the proposed calendar dates and the Sacred Day Principle, we can see that such an unusual event fits the Passover Pattern perfectly for the following reason.
In the scriptures sleep is symbolic of death, and awakening represents the resurrection. At the time of the escapes of Limhi and Alma, the big days in both cases were Easter Sunday and the Last Day of Passover. Thus, the Sacred Day Principle would suggest that the miracle done in both cases might have to do with going to sleep and then awakening. This is emphasized all the more in the case of Limhi, in which case both of those days on the Sacred Round, 13 Grass and 1 Reed, symbolize the Resurrection. Thus, based on that principle, it is proposed that in both cases, the guards awoke on Easter Sunday morning (symbolic of the resurrection) and pursued until they were stopped the next day on the Last Day of Passover.

In the case of Alma, we are not told exactly how the Lord stopped the Lamanites at the (probably straight and narrow) Valley of Alma ^[16], but the Sacred Day Principle would suggest that it might have been accomplished with serpents, because the proposed day was “1 Serpent.”

The Egyptians Awaken

Now let us return to the account of the Exodus to recognize a detail which has apparently been entirely overlooked until now. Is there any parallel in the Biblical account of the Exodus to the Book of Mormon report of drunken or stupefied guards awakening? The answer is definitely “Yes!” After Pharaoh had commanded Moses to get his people, flocks and herds out of Egypt just as fast as possible ^[17], a few days later he and other Egyptians had an experience like awakening from a stupor of thought. They asked themselves, “Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?” ^[18]. Is that not similar to an awakening?

To verify this parallel to the accounts of Limhi and Alma, let us determine just when the Egyptians awoke from their stupor of thought. Moses had already told Pharaoh that the Lord had commanded him to make a three day trip into the wilderness to make a sacrifice ^[19]. Of course, even Moses probably did not know at that time that it was the Egyptians who would be sacrificed there. The Bible also explains that on the first night (Thursday night) they camped at Succoth, on the next night they camped at Etham, and on the next night (Saturday) they camped on the shore of the Red Sea. The location was apparently at the end of a narrow valley, where the Egyptians would see that they were entrapped by the canyon walls ^[20].

But just when was it that the Egyptians awoke from their stupor of thought? For this date we must turn to the Book of Jasher.^[21] It explains that it took the Egyptians three days to bury all of their dead, and that after that they remembered that Moses had said he was only going a three-day journey into the wilderness. They then said, “Now therefore, let us rise up early in the morning and cause them to return . . . And all the nobles of Pharaoh rose up in the morning, . . .” ^[22]. That would mean that they arose on Easter Sunday morning, the proper time to awake and arise!

Thus we see that there is indeed a parallel to the stupor, caused by the vast number slain, and the subsequent awakening of the Egyptians in the story of the Exodus. Moreover, the awakening occurred precisely on Easter Sunday morning, the appropriate time to awake and arise. Thus, “awakening” is clearly part of a Passover pattern.

Proposed Dates

With these parallels in mind, we can now propose precise dates for the escapes of Limhi and Alma. The key to both is that the “awakening” of the enemy would have been on Easter Sunday morning. So Limhi’s group escaped on the evening preceding Easter Sunday, and Alma’s group would have escaped all during the day before Easter. In both cases, the pursuit began on Easter Sunday morning, and in both cases the Lord miraculously stopped the chase on the next day, which was the Last Day of Passover.

Two Passover Patterns

Let us now summarize what appear to be two separate passover patterns. Our Savior, Redeemer and Deliverer, Jesus Christ, rescued us from two separate deaths, physical and spiritual, and there appears to be one pattern for each. Both of these victories occurred at the time of Passover, and both are associated with Passover. That is most likely because both represent a transition (“passing over”) from one kind of death to either everlasting or eternal life. Let us look at the pattern for each.

The Easter Pattern

The Savior overcame physical death through the Resurrection. He gives that gift of immortality freely to all. No obedience nor other action is required to resurrect and to live in our physical bodies forever. No journey is involved, it all happens very quickly and without effort. The symbolic pattern appears to be very simple. It is that a) everyone is asleep, representing death, b) there is a long trumpet blast and/or an earthquake and/or the sun rises, and then c) everyone awakens, symbolic of the resurrection. That is all there is to it, as far as it appears at present. It just happens as easily as waking up from sleep. As for the timing on the calendar, it occurs on Easter Sunday morning at sunrise.

The Passover Pattern

The Savior also conquered spiritual death, meaning being subject to Satan, and not being saved in any kingdom of God. Jesus offers all mankind a way to be saved from sin and to enter into his Father’s kingdom. This pathway requires much effort on the part of the individual. He must be born again, repenting of past bondage to sin and begin on the path of righteousness by passing through the narrow gate of baptism. Then one must continue walking the path by keeping the commandments and avoiding sin. At the end of following that straight and narrow path throughout life, if one remains faithful to the end, then the reward is to enter the Kingdom of God and to have an eternal life of joy and peace. With that in mind, the Passover Pattern appears to be as follows.

Captives are enslaved and in bondage to a cruel taskmaster. After pleading in prayer for salvation, a hero comes to rescue them. He bids them follow him through a narrow gate which has two sides, like all gates. On the one hand, it is the guarded exit from captivity, which cannot prevail against them with his miraculous help. On the other hand, it is also the entrance to the way to salvation, leading from darkness and bondage to light and freedom. He then leads them with power on a straight and narrow pathway through the wilderness. Only the righteous can walk on the path, which requires believing in him enough to obey his directions. Once on the path, the forces of evil pursue them and try to bring them back into captivity. If they endure to the end of “passing over” the path, they finally pass through another gate to enter the promised land of milk and honey, where peace and joy await. At that point, the forces of evil are overcome once and for all, forever unable to enter that kingdom.

On the calendar, the full Passover pattern is represented by a) an escape from bondage through a narrow gate on the First Day of Passover, b) a one week journey of righteousness, represented by eating unleavened bread, fleeing the forces of evil, and finally c) the Last Day of Passover when the forces of evil are totally overcome and one arrives at the promised destination of joy and peace where evil can no longer enter.

Nested Patterns

Note that Passover Patterns can be nested, with smaller ones fitting inside of larger ones. For example, the entire pattern was fulfilled in only one week as Moses led the Exodus from Egypt. But instead of having arrived immediately in the promised land, he had only entered a larger wilderness. The Israelites had to spend forty years in that wilderness until they (or the next generation) had learned to keep the commandments and have faith in God. Then during another Passover season, Joshua finally delivered them to the promised land of milk and honey with another crossing via another narrow path through the Jordan River which miraculously opened for him. Thus, one long forty-year passover had two little passovers at both the beginning and the end.

Another example is life itself. Birth is a “passover” event when the unborn child passes from the captivity and darkness of the womb over into a world of freedom and light by traversing a narrow passage. But then that life turns out to be a wilderness that must be crossed, hopefully by following a straight and narrow path of righteousness. Then at the end, one must again pass through a tunnel in another small passover-like event to enter into the next kingdom.

Conclusion

The Book of Mormon provides several parallels to the Biblical account of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Two notable examples are the deliverances from bondage of King Limhi’s people and those of Alma. Both of those accounts involved the prison guards being stupefied, either by drunkenness or sleep, then awakening and pursuing the fleeing captives. This article concludes that, rather than being an exception to the passover pattern, the “awakening” is definitely a part of it. When sacred calendars are applied to discover the actual dates of occurrence, it is seen that the awakening in all cases occurred on Easter Sunday morning, symbolic of when the dead awake from their slumber of death. In the case of the Exodus from Egypt, that detail corresponded to the Easter Sunday morning, three days after the Israelites left, when the Egyptians “awakened” from their stupor and wondered why he had ever let their slaves go. Their three-day pursuit then began, ending at the parting of the Red Sea. In the case of both Limhi and Alma, Easter Sunday occurred only one day before the Last Day of Passover, and both of those days were multiple holy days on sacred calendars. The Sacred Day Principle was introduced, which suggests that the key events of each deliverance should occur on the most holy days. Thus, those deliverances apparently occurred on those two days, with the guards awakening on Easter morning and the final deliverance from the pursuers on the next day, being the Last Day of Passover. It was also proposed that there are two separate Passover patterns: the Easter Pattern symbolic of the Savior’s conquering physical death, and the Passover Pattern, symbolic of overcoming spiritual death.

1. ↑ In the Apocrypha, it is reported that an angel showed Ezra how the Ten Tribes escaped from Assyria across the Euphrates river at a narrow spot. The river was said to have parted like the River Jordan for them to pass over to freedom. ( 2 Esdras 13:40-46 ) While not all scholars accept Esdras as authoritative, it is interesting to note that it hits the bull’s-eye with several details, such as crossing at a narrow place, which will be seen to be part of the Passover Pattern.
2. ↑ Pratt, John P., “A Volcanic Highway for the Lost Tribes?,” Meridian Magazine (15 Sep 2005).
3. ↑ Mos. 22, 24
4. ↑ Ex. 12-14
5. ↑ Mosiah 22
6. ↑ D&C 101:56–58
7. ↑ Ex. 12:3
8. ↑ The commandment in Lev. 23:11 was not clear to some, so the Pharisees interpreted Easter to always be the second day of Passover (as on the modern Hebrew Calendar), whereas the Sadducees said it meant the Sunday after Passover. My research indicates that the Sadducees were correct.
9. ↑ Pratt, John P., “Exodus Date Testifies of Christ,” Meridian Magazine (7 Oct 2003).
10. ↑ Mos. 7:1-2
11. ↑ Pratt, John P., “The Nephite Calendar,” Section 4.2, Meridian Magazine (14 Jan 2004).
12. ↑ D&C 77:6
13. ↑ The date of the Exodus was calculated as being 430 years to the very day from the beginning of the sojourn of Israel (Ex. 12:40–41), that is, from the birth of Jacob.
14. ↑ Ex. 14:21
15. ↑ One can find the reference to where I derive any specific date published by looking it up on my “Religious Chronology Summary.”
16. ↑ Mos. 24:23
17. ↑ Ex. 12:32–33
18. ↑ Ex. 14:5
19. ↑ Ex. 8:27
20. ↑ Ex. 13:20, 14:2
21. ↑ Pratt, John P., “How Did the Book of Jasher Know?,” Meridian Magazine (7 Jan 2002).
22. ↑ Jasher 81:6-11

When Moses led the children of Israel into the rugged land of Edom after their journey through the desolate Sinai desert, they had an experience with deadly venomous snakes that has become one of the most powerful types and shadows of the mission of Jesus Christ. But just what kind of serpent was it? The scriptures give several clues, which indicate that it most likely belonged to the deadly saw-scale viper family, considered by many scientists to be “the world’s most dangerous snake.”

The Serpent on the Staff

The scriptures tell us that during the difficult journey through what has been identified as the Arava Valley ¹, the Israelites rebelled against Moses. The Bible states that “the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, and much people of Israel died” (Numbers 21:6). After the people repented, the Lord instructed Moses, “make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole, and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived” (Numbers 21:8–9). Even though many did look on the brazen serpent and were healed, Nephi adds, “because of the simpleness of the way, or the easiness of it, there were many who perished” from the bite of these serpents (1 Nephi 17:41, see also Alma 33:19–20).

Jesus testified that “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (John 3:14) on the cross. Nephi the son of Helaman explained further that “as many as should look upon that serpent should live, even so as many as should look upon the Son of God with faith, having a contrite spirit might live, even unto that life which is eternal” (Helaman 8:14). Elder Neal A. Maxwell commented on the depth of the symbolism: “Divinely deliberate and serious symbolism is involved. . . . The symbolic emphasis in this episode is upon both the necessity and the simpleness of the way of the Lord Jesus. Ironically, in Moses’ time many perished anyway.” ²

What species of snake had the distinction of being raised on a pole to symbolize Jesus Christ being raised on the cross? Commentators who have attempted to identify the species have suggested that it may have been an Egyptian cobra. ³ The purpose of this article is to perform a more in-depth study of the clues provided in the Bible, combined with evidence from the Book of Mormon.

2. Clues to Identification

There are at least ten clues in the scriptures to help identify the serpent lifted up in the wilderness. Let us consider each of them.

2.1 Inhabit Arava Valley. At the time of Moses the serpent in question inhabited the Arava Valley. While it is not an absolute requirement, one would expect the serpent to still inhabit that area today.

2.2 Prefer Rocky Terrain. Why did the Israelites only run into these serpents during the difficult journey through the rocky Arava valley area? They had no such problems in the sandy valley areas of the Sinai where the Israelites probably camped during much of their travels. This suggests a snake which prefers rocky terrain.

2.3 Deadly poisonous. The venom from the serpent was apparently extremely poisonous because it caused so many deaths, and apparently needed miraculous intervention to prevent death.

2.4 Extremely dangerous. Those who study serpents make a distinction between “deadly” and “dangerous.” Deadly refers to how poisonous the venom is, whereas dangerous means that the snake actually causes many fatalities every year. Most of the world’s snakes with the most deadly venom are not classified as the world’s most dangerous snakes. Australia is home to several snakes with the most deadly venom in the world. The aggressive Inland Taipan is considered to be the most “deadly snake” in the world, but it is found in such remote areas of Australia that bites and fatalities from this snake are rare. Other Australian snakes frequent populated areas but are secretive or only inject venom in about 10% of their bites. These facts plus the miracle of modern treatments limit fatalities in Australia from snake bite to about five per year. ⁴

The world’s most dangerous snakes, the ones that cause the most fatalities year after year, are common in populated areas, will attack when not provoked, and also inject a powerful venom. They include the Egyptian cobra, saw-scale viper, puff adder, Asian cobra and Russell’s viper. The serpents in the account seem to fit all these criteria to be classed a very dangerous snake.

2.5 Especially painful “fiery” bite. The word translated “fiery” means “burning.” Most translators agree that in this context it refers to the burning pain of the bite. ⁶ One clue that this was the color of the serpent in question is that the image of the serpent was made of brass (or copper or bronze ⁷), which is reddish in color.

2.8 Lightning fast strike. Now let us look what the Book of Mormon adds. Whereas the Bible says only that they were fiery serpents, Nephi records that they were “fiery flying serpents” (1 Nephi 17:41). That phrase is also used in Isaiah 14:29 and Isaiah 30:6. A better rendition would be “flying fiery serpent,” that is, a fiery serpent which is flying. What does it mean for a serpent to fly? One Bible dictionary explains that the word “flying” is still used in modern Arab usage to “refer to the speed with which such reptiles may strike, as though ‘winged’.” ⁸>

2.9 Leaping, “flying” strike. Another possible interpretation of “flying” is that it refers to certain serpents which strike with such speed and power that they actually do fly through the air.

2.10 Death by internal bleeding. Different snakes have very different venoms. The cobra family inject nerve poisons, whereas some vipers inject poisons which cause internal bleeding. Elder James Talmage pointed out that the actual cause of the Savior’s death was probably “a physical rupture of the heart” as indicated by the outrush of blood and water when the soldier’s spear pierced his side. ⁹ He also bled from every pore in Gethsemane, so blood is closely tied to the suffering of the Savior. Because the serpent in question represents the Savior, it would seem more likely that a serpent with this type of venom might be chosen to make the symbolism perfect in all details.

None of these ten clues is absolutely required because the Lord could always perform a miracle in his own manner, but these are all indications of the kind of serpent which it might have been. Now let us briefly look at the possible candidates to be the fiery flying serpent.

3. Possible Candidates

The deadly Egyptian cobra is mentioned by commentators as a good candidate for the “fiery serpent.” Cobras do cause many fatalities in the world but the Egyptian cobra is not found today in the Arava valley, the Sinai desert or the surrounding desert areas. The only cobra-like snake of the area, the black desert cobra, is rare and not known as a dangerous snake. ¹⁰ Cobras also do not have a lightning-fast striking, which is why a mongoose is able to kill them.

It would not be expected to find one snake which fits all of the possible criteria because there are only a four or five species of venomous snakes that live in the Arava valley, and the Egyptian cobra is not one of them. ¹¹ The candidates are the Israeli saw-scale viper, the black desert cobra and the horned viper and its relatives. The accompanying table summarizes the data for each.

Surprisingly, one of those choices, the Israeli saw-scale viper, fits all the criteria. Hence, it is the clear front runner and most likely was the serpent which attacked the Israelites. Let us briefly consider just how well it fulfills the given requirements.

First it inhabits the Arava Valley. In fact, it was still in the area several centuries later when Isaiah warned of them as living on the way south to Egypt:

The burden of the beasts of the south into the land of trouble and anguish, from whence come the young and old lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent … (Isaiah 30: 6)

This scripture warned Israel against seeking to ally themselves with Egypt. The Lord explains that on the way south to Egypt is through the dangerous area of the “lion, the viper and the fiery flying serpent.” The Hebrew word translated viper in this verse refers to the desert horned viper. ¹² We propose that the fiery flying serpent refers to the saw-scale viper.

Israeli Saw-Scale Viper’s Flying Attack

The saw scale viper prefers rocky terrain and is quite numerous in the Arava valley. It does not prefer the sandy valley areas of the Sinai where the Israelites probably camped during their travels. The other candidates are found in the sandy valley areas but not in the rocky mountainous terrain described in the Bible where the fiery serpents bit the Israelites. ¹³

Saw-scale vipers are on the “top ten” list of the snakes with the most deadly venom, being even more poisonous than the better-known coral snake. ¹⁷`The Israeli saw-scale viper, echis coloratus, is not as deadly as that species and is mainly confined to lightly populated desert areas, but is still qualifies as deadly and dangerous. In a well documented case, one bit three soldiers and all of them died. ¹⁸ No other snake native to this desert area has the reputation of being a very dangerous snake. Exodus 16:13, 15). As mice, lizards and birds multiplied, so would their natural predators, including snakes. Under these conditions, it would certainly be possible for thousands of deadly snakes to threaten the people in their journey.

As for the bite burning, the venom of vipers makes for an especially fiery bite that has been compared to being cut with “red hot pliers”. ²⁰ This is contrasted with the bite from a cobra that involves more paralysis than fiery burning. ²¹

What about how long it takes for the venom to take effect? A cobra’s neurotoxic venom often paralyzes the victim’s breathing ability within hours. ²² This would leave little time for all who were bitten in the giant camp of Israel to look on the brass serpent on the pole. The blood and tissue destroying venom of the saw-scale viper takes days to be fatal and would fit the time frame required.

As for the possibility that “fiery” also refers to a reddish color, it turns out that the Israeli saw-scale viper is colored pink or red, ²³ as can be seen in photographs on the Internet.

One of the most interesting characteristics of the saw-scale viper is its lightning fast “jumping, leaping strike.” When disturbed it coils and rubs its rough saw-scales together to create a rasping or buzzing warning. It then will leap toward the intruder with great energy and speed at a distance that is much greater than its small size would indicate. “They can actually ‘leap’, putting so much effort into a strike that they actually leave the ground – forwards and up.” ²⁴ This behavior, not demonstrated by any other snakes in the area, makes the “flying”of the “fiery flying serpent” description a reality.

A Roman text dated 22 A.D. about the deserts of Arabia where the saw-scale viper is found indicated that “there are snakes also of a dark red color, a span in length, which spring up as high as a man’s waist, and whose bite is incurable.” ²⁵ A “span” is about nine inches and even small saw-scale vipers are known to be deadly. With its leaping strike from a hiding position in a bush, the viper could reach the upper body and inflict a fatal bite. The saw-scale viper has the habit of lying in wait in the small bushes of the desert to ambush birds, lizards or rodents. ²⁶ When given a choice the Israeli saw-scale viper actually prefers to eat birds. ²⁷ The illustration shows the Israeli saw-scale viper attacking one of its favorite foods, a North African sparrow. Since sparrows would be extremely hard for a snake to catch, having a lightning fast, long reaching leaping strike would be very advantageous for this snake.

The flying serpent symbolism also brings to mind the feathered serpent, Quetzalcoatl, the ancient American symbol of the white and bearded god who visited the Americas in the first century AD ²⁹

One interesting related note is that even as the Savior has healing in his wings (Mal. 4:2), so also does the saw-scale viper have great healing powers. A new preventative heart medicine has been developed from the anti-clotting proteins of saw-scale viper venom. ³⁰

The central symbol of Christ’s atoning sacrifice is his suffering, bleeding and dying for the sins of the world both in the garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. If a bitten Israelite would only look on the symbol of the Redeemer on the staff, the Israelite’s excruciating suffering and possible death by internal bleeding would be healed. In exchange, the Savior would suffer an excruciating death also involving terrible bleeding and He would extend not only the opportunity of physical healing but the promise of spiritual healing and eternal life.

The story of the “fiery, flying serpent” in the Old Testament and the simple yet powerful method the Lord provided to heal the Israelites of these deadly snake bites increases our understanding of the reality and power of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The description and symbolism of healing and salvation takes on even deeper symbolism with the understanding that this snake was most likely the deadly Israeli saw-scale viper.

Acknowledgments

During this study we have appreciated the assistance of several experts on middle east snakes who were kind enough to answer questions via email. They include Dr.Wolfgang Wüster (University of Wales, UK) , Dr. Alan E. Leviton (California Academy of Sciences, USA),, Dr. Yehudah Werner (Hebrew University, Israel), and Ph.D. graduate student Gergely Babocsay (Hebrew University, Israel). In addition Dr. Jacob Steiner (Hebrew University, Israel) provided assistance in word meanings in the Hebrew Bible.

Answering Objections to Gospel in the Stars

John P. Pratt

It has been proposed that the ancient star constellations are not simply random musings of shepherds with too much time on their hands, but rather a detailed revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ to antediluvian prophets. That whole thesis, often called the “Gospel in the Stars” and even abbreviated GIS, is reviewed with commentary elsewhere on my website at “Review of Gospel in the Stars.” Those not familiar with the evidence favoring this startling conjecture should probably read that first in order better to understand the objections to the theory. Suffice it to say that when I examined the evidence, as a PhD in modern astronomy, a student of ancient wisdom, and as a practicing Christian, I have found more evidence favoring the proposal than against it. I now accept the overall concept in spite of several reservations.

Because several objections and questions have been raised concerning the proposal, I thought it worthwhile to rephrase those questions, and attempt to respond to them here in a question (Q) and answer (A) format. One can easily find other summaries of the theory, and most of these issues by simply searching the internet with the key words “gospel” and “constellations.”

• Q. There is no clear Biblical support for this speculation, so how could this theory be true if it is not mentioned at all in the Bible?

A. This is by far the most common objection, and one whole web page was nothing more than restating this complaint about a dozen times. Let me divide this question into two parts: 1) there is no Biblical support, and 2) doesn’t that lack of evidence negate the entire theory?

To say there is no supporting evidence at all in the Bible is to simply ignore many of the arguments used in the GIS theory. But I would agree that the evidence is mostly implied or secondary. If it were obvious, then we would all have known about this long ago. But an absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. That is, just because the Bible doesn’t explicitly talk about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. There are many truths not mentioned in the Bible, even concerning the gospel.

• Q. What about the many explicit injunctions to avoid looking to the “signs of heaven” ^[1]? Isn’t the Bible adamant that we should avoid anything like astrology?

A. To me this ties into the last question. It appears that often when ancient people learned about the gospel in the stars, they began to worship the stars themselves, which missed the whole point of being reminded of Christ. So God gave Israel commandments to avoid looking at the heavens, and to me that explains the lack of explicit detail about the constellations in the Bible. That knowledge became somewhat secret, to protect against idolatry.

• Q. Isn’t this whole idea superfluous to the scriptures? Don’t we have the gospel contained in the Bible, so that it is a waste of time to be searching for new insights in the stars?

A. Anyone who has slept out under a dark, moonless sky cannot help but be impressed with the majesty of the universe. Even the atheist is awestruck, but the believer cannot help but see the hand of the Creator. What more inspiring “frosting on the cake” could be added than to have those stars testify of the entire gospel story, including the coming of Christ to overcome both sin and death, and to give us hope in seeing the Second Coming of Christ and the final overcoming of evil?

• Q. If the constellations contain a revelation, would that revelation be classified as a “natural” revelation (such as creations in nature testifying of a Creator) or a “special” revelation (as words delivered by an angel)?

A. Although these books may not address this issue, my personal answer is that it is clearly a special revelation. The Book of Enoch states that an angel revealed the constellations to Enoch. Rolleston explicitly discounts that source as dubious, but I accept it as an authentic source. But even without that source, it would have to have been a special revelation because those pictures just are not there for anyone to see without a lot of instruction. Ask anyone who has either taught astronomy, or who has tried to find the constellations themselves.

• Q. If Adam was aware of these constellations, then wouldn’t he have been able to see, even before the Fall, that he could be saved?

A. No, the special revelation of the meaning of these constellations came well after the Fall.

• Q. Is this whole speculation so subjective as to be worthless? Don’t the GIS supporters merely force their own Christian interpretations on a bunch of pagan pictures? The written revelation in the Bible seems much less open to private interpretation and much more reliable.

A. There does appear to be a lot of subjectivity in the whole theory, which is one of the biggest weaknesses to me. There are clearly depictions of good conquering evil, but do they really refer to Christ just because he indeed is the biggest hero of all time by conquering death and hell? I have studied this subject for two decades and have published very little on it, because I do not feel I understand many of the symbols. For example, one of the constellations included is the “cross.” Is the cross a symbol of good or of evil? Today, it has become a symbol of good, representing Christianity. But in the scriptures, it seems to be more a symbol of pain and suffering, as in “Take up your cross and follow me” ^[2]. In one sense it represented one of the most diabolical forms of torture ever invented, clearly a tool of Satan. Similarly with the balance, the arrow and many of the other stellar figures. But notwithstanding all of the subjectivity, that does not negate the whole theory; it is simply a weakness which has to be acknowledged and dealt with.

• Q. Okay, suppose there was an ancient revelation which was lost. How has it been restored? Has any ancient document been found explaining this supposed connection of the constellations to the gospel?

A. Yes, one principal document does explain at least some of the ideas. It is not a document which was lost and then rediscovered, but just one that has been so overlooked that I could not find an English translation of it at all. It is the work of Albumazar, a non-Christian Arab astronomer of about AD 850. It is upon his list of the original 48 constellations that Rolleston based her reckoning.

• Q. Different ancient cultures saw very different figures in the stars. How can you pick out the one “true” set, or even suggest that there was one?

A. To me that was one of the major contributions of Rolleston: to pick out the best list of all those at hand. Just because there is a lot of confusion about many Biblical topics, such as whether to baptize by immersion or sprinkling, does not mean that there is no correct method. Similarly, just because there is confusion about what the original set of constellations was, or even if there was an original set, does not mean that there was no such set.

• Q. Three of the 48 constellations differ from the classical 48 of the Greeks. Didn’t Rolleston simply replace the three that didn’t fit her theory with 3 others which did?

A. She did not pick and choose constellations, but she did have the liberty to pick one entire ancient set. The one of the Greeks has seemingly meaningless constellations like the Triangle, whereas the clearly older set of the Persians all seemed to fit the theory well. It is to her credit that she stuck tenaciously with the Persian set, including the order.

• Q. One of the three substituted constellations is the Southern Cross, and much fuss is made that it had dropped out of sight by the time of Ptolemy because of the precession of the equinoxes, so he replaced it with another constellation of his own making. Is that true? And was it really known before the time of the Greeks?

A. Precession indeed was causing the cross to disappear at that time, but Ptolemy included some of its stars in his catalog as part of the Centaur. Both Rolleston and Seiss put forth compelling arguments that the cross indeed was a constellation known to the ancients. Seiss notes in his answers to criticisms at the end of the book that both Albumazar and Aben Ezra explicitly list it and state that it was in the form of a cross. And it looks as though Ptolemy may have added the constellation Equuleus (Little Horse) because it was not mentioned by his predessor Aratus.

• Q. Another of the substituted constellations is “Coma” which GIS supporters claim was originally a virgin holding her “desired” infant, which represented the Virgin Mary with the baby Jesus. But when I look in that area of sky, there are not enough bright stars to make a constellation. Is there any other evidence that such a constellation really existed?

A. That was a big question in my mind, which led me to look above the constellation of Coma Berenices and consider also the brighter stars of Canes Venatici. It contains the star Cor Caroli, which is one of the brightest stars listed by Ptolemy and not included in any constellation. I believe that the GIS proposal of identifying the Egyptian and Persian constellation is correct, and that the Egyptian figure matches the sky very well when the stars of Canes Venatici are included. The details of my proposed reconstruction of the original constellation have been published in the article “Lost Constellation Testifies of Christ.”

• Q. Many of the constellations have been modified, even by the ancients. For example the Greek astronomer Ptolemy explicitly stated that he had done so, even since the time of Hipparchus, only a few centuries earlier. So how can you take any of these figures seriously, or propose that they date back to antediluvian times?

A. That was a serious doubt in my mind as I began this study some two decades ago. But there is an answer, which should give us great cause to rejoice that these figures have not been hopelessly lost. Supposing that the original constellation set was indeed revealed to Enoch, it is not hard to see how either a sphere with the pictures could have been preserved by Noah during the Flood, or that they could be revealed again to Abraham. There are strong traditions that Abraham transmitted this information to the Egyptians, who treated it as sacred and carefully preserved it. Then there is a tradition that Eudoxus of Greece obtained a celestial globe from a temple in Egypt which became the basis of Greek astronomy. Even though we have lost his work, the globe was described by the poet Aratus in detail, and that poem describes the constellations much as we have them today. It is true that the Greek astronomers did not treat the constellations with great reverence, and did indeed change a few star positions in the figures to suit their own artistic eye. But in most cases they noted the change, proud of their improvements. Then astronomy stopped for nearly a thousand years, and Ptolemy’s star catalog became the standard during the renaissance. Those constellations in turn are still used today, almost unchanged, so, miraculously, there is a good chance that the familiar constellations may actually date all the way back to the times of Enoch.

• Q. Isn’t this tracing constellations back to the distant past all wishful thinking? Don’t the constellations date only to the time of the Greeks?

A. The constellations can be scientifically dated by noting that the vacant part of the ancient sky was the area where the stars never rose above the horizon. That analysis leads to a date of about 2700 BC and a latitude of 36

A precise date for Noah’s Deluge is indicated by sacred astronomical calendars and confirmed by witnesses of Enoch, his father Jared, and even the Savior.

In last month’s article, “Venus and the Beginning of Mortality,” we saw that a precise date for the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden was indicated by a holy day alignment between the Venus calendar and the Hebrew calendar, which was verified by several other witnesses. ^[1] The day Sun 9 Apr 4001 BC on our calendar was Passover on the Hebrew calendar and 1 Creation on the Venus calendar. That establishes the beginning date from which we can measure all of the chronology provided by the Lord for us in the Book of Genesis. This month’s article will proceed using that same method to calculate dates for the birth and translation of the prophet Enoch, and for the Great Deluge of Noah. The Lord’s method of using multiple witnesses will again be recognized in synchronisms with events from the life of Enoch’s father Jared, as well as with the date of the baptism of Jesus Christ. These multiple testimonies should leave no doubt about the correctness of the dates proposed.

Enoch

The part of Genesis which most of us skip over are those long lists of “begats.” Those records do, however, provide the key to the chronology of the history of the human race. The usual method for calculating dates based on those genealogies is simply to add up the ages of fathers at the births of their sons.^[2]That approach is fine for an approximation, but with the methods discussed in these articles, the exact dates of the births of some of those patriarchs are indicated on sacred astronomical calendars. Those dates may differ by a year or so from the approximation because of how the fractional parts of the years add up.

An important point to consider is that only a few of the patriarchs were born on a holy day on the Venus calendar, even though it appears at this time that all of them were born on Hebrew calendar holy days. There are indications of calendars for each of the planets (except Pluto), and many of those patriarchs may have been born on yet undiscovered holy days on other planetary calendars. Because it is only the Venus and Mercury calendars which are understood at the present time, clues will be sought to discover which patriarchs may have been born on holy days on the Venus calendar.

The Prophet Joseph Smith provided a big clue in the case of Enoch. In his inspired translation of the Bible, he made the only change in the length of the life of any patriarch in Genesis when he corrected Enoch’s age from 365 years to be 430 years ^[3]. It turns out that 430 years is a period in which the Venus and Hebrew calendars may possibly have holy days mark both the beginning and end of the interval.^[4] Since such pairs of alignments are rare, if one can be found in the years indicated for Enoch, then it is evidence that we have found the correct dates.

Enoch’s Birth Date

The search for Enoch’s dates was productive indeed. The day indicated for his birthday is Fri 19 Sep 3378 BC pm* (where pm* means after 6 p.m.). That date is about a year after the date indicated by simply adding up the ages of the patriarchs given in Genesis,^[5] and hence well within the range of possible dates. That evening began the Feast of Tabernacles (15 Tishri) on the Hebrew calendar sabbath day (Saturday). It was also the day 1 Eagle on the Native American Sacred Round.^[6] Both of these dates align with Adam because, as we saw last month, he apparently first breathed the breath of life on the day Sat 17 Oct 4070 BC, which was also 1 Eagle and 15 Tishri. Enoch’s proposed birth date was also most likely the Autumn Equinox (0 Autumn) on the Enoch calendar.^[7] On the Venus calendar, the day was 1 Lord, the day beginning the last 13 days of the Venus cycle, and which symbolizes becoming one with God^[8]That seems especially appropriate for Enoch, who would be the first to be translated and even have his entire city taken up into heaven ^[9]. Thus, the day was a holy day on four different sacred calendars.

Enoch’s Translation

Having a proposed date for Enoch’s birth and the clue that the 430-year length of his life might have been a Venus cycle, we can immediately find the day indicated for his translation. It is either Wed 12 Oct 2948 BC or the day following, being the days 0 Lord and 1 Lord on the Venus calendar. The first choice would mark the exact completion of 269 Venus cycles. We saw a similar symbolism with Adam, whose first day in the mortal world was on the first day of the Venus cycle (1 Creation), and who died on the last day (0 Creation). But in the case of Enoch, the following day 1 Lord would also seem appropriate, being the day on which to become one with God.

Do we have other witnesses that either of these days is correct? In particular, was either of those two days also holy on other sacred calendars? The proposed birthday was sacred on four calendars and one would expect that Enoch’s translation date would be no less important. Here we are not disappointed because Wed 12 Oct 2948 BC was also a holy day on four sacred calendars. First, it was 13 Reed on the Sacred Round. As currently understood, Reed symbolizes the perfection of body achieved after resurrection,^[10]and 13 also symbolizes completeness. The day was 0 Resurrection on the Mercury calendar, a second witness of that symbolism. And finally, on the Hebrew calendar, the day was 17 Heshvan, a minor holy day, which will now be discussed. Thus both the birth and translation dates of Enoch form a matched set of sacred dates, which is so improbable to have occurred by chance that it constitutes a strong witness that we have these two dates correct. Now let us turn to the date of the Great Deluge.

The Flood

It is easy to look for a date for the Great Deluge because not only is an approximate year given in the Bible, but also the very day on which the Flood began. In fact, one of the most surprising aspects of the account of the Flood is that so many precise dates are included. Until that point in Genesis, not one date is given to the very day, but only the ages of the patriarchs. Then suddenly we are told the day on which the ark was loaded, the day the flood began when the fountains of the deep erupted, the day the rain stopped, the day the water crested, the day the ark rested, the day the first mountain top was visible, the days on which Noah sent various birds out to retrieve evidence of the water abating, the day he removed the covering from the ark, and the day the earth was dry ^[11]. Now what is all that about? The day the earth was dry? What does that even mean? No puddles? Why would the Lord reveal this incredibly detailed list of dates? It must be a very important pattern.

For now, let us content ourselves with the question of simply determining at least one of these dates: the day on which the Flood began. That day is so important we shall refer to it simply as the “Flood.”

The year given for the Flood is the 600th year of Noah’s life ^[12], which, according to adding up the ages of the patriarchs should be about 1,656 years after the Beginning of Mortality, or about 2345 BC. The day indicated is 17 Heshvan, at that time the second month, and the traditional Hebrew understanding of when the Flood began.^[13] Checking the various sacred calendars near that year leads to a date which will be shown to have overwhelmingly strong support: Sat 16 Nov 2343 BC. Counting 17 Heshvan as a minor holy day, the day was also a holy day on only one other known sacred calendar, being the Last Day of Tabernacles on the Enoch Fixed calendar (21 Autumn). But the important alignment date on the Venus calendar was the day on which the ark was loaded, one week earlier.

Noah’s Ark

The scripture states that the ark was loaded one week prior to the Flood ^[14]. Why should the detail of that date be included? It appears to be because that was the date of the Venus alignment for the Flood, which was a holy day on four calendars. The day Sat 9 Nov 2343 BC was 13 Reed (Sacred Round), 14 Autumn (Feast of Tabernacles, Enoch Fixed), 0 Prime (Venus), and 0 Creation (Mercury). That alignment alone, although rare, is not compelling that we have the dates correct yet. What is compelling, however, is the array of other witnesses which testify of this date. It is so important that it needs a name, so let us refer to that day as “Noah’s Ark.” Now let us consider its relation to the baptism date of the Savior.

Baptism of Jesus Christ

As we have seen in earlier articles, the date of the baptism of Jesus Christ was most likely Sat 6 Oct AD 29.^[15] That date was indicated because it was the Day of Atonement on the Hebrew calendar, the proper day to reconcile oneself with God. It is the most sacred day of the Hebrew year, and the fact that John the Baptist was preaching repentance to a large congregation who came forth to be baptized fits most perfectly with it having been on that day. Moreover, the very voice of God was heard on that day testifying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” ^[16]. The Savior made a point of fulfilling the law of Moses to the very letter and would have been baptized on the proper day for it. ^[17]Confirmation in astronomical cycles was found in both the Enoch Fixed calendar and also the Mercury calendar.

At the time that date was first proposed, not all of the seven sacred calendars being referenced in this article were even recognized. Now a further witness to the correctness of that date is found in the fact that it was a holy day on all seven of the sacred calendars. It was 10 Tishri (Atonement on Hebrew), 13 Water (Sacred Round), 14 Autumn (Tabernacles on both the Enoch and Enoch Fixed), 0 Prime (Venus), 0 Creation (Mercury) and 1 Hakkoz (Priest, provided that the baptism was in the afternoon). Such a date only occurs about once per century, so it is remarkable that the date of the Savior’s Resurrection was also holy on all 7 calendars and it occurred only three and a half years later. But what does the baptism of Jesus Christ have to do with Great Flood?

Baptism of the Earth

L.D.S. Church presidents and apostles have taught that the Great Flood was the baptism of the earth by water. For example, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith summarized the idea thus:
FLOOD WAS BAPTISM OF EARTH. Now a word as to the reason for the flood. It was the baptism of the earth, and that had to be by immersion. If the water did not cover the entire earth, then it was not baptized, for the baptism of the Lord is not pouring or sprinkling.^[18] (capitalization and emphasis his)

He went on to quote President Brigham Young, President John Taylor, and Elder Orson Pratt who also taught that the Flood was the earth’s baptism. He was well aware of the line of reasoning against a universal Flood based on arguments about the current heights of mountains and current amounts of water, but he strongly testified that, notwithstanding the wisdom of man, the Flood did indeed cover every mountain top at least briefly.^[19] Now consider the following which supports this teaching.

The proposed date for Noah’s Ark is on a day 14 Autumn (Enoch Fixed), 0 Prime (Venus) and 0 Creation (Mercury). The proposed date for the Savior’s Baptism is also on a day 14 Autumn (Enoch Fixed), 0 Prime (Venus) and 0 Creation (Mercury). How rare is such an alignment? Using my current models for the calendars, there are only 22 dates during the 7,000 years of the earth’s history which meet those criteria. That means there is only about one day every 350 years so similar to the day of the Savior’s baptism. The fact that Noah’s Ark day, which was determined to the very day from the Biblical account, happens to be one of those rare days should establish that the alignment is not due to blind chance.

But the alignment of Venus with the 364-day year of the Enoch Fixed calendar is even better than that. The two dates are separated by exactly 2,379 Enoch Fixed years of 364 days, or 865,956 days.^[20] Amazingly, that is a “realignment cycle” for Venus with the Enoch Fixed Calendar. That means that there is no shorter period which is so nearly an exact number of Venus cycles. Stated differently, 1,483 Venus cycles of 583.92166 days each = 865,955.82 days. Thus, the average position of Venus only differs by 0.18 days between the two dates. No smaller multiple of 364 days is so accurate.^[21] Of the 20 other aligning dates, there is no better match in 7,000 years to the proposed date of the Flood than is the date of the Savior’s baptism. Thus, this one alignment alone is compelling evidence to establish both of the proposed dates, as well as the concept that the Flood was the baptism of the earth. The unique relationship is illustrated in Figure 1.

Let us now consider the next witness: the alignment with Enoch’s translation date.

Enoch’s Witness

As we saw above, Enoch’s proposed translation date is on 17 Heshvan (Hebrew) and also 13 Reed (Sacred Round). Now we see that the proposed flood dates are 13 Reed for Noah’s Ark, and 17 Heshvan for the Flood. Either one of these coincidences alone could be by chance, but to have Enoch’s translation link to two Flood dates seems worthy of more investigation.

Why should Enoch’s translation date align with the Flood? It is most likely a secondary effect. As we’ve seen in earlier articles, there is a pattern the Lord seems to use that parents’ vital dates are linked to those of their children. Enoch’s father was Jared. As we shall now see, it is really Jared who is the grand witness of the date of the Flood, and his death date is linked to his son Enoch, and so Enoch’s dates are indirectly tied to the Flood. Let us now turn to our star witness.

Jared’s Dates

The ancient patriarchs had meaningful names. The research being presented here is a work in progress, but at the current time it appears that the vital dates of the antediluvian patriarchs all relate to Jesus Christ. In Hebrew the name “Jared” means “to descend.” It is the same root (has same consonants) as “Jordan,” which is said to be the lowest river on earth. When the Savior was baptized in the River Jordan, in a sense he was descending into the deepest depths. Thus, it is proposed that the name Jared signals us that he is related to the baptism of Jesus Christ, and hence indirectly to the baptism of the earth.

Enoch was born when Jared was 162 years old ^[22], which would put his birth about 3540 BC according to our above birth date for Enoch. His birth date may or may not have anything to do with the Venus calendar. The expectation that it might is based on the fact that the Savior’s baptism was on a holy day on the Venus calendar.

Jared’s Birth Date

Searching through the year 3540 BC, an ideal date for Jared’s birth is found: Mon 30 May 3540 BC pm*. That was 1 Sivan (Hebrew, on which the first day of every month is a minor holy day), 1 Eagle (Sacred Round), and 1 Prime (Venus). Thus we have a Venus holy day coinciding with a Hebrew holy day, and the Venus day happens to be the one corresponding to the Savior’s baptism. Another witness that this date is correct is that there is a link to his son Enoch, who was also born on 1 Eagle.

Jared’s Death Date

Jared lived 962 years, the second longest life listed in the Bible. Looking for his death date is also fruitful: Mon 3 Nov 2578 BC, which was 17 Heshvan (Hebrew), 13 Jaguar (the holy day preceding 1 Eagle on the Sacred Round), and 0 Prime (Venus). Here we see another link to his son who also left earth on 17 Heshvan, two links to the Flood (17 Heshvan and 0 Prime), and one link to the Savior’s baptism (0 Prime). These are all witnesses that we have found the right date and that both his birth and death dates are related to the two great baptisms of the earth and Savior. It is astounding that by simply believing the Bible enough to search the indicated year that these rare dates can be found which interlock with each other like gears in a perfectly designed timepiece.

One startling result for the length of Jared’s life is that it an exact number of Sacred Rounds (starting on 1 Eagle and ending on 13 Jaguar), and also of Venus cycles (beginning on 1 Prime and ending on 0 Prime). That is very difficult to do. Don’t try this at home unless you plan on living 97.52 years. That is the first interval in which the Venus cycle comes out even in Sacred Rounds (61 x 583.92166 = 137 x 260 days). An even better realignment interval of Venus with the Sacred Round occurs at 301 x 583.92166 = 676 x 260 = 175,760 days, which is about 481 years. Arguments for creation arise spontaneously just from how organized these numbers are. For example, that interval equals 4 x 13 x 13 Sacred Rounds of 13 x 20 days each, rather than simply being some random number. Both of these intervals were known to the Mayans who used them to reset their Venus calendar.^[23] Jared lived for exactly two of those realignment intervals to the very day. Most of these amazingly rare alignments required patriarchs who lived many hundred years.^[24] Figure 2 illustrates the intricate father-son alignments between Jared and Enoch, as well as how Jared’s life aligned with both the Venus calendar and the Sacred Round. It is amazing to me that so many rare father-son alignments are even possible. It is not just that we have found rare dates in the very years indicated. The interaction between the birth-death date pairs, coupled with the interaction between father-son pairs is overwhelming evidence that these dates are correct, and that an omniscient God scheduled these lives to perfectly fit his solar system timepiece.

Realignment Lifetimes

It might be worth a moment here to note how many lives of the prophets we have found so far realign astronomical cycles to the very day. Those cycles are summarized in the following table. Again it must be emphasized that the odds against any one of these pairs of dates just happening by blind chance to occur in the years indicated in the Bible are staggering. The fact that Jared’s lifetime aligns two different cycles to the very day is astonishing.

Table 1. The lives of some prophets were an exact number of astronomical cycles.

Jared’s Ordination Date

The Lord went to the trouble in our day to reveal all of the ordination dates of the antediluvian prophets. The date for Mahalaleel (Jared’s father) was given to the very day ^[25]. Why would we possibly care that he was 497 years and 7 days old when he was ordained? We are to live by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God, but what are we supposed to do with these ordination dates?

Let us begin by considering Jared’s ordination date. The Lord says he was age 200 at ordination, and that he was blessed on the same day ^[26]. Some prophets were ordained and blessed on different days, such as his son Enoch, ^[27], so that may have been a very important day indeed.

The indicated day in the implied year of Jared’s ordination was Sat 6 April 3340 BC. This day was a real winner. It was 13 Water (Sacred Round), 14 Spring (Passover, Enoch), 14 Autumn (Tabernacles, Enoch Fixed), and 0 Prime (both Venus and Mercury). It was also sacred on the Priest calendar, so it was holy on 6 of the 7 known sacred calendars (all but Hebrew).

The following table summarizes all of the data so far relating to Jared, Enoch and both baptisms.

Jared’s Witnesses of Two Baptisms

Now let us consider how these three dates in the life of Jared testify both of the date of the Great Deluge and of the Savior’s Baptism.

Five Venus Calendar Alignments

Jared’s proposed birth date is on the day 1 Prime of the Venus cycle, and the dates of his ordination and death, of Noah’s Ark, and of the baptism of Christ all occur on 0 Prime, the last day of a Venus cycle which began on 1 Prime. Thus, all of the known dates for Jared align on the Venus Calendar with both baptisms, as shown in Figure 3, which is totally beyond chance.

From Jared’s Ordination to Noah’s Ark

The interval from the ordination of Jared to Noah’s Ark was 364,364 days. The principal realignment interval of the Venus cycle with the day is 7,007 days (12 Venus cycles of 583.92 days = 7,007.04 days). That number 7,007 is equal 7 x 7 x 11 x 13 days. The fact that it is such an accurate interval, and that it is divisible by 13, is what enables it to be the basis of the Venus calendar. It is also a miniature of all of history because it can be thought of as 7 periods of 1,001 days each, similar to seven millennial days of 1,000 years each. The interval of 1,001 days is very useful as a long “day” because it comes out even in both weeks and 13-day intervals and also increments by one on the 20-cycle. For example, beginning from the day Sun 1 Light, a 1,001 day interval later falls on Sun 1 Wind (Wind is the glyph following Light).

With that in mind, the interval from Jared’s ordination to Noah’s ark can therefore be thought of in at least three different ways. It was a) 52 Venus realignment cycles of 7,007 days each, or b) 1,001 Enoch Fixed years of 364 days each, or c) one “Grand Enoch Year” of 364 “long days” of 1,001 days each.

Jared’s Ordination to the Baptism of Christ

Even more impressive is the relationship of Enoch’s ordination date to the date of the baptism of Jesus Christ. He was baptized on a day 13 Water (Sacred Round), 14 Autumn (Enoch Fixed), and 0 Prime (Venus), all of which match the ordination date. The fact that it was the same Venus day on both the Sacred Round of 260 days and also the Enoch Fixed calendar of 364 days is rare indeed. The exact number of days between the two dates is impressive in itself. The dates of Jared’s ordination and the Baptism of Christ are separated by exactly 13 x 260 x 364 days.^[28]The number 13 is foundational to both the Sacred Round (260 = 20 x 13) and the Enoch Calendar (364 = 28 x 13), so the fact that 13 times their product just happens to be an exact number of Venus cycles is yet another argument for the design of the orbit of Venus to fit these calendars, which is just what the Mayans believed.^[29] Figure 4 illustrates these numeric relationships of Jared’s ordination date both to Noah’s Ark and also to the Savior’s baptism. Note that both of the intervals to Noah’s Ark are multiples of 13 Enoch Fixed years of 364 days, but that the overall interval is also a multiple of 260 days.

Jared’s Death and the Flood

Jared died exactly 235 years before the Flood according to the Hebrew calendar, both dates being on 17 Heshvan. That interval is not fully understood at this time, but it appears to be the best interval to align not only the sun and moon (Hebrew calenar), but also the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Saturn with the Priest cycle of 168 days. ^[30]The relationships with Mars and Saturn are beyond my understanding at this point, as well as the apparent tie to the Priest cycle, but this information is included here to show the richness of the planetary interactions, and of yet undiscovered witnesses and symbolism.^[31]

Conclusion

We have found an interlocking set of eight dates for Jared, his son Enoch, the Flood, and the Baptism of Jesus Christ. Each by itself is only one thread which may not be convincing. But the many interrelations between those threads create a tapestry, forming a vivid picture that testifies of the all of those events together. The probability of those interlocking alignments occurring by blind chance in the very years indicated by the Bible is so small that one is compelled to conclude that the proposed dates are correct. Moreover, it implies that the Creator scheduled the lives of those patriarchs according to an incredibly complex design, to leave a record of the great events of history, according to his foreknowledge.
These results vindicate the Book of Genesis as a true historical and inspired document. There should be no doubt that there indeed was a Great Flood and that it began on Sat 16 Nov 2343 BC.

Moreover, what began as simply a chronological exercise to determine the date of the Great Deluge resulted in much more. At first there was no thought of extending the discussion into the realm of asking whether or not the Flood was truly worldwide. The surprising result was that the Flood is so closely tied to the baptism of Jesus Christ that there seems to be no escaping the comparison of the Flood to the baptism of the earth. Thus, it may be time for us to rethink any arguments we may have entertained about a localized Flood, and also of civilizations which we assume existed without interruption in the year 2343 BC, when the fountains of the great deep erupted, and “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” ^[32].

1. ↑ Pratt, John P., “Venus and the Beginning of Mortality,” (9 Jul 2003). The Venus and Hebrew calendars are briefly described in that article.
2. ↑ See Pratt, John P., “Genealogy from Adam to the Twelve Tribes,” (Salt Lake City: HandKraft, 1968).
3. ↑ Moses 8:1, compare Gen. 5:23
4. ↑ 430 years of 365.242 days = 157,054 days, and 269 Venus cycles of 583.92166 days = 157,075 days. The 21-day difference between these numbers allows an occasional coincidence between the Venus and Hebrew calendars because the Venus calendar always aligns with 13-day intervals, and the Hebrew differs from the solar year by as much as a month. Thus, the 430-year period only occasionally allows for both the beginning and end dates to be holy days on both calendars at the same season of the year.
5. ↑ The sum of the ages is 130+105+90+70+65+162=622 years (Gen. 5:3–18). 622 years after 4001 BC is 3379 BC.
6. ↑ See Pratt, John P., “A Native American Easter: How the Ancient American Calendar Testifies of Christ“, (28 Mar 2001), for an introduction to the Sacred Round.
7. ↑ See Pratt, John P., “Enoch Calendar Testifies of Christ”, (11 Sep 2001) for an introduction to the Enoch Calendar. Enoch’s proposed birth date is the Autumnal Equinox (0 Autumn) only if the day began at 6:00 p.m. (or sunset) which now appears to be the case. In that first article I suggested that the Enoch day probably started in the morning, and even now the evidence is not conclusive.
8. ↑ 1 Lord is the first of the minor holy days to be mentioned in my articles and deserves a note of explanation. It currently appears that on both the Venus and Mercury calendars, in addition to the 8 major holy days (1 Creation, 1 Birth, 1 Prime, and 1 Resurrection, and the days preceding them), there are also 8 minor holy days: 1 Quickening, 1 Adult, 1 Death, and 1 Lord, and the days preceding them. Each of these has a counterpart on the Sacred Round having the same symbolic meaning of a day in the cycle of life: Creation = Light (conception), Quickening = Wind (when spirit enters the unborn), Birth = Temple (birth), Adult = Dragon (maturity), Prime = Serpent (prime), Death = Skull (death), Resurrection = Grass (resurrection), and Lord = Flower (divinity). In Mayan, Flower is called Ahau, meaning “Lord.” Mayan priests explained that “On the twentieth and last day Ahau (god), he becomes one with the divinity.” (Irene Nicholson, Mexican and Central American Mythology, New York, Hamlyn Publishing, 1967, p. 52).
9. ↑ Moses 7:69
10. ↑ Reed is the glyph following Grass, which symbolizes resurrection. The reed apparently represents the grass later when it is fully grown. In the resurrection, children will grow to maturity after they resurrect (See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 200, including fn. 4), so this glyph may represent the day one receives the fully mature resurrected body. The Reed was associated with Jesus Christ because he was born on the day 1 Reed. He is “the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25), and of course, he was fully mature on the day of his resurrection. But the day on which he was presented to the priest at the temple as an infant, which was his “birthday” on the Enoch Fixed calendar, was the day 1 Grass. Perhaps that signified that even as an infant, he was “the resurrection.”
11. ↑ Gen. 7:7–8:14
12. ↑ Gen. 7:11
13. ↑ Since the time of Moses, Heshvan (formerly Heshwan or Marheshwan) has been the eighth month, rather than the second, because the Lord changed the numbering at that time to begin in the spring (Ex. 12:2). The traditional Jewish date for the Flood is 17 Heshvan: “The duration of the flood was a whole year. It began on the seventeenth day of Heshwan . . . ” (Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. I, p. 163.)
14. ↑ Gen. 7:7–10
15. ↑ Pratt, John P., “What Every Mormon Should Know About Astronomy,” (12 May 2000), section 3.
16. ↑ Mat. 3:17
17. ↑ Pratt, John P., “Enoch Calendar Testifies of Christ“, (11 Sep 2001), Section 5.
18. ↑ Smith, Joseph Fielding, Jr., Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: BookCraft, 1955), Vol.2, p.320.
19. ↑ It has recently been proposed that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the gash in the ocean floor which runs thousands of miles down the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, may be where the fountains of the deep erupted, rather than merely being a source of slow ocean-floor spreading as believed by most scientists (see, for example, Walt Brown, In The Beginning, Phoenix, 2001). We might also note that the same prophets who taught that the earth was baptized by immersion in water also foretold the baptism of the earth by fire still yet to come. Those hoping that this future baptism is also not by immersion might support their position with calculations that there is not enough fire today to engulf the entire earth. Of course, the rest of us are confident that the Lord can create whatever flames are needed.
20. ↑ Astronomers use “Julian Day Numbers” to facilitate such calculations. They simply assign a consecutive number to every day, beginning with Mon 1 Jan 4713 BC (Julian calendar) being Julian Day 0. The day Sat 9 Nov 2343 BC was Julian Day 865,975, and Sat 6 Oct AD 29 was Julian Day 1,731,931. The difference between those numbers is 865,956 days.
21. ↑ Such calculations can be verified on my web site at http://www.johnpratt.com/items/calendar/mathutil/realign.html. In this case choose “2″ realignment cycles, with one cycle being “Enoch” and the other “Venus.” The second realignment cycle is seen to be 865,956 days.
22. ↑ Gen. 5:18
23. ↑ Pratt, John P., “From Martyrdom to Celebration!” (6 June 2002), section 5.
24. ↑ To verify the calculations at the link given in footnote 15, enter “Sacred” and “Venus” to see both realignment cycles of 35,620 and 175,760 days. See also Anthony Aveni, Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico (Austin: U. of Texas Press, 1980) for a discussion of how the 61 Venus cycles are actually used in the Mayan Dresden Codex (p. 192), and for the claim that “the Maya astronomers had succeeded in tabulating the motion of Venus to .08 part of a day in 481 years” (p. 191).
25. ↑ D&C 107:46
26. ↑ D&C 107:47
27. ↑ D&C 107:48
28. ↑ To verify the calculations at the link given in footnote 15, enter “Sacred” and “Venus” to see both realignment cycles of 35,620 and 175,760 days. See also Anthony Aveni, Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico (Austin: U. of Texas Press, 1980) for a discussion of how the 61 Venus cycles are actually used in the Mayan Dresden Codex (p. 192), and for the claim that “the Maya astronomers had succeeded in tabulating the motion of Venus to .08 part of a day in 481 years” (p. 191).
29. ↑ The Julian Day of the ordination was 501,611 and the Julian Day of the Baptism is given in footnote 14, and the difference between them is 1,230,320 = 13 x 260 x 364 days.
30. ↑ Roys, Ralph, The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel (Norman, OK: U. of Oklahoma, 1967), p. 116: “This is a song of how the uinal came to be created before the creation of the world.” Uinal is the Mayan word for what is now called the vientena, the 20-day cycle.
31. ↑ Moreover, including the star background shows that on both of the dates of Jared’s death and the Flood, there was a close conjunction of Mercury and Saturn in the Archer, as well as Mars accompanying Venus in the Water Bearer. It may be significant that at the Flood, Venus is right at the stream that the Water Bearer is pouring out. Much more research is required to understand the rich symbolism of the “signs” in the stars of which the Lord spoke (Gen. 1:14).
32. ↑ 2 Peter 3:6

Have we been so conditioned to believe lies that we cannot see truth?

The previous article in this column discussed “How Can We Know Truth?” It concluded that we should not depend too much on any one method, but rather would have the best chance of being right when our inspired feelings and our detailed mental analysis agreed^[1]. But we all know cases where the truth is right in front of people and yet they are blind to it. And someone else might have looked at us and wondered why we could not see the obvious. Let us now consider the question of just why people cannot see plain truth when it should be as unmistakable as the noonday sun.

Reader discretion is advised: this article implies that nearly all of us have believed at least some lies and fallen into traps set by wicked, deceitful men. Hence, to the extent that you too have been deceived, this article might be upsetting to your world view. All of the views expressed herein are strictly those of the author and do not represent the official position of this magazine nor of any church.

Rejection of Truth

The Savior shed some light on the question of why people reject truth. He said if people obeyed His^[2] word that they would know the truth, and the truth would make them free ^[3]. His listeners replied that they had never been in bondage. That speaks volumes in itself, because they were then in subjection to Rome. But the Savior let that example of blindness pass and went directly to the root of the problem. He explained, “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin” ^[4]. They didn’t like that answer and sought to slay Him, claiming that it was He who was wicked and was possessed by a devil.

Could Pilate recognize Truth?

This is a great example of blindness to truth. Can you see a problem with people who attempt to prove their own righteousness by executing a man whose only crime was to hint that they might be in bondage to sin? Being slain for revealing wickedness has been the perennial problem of prophets. The Savior’s attackers saw no problem with themselves, and crucified their promised Messiah by claiming blasphemy to prove their righteousness and His wickedness. How could they be so blind? This same problem is rampant today: those who expose sins are squelched. In fact, it is not even politically correct to use the word “sin” because it could offend an atheist. What did the Savior say was the root of this problem? He taught them plainly: “Ye seek to kill me because my word has no place in you” ^[5].

The Lord said, “My spirit shall not always strive with man” ^[6]. We are all born with a conscience which tells us right from wrong, and which can reveal truth to us, as discussed in the last article. When we continually ignore it, that still, small voice gets even softer until finally we cannot hear it at all.

Parable of the Sower

The Lord gave the parable of the sower which summarized three broad categories of why people reject the truth of the word of God ^[7]. The first group of people mentioned are those who are hard-hearted and reject truth outright. The second group accepts the truth at first, but then persecution convinces them to reject it. The third group also accepts the truth initially, but then they are seduced by the deceit of riches. They love money more than the truth, and cannot serve two masters. These groups are easily identified today. Note the influence of persecution and deceit.

Why is it that knowing the truth can make one free? What is the relationship between truth and freedom? This is a deep subject which could be a book, but there is one scripture which throws much light on the subject:

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. ^[8]

Thus, Satan’s purpose is to deceive and to blind men so that he can lead them captive, and he is successful with those who do not hearken unto the voice of God. This explains why knowing the truth can make one free. The truth is that we have been blinded by Satan, and we cannot see that he is leading us around captive. We are captive without even knowing it, just as were those whom the Savior taught. And once blinded, it is difficult indeed for us again to awaken and open our eyes and see the truth.

Crucified for telling the truth

As a first step toward recovering from our blindness, let us consider systematic methods for conditioning people to ignore the voice of truth. Keep in mind that on own personal Judgment Day, we will not be able to use the defense that we were deceived, because part of the test was to see if we would heed our inner voice.

Blindness Conditioning

The Lord has said, “For there are many . . . who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it” ^[9]. What are some subtle methods used by scheming men to purposely blind us to the truth?
There are several methods of mind control which vary both in method and severity. One technique is hypnosis, which has both light and deep varieties. Another technique is conditioning, which can vary in degree from simple training of a dog or child to full blown brainwashing. These methods can be used for good or evil: a dog can be trained to be a seeing eye dog or a killer even as a child can be conditioned to love and become a good citizen or to hate and become a suicide bomber.

Let us consider some degrees of mind conditioning. Brainwashing, the most severe form, is defined as “a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.” The definition for “marketing” is similar but less severe: “the process or technique of promoting, selling, and distributing a product or service.”^[10] If what is being sold is “beliefs and attitudes,” then marketing techniques can be similar to brainwashing techniques. Note that neither definition says anything about whether the beliefs being promoted are true or false, the purpose of both is simply to convert to a new belief system. At the least severe end of the scale we might find simple appeals to emotion or reason.

There are many articles on the internet about brainwashing techniques. Many methods have been used, but it is hard to find two authors who agree on exactly what constitutes brainwashing. Often the victim is in a controlled environment that includes abrupt changes, being deprived of sleep and of family and friends or any support system, and is prevented from getting information from any other source. The victim usually doesn’t know what happened, but gradually accepts ideas that he previously might have fought to the death to resist. The brain is “washed” clean of what it used to think, leaving it open to accept a whole new belief system. Afterward, the victim usually will defend his new slave master as having “enlightened” him.

In this article let us focus on a form of mind conditioning which is less severe than brainwashing but more than marketing. Moreover, it is always dedicated to converting to lies and to evil. It may be best to coin a new term to describe it, so let us refer to it as “blindness conditioning.” It is a process used to train someone to become blind to the truth.

I have chosen six methods to define “blindness conditioning.” All of them are found among the many techniques used in both brainwashing and marketing. These seem to be both especially effective and also commonly used by crafty men who are in the business of deception. Once we learn these techniques, we can recognize the pattern and realize when we are purposely being manipulated to accept some belief against our will. Then when we see it in advertising, in politics, in religion, or (perish the thought) even in science, it can be recognized. Once we can “see” again, we can recognize the truth and the truth can make us free.

Desensitize by Inundation

Begin by flooding the victim with constant barrage of the lie, even though it is completely opposite of what the person knows to be right. The goal here is simply to get acceptance of the belief as an acceptable “alternative” rather than something to be shunned or fought against.
The purpose of inundating is to desensitize the person to any existing negative connotations. If the individual is smothered with so much of it that his early warning system to detect falsehood is blaring constantly, then he may choose to ignore the warnings. In other words, he stops listening to his conscience because it becomes annoying. He is conditioned not to follow the light within. He then becomes comfortable with the higher levels of evil. Clothing that was once shockingly immodest no longer offends.

Gradualism

If one floods the market with too much poison too quickly, the intended victims might get sick and vomit it out. So if there is time, the desensitization should be done by gradually turning up the level of inundation so the victim becomes totally accustomed to it. Our desensitization to immodesty was accomplished by modifying necklines and hemlines little by little.

Are we boiled frogs?

Perhaps the best analogy is “frog boiling.” It is said that one can boil a live frog by very slowly turning up the heat, so that it gets used to higher and higher levels of heat. When it finally realizes it is being cooked, it is too late because its muscles no longer have the strength to leap to safety. I personally don’t know anyone patient enough to cook frogs this way, but it makes a great story. A faster way is to simply behead the critters and get on with dinner, but that is the old-style method of brute force, rather than the modern way of using gradual conditioning to convince victims to voluntarily choose to stay in the kettle.

Deceptive Definitions

Words with negative connotations are dropped and much more user-friendly words are introduced. Or better, well-known words are hijacked and redefined to support the concept being sold. This is an important support step of inundating with lies. If the lie is too obvious, it will be rejected even with inundation. So words are redefined to sound like concepts that are already accepted, and even espoused by the listener.
The redefining of old words is done blatantly, with no thought of honesty. Consider an example from politics. A political “party” in the United States is supposed to be a group of people sharing similar views of how to govern, but always in the context of swearing to uphold the U.S. Constitution. But we see candidates listed on the ballot as representing the “Communist Party.” Communists cannot be a legitimate “party” at all in the U.S. because they are openly working to destroy the constitution and freedom. Simply renaming “treasonous conspirators” to be a “political party” gives acceptance. Did you complain to the proper authorities the last time you saw communists on the ballot? Simply renaming evil has incredibly powerful results.

Falsify History

Another method is to rewrite history so that the lie appears to be a long-established truth. Convince people that Christopher Columbus, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln were evil. This can be done without a shred of actual evidence by simply using a big-name professor who fabricates outright lies. There is much real evidence that all three of those men were called of God to perform a mission, which they did with honor. Each used to have his own national holiday, but now Columbus Day is a day for hate rallies and the birthdays of our two greatest presidents have been replaced with “Presidents’ Day” as if all presidents (some of whom were scoundrels) were equally honorable.

Stifle All Opposition

Another important step is to squelch or completely silence the opposition, effectively removing any freedom to choose. This can be done by ridicule, by comparing them to hated images such as Hitler, by punishment, or even legally outlawing the opposition and making a public spectacle of offenders to instill fear in others. Perhaps the best way of all is by “science.” People think of scientists as totally objective, who always discover truth with their experimenting. After scientific evidence is entered, then anyone who dares to question is accused of being unscientific and believing in a flat earth. A common technique here is not to let any dissenter be employed. That way, you can claim that there is a consensus of all experts in the field.

False Peer Pressure

One of the final techniques leading to “conversion” or acceptance of the product, is to falsify evidence to show that all of your friends believe it, or are using it. At first this is an outright lie, but in a successful conditioning campaign it can become true. For example, many commercials for beer imply that everyone drinks beer because is “cool” to do.

Examples

Now let us consider the examples of socialism, evolution, and the marketing of evil. You can decide for yourself it there is any chance you have been “blindness conditioned” to some degree.

Socialism

Socialism is a political and economic system designed to enslave society. What? That isn’t what you were taught in school?
Let’s see. My dictionary says that socialism is “a political and economic theory which advocates that the community as a whole should own and control the means of production and distribution, and exchange.” We need to decode this definition. What is the “community as a whole” (sounds like the neighbors). It is the government. Who is the government? It is a few people at the top who enforce their laws with armed police and soldiers if necessary. They control and distribute all of the goods in the country. The citizens work for the state. The workers may own nothing at all, or perhaps just what the state feels might be acceptable for them.

Who owns the wheat?

If you cannot own any property, what freedom do you have? What if you had no home, car, clothing, food, or even water? What could you do but work for the state and hope they supply your basic needs? How would that differ from being a prison inmate? Hence, this article refers to socialism as a system of enslavement. Stalin starved to death some 25 million of his own slaves in the Soviet Union, which shows what can happen when the state controls the distribution of food.^[11]

Socialism enslaves slowly, like cooking frogs, conditioning the future slaves into accepting their new bondage as being “progressive.” In contrast, the more primitive communism accomplishes the same thing by force and revolution. That seems less desirable for the slave masters because many of the slaves are killed in the takeover and it is too obvious that they have become slaves.

Note that in conditioning people to be slaves, it is extremely important to have all their primary allegiance be to the state. That means that religion, family, and education must all be suppressed because they can lead to people to have loyalty to God, to family members, or to principles. Slaves must be kept in ignorance, with their family members separated, with prayer and any mention of God being strictly forbidden.

Now let us review how the six blindness conditioning techniques are used in spreading socialism in general and also with specific programs.

Is Socialism the Beast?

Accepting Socialism. Inundate with lies about the evils of capitalism and utopian glories of socialism. Redefine enslaved states to be “Republics” (the “R” in U.S.S.R.) and the United States to be a “Democracy” (rather than Republic).^[12]Convince Americans they are encroachers on the land and imperialists who are forcing freedom upon cultures around the world. Rewrite every aspect of history and award the authors the Pulitzer prizes, applauding their objectivity.^[13] Stifle all opposition by using the A.C.L.U. to give equal rights to communists, threatening to sue anyone who dares to stand up for the rights the Constitution guarantees. And finally, use the peer pressure of having the United Nations decree that the United States is out of line and needs to forfeit its sovereignty and to do as told by the “world community”.

Atheism. The state religion of socialism is atheism. Atheism is nothing more than an apparently rational excuse to ignore one’s conscience, which testifies of God, and to hope to escape responsibility for sin by claiming ignorance. Note that atheism is a relatively recent phenomena, only attracting many followers after the advent of Darwin. Before that, the existence of some kind of Creator was obvious to anyone who examined a flower. They could see the truth right in front of them.

We are now inundated with atheism, which has gradually become accepted to be a rational belief. History was rewritten claiming that the Founding Fathers were deists, meaning that they believed in a God who might as well not exist because all he did was create everything and then leave. That is false; they were mostly Christians. And the A.C.L.U. fights for the rights of atheists above all, forcing their religion to be the state religion contrary to the First Amendment.

Anti-Family Persecution. The family is another source of allegiance which must be destroyed in order to have properly behaving slaves. Did you know that one of the first things Lenin did in the newly created communist Russia was to institute “Postcard Divorce”?^[14] If a married couple had a spat, either spouse could be instantly dissolve the family by simply mailing a postcard. The other did not even need to be aware of it. Now we have followed that example with our “no-fault divorce.” So much for marriage being a legal “contract” that needs to be kept.

Lenin also attacked the family by forcing women out of the home into the workforce, promoting infidelity in marriage, and legalizing abortion. Does any of this sound familiar?

Moreover, the government can make a mockery of marriage by defining it to be between any two people, or between people and animals, or between animals. In Germany, children who are obedient to parents are now being diagnosed as having a mental disease because “normal” teenagers rebel against their parents. They are being forcefully removed from their parents and incarcerated in mental institutions.^[15]

Dumbing Down Schools. It is also important to keep slaves ignorant of the truths which could make them free. Mandatory free government schools can control indoctrination of youth. Some education benefits the socialist state, namely the production of workers. But all real truth, such as could make them free, must be avoided. Such truths are not only taught in the scriptures, but also in all great literature, true art, true history and even classical music. Hence these must all be corrupted with trash posing as writing, garbage as art, and indoctrination as history. Actually, it is best if the slaves cannot read at all, so teaching to read phonetically was replaced with the mind-confusing “look-see” method. Teaching might best be done in the socialist state with television, graduating students who cannot read, and giving tests which require only the rote memorization of the state’s “correct answers.”

The Spotted Owl

Radical Environmentalism. Another facet of this same socialist movement is to somehow curb the overwhelming economic success of this experiment in freedom called the United States. So it was necessary to declare pollution-free nuclear energy as horrible and stop the creation of all such power plants so that we would be crippled by simply all turning on our air conditioners at the same time. Manufacturing must be curtailed by shutting down factories. Also it is important to keep us dependent on foreign fuel, so development of alternative energy sources such as solar or wind energy is economically discouraged, even though given lip service.

Of course we all want clean air, pristine forests for our children to appreciate, and responsible environmental policies. The radical extreme enters when balance is lost. We are told God did not give man dominion over the earth but rather that all use by man of plants, animals and minerals is wrong. We are told we should stop eating animals because it is wrong to kill. If so, should we also stop eating plants for the same reason? Is it wrong even to build a hut in the jungle? Any good idea when pushed to the extreme becomes evil.^[16]

Global Warming?

Global Warming. What about global warming? Is the earth heating up? If so, is it carbon dioxide that is causing the heating or is the sun warming the earth? ^[17][18] It is hard to get at the truth of this matter because blindness conditioning techniques are being used in foisting the socialist global warming agenda on the entire world.^[19] We are inundated with hearing of climate change daily and the huge threat to our very existence. Anyone who questions it, including President Bush, is declared to be an anti-scientific flat-earther. The state meteorologist in Oregon has his job in jeopardy because he dares to question it. After dissenters are purged, then a consensus of those remaining is declared. Laws now state that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant. That means we are polluting when we exhale!

When such manipulation techniques are employed we can be sure that there is more to the agenda than pure science alone would dictate.

Evolution

In my eight years of writing the Science and Religion column for Meridian Magazine, I have never written an article focused solely on evolution. One reason is that it appears to me that we have been so conditioned to believe in evolution that no objective discussion is possible.

Charles Darwin

What is evolution? In this article, the word refers to the theory that, given the first cells of life that somehow appeared on earth, spontaneous changes occurred between generations which account for the origin of all the species found on earth, including mankind. One may or may not believe that God was involved.^[20]

Let us summarize Darwin’s entire theory of evolution in one paragraph. Given the initial form of life, there is really only one principal difference between Darwin’s theory and the former theory of inheritance. The former theory, based on the results of all breeding experiments ever done, was that there is a limit to the variation possible in each species. Darwin proposed that there is no limit to the variation, and that nature selects the fittest variations to survive. If so, then new species could be formed, and all life, including man, might have descended from a primitive organism. He knew that such a proposal flew in the face of all that had ever been observed, including the fossil record, so all of his books were plausibility arguments to explain how it might have happened. To me, all of the so-called evidence for evolution discovered since Darwin is also nothing more than an extension of those plausibility arguments.

Evolution is a theory that offers a plausible explanation of life for atheists. If you believe in God, then creation is a far simpler explanation,^[21] rather than having to believe the absurdity that zapping a single cell with mutation-causing radiation will cause its descendants to develop well-designed eyes, lungs, heart and brain. On the other hand, many devout Christians believe that evolution is the process that God used in the Creation. This belief is based on what they think is evidence supporting the theory, and the seeming compatibility of the theory with their fluid interpretation of the scriptures. An excellent new book promoting this point of view is The Language of God, written by Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project.^[22] I recommend reading it, but to me it only shows the depth of the blindness conditioning which has been done.

In 1848, about a decade before Darwin’s first book, Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto had been published. As noted above, socialism works best in an atheist atmosphere. Many of the forces in nature had already been explained without God by using “natural laws” (without asking where those laws came from). The last area where God had been needed in science was in explaining life. So the communists (and socialists) jumped on the Darwin bandwagon and proclaimed that Darwin had removed the last prop for God and had proved that He did not exist. Of course that was nonsense, because Darwin had proved nothing at all. Besides, those first cells came from somewhere. A single cell can grow into a man in only twenty years, but that doesn’t prove there is no God. So Darwin’s theory was extended to say that all life could have originated from some primordial chemical mixture. That was declared to be fact, and then God was commanded to disappear. Darwin’s proposal, originally just a purely scientific hypothesis about the origin of species, was snatched from the realm of science, declared to be already proven, and used as the foundation of many political schemes, including socialism, communism and fascism.

The entire method of marketing evolution is a textbook case of blindness conditioning. Let us consider some examples and then ask ourselves why such manipulation is used.

Two varieties of Peppered Moth

Desensitization. First of all, we were desensitized to the formerly repugnant thought that man is descended from animals, so that it became an acceptable possibility. We are told incessantly that evolution is true, and is a “fact” not a theory. Some of the so-called “evidence” for evolution is known to be blatant fraud by the scholars, but it is often kept in the textbooks anyway. The pictures of the animal embryos that looked like humans were purposely faked, the peppered moths were glued to the trees because they do not rest there in the daytime, and the famed Piltdown man was exposed as a hoax.^[23]

Gradualism. Evolution was not forced rapidly down our throats. It gradually became accepted. In science, this step alone is not necessarily a red flag. It nearly always takes time for a new theory to be accepted.

Deceptive Definitions. Many words are redefined to make evolution sound true. For example, when the science of genetics appeared, with its ability to predict results of real scientific experiments, evolutionists realized their speculative theory was in crisis. Genetics showed that the variations in descendants were limited to a fixed set of possible variations, whereas evolutionists proposed that unlimited variation should be possible. So it was decided to rename “genetics” to be “micro-evolution.” Then “macro-evolution” was defined to mean Darwin’s proposed unlimited variation, as if it existed, and were indeed just an extension of the “micro” version. The proof of what was to be shown was accomplished by simply coining a new word. Then, for simplicity, the “micro” and “macro” are often omitted, and the transformation is complete: the science of genetics was transformed into the speculation of evolution.^[24]

To show how powerful this one definition is, Collins concluded a chapter that summarized the genetics of DNA with the statement: “Evolution, as a mechanism, can be and must be true.”^[25] That unwarranted conclusion came as a complete non sequitur because no evidence of unlimited variation had been presented at all. A better summary would have been, “The science of genetics has clearly shown that DNA contains the code of instructions used to define the precise form of a living being.”

The Code of Life

Here is my proposed method to help have a meaningful conversation with an evolutionist, or to understand something written about evolution. Whenever you see or hear the word “evolution,” simply replace it with either “unlimited variation in descendants” or with “genetics” (whichever fits best). Just dropping the confusing word “evolution” entirely can greatly clarify what is being said. You will find that when something has really been “proved” it nearly always refers to genetics or the DNA code, and when it is about “unlimited variation in descendants” it is usually mere speculation or plausibility arguments.

Stifling. It is the stifling of all opposition to evolution which is most disconcerting. It has been made illegal even to hint in school that there are other options to consider. Moreover, it is only the godless version of evolution which is allowed, usually with the teaching that evolution must be godless and even proves there is no God (which it does not). Teachers cannot point out that there are many reputable scientists who believe the entire theory is unfounded speculation which has been forced upon us so that atheists would not look like idiots. But this charade has gone too far. It is now not only acceptable to teach this speculation as truth, but it is illegal even to suggest that there are alternate scientific views.^[26] The study of Intelligent Design is branded as “religion in disguise” even though in its pure form it has no more to do with religion than does a police detective trying to determine whether a fire was an accident or arson. The bottom line is that alternative scientific theories at not allowed to be taught, but speculation masquerading as science is approved. Even if you believe in evolution, doesn’t that bother you just a little bit that it is illegal to teach any other viewpoint? This is stifling at its best.

Were Adam and Eve real?

Rewriting History. What is evolution if not a total rewrite of the history of the earth? The history in the Book of Genesis has been deemed plausible from Abraham onward. That is, he was a real person, who is the father of many modern nations. But any talk of Noah and a worldwide Deluge as described in the Bible is bound to bring riotous laughter from the “educated.” And any thought that the Biblical Adam was a real human being is discounted even by many Christian religions.

False Peer pressure. To go against the crowd on evolution is scientific suicide. In addition to stifling, there is the peer pressure that everyone accepts evolution as true. Anyone not believing in evolution is discounted as just not being educated. Again we have the appeal to scientific consensus. The claim is made that “No serious biologist today doubts the theory of evolution”.^[27] Perhaps a better statement would have been, “No biologist who questions evolution is considered competent to teach at a university or even high school.”

To me it is tragic that science gets so abused. The theory of evolution could have been stated as a testable scientific theory. It might have died a natural death as a false theory, weeded out by falsifying experiments. Instead, what happens is that negative experimental results are ignored and positive indications hailed as victory in the political environment which funds science and determines the “results” in spite of what the evidence might show.

Did God use evolution?

Thus, any scientific value of evolution is totally muddled in this smoke screen of blindness conditioning. Evolution might be partially true, meaning that allowed variation already pre-programmed into the DNA might be much more flexible than had been suspected before Darwin. Perhaps foxes are related to dogs but not to cats. Did God create single cells with an amazing program written in their DNA which could produce all the animals? Did he create a few well-designed kinds of plants and animals which could evolve into thousands of new species? Did he create everything we call a “species” separately? But alas, we are not allowed even to ask such questions in the modern godless “scientific” arena.

In conclusion, we have to ask, why is evolution promoted with deceptive mind conditioning techniques?

Marketing Evil

Many years ago when I first read Isaiah’s prophecies that in the last days people would call evil good and good evil ^[28], I found that difficult to accept. After all, how could people with a conscience ever be so gullible as to be persuaded to reverse such unmistakable concepts? Well, folks, the transformation is now nearly complete. The word “sin” is rapidly disappearing from the language because that means to break the laws of God, and God has been banished legally from all public life.
But not only has formerly banned behavior become acceptable, and even deemed “good,” it also is promoted with mind conditioning techniques. Let us consider three examples.

Enslaving Drugs. Drugs such as nicotine and alcohol are legal to use and have been highly promoted by cunning, deceitful, conspiring men ^[29]. There has been a great push to legalize other drugs such as marijuana. But even so, most people are not totally brainwashed and can recognize that the use of such drugs is wrong, even if legal. That is, most smokers recognize that they have a “bad habit” and are trying to quit.

The more successful blindness conditioning is on the side of legalized medicine where one is forced by law to treat certain “diseases” with certain drugs. Parents who do not comply are said to be abusing their children, unless they are put on the required medical treatment (such as Prozac or chemotherapy). Huge efforts are made by the pharmaceutical industry to get the entire nation using drugs for the rest of their lives. In this case, victims are not “trying to quit” because they think they have no choice. Often the information of alternative natural cures is withheld or such treatments declared illegal.^[30]

Sexual Promiscuity and Perversion. There has been a huge blindness conditioning campaign concerning all manner of sexual perversion. False scientific studies were published promoting “free sex” and immorality hailed as a great liberation movement.^[31] Homosexuality, lesbianism, and bestiality were then introduced as the next steps toward so-called freedom from “ancient taboos.”

Notice the steps of blindness conditioning. First, we are inundated with abnormal sexual behavior on every side, especially on television. We are gradually desensitized to immodesty and taught to tolerate totally unnatural, weird sexual behavior. The medical industry aided in 1973 by declaring that sexual deviants no longer have a psychiatric disorder.^[32] Instead, they have an “alternate lifestyle.” Deceptive definitions are employed, such as redefining “gay” to mean “homosexual” rather than “joyful.” Then all opposition is stifled, so that if a basketball player gives his opinion (in this land of free speech) that he does not like to associate with homosexuals, then an apology is demanded and appearances are made on talk shows to explain such a politically incorrect “homophobic” position. The sinful practice is then required by law to be taught from kindergarten onward as was done in ancient Rome before it fell. History is rewritten, claiming that many of our national heroes were homosexuals, which claims can be totally fabricated lies. Then we are lied to about how common homosexuality is, claiming to represent some 10% of U.S. males, when 1% was more accurate.^[33] Thus, all six of the blindness conditioning techniques listed in this article have been employed.

Hired Killers. What is the greatest sin? Many would say homicide, and indeed murderers are still sometimes sentenced to death. We could perhaps be more precise: “a hired murderer of the innocent, with complete knowledge and denying the light of truth, or in the case of true Christians, denying the Holy Ghost” ^[34]. And the more that are murdered, the greater the crime. Thus, names like Hitler and Stalin with their murder of millions to get gain puts them at the top of some lists.

Is a baby worth saving?

But there is another group of people who have killed more innocents than Hitler and Stalin combined. Some 47,000,000 unborn children have been killed by doctors in the United States alone, hired by the mothers of those very children. When worldwide numbers are considered, the total death count is closer to a billion. How could mothers cease to love their own offspring, and doctors turn into killers after taking the oath to do no harm?

Again, we can clearly see blindness conditioning techniques. First, we were inundated with abortion as a topic of discussion when it had been unspeakable previously. Then terms were changed, renaming the formerly heinous crime to be the “Right to Choose.” Americans fight for rights and freedom of choice, so what good American could be against the right to choose? Then most opposition is stifled by making it legal. History was rewritten by claiming that over 10,000 women had died annually from illegal abortions when it was really about 250.^[35] And finally, we were told that everyone was doing it, until that became much more true. The result is hailed as a great victory for women and crowds cheer as speeches are given celebrating this victory of freedom over the slavery of motherhood.

Not everyone is sinning with knowledge. Many children are taught to have illicit sex before they have any idea how serious a sin it is and that it can destroy their lives. And it is clear that many mothers were deceived by being told that it was not a baby at all, but rather just some tissue that needed to be removed, like a growing cancer. When these women later discovered that it really was their baby they had killed, they became depressed for years. We weep for these deceived children and women.

Is this baby alive?

But what about the doctors and nurses? They crush the babies’ skulls, suck out their brains, and rip off their arms and legs. They use instruments of torture, and place all the dismembered pieces of the body on the table right in front of them to make sure the body is complete. We would be horrified to see on the news that the murder of an adult had been done that way. These doctors are mature and intelligent, and appear to be decent citizens as they chat with us at church. How could someone be staring the truth right in the face (literally) and reject it?

It turns out that blindness conditioning methods have also been used on the doctors themselves. After being inundated with it as a normal practice, opposition is stifled as they are often required to do abortions in their residency or be denied a medical license. So they “practice” until their conscience is silenced, whereupon they can face the world with a smile. And so the peer pressure is felt that all the other doctors are doing it, so it must be okay.

But there is always hope for repentance. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was the most instrumental in starting abortion in the United States one day had an “awakening” that these really were babies he was killing. He has worked tirelessly ever since to fight this great evil. He has helped produce two movies showing that the unborn are alive: The Silent Scream and Eclipse of Reason.^[36]

The Lord has made it clear that He will return to judge the wickedness of the world and cleanse the earth in preparation for His millennial reign. When He destroyed the wicked before in the Great Deluge, only eight souls on earth were preserved. There is a another great tribulation and time of trouble coming “such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (meaning worse than the Deluge), and “except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened” ^[37]. We might all ask ourselves if there is any chance we might be in the group that will survive and have the great blessing of personally seeing the Savior come to reign over the righteous in the Millennium.

Conclusion

There are many mind control techniques which are being used in marketing, politics, religion and even science to condition us to ignore the voice of truth and reason from within and accept lies as our belief system. Six methods of “blindness conditioning” were discussed and many examples given of slavery and sin being promoted with such manipulation. But when Judgment Day arrives, will we be able to ask for a mistrial on the grounds that we were helpless after having been brainwashed? Probably not, because the root of the problem was that these techniques only worked because we stopped listening to our consciences. And that was the test, to find out which of the Savior’s sheep truly recognize and heed his voice. Hopefully, being aware of these deception techniques can help us awaken to a sense of our awful situation ^[38], reject the false teachings, and begin to follow the light of truth in all things. The Lord summarized the entire problem in one simple verse:

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. ^[39]

1. ↑ Pratt, John P., “How Can We Know Truth?“
2. ↑ Beginning with this paper, I’m officially repenting of a trap I have fallen into. Formerly one always capitalized any reference to God, including pronouns. Conforming to modern “progressive” standards I had dropped that tradition in all my former articles, but beginning with this article I intend to return to the former standard in order to show more respect for Diety.
3. ↑ John 8:32
4. ↑ John 8:34
5. ↑ John 8:37
6. ↑ Gen. 6:3
7. ↑ Mat. 13:3-23
8. ↑ Moses 4:4
9. ↑ D&C 123:12
10. ↑ Both definitions ar from Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition, (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1993).
11. ↑ Cashill, Jack, Hoodwinked (Nashville, TN: Nelson Current, 2005), pp. 15, 29-37. This book is an excellent book summarizing a variety of lies of rewriting history that most of us have accepted as truth. Stalin’s Five Year plan began in 1928. He starved millions to death as he forced communism on his subjects. Their wheat was confiscated and sent to the United States as proof that communism was economically successful. We bought both the wheat and the fraud and in 1933 the U.S. recognized the Soviet Union.
12. ↑ In a democracy, the people directly elect leaders. The founding fathers knew it to be an unstable form of government which could only last until the people learned that they could vote themselves money from the public treasury. In a republic, citizens elect their best men to be their local leaders and then trust them to elect the higher leaders. The House of Representatives was designed to be elected by the people, but the Senate was supposed to represent the state governments, not the people. Our republic has been weakened as changes have been made toward the direction of a democracy, such as the 17th Amendment, which states that senators would also be elected by the people.
13. ↑ For example, the 1932 Pulitzer prize for news correspondence went to the New York Times’ Walter Duranty for his “scholarship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgment, and exceptional clarity” in reporting on the Soviet Union’s Five Year Plan. See reference in footnote 4.
14. ↑ Kupelian, David, The Marketing of Evil (Nashville, TN: Cumberland House, 2005), p. 119. This is the book that awakened me to the widespread marketing techniques used to promote many of the evils listed in this article. Kupelian sees the problem only as marketing, but when I did research on brainwashing, the pattern became clear that the methods exceed those of mere marketing and instead are classic brainwashing techniques. The quote on postcard divorce is worth seeing in full: “It is significant to note the one of the first things V.I. Lenin did when he came to power in the Soviet Union, after the revolution in 1917, was to have passed what amounts to our no-fault divorce statutes. Lenin, and later Stalin, determined that in order to maintain control of the people it would be necessary to completely destroy the family and restructure it. Thus, on Sept. 16, 1918, a law was passed whereby one could obtain a divorce by simply mailing or delivering a postcard to the local register without the necessity of even notifying the spouse being divorced. This statute, along with the communist encouragement of sexual immorality during marriage, approval of abortion, and forcing women out of the home into the workforce, accomplished its purpose of destroying the Russian family.” (Mikhail Heller, Cogs in the Wheel, New York, Knopf, 1988, pp 168-179, cited by Charles E. Corry, “Evolution of Society” online at www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization-2.htm in turn cited by Kupelian on p. 119.
15. ↑ This story was recently on the “700 Club” news program on CBN television. A law dating back to Hitler is still on the books and now again being enforced. I highly recommend this Christian news show where one can see news that will never be on the mainstream news stations.
16. ↑ This is a theory of mine which I hope to address in an article someday. It is that all evil is merely some good pushed to an extreme. Moreover, for every good, there is an equal and opposite good, such as justice and mercy. This theory may not be true, but I cannot think of a counter-example. Honesty when pushed too far can cut like a sword, as in telling someone they are ugly. What is the opposite good from honesty? It is diplomacy. And diplomacy pushed too far becomes a lie, which is evil.
17. ↑ Isa. 30:25–26
18. ↑ Recently British television had a documentary entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” exposing some of the false science used to promote global warming. This is a highly controversial topic. Searching on line for the show’s title leads to many articles pro and con about this subject. The show can probably still be seen on line so you can decide for yourself. Currently most of it is at www.powerlineblog.com/archives/017028.php and an eight minute synopsis at www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJSupf6rkgE .
19. ↑ The “700 Club” on CBN quoted the figure of .07 C in 50 years.
20. ↑ Others define evolution to mean only a godless process. Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most outspoken spokesman that evolution must be atheistic, but some of his colleagues have reprimanded those who preach that position. Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist explained, “Science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney [Gould's third-grade teacher] and have knuckles rapped for it.” See “Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge” (review of Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial), Scientific American 267 (1992): 118-21, quoted in the reference given in my footnote 14 (pp 165-166).
21. ↑ Pratt, John P. “What is Creation?” Evolution is never mentioned because it is not required for creation.
22. ↑ Collins, Francis, The Language of God (New York: Free Press, 2006). We all owe this man a huge debt of gratitude for working tirelessly to deliver the genetic code into the hands of all mankind. Unfortunately, we may not know if he succeeded until we find the entire code given on the internet.
23. ↑ Cashill includes a chapter on Darwinism, with good references to the frauds (Chapter 4, pp. 169-214). But Ann Coulter, in Godless: the Church of Liberalism (New York: Crown Forum, 2006), devotes her final four chapters to a truly enjoyable summary of problems with Darwinism. The frauds are treated in pp. 233-240. Tom Bethell also devotes his last two chapters to evolution in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2005). All of these books are “must reading” to help be deconditioned to what we have been taught, or at least to see an alternate view.
24. ↑ There are many examples of such definitions. If “species” is defined both to mean whatever scientists want it to be and also what God had to create separately, then simply showing that a new species has appeared seems to prove evolution and to disprove God. Another is “natural selection,” which is equivalent to the “survival of the fittest.” Some authors imply that natural selection is what provides the variation seen in descendants. Darwin himself explicitly corrected that misunderstanding (Origin of Species, London, 1872, reprinted by Collier, 1962, p. 91): “Some have even imagined that natural selection induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations as arise . . . ” Another example is “fittest.” To propose that the “fittest survive” is a meaningful conjecture if “fittest” means strongest, swiftest, most sexually attractive, most resistant to disease, or the like. But experiments have been done, and some of those traits actually cause a decrease in survival (Colter, p. 213). So evolutionists sometimes define “fittest” to mean “having the knack of surviving.” Now they cannot be disproved, because the whole concept of survival of the fittest becomes a definition (called a tautology) meaning only that “those who survive are those who survive.” Another variation is “those who have the most offspring always have the most offspring.” Note that all four examples here of deceptive definitions are at the heart of evolutionary theory.
25. ↑ Collins, p. 107.
26. ↑ One school district attempted to put stickers on biology books stating “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” Wow, what a wonderful statement! To me, a similar sticker should be placed on every science book. If Einstein had read a sticker saying, “Newton’s law of gravity is a theory, not a fact,” he might have come up with his new law of gravity (general relativity) more quickly. But an Atlanta, Georgia federal judge disallowed those stickers because the First Amendment prohibits Congress from passing a law establishing a religion. But no law had been passed! And even evolutionists agree that evolution is a theory which explains the observed facts. What was the judge thinking? Would he have thought that a similar sticker on Newton’s book would have been like Parliament passing a law forcing the former religious explanation that angels pushed the planets around? What is a student, or any of us, supposed to understand by the ruling? What else but, “Evolution must be fact, so I should not keep an open mind, should not study it carefully, nor be critical at all of it.” The student is in a controlled environment and will be tested on his rote memorization, with his graduation at stake. This case has been quoted in books against evolution, but what astounds me, is that it is quoted in detail, along with a photo of the sticker, in the totally pro-evolution book by Sean Carroll, The Making of the Fittest (New York: Norton, 2006), pp. 239-240. The author himself is so conditioned that he put it in his section on how to answer those who deny evolution, thinking that the reader will agree with the judge! This is a perfect case of the blind leading the blind (Mat. 15:14).
27. ↑ Collins, p. 99.
28. ↑ Isa. 5:20
29. ↑ D&C 89:4
30. ↑ A powerful argument for this idea is in Kevin Trudeau’s Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About (Hinsdale, IL: Alliance, 2004). He is furious with the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission and accuses them of conspiracy to enslave the entire nation to disease and to buying symptom-relieving drugs. He claims to have knowledge as a reformed insider himself, including the brainwashing techniques used. He is not a scientist and often gets technical details wrong, but when I have checked on him by going to original sources, his concepts seem to be mostly correct. This is another life-changing book.
31. ↑ Kupelian’s entire Chapter 6 summarizes the fraudulent scientific studies supporting sexual sin.
32. ↑ Cashill’s last chapter details much of the fraud associated with sexual liberation. The succumbing of psychiatrists to the homosexual activists is discussed on p. 260.
33. ↑ Cashill, p. 262.
34. ↑ Mat. 12:31
35. ↑ Kupelian, p. 191
36. ↑ Kupelian, p. 190-194. This chapter contains Nathanson’s confession of the deceitful tactics used in selling the U.S. on abortion.
37. ↑ Mat. 24:21-22
38. ↑ Ether 8:24
39. ↑ Moses 4:4

Comet Holmes, which is totally puzzling to astronomers, is currently visible to the unaided eye. Sky and Telescope opens their article saying, “Amateur astronomers the world over have been stunned and amazed by the weirdest new object to appear in the sky in memory.”^[1] It has the potential to cause comet theory to be rewritten. And you can see it even from most cities. A short drive from the city to darker skies might be worth the trip. Fortunately the moon will not be in the sky for the next week during which the comet should remain visible in the northeast sky after sunset. There are now plenty of pictures of it on the internet.

The comet is now found in the mighty bicep of Perseus, in the right arm which wields his sword. He is the constellation representing the Returning Bridegroom Hero (the Savior) who marries the beautiful Chained Princess, Andromeda (His Church).^[2] We should be watching for astronomical signs of the times, and perhaps keep in mind that the Prophet Joseph Smith said that when the sign of the coming of the Son of Man will be given, that the world “will say it is a planet, a comet, etc.”^[3] I do not believe that this comet is that sign, but I do believe we should be watching and preparing.

Standard comet theory is the “dirty iceberg” model, which claims that comets are conglomerations of rock and ice that orbit the sun. They are supposed to be extremely small, only a few miles across. The theory is that when they get near the sun, some of the ice evaporates, forming both gas and dust tails which both point away from the sun, being blown that direction by particles emanating from the sun. This tail can be millions of miles long and can stream across the sky. Thus, the tail is extremely tenuous. This is all supposed to happen in a very orderly manner, with the comet gradually getting brighter as it approaches the sun in its orbit, and then gradually dimming.

But Comet Holmes breaks most of those rules. It is not a new comet, but was discovered in 1892. It has a period of 6.9 years and is at a distance of about twice as far from the sun as is the earth. That puts it in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Most comets are only bright when they are much nearer to the sun, and most come from beyond the distant planet Pluto. This comet is normally so dim it couldn’t even be found at all from 1906 to 1964.^[4] It would probably be considered to be an asteroid (which are huge chunks of rock) except for the fact that the year it was discovered it looked like a comet when it flared up in a somewhat less dramatic but similar event as is now occurring.

On Oct 24, 2007, it rocketed up in brightness by almost a factor of 1,000,000 in one day! Astronomers use “magnitude” to describe the brightness of stars. The brightest are called first magnitude, and those in the Big Dipper are called second magnitude, being a little dimmer. Five magnitudes is a factor of 100 in brightness. Comet Holmes went from 17th magnitude to nearly 2nd magnitude in 24 hours. Fifteen magnitudes is an increase of 100 x 100 x 100 = 1,000,000 times brighter. And it is now a huge spherical glowing ball of what appears to be mostly dust. Almost certainly something exploded. One astronomer said, “It is as if the earth blew off its crust” which he estimated to be about 1% of the total comet mass. He also referred to viewing this comet as a “once in a lifetime” experience.^[5]

The size of the visible “coma,” the bright luminescent ball around the head of a comet, is huge. Last night, Sun 4 Nov 2007, it appeared in my 10-inch mirror telescope to be about 10 minutes of arc in diameter, which is a third of the diameter of the full moon. One article reported that it is now more than twice as far from the earth as is the sun.^[6] Appearing to be that size at that distance means that the visible sphere is now more than half a million miles in diameter!^[7] That is quite an increase over the estimate of two miles for the rock/ice head. Starting with a 2-mile diameter rock which ejected 1% of its mass, that would mean that the dust ball now reflecting all that sunlight to us has a density of less than one 2,000th of an ounce per cubic mile. That would be amazing indeed.

To me it appears that this comet, and perhaps most comets, are much larger than previously thought. Comet Holmes is in the asteroid belt area, and would almost certainly be called an asteroid it if hadn’t also flared up in a similar way in 1892, allowing its discovery as a comet. Asteroids are known to be much larger than comets. Ceres, the largest, rivals our Moon in size. The real question for comets is to explain exactly where their brightness comes from as they approach the sun, and in this case, to explain how comet-like explosions of such magnitude could occur when the comet is so far from the sun. There is still much to be understood in classical astronomy. Something inside this supposedly dead dirty iceberg exploded in an amazing fashion. This discovery seems to blur the distinction between asteroids and comets. It appears that asteroids may not all be as dead as we had thought.

You can most likely see the comet for at least another week. There is a good map of where to find it in a Sky and Telescope article.^[8] Don’t miss this opportunity to see a truly marvelous wonder of God.

1. ↑ See www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/home/10775326.html.
2. ↑ See Pratt, John P., “Enoch’s Constellations Testify of Christ,” Meridian Magazine (23Aug 2006). Moreover, Perseus also represents the Prophet Joseph Smith who apparently will play a big part of destroying wickedness on the earth, represented by the head of the Medusa being held by Perseus. See my “Constellations Testify of Seven Angels,” Meridian Magazine (28 Sep 2006), Section 5.5.
3. ↑ Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 287.
4. ↑ www.space.com/spacewatch/071026-comet-holmes-update.html.
5. ↑ news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7070108.stm.
6. ↑ www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071104/LIFESTYLE/711040301/1024
7. ↑ The diameter is estimated as 200,000,000 miles x sin (10′) = 580,000 miles.
8. ↑ www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/home/10862521.html.

Science vs. Religion? The Joseph Smith Forum Science FAQs
Joseph Smith Forum Science FAQs
James F. Stoddard III

Why science FAQs?  The Joseph Smith Forum Science FAQs contain 40 Frequently Asked Questions which are often asked and widely debated regarding the theories of organic evolution and the age of the earth as they pertain to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism are subjects that cause dispute and often uneasiness, but typically are poorly understood. Some research done in the past has attempted to create harmony between evolutionary scientific speculations and the teachings of the Gospel, often making doctrinal assertions not sufficiently supported. At times gospel research has comprised a few statements, typically made out of context, leaving the reader to draw faulty conclusions. In contrast, the Joseph Smith Forum Science FAQs consist of several hundred pages of statements made by the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, particularly those who became president of the Church.

Should science be discussed with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?  Often current scientific philosophies are portrayed as “science” while those drawing conflicting conclusions are viewed as unscientific.  Some advance the notion that debate on evolution among the educated has ceased and that Darwinian ideas are established fact.  They conclude that the myriad of anti-evolution statements from LDS Church leaders were uneducated and out of date, as are the references in the standard works.  Better to keep “science” and religion in their separate domains to avoid this inevitable conflict, they contend.  There is often an attempt to misconstrue the conflict, portraying the issue as misalignment between “science” and religion.   Those working on Joseph Smith Foundation projects believe that true science supports the scriptures and will always be in harmony with the revealed word of God.  The Joseph Smith Forum Science FAQ compilation consists primarily of scriptural and prophetic statements as these are unchanging. We understand that many in the current scientific establishment reject the literal Creation, literal Fall, literal Flood and literal miracles as taught in the scriptures.  In contrast, we feel that it is unwise to follow the current fads of the scientific community in rejecting the word of God.  There is, however, “science” (or better scientists) on both sides of this issue, although one side seems to be more in vogue at this time.

Can the Gospel of Jesus Christ be harmonized with Neo-Darwinism?  The Joseph Smith Forum Science FAQs present statements from two opposing sides, demonstrating the complete disharmony which exists between the fundamental ideas of those who are classified as “macroevolutionists” and the writings of both latter-day and ancient prophets. Each section begins with the question and then provides contrasting viewpoints. Any comments expressed by the compilers are set off by blue text, most often appearing in the commentary sections. Underlining has been added for quick reference.

Can the revelations of God be trusted?  In our exploration of the truth the first question that we must ask could be phrased, “Can the Revelations be trusted?” The Prophet Joseph Smith testified that the Revelations of God were given by God, and do not contain human errors:

“I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” ¹

In the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord himself testified:

“Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful . . . What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; . . . whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” ²

In recent years, it has become fashionable to dismiss statements contained in the Holy Scriptures as uneducated or perhaps made by individuals who were deficient in scientific understanding. The word of the Lord in this testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith challenges these ideas.

“When I speak as a man it is Joseph only that speaks. But when the Lord speaks through me, it is no longer Joseph Smith who speaks; but it is God, and let all Israel hear.” ³

What should be our ultimate source of truth?  The scriptures and revelations of God must remain our constant source of truth. The Joseph Smith Forum Science FAQs were created for individuals who have faith in the revelations as contained in the scriptures and a testimony of latter-day prophets. These FAQs were not prepared for others who are embarrassed by statements made by leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ both anciently and in modern times.  The Prophet Joseph Smith explained the seriousness of trifling with the word of God.

“O ye Twelve! and all Saints! profit by this important Key—that in all your trials, troubles, temptations, afflictions, bonds, imprisonments and death, see to it, that you do not betray heaven; that you do not betray Jesus Christ; that you do not betray the brethren; that you do not betray the revelations of God, whether in Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, or any other that ever was or ever will be given and revealed unto man in this world or that which is to come. Yea, in all your kicking and flounderings, see to it that you do not this thing, lest innocent blood be found upon your skirts, and you go down to hell.” ⁴

President Harold B. Lee Additionally testified that when the teachings of the world conflict with the revelations of God, we must remain true to the Revelations.

“We [must] measure every teaching to be found in the world of book learning by the teachings of revealed truth, as contained in the gospel of Jesus Christ. If we find in a school text claims that contradict the word of the Lord as pertaining to the creation of the world, the origin of man, or the determination of what is right or wrong in the conduct of human souls, we may be certain that such teachings are but the theories of men.” ⁵

What about the contention caused by discussing Neo-Darwinism?  We have no desire to irritate those who hold to the current scientific philosophy in contrast to the revelations of God and hope that the words of the prophets of God will not cause disharmony and contention. The Presidents of the Church from the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith until today have upheld and supported the witness found in scripture of the true origin of man. Some have sought to discredit these prophetic witnesses. President Benson taught that while subjects like Darwinian Evolution may cause some to become upset with the revelations and prophets of God, we must remain faithful.

“But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. ‘Even in the Church,’ . . . . Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or mind their own business. . . . Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. . . .  How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.” ⁶

Are the scriptures and statements of Latter-day prophets consistent?  It will become clear to anyone who reads through the Joseph Smith Forum Science FAQ compilation that those who have held the position of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have consistently and unanimously opposed the theories of organic evolution. President Harold B. Lee in a First Presidency Message signified that those who are “fully grounded in the faith” will not attempt to reconcile false scientific principles regarding the Creation and Fall with the word of God:

“I was somewhat sorrowed recently to hear someone, a sister who comes from a church family, ask, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” Here was someone who I thought wasfully grounded in the faith. I asked, “What about the pre-Adamic people?” She replied, “Well, aren’t there evidences that people preceded the Adamic period of the earth?” I said, “Have you forgotten the scripture that says, ‘And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also….’” (Moses 3:7) I asked, “Do you believe that?” She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error.” ⁷

What of the discord caused by this issue? Do these statements appear harsh or naïve to those who doubt the revelations and desire to mingle the philosophies of men with scripture? We, the compilers, believe they were spoken in love in hope that the followers of Christ would not be led astray in these days of deception. In this work we have attempted to lay forth the facts on this vital subject in a systematic fashion without making accusations. It is hoped that this work will help those who are struggling for understanding on this subject. It is additionally hoped that more scientifically minded individuals, with faith in God, will begin to find the true evidence that supports these prophetic witnesses. To those who disagree with this work we hope that a disagreement in opinion will not embitter and lead to contention. The same First Presidency who denounced evolution in these words:

“It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men.”

Also taught:

“Diversity of opinion does not necessitate intolerance of spirit, nor should it embitter or set rational beings against each other. The Christ taught kindness, patience and charity.” ⁸

The Joseph Smith Forum Science FAQ compilation is a resource which helps to inform interested individuals of the doctrinal teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the subject of Darwinian Evolution.

God commanded Moses to celebrate certain holy days on the Hebrew Calendar, and when Christ came, key events in his life occurred on those holy days. Similarly, Native American traditions claim that God created a calendar with symbolic days called the Sacred Round. The same dates in the Savior’s life also coincided with appropriate days on that calendar, so the calendars of two nations witness to his divinity. Moreover, the planets Mercury and Venus add their witness to each of these dates. In a rare calendrical alignment, this coming Easter Sunday is not only the day Venus resurrects, it is also the Savior’s birthday on the Sacred Round.

A Venus calendar was discussed in last month’s article, which tracks the evening and morning star cycles of that planet. The reader is encouraged to read that article prior to this one to understand the symbolism involved. ¹ Native American traditions were reviewed which suggest that the rising and setting of Venus as the evening star symbolize the birth and death of Jesus Christ, and that its rising as the morning star represents his resurrection. The Venus Calendar specifies precise days on which Venus is created, is born, dies, and resurrects. The day indicated by the New Testament for the resurrection of Christ, Easter Sunday, 3 April AD 33, was also the very day of the resurrection of Venus on that calendar. It was noted that this coming Easter Sunday, April 15, 2001, will be a rare coincidence of Easter again falling on the day of the resurrection of Venus as a morning star. It can be witnessed nearly due east about an hour before sunrise on Easter from nearly any location with a clear and low eastern horizon.

Last month’s article has raised some questions. One concern is that all this planetary alignment talk might sound like astrology. It cannot be overemphasized that all I’m talking about is calendars which keep time, not stars controlling our destiny. The Lord told Moses that one purpose for the sun, moon, planets and stars is to be “for signs and for seasons” ^[1]. They keep time, and indeed nearly every calendar is based on their motion. Calendars also indicate appropriate activities for certain times, such as the feasts that Moses was commanded to hold on specific days. But I do not believe these calendars influence anyone to do anything any more than your wristwatch influences you to speed up if you know you are late for an appointment. It is, however, my contention that if the Lord created the sun, moon, and planets to keep time, then we should not be surprised if he uses them for that purpose. The dates of the Savior’s birth and resurrection are two of the most important dates in all history. If the Lord has revealed calendars to his followers, should we be surprised to discover that those dates are red-letter days on his calendars?

Another question concerns the complicated method for determining just which Sunday is Easter. Should we attach any significance at all to the actual date of Easter? Easter is the Sunday following the full moon on or after the spring equinox (March 21), which means that it is nearly always the Sunday after the Hebrew Passover. That was chosen because Christ resurrected on the Sunday after the Passover at which he was crucified, and the Sunday symbolism is so important that the weekly sabbath had been changed from Saturday to Sunday to celebrate the Resurrection. It was also chosen to ensure that the Christian Easter never coincided with the Jewish Passover in order to totally disassociate the two religions. Ironically, the formula selected to calculate the date of Easter yields the very Hebrew day symbolizing the Resurrection, according to one interpretation of the law of Moses. Passover symbolized the Savior’s birth and death, but the Resurrection was represented by the ceremony of the waving a sheaf of grain on the following Sunday, being the firstfruits of the ground ^[2]. ² Thus it does indeed appear that our annual Easter date has real significance on the Lord’s calendar given to Moses.

Another such question leads us directly to the topic of this article: “Isn’t the calendar in ancient times so muddled that we can’t really know any dates for certain? Aren’t you giving a false sense of certainty with such precise dates in a misguided attempt to make the resurrection seem more real?” Good question. How do we know on exactly what day the Judeans would have considered the moon to be full, in order to celebrate passover? What about the confusion introduced when the old Julian calendar was upgraded to our current Gregorian calendar? And how can we know the exact day of the “resurrection” of Venus, when it appears at a different time on each cycle?

Most calendars track the motion of some celestial body. Our calendar tracks the sun, keeping the spring equinox (when the sun rises most nearly due east in spring) on March 20-21. The Hebrew calendar tracks both the sun and the moon, with each new month beginning at a new moon. So how are ambiguities handled? That is, if a new moon is right on the edge between two days, how does one know which is the correct new moon day? The best calendars employ two methods to resolve such issues. First, they include a continuous count of days which never has any extra days inserted into it. Second, they include a fixed pattern which resolves ambiguities. ³

The classic example of the fixed day count is our 7-day week. It is a continuous cycle of 7 days which has not been interrupted for as long as we have records. When the Julian calendar was revised, the week was not touched. ⁴ It is the constancy of the week which allows us to know the exact day of the Resurrection, because all four gospels testify that the empty tomb was discovered on the first day of the week, which we now call Sunday. When that fact is combined with the day having been after Passover and in a known Roman year ^[3], then an unambiguous date can be determined: Sunday, 3 April AD 33 (Gregorian). This indicated date is disputed, but only because of conflicting extraneous arguments, such as the date of Herod’s death.

The Hebrew Calendar is tightly integrated with the 7-day week. The first day of the Hebrew year is not allowed to fall on just any day of the week, but only on 4 of the 7 possible days. This simple rule goes a long way toward choosing which is the correct new moon day because one of the two choices is generally disallowed. The other calendrical feature used for resolution is a pattern. For example, our calendar has a leap year every four years, to realign it with the sun. To know what year is a leap year, we don’t have to go out and observe the sun. If the year is exactly divisible by four then it is nearly always a leap year. ⁵ The simplicity of that pattern takes precedence over whether the sun is on the border line or not. With the Lord’s calendars, the trick is to discover the pattern he uses ^[4]. One pattern that he has given is that of the Hebrew calendar as it was revealed to Moses. We don’t have all the details of that pattern, but a reconstruction has been proposed from the different variations which have persisted.[6] ⁶

The Sacred Round

Another serious candidate for a calendrical pattern provided by the Lord is the so-called “Sacred Round.” It is a fundamental part of the calendar used by many Native American tribes throughout the Americas. It is generally associated with the Aztec or the Mayan calendar, but its use was much more widespread. ⁷ In last month’s article, we briefly reviewed how the great first century teacher of the Native Americans, the Feathered Serpent, was most likely the resurrected Jesus Christ. He not only taught love and service, agriculture, metallurgy, astronomy, medicine and government, but “it was held as true that he made the calendar.” ⁸ In fact, it was held that the calendar was so important that the calendar was created first, and the sun, moon and planets were created afterwards.[9] ⁹ Upon reflection, that claim is not as outrageous as it might first appear. We know that there was a great plan devised during the creation which included the Savior coming in the meridian of time to redeem a fallen world. It would make sense to have that plan include the precise time when he would come, and then to arrange the solar system as a big clock in the sky to keep time. In fact, the Book of Genesis supports this idea of the calendar predating the creation because it is clear that the pattern of the 7-day week existed before the seven days of creation.

While there is some evidence that the early Native Americans kept track of the seven-day week, the Sacred Round was by far more important to them. During the last two decades, I’ve made an extensive study of the Sacred Round and believe I’ve discovered that key religious dates throughout history have occurred on meaningful dates both on the (corrected) Hebrew calendar and also on the Sacred Round. Those results have not yet been published, but the calendrical coincidence on this coming Easter Sunday seems important enough to share at least this introduction to the results so that the significance of that date might be appreciated by those who do not demand complete proof. The results which will now be presented are not intended to be a scientifically convincing argument. That must await the publication of a statistical analysis of a large number of dates. Rather, it is presented as my first published introduction of the importance of the Sacred Round.

The Sacred Round consists of two uninterrupted day-count cycles: one of 13 days called the trecena and one of 20 days called the veintena.[10] ¹⁰ The trecena consists of days numbered from 1 to 13 in an unending cycle. The first day of each trecena was sacred to Native Americans and was a day of fasting. My reseach indicates that the last day should also be considered sacred, as the culmination of the cycle. It is very similar to the week, where both the first day (Sunday) and the last (Saturday) have been considered sacred.

The veintena consists of twenty glyphs, pictures, or names which also repeat in an unending cycle. The two cycles run concurrently so that each day advances on both cycles. For example, the first three days of the veintena are Light, Wind, and Temple. The day 1 Light is followed by 2 Wind, then 3 Temple. It takes 260 days for the two cycles to again begin on the day 1 Light, the first day of both cycles. This 260-day complete cycle is called the Sacred Round. It is composed of 20 trecenas, that is, 20 sets of the 13-day cycles, as shown in Table 1. ¹¹ Each trecena is named for its first day, which is shown in bold. The trecena of 1 Light is followed by that of 1 Jaguar (the first day in the second row). Thus, the Sacred Round is a perpetual day-count which repeats without interruption, making it suited for the basis of a calendar to track sun, moon and planets. The day on the Sacred Round begins at dawn or 6 a.m.

Table 1. The Sacred Round. This 260-day perpetual calendar numbers days in sequence across rows of trecenas of 13-days each. Each day is named first for the day number at the column head followed by the day name in the row. For example, the first day is 1 Light, followed by 2 Wind.

The Twenty Day Names

The cycle of twenty day names should really be thought of as a unending circle, or one eternal round. That is how it is depicted on the famous Aztec Calendar stone, the center of which is shown here. The twenty glyphs are shown in the outer circle, beginning at the top and proceeding counterclockwise. One reason that the circular form is important is that it is often important which figures are opposite each other because the often form opposing pairs. For example, the serpent is opposite from the eagle.

Different Native American tribes used different names for the 20 days of the vientena, but generally most tribes agreed on much of the symbolism. Studies have been made comparing the names from over 50 tribes. ¹² Those listed in the table were chosen from among those used, guided by the following principle.

Mayan priests have explained that the twenty names are not just random emblems, but rather that they represent 20 steps taken in the journey of life. Each day represents one day in life on which an important milestone event occurs. That again is consistent with the Sacred Round being a divine calendar because life is the work and glory of God. Some of the symbols have very clear meanings as given by the priests but others are cloaked in mystery and probably refer to sacred ordinances. Only a few are necessary to understand for our purposes here.

The first day, Light, represents creation, the beginning of man’s journey. It most likely means conception and is also represented by an alligator, turtle or water lily, all of which float in water, symbolic of the womb. “Light” is the symbol used by one of the earliest (Olmec) tribes. ¹³ Its symbolism might hearken back to an even earlier creation, such as in the spirit world. When the unifying principle is understood, it becomes easier to see why different tribes could use the symbol of the sun, an alligator, and a lily all to represent the same idea. Mixtec glyphs are shown with their orginal coloring in this and the following paragraphs. ¹⁴

The second day, Wind, was the same for every tribe of which I’m aware. It represented the day of quickening, on which the spirit enters the fetus. The third day, Temple, represents the day of birth, when the spirit receives the temple in which it will dwell. It is often called simply House, but the glyph on the calendar stone is of a temple. The fourth day Dragon represents the day on which a child is first allowed to be tempted by evil. Again this glyph is often called Lizard or Iguana, and those animals also typify the concept. The fifth day Serpent represents mortality, and specifically the day on which ones entire life passes in review often just before death. The sixth day Skull represents death. The seventh day, Deer, represents entry into the spirit world. Note that there are 20 day names and that only four of them cover the entire period from birth to death.

The meaning of the remaining names is much less clear, perhaps because our own understanding is sketchy of that period of our life’s journey. One symbol seems like a natural to represent resurrection. It is Grass, which shows grass growing out of a skull. That seems like an excellent way to represent life coming from death. The next symbol, Reed, was said by the Mayan priests to represent a continuation of that process, and was sometimes represented by an arrow (the Mixtec gylph shown below is the feathered end of an arrow). Arrows were made from strong reeds, so the symbolism might be that the grass eventually becomes a polished shaft. Reed is the thirteenth name and may be the last of the series of the steps of life, representing the perfection attained after resurrection. The seven subsequent names may all refer to ordinances, but that is currently speculation on my part and more research is required to ascertain their meaning. The Mayans said that the last symbol, Flower (called “Lord” by them), represents becoming one with God. More information concerning these names is found on my web site.

Another symbolism which they point out is that the bottom two glyphs represent the anguish of the soul in the spirit world while it is being purged from sin, and the following glyphs are steps upward spiritually until one reaches unity with God at the top of the circle. This is another reason to think of the twenty days as a circle, because man’s journey often goes through the depths of suffering (at the bottom) in order to reach true joy (at the top).

Venus and Mercury Calendars

The Sacred round provides an ideal framework on which to build Venus and Mercury calendars. The cycle of Venus requires about 584 days to complete, and Mercury requires 116 days. Both of those values are one day short of being a multiple of 13: 585 = 45 x 13 and 117 = 9 x 13. Thus, the 13-day trecena is an excellent unit of time to track both of these planets. In fact, the period of Venus is about five times that of Mercury and 585 equals exactly five time 117. Moreover, the 263-day period that Venus spends as morning and evening stars nearly equals one Sacred Round of 260 days. Because of these coincidences, the Venus and Mercury calendars I have designed are aligned with the Sacred Round. That is, the day of creation, birth, prime, death, and resurrection of both Venus and Mercury always occur on a day “1″ of the 13-day trecena. On the proposed Venus calendar, there are always exactly 260 days, or one Sacred Round, between the days of birth and death, which agrees with Native American traditions. ¹⁵ The calendar is corrected to match the true orbit by having the planet occasionally “translated”, that is, it sometimes skips the 13-day period between death and resurrection. A similar pattern works for Mercury. ¹⁶

The Savior’s Birth: 1 Reed

In former articles I have discussed how keys dates in the life of Christ occurred on Hebrew Holy days as well as the “holy days” on the Mercury and Venus calendars. ¹⁷ The purpose of this article is to point out that at least three of the key dates in the life of the Savior also occurred on significant days on the Sacred Round. ¹⁸ This provides further evidence that the Feathered Serpent whose calendar included the Sacred Round was identical to Jesus Christ, whose life was symbolized on the Hebrew Calendar. It is incredibly unlikely that the same exact dates for the Savior’s birth, baptism and resurrection would fall by pure chance on sacred days on four different calendars: Hebrew, Venus, Mercury and the Sacred Round. Rather it is evidence that these three events were carefully planned before the beginning of time to coincide with the red-letter days on all of these sacred calendars.

In order to know what day any given date is on the Sacred Round, it is only necessary to correlate one Sacred Round date to our Gregorian calendar. All other dates in history can then be determined by simply counting around the fixed pattern of the Sacred Round.

Many Native American tribes preserve the tradition that people are named for the day of the Sacred Round on which they were born. These names are considered very sacred and are often kept secret. The Feathered Serpent was called “One Reed” because that was believed to have been his birthday on the Sacred Round. Sahagun, a Spanish priest who recorded Aztec traditions in the sixteenth century wrote that the day One Reed was a sacred feast day on which the statue of the Feathered Serpent was adorned with beautiful ornaments, with offerings of perfume and food to it. He specifically recorded, “They said that the sign Ce Acatl [One Reed] was Quetzalcoatl’s [the Feathered Serpent's] sign [birthday].” ¹⁹

Thus, we have the birthday of the Feathered Serpent preserved in Aztec tradition, and it was a day on which a big feast was held. This article and that of last month agree with the proposal that the Feathered Serpent was none other than the resurrected Jesus Christ who visited his “other sheep” in the Americas ^[5]. I have presented evidence elsewhere that the Savior really was born on the evening preceding April 6, 1 BC, the date accepted by several prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based on a literal reading of D&C 20:1. ²⁰

The Correlation Constant

What day of the Sacred Round was April 6, 1 BC? The almost universally accepted correlation of the Mayan Calendar, which includes the Sacred Round, affirms that April 6, 1 BC, was indeed 1 Reed. That fact has been pointed out by others, who have also accepted it as evidence that the Feathered Serpent was Jesus Christ. ²¹ But before we celebrate that coincidence, we must look carefully at how certain it is. That usual correlation is called the GMT correlation for three scholars (Goodman, Martinez, and Thompson ) who each proposed a correlation which all fell within a six-day interval. The GMT represents a compromise between the three, and is not equal to any of the three separate proposals. It is generally thought to be close enough for most purposes and it does agree with that still used by some tribes. However, for the chronology of sacred events, accuracy of a few days is not sufficient. Even if it is correct for the Aztecs, what if they had lost track of a day or so during the 1500 years since Christ? As will be seen in this paper, many religious events are determined to within a quarter-day, so accuracy is imperative.

In the case of the Savior’s birth, the evidence is that he was born during the night preceding April 6, 1 BC, but according to the GMT correlation 1 Reed began at dawn that day. ²² Not only does the Savior’s birthday appear to be off by one day, but in a collection of about two hundred dates, many of the correlations to the Sacred Round become significant if the GMT correlation is adjusted by exactly one day. Thus, I propose that the dawn beginning April 5, 1 BC began the day 1 Reed on the Sacred Round and that the Savior was born during the following night. All dates in this paper refer to that correlation. It falls within the 6 day GMT range, but does not equal any of the other four correlations. ²³ Using this correlation date, any Sacred Round date can then be easily calculated by simply counting days around the Sacred Round’s fixed 260-day cycle, or by using the calendar conversion program on my web site. ²⁴

Witness of Venus and Mercury

The Lord has assured us that he will establish his truths with two or three witnesses and this principle appears to hold true in the case of important religious calendar dates. For the key anchor dates of world history, research indicates that the event often occurs on red-letter days not just on one or two calendars, but also some planetary calendars as well. So far I only have models for a Venus and Mercury calendar based on the trecena, but fortunately those are the second-witness calendars used in the life of the Savior. This would explain his connection with the evening and morning stars. The incredibly accurate alignment of these two planets at the birth, baptism and resurrection of Jesus attest that the proposed dates are correct and that the alignments with the Sacred Round are not by chance. In analyzing other key religious dates, however, it must be remembered that there are five visible planets, each with a calendar, and the witnesses will not always be Venus and Mercury. Moreover, the day-count alignment is sometimes the week and sometimes the trecena.

The Savior’s Baptism: 13 Water

There is enough evidence in the Bible to indicate a precise date for the baptism of Jesus Christ. The year in which John the Baptist began his ministry recorded by Luke is the only exact year mentioned in the entire New Testament. It is stated in terms of the emperor of Rome, whose regnal dates are undisputed. It corresponds to the year we would now call AD 29 ^[6]. Luke also records that John the Baptist gave a great sermon after which many were baptized, including the Savior. After the sign of the dove was given, a voice from heaven was heard to say, “This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased” ^[7]. It was clearly not only an important day for the Savior, but it was also most likely an important day on the Judean calendar for such a crowd to have been gathered. The holiest day of the year according to the law of Moses was the day of atonement, which was a day for reconciliation and covenant making with God. It is the indicated day people would have been repenting of their sins and would have sought out John to be baptized. In AD 29, that day occurred on Sat 6 Oct 29. While this argument is an indication of the Savior’s baptismal date, by itself it is not compelling. But there are three other witnesses that the date is correct.

On the Sacred Round, the day was 13 Water. The number 1 signifies beginning, and would be especially appropriate for birth. The number 13 is the last day of the trecena and would signify completion or fulfillment. Native American tradition affirms that the number 13 was associated both with Venus and with the Feathered Serpent. The day “Water” clearly seems appropriate for baptism also, so the baptism date appears to have been chosen to be symbolic on the Sacred Round.

It is, however, the witness of Mercury which greatly strengthens the case for the importance of the day of Atonement in the year AD 29. The day of the Savior’s birth coincided with the beginning of the Mercury cycle (1 Creation) and the proposed day for this baptism coincided with the ending day of the Mercury cycle (0 Creation). As stated above, both the first and last day of the cycle are defined to be sacred days.

Venus was also at what I consider to be a key point in the its orbit, being the day 0 Prime, representing the prime of life, corresponding to the time Jesus was baptized. This testimony is currently weaker than Mercury’s because that orbital point is not as clearly established, but hopefully will be in my future publications.

The Savior’s Resurrection: 13 Temple

The date of the Savior’s Resurrection is much better known that the dates of his birth or baptism. As mentioned above, the New Testament indicates the precise date of Sun 3 Apr AD 33. That date is not generally accepted because of other historical conflicts, but nevertheless, it is the indicated date. The witnesses of the Sacred Round, Venus and Mercury calendars all add their testimonies that the Biblical date is indeed correct.

The New Testament indicates that the resurrection of the Savior occurred before dawn ^[8]. That time of day of Sun 3 Apr 33 was the day 13 Temple on the Sacred Round. Again 13 is the day of completion. Temple is the day representing birth, so perhaps there is a symbolism of a “rebirth” implied. Resurrection certainly is the day on which one reclaims the temple of the body. There may also be a switched symbolism here because the day for completed resurrection might be Reed. If so, then the Savior’s life might have reversed the first with the last. That is, he was born on 1 Reed, the day for resurrection and his resurrection occurred on 13 Temple, the day for birth. The two days Temple and Reed are opposite of each other in the 20-day vientena circle.

The date of the resurrection of Christ is arguably the most important date in history, and the witness of both the planets Venus and Mercury are there to testify unequivocally to its accuracy. The planet Mercury was at the beginning of its cycle (1 Creation) at the birth of Christ, at the end of its cycle at his baptism, at the end again when he taught the spirits on the Passover after his death on Sat 2 Apr 33, and then at the beginning again at the Resurrection on Easter Sunday, 3 Apr 33. All four of these dates coincided with holy days on the Hebrew calendar and symbolic days on the Sacred Round. That would be extremely unlikely if these were just chance alignments.

Now consider the witness of the morning star Venus which should remove any lingering doubt that these coincidences might all be due to random chance. The planet Venus was at the identical place in its orbit which matched the Savior. If the Resurrection occurred after midnight, then Venus was right on the day of its resurrection (1 Resurrection) on that Easter Sunday of AD 33. As mentioned earlier, Venus was at the beginning of its cycle (1 Creation) at the Savior’s birth and at its prime (0 Prime) at his baptism. If the Savior can be considered to have been at his prime of life at his baptism, then two of these three Venus alignments match the Savior perfectly: Venus was at both its Prime and at Resurrection when the Savior was also. At the third event, the Savior’s birth, Venus was not at its day of birth, but rather at its day of creation. Mercury was at its first or last day of creation on all three events. The chance of all these alignments being due to mere chance is negligible. ²⁵

Note also that these alignments sometimes only last for a quarter of a day because the calendrical days begin at different times. The Hebrew day begins at 6 p.m. or sunset, the Venus and Mercury days begin at midnight, and the Sacred Round day begins at 6 a.m. or dawn. To get all of the alignments the Savior had to be born after sunset on 5 Apr 1 BC (in order to have been on Passover), but before midnight (in order to have been on 1 Creation on the Venus and Mercury calendars). Similarly, the Resurrection must have occurred after midnight (to have been on 1 Resurrection on the Venus and Mercury calendars) and before dawn (to have been on 13 Temple). The calendrical alignment at the Savior’s baptism occurred during the daylight hours. The timing of these events is indeed according to a very high-precision clock.

Latter-day Witnesses

There were at least three “resurrection” events during the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: the resurrection of the Book of Mormon after which it could speak like the voice of one from the dust, the resurrection of the body of the church, and the resurrection of the temple, which is also symbolic of the body ^[9].

Each of these “resurrections” occurred on a calendrical alignment with the resurrection of the Savior, so they each also serve as testimonies to the correctness of the proposed dates. Let us briefly review each of these dates.

The Book of Mormon publication date fell somewhere during the week after Fri 19 March 1830 when it was announced in the Wayne Sentinel that it would be ready for sale during the coming week. On Fri 26 Mar 1830 that weekly paper announced that it was already on sale. ²⁶ It turns out that one day during that week, namely Thu 25 Mar 1830 was the spring New Year’s Day on the Hebrew calendar and also identical to the Savior’s resurrection date on both the Mercury and Venus Calendars. Those three witnesses testify not only of the importance of that date, but also that it was a resurrection-like event. That is a very rare occurrence: Venus and Mercury both align that way on one of the ten principal Hebrew holy days about once every 500 years. The fact that it occurred during the week that the Book of Mormon went on sale is strong evidence that Thu 25 Mar 1830 should be considered the official publication date for the Book of Mormon. It may come as no surprise that it was a red-letter day on God’s calendars because it had been prophesied by Isaiah ^[10]. Of all the events that the Lord might have planned for this very rare day on the Native American calendars, it is interesting that he chose the Resurrection of the Book of Mormon, which is an entirely Native American book. That may have been intended as another witness that the book is especially intended for them.

The other two latter-day resurrection events both occurred on the same day, namely, Easter Sunday, 3 Apr 1836. The Savior, Moses, Elias and Elijah all appeared at the Kirtland Temple. Priesthood keys were bestowed which completed the restoration (or “resurrection” as in Alma 40:23, 41:2</ref> of the body of the church as well as the power to officiate in all of the temple ordinances. This was the “Return of Elijah” which had been prophesied by Malachi ^[11], so it also clearly qualifies to have been another important calendrical alignment on God’s calendars. That Easter Sunday was nearly identical to that of the Savior’s resurrection on the Hebrew calendar. Moreover, the planet Mercury was at exactly the same place in its orbit, aligning with the Hebrew calendar better than on any other day since the Resurrection. ²⁷ It did not align on the Native American calendars. The resurrection symbolism is very important for both of these dates.

The Lord stated, “And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, . . . things which are in the heavens above, . . . all things bear record of me.” ^[12]. Thus we see that these words can be taken literally. The planets not only bear record of the times of key events in the Savior’s life, they sometimes even bear record of what the event was. For example, the planet Venus was “resurrecting” on the day when the Savior did also. Truly the celestial spheres are “for signs and for seasons” ^[13] as the Lord instructed Moses.

This Easter is 1 Reed

The reason for publishing this article now is that this Easter Sunday, April 15, 2001, will be 1 Reed, the Savior’s birthday on the Sacred Round. Last month we discussed how Easter will be the day 1 Resurrection on the Venus Calendar, which is an extremely rare event in itself, only happening about once every 584 years. But there are twenty possible vientena days for 1 Resurrection, such as 1 Light, 1 Jaguar, etc. It happens that this Easter Sunday, the day on which Venus resurrects coincides with 1 Reed. That alignment is so rare that it probably only occurs once during all of history. I will be giving a special Easter Sunrise and Venus Rise Service in Utah Valley discussing the importance of these calendrical alignments.

In summary, this Easter Sunday will commemorate the Savior’s resurrection on our calendar (Easter), and on the Venus Calendar (1 Resurrection), and will also commemorate his birth on the Native American Sacred Round (1 Reed). Table 2 summarizes the alignments mentioned in this article. This Easter Sunday will be an extremely rare calendrical alignment, and hopefully will be a day for us all to celebrate not only the Savior’s resurrection, but also his birth.

Table 2. Calendrical Witness of Christ. The first four dates listed from the life of Christ occurred on significant days on the Hebrew, Sacred Round, Venus and Mercury calendars, so four calendrical witnesses attest to their correctness. The last two modern day events of the Resurrection of the Church and of the Book of Mormon both occurred on days on which the values in three of the columns align with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The * after a.m. or p.m. means night time (when the *’s are shining). The Mercury Day is to show the absolute accuracy of the mean synodic age. ²⁸

1. ↑ Gen. 1:14
2. ↑ 1 Cor 15:20
3. ↑ Luke 3:1
4. ↑ D&C 52:14
5. ↑ John 10:16
6. ↑ Luke 3:1
7. ↑ Mat. 3:17
8. ↑ Mat. 28:1, Mark 16:2, John 20:1
9. ↑ John 2:19
10. ↑ Isa. 29:11–14
11. ↑ Mal. 4:5–6
12. ↑ Moses 6:63
13. ↑ Gen. 1:14

Catastrophic event in the solar system opens possibilities of concern for earth.

Most astronomers consider the fiery, dramatic collision of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with the planet Jupiter in July, 1994, to be the Astronomical Event of the Century.^[1] The impact from the collision of just one of a score of cometary fragments with the giant planet had energy estimated at six hundred times that of the combined nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States.^[2] The dark cloud of the explosion shown in the photo sequence is larger than our entire planet earth. Astronomers were shocked to actually witness an event that had been estimated to happen only once in millions of years in the solar system. This event has caused serious study of possible cometary and asteroid collisions with earth and has led to the discovery of several hitherto unrecognized impact craters on earth. These studies add increased understanding of prophesies in the Book of Revelation and also of the words of modern prophets.

The Book of Revelation prophesies that a huge burning star named “Wormwood” will fall from heaven, which sounds very much like the collision with Jupiter:

Note that the event described in Revelation, while apparently similar to the super event on Jupiter, will be much smaller in magnitude. It does not result in the destruction of all life on earth, but apparently poisons the waters so that “many men” die. Wormwood is a bitter tasting herb which the Lord uses to symbolize the bitter results of sin. For example, “Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts concerning the prophets; Behold, I will feed them with wormwood, and make them drink the water of gall: for from the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the land.” ^[4]

Scoffers at Revelation

One of the reasons for disbelief of John’s prophesies in the Book of Revelation has been that the catastrophic events described were believed to be so rare that they could only be expected to occur once in millions of years. The moon is covered with craters believed to have been caused by impacts, but the youngest of these craters is believed to have occurred millions of years ago.^[5] Instead of being explained away as just figurative descriptions, the collision of this comet with Jupiter brings this description by John to the realm of modern day reality.

The Book of Mormon is a powerful second witness of the truth of the Book of Revelation. Nephi saw that John would write the Book of Revelation and so it was not necessary for Nephi to record all of his vision of the future himself.

Oceanic Impact

This predicted impact could be related to a similar prophecy, especially if it occurs in the ocean. In modern revelation, the Lord speaks of the sea overheaving its bounds, which could certainly occur if such a large impact occurred in the oceans:

The Prophet Joseph Smith further supported a non-figurative interpretation of the Book of Revelation prophecies in other explanatory comments:

Since the collision of the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter in July of 1994 there have been numerous studies about the possibilities of the collision of large meteors, comets or asteroids with the earth. Since the earth is covered mostly by oceans, the effects of a comet or asteroid falling into the ocean has been studied in detail. One Study indicated that “a 10,000 megaton impact (by a 1-km object) in a 4-km-deep ocean would create devastating tsunamis (tidal waves) over an area the size of the Pacific Ocean”^[9] It is interesting that through Joseph Smith the Lord added “the seas heaving beyond their bounds” to the other Biblical signs of the Second Coming.

The violent tsunami resulting from this kind of collision was depicted rather scientifically in the movie “Deep Impact” where a 1.4 km asteroid falls into the ocean off Long Island, New York. Even though this event would be catastrophic for those in nearby low lying areas, such an impact would not mean the end of life on earth. A land impact by a large comet or asteroid, on the other hand, is theorized to much more serious because of the huge amount of dust and debris thrown up into the upper atmosphere.

The Earth bears the scars of many titanic impacts, including a crater beneath Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula, widely believed by scientists to be the smoking gun for the event that snuffed out 70 percent of the species of life, including the dinosaurs. The collision with a comet or asteroid 2 to 10 kilometers across today would have similar global consequences.^[10]

It is interesting that one “runner-up” for the Astronomical Event of the Century was very similar. On June 30, 1908, an area of over 2,000 square kilometers of forest in the Tunguska area of Siberian Russia was leveled by an explosive fireball. This blast is believed to have been caused by a small asteroid or comet 60 meters in diameter weighing 100,000 metric tons. After leaving a fiery tail some 800 kilometers long it exploded at an altitude of about 6 kilometers with the energy of about 30 megatons, 600 times the force of the nuclear explosion over Hiroshima.^[11]

While many scientists do not yet support the account of many of the catastrophes described in the Bible which were much bigger than the Tunguska collision, such as the Great Deluge, the terrible catastrophes described in the Bible are supported by the testimony of modern prophets. The collision of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter has triggered serious scientific study of these events that once were considered so rare that we would never see such an event in our lifetimes.

1. ↑ “Before the event, the collision of comet Shoemaker