New Spanish LDS Bible

TT at Faith Promoting Rumor reports that a new Spanish edition of the Bible is being worked on by the church.  They have received copyright permission to use an existing influential Spanish translation.  It sounds like it may be similar to the current English LDS edition with cross references to the standard works, a  bible dictionary and explanatory notes.  Supposedly the church has hired Greek & Hebrew scholars to modify the text where it may affect LDS interpretation, or clarify the text.  These changes will not be noted in the footnotes.

If anyone has more information on this project, please pass it on.

All Blog Symposium: Mormonism and Modernity

Faith Promoting Rumor is hosting an All-blog symposium on Mormonism and Modernity to address the following topics over the course of the next 45 days. Prizes will be given to the best blog posts. To enter, simply give the link to your post in the comments on this thread. ... The following topics are proposed:

1. Mormonism and pluralism. In the age of globalization, we come to interact with religious others in more profound and meaningful ways than missionary work, and as we come to learn and appreciate the depth of other religious traditions, we are forced to wonder if our exclusivist view on truth sustainable and defensible. Do inclusivist notions in Mormonism satisfy the theological and political dilemma that exclusive claims to salvation through Jesus Christ, or Mormon rituals? Can a Mormon pluralism exist, or must we take the burden of exclusivism along with fundamentalists of other religions?

2. Skepticism of authority based in the inaccessibility of revelation- How should modern Mormons regard the authority of revelation? In the contemporary church, at least at the top levels, revelation is rarely appealed to as a source of authority (though at the local level many leaders appeal to it to buttress their personal decisions). What sorts of standards will be applied to mediate the potentially disruptive element of revelation, even revelation from important church leaders?

3. Critical Study of the scriptures, both ancient and modern- Many religious traditions coping with modern challenges to historicity and infallibility have opted for the metaphorical, spiritual meaning of the text. Is this an option for Mormons given the challenges that critical scholarship provides to traditional understandings of the text?

4. The relationship b/t Mormonism and the State- There is no question that publicly and as a matter of policy, Mormonism reveres the Church/State divide, but has crossed it at times in its history. Further, Mormonism began as a nation-building movement. Many Mormons do believe that their religious convictions should impinge on their political views. Both conservative and liberal religious groups seem to agree. How should this relationship be figured?

5. Missionary work, Americanization, and neo-colonialism- Proselytism has suffered serious critical blows in recent decades as the relationship between European hegemony, cultural imperialism, colonial rule, and the spread of Christianity was exposed. Given that Mormonism is inseparably American, and has often used this heritage in shaping its public image abroad, what is the relationship between Mormonism and neo-colonialism? How does Mormonism see itself as an extension of American Manifest Destiny, or the Western Man's Burden?

6. The Family- The nuclear family appears to have been a rather short-lived expiriment of the post-Industrial Age. How will Mormonism respond to the increased diversity of family lives, including divorce, same-sex couples, and increased fragmentariness of traditional family structures. How will the emphasis on the nuclear family affect the church's ability to form larger social communities?

7. Sex, Gender, Sexuality- Since the second wave feminist movement, Mormonism has both resisted and accommodated the changing landscape of the role of women in the church and society at large. What will the future look like, and how should Mormonism address the new realities of a highly skilled female workforce? What will happen to the "traditional" gender roles many church members cling to in their understandings of gender? How should the perennial issue of women's leadership in the church be addressed? Along these same lines, homosexuality is reaching the height of its liberation movement (belatedly). How should Mormonism respond to this issue, perhaps using lessons from its interactions with the Civil Rights and feminist movements over the last five decades?

The European Mormon Studies Association 2008 Conference

EMSA Conference 2008, Call for Papers
Date December 3, 2007 Kim

The European Mormon Studies Association
Annual Conference

Organized together with the Department of Comparative Religion
at Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland

21–22 August 2008

Keynote Address: Heikki Räisänen
Professor of New Testament Exegesis Emeritus, University of Helsinki

Call for Papers
"Mormonism and the Christian Tradition"

The relationship of Mormonism and the Christian tradition is hotly
contested, especially in religious circles. Whatever the precise
nature of that relationship is, it provides rich opportunities for
scholarly probing in domains such as sociology, history, theology,
anthropology and religious studies. Keynoter and acclaimed theologian
Heikki Räisänen, for example, will speak concerning his research on
Mormonism's founder Joseph Smith and the relationship of the Bible and
the Book of Mormon, two of the faith's central texts.

Other potential topics abound. Europe's religious landscape with its
national churches presents Mormonism with a very different situation
than does the United States, the movement's homeland. How has this
shaped Mormonism's European manifestations? How has the relationship
of Mormonism and the Christian tradition, with the attendant processes
of boundary negotiation, played out in Europe historically? Who are
Europe's Mormons? What are Mormonism's contributions to the wider
range of Christian thought?

Yale "open course" - Introduction to the Old Testament

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)
Available in Video, Audio or Text
http://open.yale.edu/courses/religious_studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/sessions/lecture02.html

This course examines the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) as an expression
of the religious life and thought of ancient Israel, and a
foundational document of Western civilization. A wide range of
methodologies, including source criticism and the historical-critical
school, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, and literary and
canonical approaches are applied to the study and interpretation of
the Bible. Special emphasis is placed on the Bible against the
backdrop of its historical and cultural setting in the

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)
Class Sessions
1. The Parts of the Whole
2. The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting: Biblical
Religion in Context
3. The Hebrew Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Setting: Genesis 1-4 in Context
4. Doublets and Contradictions, Seams and Sources: Genesis 5-11 and
the Historical-Critical Method
5. Critical Approaches to the Bible: Introduction to Genesis 12-50
6. Biblical Narrative: The Stories of the Patriarchs (Genesis 12-36)
7. Israel in Egypt: Moses and the Beginning of Yahwism (Genesis 37- Exodus 4)
8. Exodus: From Egypt to Sinai (Exodus 5-24, 32; Numbers)
9. The Priestly Legacy: Cult and Sacrifice, Purity and Holiness in
Leviticus and Numbers
10. Biblical Law: The Three Legal Corpora of JE (Exodus), P (Leviticus
and Numbers) and D (Deuteronomy)
11. On the Steps of Moab: Deuteronomy
12. The Deuteronomistic History: Life in the Land (Joshua and Judges)
13. The Deuteronomistic History: Prophets and Kings (1 and 2 Samuel)
14. The Deuteronomistic History: Response to Catastrophe (1 and 2 Kings)
15. Hebrew Prophecy: The Non-Literary Prophets
16. Literary Prophecy: Amos
17. Literary Prophecy: Hosea and Isaiah
18. Literary Prophecy: Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum and Habbakuk
19. Literary Prophecy: Perspectives on the Exile (Jeremiah, Ezekiel
and 2 Isaiah)
20. Responses to Suffering and Evil: Lamentations and Wisdom Literature
21. Biblical Poetry: Psalms and Song of Songs
22. The Restoration: 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah
23. Visions of the End: Daniel and Apocalyptic Literature
24. Alternative Visions: Esther, Ruth and Jonah

Huckabee Questions Mormons' Belief

Huckabee Questions Mormons' Belief

By LIBBY QUAID – 18 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an
ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article,
"Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"

The article, to be published in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, says
Huckabee asked the question after saying he believes Mormonism is a
religion but doesn't know much about it. His rival Mitt Romney, the
former Massachusetts governor, is a member of the Mormon church, which
is known officially as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints.

The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, does
not refer to Jesus and Satan as brothers. It speaks of Jesus as the
son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel, which is a Biblical
account.

A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said
Huckabee's question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the
Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.

"We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God
is the father of all," said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. "That means
that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children.
Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we
worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the
exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for."

Romney did not respond to a request for comment.

Earlier this month in Iowa, Huckabee wouldn't say whether he thought
Mormonism — rival Romney's religion — was a cult.

"I'm just not going to go off into evaluating other people's doctrines
and faiths. I think that is absolutely not a role for a president,"
the former Arkansas governor said.

While he said he respects "anybody who practices his faith," Huckabee
said that what other people believe — he named Republican rivals
Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton
— "is theirs to explain, not mine, and I'm not going to."

He also resisted wading into theology when pressed to explain why some
evangelicals don't view the Mormon faith as a Christian denomination.

Text of Mitt Romney's Faith in America speech

The text of Mitt Romney's much anticipated speech on religion has been released:

http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/0,5223,695233772,00.html

---
Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.

It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of
you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the
way in the Presidential library.

For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young
pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his
life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving
reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans
rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend
freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr.
President. Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first
to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us,
your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the
greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to
today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine
what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam
seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our
economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government
overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best
to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic
which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious
liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would
inform my Presidency, if I were elected. There are some who may feel
that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the
context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds
with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its
greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they
discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free
land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words:
'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with
human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution
was made for a moral and religious people.' Freedom requires religion
just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the
soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune
with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. Given
our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder
whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's
religion that are appropriate. I believe there are.

And I will answer them today. Almost 50 years ago another candidate
from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for
president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an
American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my
religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor
should he be rejected because of his faith.

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other
church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential
decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church
affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin. As
governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law
and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular
teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the
Constitution — and of course, I would not do so as President. I will
put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and
the sovereign authority of the law.

As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political
religion' — the commitment to defend the rule of law and the
Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of
office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate
to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group,
no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the
common cause of the people of the United States.

There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would
prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that
it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or
another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon
faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my
fathers — I will be true to them and to my beliefs. Some believe that
such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are
right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people.
Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of
those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world. There
is one fundamental question about which I often am asked.

What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about
Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion
has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for
criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance
would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for
faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and
explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the
very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No
candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes
President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths. I
believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer
to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I
wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic
Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals,
the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident
independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews,
unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of
the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and
cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their
steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's
blessings.

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist
between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral
convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's
usually a sound rule to focus on the latter — on the great moral
principles that urge us all on a common course.

Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right
to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that
cannot speak to the convictions of religious people. We separate
church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No
religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere
with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of
the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond
its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any
acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair
with no place in public life.

It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America
— the religion of secularism. They are wrong. The founders proscribed
the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance
the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation
'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust. We should acknowledge the
Creator as did the Founders — in ceremony and word. He should remain
on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and
during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be
welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure
without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our
constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of
government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God
who gave us liberty.'

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most
important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political
office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of
human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast
commitment to liberty? They are not unique to any one denomination.
They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are
the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand
as a nation, united.

We believe that every single human being is a child of God — we are
all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and
inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary
political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are
'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'

The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one
another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of
God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day,
here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or
nationality. Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not
an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world
have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of
thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the
last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people
throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's
terrible wars — no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure;
no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has
been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it
ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of
freedom.

These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived
in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God
and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I
saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways
to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading
national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I
was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me
drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me
... '

My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and
my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we
have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values,
are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this
common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my
presidency.

Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty.
Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers
took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of
religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it
to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled
from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode
Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West.
Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own
faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different
faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European
nations they had left.

It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a
revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about
the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is
endowed by his Creator. We cherish these sacred rights, and secure
them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious
liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There
will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise
of our religion. I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound
implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited
many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ...
so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many
of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just
too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer.

The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to
Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong
faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by
conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom ... killing Christians,
Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do
their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds
and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than
theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and
groups could inflict if given the chance.

The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our
religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized
nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be
destroyed. In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in
a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause
of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you
can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person
who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me.
And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not
insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our
nation's symphony of faith.

Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in
Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British
troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an
impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they
pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious
sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and
Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of
piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so
together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the
grace of God ... they founded this great nation. In that spirit, let
us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us
pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy
light.'

God bless the United States of America.

Intense Bias against Mormons

New Vanderbilt scientific poll reveals intense bias against Mormons; Romney must demystify his religion to gain support

Bias against Mormons is significantly more intense among the public than bias against either African Americans or women, according to a new scientific poll by three professors from Vanderbilt and Claremont Graduate universities.

The survey was designed to assess bias against Mormons, how best to combat it and its potential impact on the nomination process and general election campaign.  
...
A national representative sample of 1,200 people participated along with an additional over-sample of another 600 "born-again" Southerners. The over-sample was designed to measure the concerns that people have expressed about Romney's religion among the evangelical base of the Republican Party.

Geer said that while there have been a handful of surveys about Mormons and possible discrimination, they have relied for the most part on people simply indicating if they would be willing to vote for a Mormon for president.

"People today might say they would vote for a woman, Mormon, African American or other minority, when, in fact, they have no intention to do so," he said. "They may not want to be labeled a bigot, so they give a socially acceptable answer. We address this problem in our study." Geer said the study also looked at the impact of various messages on people's attitudes toward Romney.

Key findings of the study include:

• Bias against Mormons is significantly more intense among the public compared to bias against women and blacks. The bias against Mormons is even more pronounced among conservative Evangelicals. Their bias against Mormons rivals their bias against atheists.
• Only about half the nation claims to even know a Mormon or to know that Romney is Mormon.
• The extent of the bias against Romney is moderated if the individual already knows that he is Mormon. That information seems to demystify the Mormon religion, making people more tolerant of the religion. Those who do not know Romney is Mormon exhibit much greater bias upon learning of his religion.
• When participants in the survey are provided information that stereotypes Mormons, such as 'Mormons are part of a non-Christian cult" or "Mormons are polygamists," they react negatively to Romney's candidacy.
• Participants react favorably to messages that dispel the negative stereotypes about Mormons. Examples would be "about a hundred years ago the Mormon Church banned polygamy," or "the Church of Jesus Chris of Latter-day Saints stresses traditional family values." However, simple appeals for religious tolerance do not win over support for Romney from the respondents.

Geer noted that Romney's address, scheduled for Dec. 5 at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, is not without risks. "Depending upon how the speech is designed, it could stir latent bias by activating certain interests of the voting public," he said. "However, those who are biased against Mormons are not necessarily hardened in their positions." According to the survey results, Romney should provide clear, accurate information to dispel misconceptions about the Mormon religion.

With the primaries approaching, negative attacks, including some related to Mormonism, are likely, according to Benson. "The speech may be Romney's best chance to strike pre-emptively to inoculate the public from such attacks," he said. "Therefore, the speech may work if Romney can walk the delicate line of explaining his beliefs and values without driving away conservative evangelicals."

The entire article can be read here

Romney to give long awaited religion speech Thursday

Romney to give speech on his Mormon faith  
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent Reuters

Republican White House candidate Mitt Romney will give a speech this week directly addressing questions about his Mormon faith and the role it would play in his presidency, his campaign said on Sunday.

The long-awaited speech by Romney, who would be the first Mormon president, has drawn comparisons to an address given in Texas by John Kennedy confronting doubts about his Catholic faith during his successful 1960 run for the presidency.

Polls have shown some voters, particularly evangelicals, are less likely to vote for a Mormon. The former Massachusetts governor often gets questions related to his religion on the campaign trail.

The speech, titled "Faith In America," will be delivered at the library of former President George Bush in College Station, Texas, on Thursday.

"This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation, and how the governor's own faith would inform his presidency if he were elected," spokesman Kevin Madden said.

It comes as polls show Romney slipping in the state of Iowa, which on January 3 kicks off the state-by-state battle to choose candidates for the November 2008 general election.

A Des Moines Register poll on Sunday showed Romney, who has led in Iowa much of the year, falling behind former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who draws strong support from the state's sizable bloc of religious conservatives.

Continue reading here

Gospel of Judas misrepresented?

The New York Times
Gospel Truth
By APRIL D. DECONICK
Published: December 1, 2007

http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?r=1&emc=tnt&tntget=2007/12/01/opinion/01deconink.html

AMID much publicity last year, the National Geographic Society announced that a lost 3rd-century religious text had been found, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. The shocker: Judas didn't betray Jesus. Instead, Jesus asked Judas, his most trusted and beloved disciple, to hand him over to be killed. Judas's reward? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples.

It was a great story. Unfortunately, after re-translating the society's transcription of the Coptic text, I have found that the actual meaning is vastly different. While National Geographic's translation supported the provocative interpretation of Judas as a hero, a more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no hero, he is a demon.

Several of the translation choices made by the society's scholars fall well outside the commonly accepted practices in the field. For example, in one instance the National Geographic transcription refers to Judas as a "daimon," which the society's experts have translated as "spirit." Actually, the universally accepted word for "spirit" is "pneuma " — in Gnostic literature "daimon" is always taken to mean "demon."

Likewise, Judas is not set apart "for" the holy generation, as the National Geographic translation says, he is separated "from" it. He does not receive the mysteries of the kingdom because "it is possible for him to go there." He receives them because Jesus tells him that he can't go there, and Jesus doesn't want Judas to betray him out of ignorance. Jesus wants him informed, so that the demonic Judas can suffer all that he deserves.

Perhaps the most egregious mistake I found was a single alteration made to the original Coptic. According to the National Geographic translation, Judas's ascent to the holy generation would be cursed. But it's clear from the transcription that the scholars altered the Coptic original, which eliminated a negative from the original sentence. In fact, the original states that Judas will "not ascend to the holy generation." To its credit, National Geographic has acknowledged this mistake, albeit far too late to change the public misconception.

So what does the Gospel of Judas really say? It says that Judas is a specific demon called the "Thirteenth." In certain Gnostic traditions, this is the given name of the king of demons — an entity known as Ialdabaoth who lives in the 13th realm above the earth. Judas is his human alter ego, his undercover agent in the world. These Gnostics equated Ialdabaoth with the Hebrew Yahweh, whom they saw as a jealous and wrathful deity and an opponent of the supreme God whom Jesus came to earth to reveal.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Judas was a harsh critic of mainstream Christianity and its rituals. Because Judas is a demon working for Ialdabaoth, the author believed, when Judas sacrifices Jesus he does so to the demons, not to the supreme God. This mocks mainstream Christians' belief in the atoning value of Jesus' death and in the effectiveness of the Eucharist.

How could these serious mistakes have been made? Were they genuine errors or was something more deliberate going on? This is the question of the hour, and I do not have a satisfactory answer.

Admittedly, the society had a tough task: restoring an old gospel that was lying in a box of its own crumbs. It had been looted from an Egyptian tomb in the 1970s and languished on the underground antiquities market for decades, even spending time in someone's freezer. So it is truly incredible that the society could resurrect any part of it, let alone piece together about 85 percent of it.

That said, I think the big problem is that National Geographic wanted an exclusive. So it required its scholars to sign nondisclosure statements, to not discuss the text with other experts before publication. The best scholarship is done when life-sized photos of each page of a new manuscript are published before a translation, allowing experts worldwide to share information as they independently work through the text.

Another difficulty is that when National Geographic published its transcription, the facsimiles of the original manuscript it made public were reduced by 56 percent, making them fairly useless for academic work. Without life-size copies, we are the blind leading the blind. The situation reminds me of the deadlock that held scholarship back on the Dead Sea Scrolls decades ago. When manuscripts are hoarded by a few, it results in errors and monopoly interpretations that are very hard to overturn even after they are proved wrong.

To avoid this, the Society of Biblical Literature passed a resolution in 1991 holding that, if the condition of the written manuscript requires that access be restricted, a facsimile reproduction should be the first order of business. It's a shame that National Geographic, and its group of scholars, did not follow this sensible injunction.

I have wondered why so many scholars and writers have been inspired by the National Geographic version of the Gospel of Judas. I think it may stem from an understandable desire to reform the relationship between Jews and Christians. Judas is a frightening character. For Christians, he is the one who had it all and yet betrayed God to his death for a few coins. For Jews, he is the man whose story was used by Christians to persecute them for centuries.

Although we should continue to work toward a reconciliation of this ancient schism, manufacturing a hero Judas is not the answer.

April D. DeConick, a professor of Biblical studies at Rice University, is the author of "The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says."

Utah War 150 year anniversary

The Utah State Historical society has noted that the Years 2007 and 2008 Mark the Seminal Event in Utah History Known as the UTAH WAR.  This short article by Richard D. Poll is a great introduction to the Utah War (1857-1858).

Mormonism, anarchism and pacifism.

Latter Day nod to anarchy
New publication echoes 'radical elements' in effort to promote justice


William Van Wagenen is too modest to compare himself to the famed activist and journalist Dorothy Day, who launched the Catholic worker movement in the 1930s. But his ambitions are no less audacious.

Just as Day did for Catholics, Van Wagenen would like to awaken Mormons to the "virtually forgotten radical elements" of their doctrine and history - namely, the mandate to "have no poor among you."

To that end, the 29-year-old Salt Lake City stockbroker and several friends have just published the first edition of The Mormon Worker, a bimonthly newspaper devoted to "promoting Mormonism, anarchism and pacifism."

The editors, all active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, will not criticize the LDS hierarchy or institution but plan to provide "radical religious commentary on current political and economic events."

Those behind The Mormon Worker are among a small, but growing number of Latter-day Saints bucking the stereotype of church members as Republican, hawkish on the war and devoted to capitalism.


The rest of the Salt Lake Tribune article by Peggy Fletcher Stack can be read  here.

J. Golden Kimball lecture

"The William A. Wilson Folklore Archive at Brigham Young University's Harold B. Lee Library on Nov. 28 will hold its fifth annual Founder's Lecture, "J. Golden Kimball in Mormon Folklore," at 7 p.m. in the library auditorium.

"The speaker will be Eric A. Eliason, an associate professor of English who teaches folklore and Mormon literature. He recently published a book of rare stories, anecdotes and jokes by or about Kimball titled "The J. Golden Kimball Stories." Renowned for being outspoken and somewhat irreverent, Kimball was one of the most colorful leaders in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Deseret news article continues here.

What Women Know

Excerpt from http://whatwomenknow.org:

"In October 2007, Julie B. Beck, president of the Latter-day Saint women's organization, the Relief Society, gave a speech in the semiannual worldwide General Conference titled "Mothers Who Know." Beck's focus on LDS families, and more particularly on the role and influence of mothers, is a subject close to our hearts.

"Who are we? We are women who differ in age, income, race/ethnicity, and marital status. Many of us are mothers, some with exceptionally large families. Some of us are grandmothers and great-grandmothers many times over. Some are young mothers, with infants and elementary-age children. Others of us—for reasons of biology, opportunity, or choice—do not have children. Some of us have never married. Some of us are single because of divorce or widowhood. A few of us have been with the same partner more than 50 years. We all work—paid or unpaid, both inside and outside our homes. We share many decades of church service among us. In fact, our LDS background is our common denominator.

"Several ideas within the body of President Beck's talk conflict with our inspiration and experience. We are authors of our own lives, and this is the story we know to be true:

Anti-Mormon "push poll" attack against Romney

Jill Zuckman at the Chicago Tribune reports That a negative "push poll" points out uncomfortable aspects of Mormonism to those polled.  It appears that it is also designed to implicate John McCain's campaign as the originator of the poll.  Excerpts of the article follow:

The GOP presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney and John McCain -- rocked
in different ways by a highly negative "push poll" targeting Romney's
Mormon faith -- demanded Friday that the New Hampshire attorney general
investigate who is behind the tactic.

As part of the poll, which began Sunday, callers have been asking voters
in Iowa and New Hampshire whether they know that Romney is a Mormon,
that his five sons did not serve in the military and that Mormons
believe the Book of Mormon is superior to the Bible.

The callers also inquire whether voters are aware that Romney, the
former Massachusetts governor, accepted deferments to avoid military
service in Vietnam while he was on a mission with other young Mormons in
France.

At the beginning of the 20-minute survey, voters are asked whether they
are aware of McCain's decorated military service during Vietnam. That
has led many voters to assume the poll was sponsored by the Arizona
senator's campaign. But McCain's campaign immediately denounced the
effort and insisted it had nothing to do with it.

"Whoever did this wanted to hurt us by implication," said Mark Salter, a
senior aide to McCain. "That's why we were very forceful."

Romney's supporters have long feared that a shadowy whispering campaign
would arise at some point targeting his Mormon faith. The new push poll
may be the most explicit anti-Mormon message to emerge in the campaign so far.

Journal of Mormon History: Fall 2007

Journal of Mormon History
Fall 2007 (Vol. 33, No. 3)

"The Mormon Hierarchy and the MX" (Jacob W. Olmstead)
"Wht E'er Thou Art, Act Well Thy Part: John Allan's Albany Crescent Stone" (Matthew W. Richardson)
"A Mormon Bigfoot: David Patten's Cain and the Concept of Evil in LDS Folklore" (Matthew Bowman)
"'Howard and Moartha Coray: Chroniclers of the Words and Life of the Prophet Joseph Smith" (Elizabeth Ann Anderson)
"'The Spirit of the Place': The Clifford Family and the Joseph Smith Memorial Farm" (Susan L. Fales)

Church statement regarding the modification of introduction to the Book of Mormon

From  an article in the Deseret News:

"The current Introduction page in the Book of Mormon was not part of the original text translated by Joseph Smith, Jr. The Introduction was written and published at the same time additional materials including footnotes and cross references were added in 1981. A one-word change was made to the Introduction in the latest edition of the Book of Mormon published by Doubleday. That change takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known. The change will be included in the next edition of the Book of Mormon printed by the Church."

Publicizing Good Works

Excerpts from a church editorial, "Publicizing Good Works "

...

Faced with the dilemma between publicizing the good works and results of its worldwide humanitarian efforts on the one hand and appearing self-promotional on the other, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attempts to find a balance and walk that fine line.

While the many humanitarian workers around the world go about their business humbly and modestly, they inescapably attract media attention. Though this is not the intention of the efforts, it raises the awareness of people across the globe to real problems facing God's children.

If publicity contributes to this result, then that is an unqualified good thing. Nevertheless, drawing media attention to these efforts for its own sake is not the intention and works against the spirit of the effort itself. Therefore, the Church lets media attention come as a natural byproduct of the efforts themselves and does not try to force this awareness as some kind of missionary push or as an effort to seek public validation.

This humanitarian aid is supported by generous donations from individuals, corporations and foundations, many of which are associated with the Church, but not necessarily so. Thus, in the interest of showing how these donations are put to use, the Church sometimes considers it appropriate to provide a full picture of the progress and success of its various humanitarian projects. Furthermore, publicizing the logistics of emergency response projects that provide help during high-profile national and local emergencies allows people to respond to imminent crises, puts them in a better position to help those around them and motivates others to prepare for future disasters.

Publicizing of these efforts helps create a culture and environment that place value on Christian service. It also fosters valuable partnerships between the Church and various other humanitarian organizations that have a mutual interest in sharing best practices, methods and strategies.

Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 2007

Volume 40 No. 4 / Winter 2007
Levi S. Peterson, editor

A Defense of the Authority of Church Doctrine
by Nathan Oman, pg. 1

The Gospel in Communication: A Conversation with Communication Theorist John Durham Peters
by Ethan Yorgason, pg. 29

"The Other" in the Limelight: One Perspective on the Publicity Surrounding the New LDS Temple in Finland
by Kim B. Östman, pg. 71

Complete Table of Contents

Papers of Brigham Young's personal clerk come to light

The papers of John Varah Long have been obtained by rare book dealer Ken Sanders.  Because Long was Brigham Young's personal clerk, the documents are being called "one of the most important discoveries of LDS documents in recent times."  It will take some time to to decipher the documents because they are written in a rare 19th century short hand. The most recent discovery in the papers are some previously unknown poems from Eliza R. Snow, former general relief society president and "Zion's Poetess."  Historians eagerly await more information as the papers are slowly decyphered.

Long fell out of favor with Brigham and was excommunicated.  Some speculate that Long's drowning in a ditch with just a few inches of water is suspicious. He was last seen with Wild Bill Hickman, Brigham's destroying angel.

Another change identified

At JuvenileInstructor, David Grua noticed that there is another change in the intro to the Book of Mormon, and Christopher put a  history of changes together.  Apparently thinking regarding what the Book of Mormon is, has been evolving over time, as these changes seem to suggest.  Recall other recent changes;  the title added "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" and another modification softened a statement regarding skin color and righteousness.

Here are David Grua's notes with the modified or missing words in bold.

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible.  It is a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon.  The record gives an account of two great civilizations.  One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites.  The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel.  This group is known as the Jaredites.  After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

2004 (New York: Doubleday First Edition)

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible.  It is a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon.  The record gives an account of two great civilizations.  One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites.  The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel.  This group is known as the Jaredites.  After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

2006 (New York: New Doubleday Edition)

The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible.  It is a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon.  The record gives an account of two great civilizations.  One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites.  The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel.  This group is known as the Jaredites.  After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.