The Evolution of Adam

When I bought The Evolution of Adam, by Peter Enns, I was afraid that I might be in for a tenuous attempt to read evolution into the Bible. What I found instead was an engaging discussion of the history and cultural background of the Old and New Testaments, in support of Enns's argument that Adam was probably not a historical person.

As fate would have it, I happened to be in the middle of the book during April General Conference, which made for an interesting juxtaposition. In the middle of a powerful talk on Jesus Christ and the Atonement that used two boys' harrowing experience on a cliff as a metaphor, Elder Jeffrey Holland turned for a moment to the importance of the fall of Adam and Eve.

In our increasingly secular society, it is as uncommon as it is unfashionable to speak of Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden or of a “fortunate fall” into mortality. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death...without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it.

Enns is by no means a secularist. He is a professor of Biblical studies who is clear and straightforward about his belief in Jesus Christ [1]. Nevertheless, as Enns sees the historical evidence, which he lays out in the first half of the book, Adam was probably a mythological character that the ancient Israelites used to orient and define their identity.

The second half of the book examines what this conclusion means for Paul's teachings. Briefly put, if I understand Enns correctly, Paul used Adam to show Jews and Gentiles that they were united in having a common problem that was solved by Jesus Christ. Since that common problem pre-dated Abraham and the law of Moses, and since Jesus had solved the problem, there was no need for Gentile Christians to convert to Judaism first and/or be circumcised. To put a finer point on it, Paul was explicating the origin of sin and death in a Biblically novel way [2] to solve a problem (i.e. refute the Judaizers). The fact that he used a scriptural figure that (according to Enns) probably did not exist is simply a reflection of the fact that Paul was a first-century Jew. (By comparison, there is no necessary reason to think that Job was a historical figure just because he is mentioned in D&C 121. Joseph had no reason to think otherwise, and Job was a fitting example to make the point.)

Noting that "It is commonly argued that, as goes the historicity of Adam, so goes the historicity of Christ," Enns's perspective can be summarized by these passages (italics in original):

Admitting the historical and scientific problems with Paul’s Adam does not mean in the least that the gospel message is therefore undermined. A literal Adam may not be the first man and cause of sin and death, as Paul understood it, but what remains of Paul’s theology are three core elements of the gospel:

The universal and self-evident problem of death
The universal and self-evident problem of sin
The historical event of the death and resurrection of Christ

These three remain; what is lost is Paul’s culturally assumed explanation for what a primordial man had to do with causing the reign of death and sin in the world. Paul’s understanding of Adam as the cause reflects his time and place [p.123].

So, even without attributing their cause to Adam, sin and death are with us, and we cannot free ourselves from them. They remain the foes vanquished by Christ’s death and resurrection. The fact that Paul draws an analogy between Adam and Christ, however, does not mean that we are required to consider them as characters of equal historical standing. Unlike Adam, Christ was not a primordial, prehistorical man known only through hundreds and hundreds of years of cultural transmission. The resurrection of Christ was a present reality for Paul, an event that had happened in Jerusalem about twenty-five years before he wrote Romans [p. 125].

For Enns (to use Elder Holland's metaphor), it doesn't really matter how the boys got into their predicament. What matters is the cold reality of their predicament and need for saving.

I fear that my highlighting Enns's argument that Adam was not a historical person will result in otherwise interested readers passing on Enns's book. That would be a mistake because even if you can't accept his conclusion, there is much to learn. For one thing, he admits that there are other possible interpretations, even if he does not favor them. Further, LDS readers ought to be more conversant with the cultural and historical background of the Bible, as understood by mainstream scholars. But there are also some gems that serve our own parochial interests. For example, LDS readers may find this statement striking:

The Protestant reading of Paul reflects medieval theological debates, not Paul or the Judaism of his time.

If I hadn't read this book, I would not have known that there is a movement among New Testament scholars called the New Perspective on Paul, which at first blush seems to reinterpret the New Testament discussion of grace and works in a way that undercuts Protestant critiques of Mormonism on these issues. LDS readers who must commonly address this issue with their Protestant acquaintances may want to give further consideration to the New Perspective. Similarly, Enns acknowledges that the doctrine of "original sin" is an Augustinian innovation that is not supported by scripture. And like others of his books, this book also cuts against the Protestant doctrine of scriptural inerrancy while maintaining reverence for the scriptures.

Of course Enns does not have extra-Biblical scripture to rekcon with. Adam and Eve appear in every additional LDS book of scripture, including Joseph F. Smith's vision described in D&C 138. Explaining them away as non-historical scriptural characters might be possible, but is orders of magnitude more difficult in an LDS context. Perhaps it is acceptable and sufficient to say that Adam is a combination of man, myth, and legend.

Enns does not pretend to have the final word and hopes for ongoing conversation. I hope that Elder Holland's talk does not end the conversation in LDS circles. Even taken on its own terms, the talk was more circumspect than one might have expected.

I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that [the fall], but I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God, that for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family, and that through a sequence of choices they transgressed a commandment of God which required that they leave their garden setting but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death. [bolding added]

If that is the bare minimum of acceptable LDS doctrine on Adam and Eve, Elder Holland has still left a lot of space for exploration and discussion [3].

Notes:
1. BYU's Maxwell Institute featured a great interview with him on their podcast.
2. Enns points out that after the initial chapters of Genesis, Adam is virtually ignored in the Old Testament.
3. See also my previous posts, The Further Fall of Adam, and Book of Mormon Scholarship as an Elias for Evolution.

---

Continue reading...

Oklahoma is Fulfilling Prophecy

Several passages of scripture speak of "earthquakes in divers places" as a sign of the times. Matthew 24:7 is a fine example:

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Although earthquakes can be devastating, I'm not really sure what to make of that phrase because, like wars, earthquakes are always with us. I don't know if their frequency is common knowledge, but I have spoken with people who were surprised to learn that earthquakes happen everyday all around the world. Most earthquakes don't make the news because they don't cause damage or happen in uninhabited places (or simply aren't considered newsworthy), but they are there and seismologists track them.

One folk interpretation of this phrase that I have heard is that earthquakes will happen where they haven't before. I don't know whether such a place exists or not, but Oklahoma may be as good a candidate for this interpretation as any. It is certainly not an earthquake virgin, but check out the history of earthquakes of M3 or greater in Oklahoma since 1978.

For geologists, the reason for this surge in earthquakes is pretty clear: hydraulic fracturing (fracking). This month The New Yorker has an article, Weather Underground, that tells a sadly familiar story--the confidence of scientists, the concern of citizens, and the fecklessness of government. The problem is relatively straightforward.

Many of the larger earthquakes are caused by disposal wells, where the billions of barrels of brackish water brought up by drilling for oil and gas are pumped back into the ground. (Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—in which chemically treated water is injected into the earth to fracture rocks in order to access oil and gas reserves—causes smaller earthquakes, almost always less than 3.0.) Disposal wells trigger earthquakes when they are dug too deep, near or into basement rock, or when the wells impinge on a fault line.

The solution is not to prohibit fracking, but to restrict disposal wells from being near basement rock or fault lines. But Oklahoma is built on the oil industry and state regulators and politicians have a sense of willful ignorance that is fitting for a state represented by Senator James Inhofe (who recently threw a snowball on the Senate floor as prop evidence against global warming).

In September, 2014, at the request of two state representatives, the Oklahoma legislature conducted an official interim study on induced seismicity. In subsequent hearings, more than five hours of testimony were presented to a committee of legislators. Holland, Dana Murphy, of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and Todd Halihan, the professor of geology at Oklahoma State University, all spoke about the link between disposal wells and earthquakes. Tim Baker, of the O.C.C., spoke about the link between drilling into basement rock and earthquakes.

After the hearings, Mark McBride, the committee chair, issued a press release. It denied “a correlation between the injection wells and seismic activity,” and quoted a legislator’s speculation that perhaps the quakes were caused by “the current drought.” None of the scientists who had been present were quoted.

They have no peer-reviewed science on their side, but that doesn't stop state officials from postulating natural causes or drought as the cause, and calling for more research.

The whole story is worth reading. Recently there have been some modest signs of progress; the state can't play dumb forever. Just long enough to perhaps be a sign of the times.

---

Continue reading...

Let's Not Overinterpret Revelation

Last week Mormon Interpreter published a treatise by Duane Boyce titled Sustaining the Brethren. In making the point that the personal views of Apostles do not trump First Presidency statements, Boyce wrote that "Elder Boyd K. Packer once said that he knew by personal revelation that man did not evolve from animals..." This is, of course, a reference to Elder Packer's 1988 speech, The Law and the Light, which was published with a disclaimer that it represented his personal views only. In footnote #37 Boyce quotes Elder Packer as follows:

“I said I would give six reasons for my conviction [i.e., that ‘the theory that God used an evolutionary process to prepare a physical body for the spirit of man … is false’], and I have listed only five. The sixth is personal revelation” (emphasis in original).

Boyce quotes and paraphrases Elder Packer accurately, and yet it is incomplete. Here is more of what Elder Packer said about his personal revelation.

Do not mortgage your soul for unproved theories; ask, simply ask! I have asked, but not how man was created; I have asked if the scriptures are true [emphasis added].

In a sense, the speech is anti-climactic because just as we get to the ultimate reason for his conviction, it turns out that Elder Packer asked a different question than the one we were led to expect. Revelation that evolution is false vs revelation that the scriptures are true, is an important distinction in my book [1]. We would hardly expect God to reveal that the scriptures are NOT true, and yet if pressed even the most conservative saint will concede that some things in the scriptures not entirely accurate (or are figurative, or whatever).

There is no doubt that Elder Packer believes evolution to be false. However, I believe it is claiming too much to say that he knows by revelation that it is false--at least based on what he has shared publicly.

Incidentally, former BYU professor and Biology department dean Lester Allen once described his own (anti-climactic) revelation in response to a more direct question.

After some struggle, I decided to ask the Lord how the separate stories [evolution and creation] relate to each other. Even though I was surrounded by those superior to me scientifically, as well as spiritually, I was brash enough to hope the Lord would assist me in finding an answer. After personal preparation, I petitioned the Lord and asked, "What is the answer?" There came clearly into my mind the statement, "There is an answer." I didn't learn what the answer is, but it is reassuring to know that it all fits together.

Notes:
1. In fairness to Boyce, his footnote #38 cautions that different people can mean different things when talking about evolution, so caution is warranted in interpreting statements.

---

Continue reading...

Medicine is an Important Part of Addiction Recovery

See update below.

Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is such a part of American culture that even those of us untouched by alcoholism [1] know some of the basic principles of the AA approach. In fact AA is popular enough that the Church has modeled its Addiction Recovery Program (ARP) after it, as stated in the ARP guide. So The Atlantic got my attention when I saw the title of a new article, The Irrationality of Alcoholics Anonymous, and I was a little surprised by what I read. Here are a few excerpts that, together, summarize the article.

The problem is that nothing about the 12-step approach draws on modern science: not the character building, not the tough love, not even the standard 28-day rehab stay.

----------

The 12 steps are so deeply ingrained in the United States that many people, including doctors and therapists, believe attending meetings, earning one’s sobriety chips, and never taking another sip of alcohol is the only way to get better. Hospitals, outpatient clinics, and rehab centers use the 12 steps as the basis for treatment. But although few people seem to realize it, there are alternatives, including prescription drugs and therapies that aim to help patients learn to drink in moderation. Unlike Alcoholics Anonymous, these methods are based on modern science and have been proved, in randomized, controlled studies, to work.

----------

Bill Wilson, AA’s founding father, was right when he insisted, 80 years ago, that alcohol dependence is an illness, not a moral failing. Why, then, do we so rarely treat it medically? It’s a question I’ve heard many times from researchers and clinicians. “Alcohol- and substance-use disorders are the realm of medicine,” McLellan says. “This is not the realm of priests.”

----------

Although AA claims a success rate of 75%, another estimate suggests it is closer to 5 - 8%.

We’ve grown so accustomed to testimonials from those who say AA saved their life that we take the program’s efficacy as an article of faith. Rarely do we hear from those for whom 12-step treatment doesn’t work. But think about it: How many celebrities can you name who bounced in and out of rehab without ever getting better? Why do we assume they failed the program, rather than that the program failed them?

In the October 1989 General Conference, Elder Boyd K. Packer said the following:

It is my conviction, and my constant prayer, that there will come through research, through inspiration to scientists if need be, the power to conquer narcotic addiction through the same means which cause it. I plead with all of you to earnestly pray that somewhere, somehow, the way will be discovered to erase addiction in the human body.

As discussed by the article, there are several medical drugs available that can help relieve the urge to drink--or to drink heavily--although they are not effective for everyone. Unfortunately, however, I am unable to find any encouragement in the Church's ARP guide for afflicted persons to seek medical treatment. That seems to me like an important omission. Tackling addiction issues using Gospel principles is great, but as Elder Dallin H. Oaks has reminded us,

Latter-day Saints believe in applying the best available scientific knowledge and techniques. We use nutrition, exercise, and other practices to preserve health, and we enlist the help of healing practitioners, such as physicians and surgeons, to restore health. The use of medical science is not at odds with our prayers of faith and our reliance on priesthood blessings.

I'm not qualified to render judgment on 12-step programs; they obviously do help some people. For its part, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) (part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)) recommends social support, including joining AA or a similar program, as a part of recovery efforts.

I guess the bottom line is this: People with substance addictions should, by all means, join support groups like AA or the Church's ARP program. But chances for improvement are best if medical help is also sought. Chemistry caused the problem; it can also be part of the solution.

[3/21/15] Update: For some push-back on the Atlantic article, see Why Alcoholics Anonymous Works.

Notes:
1. Disclaimer: To my knowledge, nobody close to me has (or has had) a substance addiction, so I have little personal experience with these issues.

---

Continue reading...

In the Universe, But Not Of the Universe?

I have a hard time rejecting causal determinism [1], which is essentially the idea that every result (including our choices and actions) depends on a chain-reaction of cause-and-effect relationships stretching back to the origin of the universe. And throwing a spirit into the equation doesn't seem to help because in Mormonism "all spirit is matter." So whatever that matter consists of, it will have laws that govern it. This leaves us with the prospect that our personalities, decisions, etc. are the combined chain of cause-and-effect relationships of physical and spiritual matter. This shouldn't be all that shocking in as much as our very existence is dependent on the existence of the universe (or multiverse, or whatever) and its laws and properties. If we have no right to exist apart from the universe, should we be shocked that everything we think and do is an extension of the universe?

But what people really seem to care about are issues of agency and responsibility. If we aren't truly making free choices (i.e. choices that are somehow not dependent on the configuration of matter in the universe--I guess), can we be held responsible for anything? And in a Mormon setting, what is the point of the plan of salvation if we are all simply acting out the consequences of the laws of the universe?

I have two responses to this [2]. First, as long as there are conscious beings with subjective experience, they will have a stake in regulating the behavior of other conscious beings. I don't want people stealing my stuff, for example, so laws and punishments are useful for deterring poor behavior and encouraging good. Second, if free will (i.e. the type that somehow makes decisions independent of the state of matter in the universe) does not exist, then we are all in the same boat--presumably including God [3]. There's no need to worry about Laplace's demon; he doesn't exist.

It seems to me that if causal-determinism is true, existence in the universe remains an unpredictable adventure [4], and we go right along on our merry way.

Notes:

1. ...which is different than saying I'm confident it is true.

2. I don't claim to have thought this through all the way. Whether by free will or determinism, I don't find the wrangling over definitions and thought experiments inherent in free will discussions to be worth my time and interest. I'm just giving you my two cents.

3. In Rational Theology, John A. Widtsoe wrote: "There can be no rational discussion of the details of God's life or nature. To him we give the most complete devotion, for to us he is in all respects infinite and perfect. His Godhood, however, was attained by the use of his power in simple obedience to the laws he discovered as he grew in experience." Maybe the universe favors the development of gods because they have a Darwinian advantage (i.e. scum bags are self-destructive).

4. Well, some things are predictable even now. I just mean that nobody can predict every detail of the course of the universe.

---

Continue reading...

Updating Sexual Development

One of the things I have always liked about biology is the propensity of nature to violate rules that people think are inviolable. This week's example comes from a news article, Sex Redefined, in the journal Nature. It covers current understanding of sexual development in humans--something most of us thought we understood by the time we finished high school biology. But it turns out that there are multiple stages to it, each of which can produce a variety of results. The basic outline is as follows:

That the two sexes are physically different is obvious, but at the start of life, it is not. Five weeks into development, a human embryo has the potential to form both male and female anatomy. Next to the developing kidneys, two bulges known as the gonadal ridges emerge alongside two pairs of ducts, one of which can form the uterus and Fallopian tubes, and the other the male internal genital plumbing: the epididymes, vas deferentia and seminal vesicles. At six weeks, the gonad switches on the developmental pathway to become an ovary or a testis. If a testis develops, it secretes testosterone, which supports the development of the male ducts. It also makes other hormones that force the presumptive uterus and Fallopian tubes to shrink away. If the gonad becomes an ovary, it makes oestrogen, and the lack of testosterone causes the male plumbing to wither. The sex hormones also dictate the development of the external genitalia, and they come into play once more at puberty, triggering the development of secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts or facial hair.

Not having a developmental biology background, I found that my understanding was a little out of date in that I was still under the impression that female development is the default track. That the developmental process can be altered and lead to surprising results isn't particularly new, but some of the examples given in the article are still impressive (e.g. womb discovered in 70 year old man).

As for how any of this fits (or doesn't) with Church doctrine, I previously laid out a few thoughts here. As a side note, I've only ever heard vague hearsay that special gender cases have gone to the First Presidency. Given the statistics involved (at least 1 in 4500 people), I would imagine that disorders of sex development are not uncommonly considered by Church leadership, but that's just my guess. I would also guess they are handled on a case-by-case basis, but if anyone out there has insight into that aspect, please chime in.


Notes:
For more, see Duane Jeffery's article, "Intersexes in Humans," for a nice LDS-oriented discussion of this topic. It seems to have held up well since it's publication in 1979. See also Jeffrey Keller, "Is Sexual Gender Eternal?"

---

Continue reading...

A Paranormal Plug in the Deseret News

Oh, for heaven's sake. Daniel Peterson's latest column in the Deseret News, Defending the Faith: Rethinking materialism in science, advertises a new home for cranks and loons. As a casual observer (and an overall fan) of Peterson, this isn't terribly surprising. He has expressed affinity for Intelligent Design on several occasions, and he seems to relish taking on 'the establishment' as he perceives it. Simply by the title of the column you know it's going to take an aggrieved stance toward mainstream science, but he does one better by telling everyone about a group of open-minded scientists who are calling for revolution, and spreading their questionable (at best) assertions.

When I looked around the Open Sciences site, it didn't take long to find that it's a collection of people pushing all kinds of fringe ideas (parapsychology and psychic phenomena, mysteries of water, etc.) At least a few of them have a long history of, shall we say, original thinking. After this group of revolutionaries met a year ago, they issued a manifesto which serves as the foundation of Peterson's column. It's written in the classic style of minority scientists who think they don't get enough respect [1]. It notes that they are "internationally known [2]," vents their grievance at all the dogmatism, and collects names of people with PhD's in order to appear important.

Before presenting their unorthodox ideas, the manifesto prepares the way with this statement.

Science is first and foremost a non-dogmatic, open-minded method of acquiring knowledge about nature through the observation, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Its methodology is not synonymous with materialism and should not be committed to any particular beliefs, dogmas, or ideologies.

Ah, classic. We all know that scientists should follow the evidence wherever it leads, and that dogmatism runs against the spirit of science. This kind of statement serves two purposes. First, to disarm critical scientists by appealing to their scientific values, and second, to help cultivate the appearance of unfair treatment by critics in the eyes of the public. It's not that the statement is wrong, per se, it's just incomplete. It's missing notions of skepticism, reproducibility, criticism, and so on.

Moving on, there are a variety of claims: we've got quantum mechanics (QM) and consciousness, near-death experiences, mediums who contact the dead, telekinesis, etc. Let me pause here to give you my rule of thumb on QM: you can dismiss out of hand anyone that uses QM to support new-age-type claims. I know that sounds dogmatic, but QM is strange stuff and is difficult to understand because it is heavily mathematical and contradicts our intuitions. Given the fact that new-age claims are not part of standard physics courses, it is much more likely that someone connecting QM to consciousness either doesn't understand QM, or has hijacked it in a way that is difficult to discern for non-physicists (of which I am one).

The manifesto continues:

Moreover, materialist theories fail to elucidate how brain could generate the mind, and they are unable to account for the empirical evidence alluded to in this manifesto. This failure tells us that it is now time to free ourselves from the shackles and blinders of the old materialist ideology, to enlarge our concept of the natural world, and to embrace a post-materialist paradigm.

Now it is certainly the case that we don't fully understand how consciousness works under currently understood physical principles (which is different than to say it CANNOT be understood eventually), but here is what our revolutionaries assert as a better view:

15. According to the post-materialist paradigm:

a) Mind represents an aspect of reality as primordial as the physical world. Mind is fundamental in the universe, i.e. it cannot be derived from matter and reduced to anything more basic.

b) There is a deep interconnectedness between mind and the physical world.

c) Mind (will/intention) can influence the state of the physical world, and operate in a nonlocal (or extended) fashion, i.e. it is not confined to specific points in space, such as brains and bodies, nor to specific points in time, such as the present. Since the mind may nonlocally influence the physical world, the intentions, emotions, and desires of an experimenter may not be completely isolated from experimental outcomes, even in controlled and blinded experimental designs.

d) Minds are apparently unbounded, and may unite in ways suggesting a unitary, One Mind that includes all individual, single minds.

There you go, folks! Materialism has failed to give a good explanation, so we can now say that mind is basically magic unmoored from the known laws of the universe.

I know there are still a lot of questions remaining within science, but I fail to see how positing that "mind is fundamental to the universe"--whatever that means--helps anything. I know that some of these statements bear a superficial resemblance to certain scriptures, but that doesn't guarantee that they really correspond to one another. And I know that to be a Mormon entails a certain amount of belief in things not borne out by science (yet?), but that doesn't mean we should run into the arms of the scientific fringe.


Notes:
1. Compare the manifesto with Dissent from Darwinism and the Global Warming Petition Project.
2. So am I, and I'm a nobody.

---

Continue reading...

BYU Fact-Checks Joseph Smith on Zacharias: How an Apocryphal Story Became Revealed Knowledge

As we are studying the New Testament in Sunday School this year, I was interested to see that Lesson 4 contains the following tidbit about John the Baptist and Herod's 'slaughter of the innocents'. After describing Joseph and Mary's flight to Egypt, as recorded in Matthew, the manual quotes Joseph Smith:

To protect John, “Zacharias caused [Elisabeth] to take him into the mountains, where he was raised on locusts and wild honey” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 261).

A more full quotation is as follows:

When Herod’s edict went forth to destroy the young children, John was about six months older than Jesus, and came under this hellish edict, and Zacharias caused his mother to take him into the mountains, where he was raised on locusts and wild honey. When his father refused to disclose his hiding place, and being the officiating high priest at the Temple that year, was slain by Herod’s order, between the porch and the altar, as Jesus said.

In 2013 the Religious Studies Center at BYU published an interesting article, "The Confusing Case of Zacharias," by Lynne Hilton Wilson, which shows this story to be a spurious tradition from the second century A.D. You should read the whole thing, but the story can be told in a few steps.

1. Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, was a high priest serving in Solomon's temple and was stoned to death (2 Chronicles 24:21).

2. Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, was the minor prophet after whom the Old Testament book is named.

3. In Matthew 23:35, Jesus told the Pharisees that they were guilty of killing the prophets, including "Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." Luke 11:51 records the same condemnation, but simply referred to "Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple."

4. Matthew seems to have mixed up which Zacharias was referenced.

5. The early-Christian document, "Protevangelium of James" embellished on the nativity narratives and connected the Zacharias referred to by Jesus with the father of John the Baptist by having him killed by the altar [1]. (In the process, the document transformed the father of John into the high priest. Also his blood turned to stone.)

6. In spite of its dubious origins, the story continued to circulate down through the centuries and was published multiple times in a variety of venues in the nineteenth century, including the Times and Seasons in Nauvoo. It was then incorporated into Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith.

7. Here we have a twist in the plot. It turns out that there is no evidence that Joseph actually wrote the statement quoted above. After laying out the evidence, Wilson writes:

Although we know of no evidence that Joseph Smith wrote, delegated, or approved the publication of this article referencing Zacharias, it still found its way into Joseph Fielding Smith’s compilation, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, in 1938. The pertinent problem lies in the fact that these teachings became interpreted by many as instructions to the Church from the Prophet. As a result, several Latter-day Saint books have spread the story as if it were a restored truth—including Sunday School and institute manuals.

Indeed, her footnote #2 lists its use by a number of LDS authors--some of whom are big names (e.g. McConkie, Millet, Matthews, Skousen), and it does appear in several Church publications. In the January 1995 Ensign, for example, it was listed as one of the insights about the Bible given to us as revealed knowledge through Joseph Smith.

This all makes my title tongue-in-cheek, since it turns out that Joseph Smith probably had nothing to do with the teaching. How ironic, though, that a centuries-old apocryphal story became 'revealed' knowledge. Given its widespread and authoritative distribution, it probably has a lot of years to live still.

Notes:
1. Translations available here. The murder of Zacharias happens toward the end.

---

Continue reading...