Revelatory Stewardship and the Book of Mormon

Back in about 1990 I had a fascinating and instructive experience while attending the LDS Booksellers Convention at the Salt Lake City Expo Mart. At that time I was plugging my new book entitled Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites. At such a convention, of course, there are hundreds of booths hawking everything from crystal statues of LDS temples to missionary neck-ties. At this particular Convention there was also a certain booth manned by a kindly old gentlemen who sold a thick, beautifully-illustrated volume that promoted his own powerfully-held theory that the Book of Mormon took place in South America. We spoke for a long time. I was rather new to the bookselling business and wanted to keep an open mind about Book of Mormon geography, especially since I fully intended to write more novels in the future that celebrated this volume of scripture and the spiritual testimony of it that I had gained ten years earlier.

This gentleman spoke with an uncommon zeal and persuasive passion regarding his theories about how South America had been almost entirely submerged during the time period of the Book of Mormon. He pointed out a series of verses in the scripture that referred to Nephite and Lamanite lands as an "isle" or island (see 2 Ne. 10:20-21, 2 Ne. 29:7) in the midst of a great ocean. This, he felt, supported his contention that, except for segments of the Andes Mountains, the rest of South America was under water. He expressed many other points as well which he felt represented irrefutable evidence, and (of course) all of these evidences he felt were verifiable by fields of science.

Now this man was, himself, not a scientist. He was actually a retired insurance salesman. And as a result of his success in that field he had acquired a healthy nest egg of funds that allowed him to produce his book, and shortly thereafter, several videos which would further augment his particular theories about the Book of Mormon. He revealed to me that he fully intended to pursue the creation of a whole series of videos that would promote his archaeological convictions. I asked him if he had yet seen a profit from his self-published book. He humbly reported that he had not, but that he had great hopes for the future. I was quite impressed with his perserverance and I asked him, frankly, why he felt so inclined to devote so much personal time and resources to this particular project.

All at once this kindly insurance salesman became quite solemn. With profound seriousness and sobriety he looked me straight in the eye and revealed that he was following the will of God. He firmly believed that he had a spiritual witness as to the correctness of his particular views. Because his ambitions were motivated by private revelation, he had taken on this project with all the zeal of a personal "mission," and he could not, and would not, turn back.

I was immediately and perceptibly deflated. In a real sense, the gig was up. Although I had only been a Latter-day Saint for about ten years, I was fortunate enough to have had several religious instructors at BYU, as well as instructors during my mission (and probably elsewhere in responsible Gospel Doctrine classes) who appropriately emphasized a critical principal of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ. This principle is beautifully illustrated in the 28th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. Herein we find a revelation given through Joseph Smith, Jr. to Oliver Cowdery in September of 1830. The revelation was received in response to a rather peculiar phenomenon in the newly-organized Church. Apparently a Church member named Hiram Page had acquired a seerstone of sorts and was professing to receive revelations for the benefit of other Church members. Such revelations involved the building of Zion and the future order of the Church. In no uncertain terms, the Lord revealed the following to Oliver through the Prophet Joseph:

"...behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall
be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in
this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he
receiveth them even as Moses.

"And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give
unto him, even as Aaron, to declare faithfully the commandments
and the revelations, with power and authority unto the church.

"And if thou art led at any time by the Comforter to speak or
teach, or at all times by the way of commandment unto the
church, thou mayest do it.

"But thou shalt not write by way of commandment, but
by wisdom;

"And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the
head of the church;

"For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the
revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them
another in his stead."

I have emphasized the phrase in the last verse for good reason. It stresses that any information which purports to expound upon knowledge directly associated with LDS doctrine must be revealed to the general populace of the Church by the Lord's Prophet--and no one else has the authority or stewardship to do so.

This might be one of the most significant teachings of the LDS Church related to its structure and organization. It's a wonderful and simple doctrine which leaves no wiggle room. It protects the saints from deception, and it prevents individual members from falling into grave errors that may eventually undermine and devastate the core of their testimonies, causing them to become one of the lost "seeds" alluded to in the Savior's Parable of the Sower (see Matthew Chapter 13, in particualr vs. 19). I'll clarify again, what this means to the average Church member is that no one can expound upon, or add new information to the canon of revealed knowledge who is not the Prophet and President of the LDS Church. But it means even more than that. It means nobody should accept guidance that purportedly originates from divine revelation from any other member of the Church unless that person holds an official position of stewardship over them. And even so, the spiritual guidence must relate to the particular parameters (better known as "keys") of that stewardship.

In other words, an Elders Quorum President may receive revelation as to who should home-teach whom, but he cannot recieve revelation as to whether or not I should move to a different neighborhood, strive to have another child, or take on a new job, etc., etc., etc. Moreover, even in a case, for example, where a Bishop feels inspired to offer specific spiritual counsel to a father or mother regarding certain temporal decisions, that father or mother has every right to seek and receive spiritual confirmation as to that directive. In every circumstance it is always strongly advised that an individual seek that confirmation. In certain matters it may admittedly be less necessary, such as when receiving a Bishop's calling to become the next Sunbeam instructor. After all, a Bishop's stewardship is integrally connected to his responsibility to issue callings to members of his congregation. Divine confirmation may be unnecessary in such circumstances. It may simply be an act of obedience on our part. However receiving confirmation on such callings is still a worthwhile and recommended objective.

However, on more serious matters, I believe seeking spiritual confirmation is paramount. This especially holds true for families. If a husband and Preisthood holder, for example, receives a revelation regarding an important family matter, the wife has every right to beseech the Lord in prayer and have that revelation confirmed to her. It could be argued that the Priesthood head-of-the-home has the final say, but I've also heard it said that if a Priesthold holder dogmatically enforces his authority against the will of his wife, Amen to that authority.

But regarding new revelation that will benefit of the entire Church, the matter of who has stewardship to receive such inspiration and guidence has been settled. And there can be no doubt that spiritual revelation regarding the geographic location of cities or events in the Book of Mormon would fit the category of new revelation. Therefore, the task of defining such by revelation is strictly reserved for the President of the Church.

Because I was fortunate enough to have been taught this basic and vital principle of revelatory stewardship, I felt immediately inclined to suspect the validity of everything this kindly insurance salesman was "selling." As the years went on, and I watched this gentleman earnestly fulfill his goal of producing multiple videos and other teaching tools promoting his geographical "inspirations," I began to actually feel sorry for him. I hope this admisson does not sound patronizing. I certainly have many of my own faults to contend with. But as I thought about the genuine good that this man might have accomplished if he had devoted his time and resources to some other noble pursuit, it made me deeply sad. The truth was, if he had fully understood the principal of revelatory stewardship as taught in D&C 28 beforehand, he would have soundly rejected his so-called "revelations." He would have recognized that the source could not have been Divine. He would have known this simply by virtue of the kind of information he was being encouraged to promote. If the requisite structure of the Church had been understood, a great portion of the later years of his life might have been reserved for some worthier purpose.

I wish this was the only example that I could cite of my personal experience with a misunderstanding of revelatory stewardship. Some years after my encounter at the LDS Bookseller's Convention, a kind of strange hysteria gripped the Church regarding the near-death experiences of an LDS woman named Betty Eadie. She published a book called Embraced by the Light which became a local best-seller and later went on to international success. For several months, despite the desperate attempts of many to expose the hysteria by placing her published experiences up against the doctrine of revelatory stewardship, her "visions" of the afterlife flourished and fooled many naive and unprepared members of the Church. In this particular case there was apparently a rare intercession made by General Authorities. A good friend of mine (I wish I had a better resource, but that's what I have) reported to me that he attended a Stake Conference in Las Vegas wherein Elder Boyd K. Packer specifically informed the congregation that Sister Eadie, "could not have been where she said that she had been." This kind of intercession from a General Authority is very rare indeed. In later months I came to understand that Sister Eadie strayed away from the Church and began holding meetings where she would attract a colorful array of "new age" groupies. I was informed that she sometimes laid her hands on their heads to offer divine blessings and her own new brand of spiritual enlightenment.

I am not aware of any definitive statement ever made by a Church President supporting a specific Book of Mormon geography. In fact, in-depth studies have been presented that adamantly reinforce this contention (see John E. Clark, "Book of Mormon Geography," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 1, pg 178.) Although some Church leaders of the past may have expressed opinions regarding certain areas of the world, others have expressed opinions on other areas. (In all fairness, I should note that to find any Apostles or Church Presidents who favor models encompassing the Great Lakes, South America, or the entire breadth of North and South America, one must go back two or three generations, and in most cases, more than a century.) For example, Joseph Fielding Smith seemed to reject a limited geographical model and expressed this opinion repeatedly. The point can be made that he did so prior to his calling as Church President, and more importantly, that it was, in fact, a personal opinion that he never defined as a revelation. The notion that General Authorities can express fallible opinions is sometimes overlooked by Church members, as if such a concept is somehow akin to disloyalty. But if General Authorities were not occasionally prone to human failings, we would have to harshly judge Joseph Fielding Smith for his strongly-worded 1961 opinion that man will "never get into space" and that he was "never intended" to reach the moon.

Fortunately, Joseph Smith, Jr. was adamant in his declaration that a prophet was only a prophet "when he is acting as such" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 278). Therefore, we need not deeply concern ourselves with a General Authorities' occasional misstatement (though again, it should be noted that Joseph Fielding Smith never identified his "moon" opinion as a revelation--just as an exegesis of his particular theological understanding--and he expressed it almost ten years prior to being called as Church President).

Even today Latter-day Saints are not immune from falling into errors regarding revelatory stewardship. After all, we firmly believe in revelation! Many of us have experienced it firsthand. Profound instances of direct spiritual guidance are such a commonality among faithful saints that it's hardly worth noting. We've seen it, heard it, and more often than not, personally experienced it. Perhaps precisely because of this commonality, certain Church members are easily deceived by charismatic fellow saints who profess revelations outside the established structure of the Restored Church.

So what should we think today if we hear of any individuals who routinely profess spiritual guidance regarding Book of Mormon geography? As I hope I have successfully reminded readers, the answer is simple. And thank goodness it is so simple! Just as with that kindly gentleman who professed inspiration for his book and video series promoting South America, such teachings should be dramatically and unequivocally rejected. And frankly, the same would be true even if such individuals professed divine guidance corresponding to today's most commonly supported model of Book of Mormon geography--that of Mesoamerica and the region of Tehuantepec. Only the Lord's established Prophet--who today is Thomas S. Monson--has the authority and stewardship to confirm any proposed model. And as of this date he has elected not to do so.

It may be that some of the books and videos of this kindly insurance salesman are still available in some LDS bookstores. However, for the most part his teachings and products appear to have fallen by the wayside. So now we must ask, have any other individuals appeared on the scene professing revelation or spiritual guidance concerning a particular Book of Mormon geographical model? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. And perhaps more unfortunately, such individuals appear to have a knack for marketing and promotion heretofore unknown among the annals of misguided Latter-day Saints.

The model that these individuals are promoting revolves around the Great Lakes region of the United States. Now, to be fair, this is not an unheard of model. It has been pursued and subjected to rigorous testing and speculation many times in the past. And frankly, it remains a fair avenue of pursuit for any disciplined and intelligent individual who pursues it. But the instant anyone begins to profess divine guidance in association with these perspectives, well then, as I have already said, the gig is up. Latter-day Saints can know with certainty that something very deceptive, and possibly dangerous, is afoot. And all Latter-day Saints who devote attention (and finances!) in support of such individuals do so at their own peril. What is particularly noteworthy to me is how brazen these individuals are when it comes to dismissing all of the work of dedicated researchers of the past fifty years in favor of their supposed quest to "re-establish...Joseph Smith as the preeminent scholar on the subject of Book of Mormon geography." This is despite the fact that Joseph Smith never revealed any definitive information on such a subject. (Curiously, I seem to recall that proponents of plural marriage have adopted a very similar stance, ignoring everything Church Presidents have said about plural marriage after Joseph Smith or John Taylor. See a familiar pattern?) For a full discussion of the particular concern that I am referring to, I offer the following link: Link

With regard to scholarship and the Book of Mormon the Lord appears to have given Latter-day Saints an extraordinary opportunity. Those of us who have already acquired a spiritual testimony of the Book of Mormon's divinity through traditional spiritual means (i.e. Mor 10: 3-5) are hereby invited to embark upon a unique and marvelous adventure. The benefits of pursuing this adventure are enormous. Those who embark will find themselves more deeply devoted, more educationally prepared, and more divinely uplifted than if they had never embarked upon the adventure in the first place.

The reality is, those of us who know the Book of Mormon is true must accept that it did, in fact, take place somewhere. So let the exploration continue! I firmly believe that this dedicated pursuit of knowledge is exactly the Lord's desire and intent for his children of the last days (note that this is my opinion, not a revelation). The benefit that I have personally received, and the appreciation for the Book of Mormon that I have gained, as a result of actively pursuing this inborn, innate, and very "human" curiousity can scarely be measured. And the thing is, I don't think I would have gained these benefits any other way. Now imagine what I personally would have lost--truly lost--if this information had been handed to me on a silver platter by a prophetic revelation. The search was the thing: the blessings acquired because of that search. In modern times the Lord has provided some incredible tools to aid in this exploration from the fields of archaeology, anthropology and a host of other sciences. If such tools exist in today's universe, why in blue blazes should any credible person allow them to be diminished or ignored?

Now I must confess, this adventure and exploration is not for everyone. Quite honestly, I think the majority of our Church members are perfectly satisfied and fulfilled by studying the pages of the Book of Mormon merely for spiritual guidance, doctrinal insight, and Godly comfort. But for those of us who "suffer" from an inborn curiousity regarding Book of Mormon scholarship, I heartily welcome you to join me in the adventure. But in so doing, remember these three simple rules: never sacrifice common sense, always allow your explorations to be circumscribed by your natural gifts of logic and intelligence (which should obviously allow for the litmus of the scientific method), and never allow yourself to be deceived by those pernicious wolves in sheep's clothing--particularly wolves whose opinions and perspectives are inseparably tied to streams of income. The Book of Mormon also clearly defines any intermarriage between "inspired" dogma and profitable earnings.

We call it Priestcraft. (See 2 Ne 26:29, Alma 1:16)

(Please note that this blog can be directly compared with a previous blog called "A Lost Generation of Scholarship." This previous blog has been extensively rewritten as a result of information that I received while lunching with a number of LDS Mesoamericanists over the past week. I invite those who have read it to study it again. http://frostcave.blogspot.com/2009/09/lost-generation-of-scholarship.html.)

(c) Copyright 2009, Chris Heimerdinger

The Family of Jesus Christ, Part Two

Again I pose the question: Why do we know so little about the family members of Jesus Christ? The four Gospels refer to them only rarely, and often with disdain, highlighting the concept that they did not seem to support or believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. However, a closer look would reveal that, even though they may not have completely understood the breadth and depth of their eldest Brother's mission as the Holy Messiah while He was in mortality (frankly, even the Savior's twelve Apostles are often described with the same lack of full comprehension) the family of Jesus eventually became some of His most passionate followers.

In modern times scholars have resurrected the age-old argument as to who succeeded Jesus in leading the early Church. Most Christian denominations (including Latter-day Saints) adamantly believe that Christ’s legitimate successor was Simon Peter. But a few decades after the death of Christ a bitter schism emerged, and numerous records begin to proclaim that the issue was not clear at all. Many apocryphal manuscripts and virtually all Gnostic texts state that James, the Lord’s half-brother, was His legitimate successor (see Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews, Protevangelium of James, and many others). Such a concept was espoused in particular by Jewish Christians in the late First century A.D., and included such sects as the Ebionites and Elkesaites, both of whom revered James while disdaining Paul because of Paul’s urging that members of the Church should jettison the belief that Gentile converts must adhere to Jewish law (see Gal. 2:11-14).

As apostles were killed and as the Church sank into apostasy, the question of succession became an increasingly critical issue and would decide ultimate hegemony among the cities of the Roman Empire wherever a Christian fellowship was established. Ultimately, this was a political issue, a power grab, and considering the dynamics at play, is it any surprise that overall authority fell to Christian leaders at Rome? Or that after Constantine’s death, and a subsequent division in the Empire in 337 A.D., that a new denomination of Christianity emerged in the Byzantine capital at Constantinople (modern Istanbul)? Today these denominations are known as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, but arguably they are not the earliest Christian denominations still practicing. Other denominations equally as old or older include the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Eritrean (Ethiopian) Orthodox Church, and the Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church. Additional denominations in Asia and Africa may also have roots back to apostolic times. (Note that the survival of these Churches to the present day may be due to their geographical isolation from the political influence of 4th century Rome.)

Almost from the beginning, the Christian Church was plagued by conflict and division. One claim that Christians in Judea appear to have put forward in their struggle to reassert hegemony was that before a man could become a Bishop he had to be “desposyni” (in Greek literally “belonging to the Lord”) meaning that any ordained Bishop had to be a literal blood descendant of Jesus Christ (or one of His close relatives). In a meeting purported to have taken place between Pope Sylvester I and an envoy from Jerusalem in 318 AD, Jewish Christians are said to have demanded that Gregory recall unduly ordained Bishops from numerous cities around the Mediterranean and replace them with desposyni or official relatives of Jesus who Jewish Christians claimed had been specially designated to sit in governance of all churches in the Hellenized world from the earliest days of Christianity. These Jewish Christians also demanded that the practice of sending offerings or cash to Jerusalem as the “mother church” should again be resumed, inferring that, at an earlier time, this was precisely where all tithes were sent (Martin, Malachi, Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, Putnam, New York, 1981).

Latter-day Saints may recognize this belief as the principle heresy that lead to the most dramatic schism in the early Restored Church. Many of those who refused to follow Brigham Young came to believe that any prophet who succeeded Joseph Smith had to be Joseph’s literal blood descendant, and for more than a century this was a guiding tenet in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (known today as the Community of Christ).

If indeed this teaching became prevalent among Jewish Christians of the post-apostolic era, it is not clear how it came to be so rigidly practiced. The root of it may have been based upon legitimate doctrine, as suggested by D&C 68:16-21, but the firm application of such an impractical rule in a Church that was rapidly expanding with gentile converts must be considered evidence of an emerging or fully ripened apostasy among the Christians of Judea.

In any case, it was a source of serious contention for the pro-Paul Christians of Rome during a time when Rome was attempting to consolidate power. Possibly it is precisely because this power struggle was dominated by Pauline Christian leaders that one must search diligently for any positive mention of the Savior’s family in the four extant gospels. In several of these Gospels, particularly in the testimony of Mark, the Savior’s family is treated with apparent disdain, and those closest to Jesus—-his direct family and neighbors—-are readily dismissed as non-believers and thorns in the Savior’s side (see Mark 3: 20-35 and Mark 6:1-6). Many scholars have concluded that Mark was the first widely distributed gospel and that it has a significantly pro-gentile agenda (Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, World Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34, Dallas: Word Books, 1989, 168). The same concepts dramatized in Mark 3: 20-35 and Mark 6:1-6 are also found in Matt 12:46-50 and Matt 13:54-58, and in Luke 8:19-21 and Luke 4:22-24, but the controversy with the Savior’s family are discussed in much softer and less condemnatory language. So why would Mark represent Christ’s kin in such a negative light? Some scholars conclude that Mark (or later scribes and copyists of Mark) had the subtle objective of casting a negative shadow on the desposyni, perhaps undermining persistent voices of hegemonic dissent coming out of Jerusalem. (Bütz, Jeffery, The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity, Inner Traditions Publishing, 2005, 31-32.)

We find in the three synoptic Gospels (a term commonly applied to Matthew, Mark and Luke) little evidence that the family of Jesus supported Jesus during His mortal ministry. Only in the Gospel of John do we get the impression that Jesus’ brothers and family were an essential part of His following (see John 2:1-2). Even in John 7:1-5, wherein John recounts an episode of conflict with Jesus’ brethren, and where he states that His brothers “did not believe in him,” it becomes clear that His siblings were nevertheless regular members of His company of disciples. Keep in mind that an apparent dominating theme in John’s gospel is that everybody, including His apostles (and particularly Peter), misunderstood Jesus and His messianic mission until after the resurrection. So rather than condemning His family, John seems to suggest that His family was intimately involved with His ministry. Furthermore, he implies that His brethren were deeply concerned with Jesus’ conduct and public image, even if these concerns were at times misdirected and overreaching.

However, as previously stated, one must “read between the lines” to affirm that Jesus’ family played a supportive role in His ministry and that they became a positive force in the early Church. Whether there was a deliberate effort to mute or negate the involvement of the desposyni in the canonical record is a matter of conjecture. But in case the Savior’s devotion to his family is ever doubted, we should remind ourselves that Paul references an entirely separate and unique appearance of the resurrected Jesus to His brother, James, in one of his epistles (1 Cor. 15:5-7). This appearance is not mentioned in any of the gospels. Such a private visitation suggests that Jesus felt a deep and abiding connection to the eldest of his younger half-brothers—-and perhaps to all of His siblings. The attention James received is curiously poignant and causes a reader to yearn for greater detail regarding all the members of Jesus’ family. (This desire is one of the forces driving my lastest Tennis Shoes novel.) But in no way does it presume that James or Jude or any other desposyni should be esteemed with greater significance than other Church leaders in ancient times or, for that matter, in any dispensation.

In modern times, the notion of invalidating the authority of Peter and exalting that of James, the brother of the Lord, is very much in vogue, as evidenced by such works as The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer, James, the Brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenman, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition by John Painter, The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity by Jeffrey Bütz, and even best-selling novels like The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. Some of this shift is inspired by a general disdain for Christianity and a specific disdain for Christianity’s oldest denominations. After all, if Christianity’s most established institutions got it wrong, perhaps the whole theology can be disregarded.

However, the entirety of the controversy stems from a basic misinterpretation or misunderstanding of true Christian hierarchy as revealed by modern prophets, and serves as yet a further reminder that without the blessing of new revelation, the ancient word of God can be suited to fit whatever pet cause or belief system someone might espouse.

(c) Copyright 2009, Chris Heimerdinger

The Family of Jesus Christ, Part One

We all know that Jesus Christ is our spiritual "big brother" as the firstborn of our Father in Heaven. But what would it have been like to have had Him as a big brother in mortality? What might we have observed during those 30 years before our big brother took upon Himself the mantle of His Messiahship and began His three-year ministry? What memories would we have of Him as an older brother? As an example? as someone who worked side by side with us in doing chores? or hunting game? or playing games? What anecdotes might we be able to tell of extraordinary things that He might have done? Would He have performed miracles? Would He have stayed up late with us teaching the scriptures or other spiritual lessons? Obviously He would have taught some exceptional Family Home Evening lessons.

Well, the fact is, even though we hardly ever think of it, there were, in fact, as many as seven or eight people born into this life who could claim the honor of having Jesus Christ as an older brother. And yet we know very, very little about any of these siblings.

The scriptures do make it clear that Jesus of Nazareth had siblings. Four of these brothers are mentioned by name in at least two of the four Gospels. Their names are James (English form of the Hebrew Jacob or Ya’akov), Joses (modified from the Hebrew Joseph or Yosef), Simon (Shimon in Hebrew or Symeon in Aramaic), and Judas (Yehudah in Hebrew, shortened by King James translators as Jude, probably to keep from being confused with so many other significant New Testament figures also named Judah or Judas) (see Matt. 13:55, Mark 6:3). An assumption is made that the names of these brothers are offered in order from oldest to youngest. But if this is the case then Matthew and Mark seem to disagree whether Simon or Juda(s) was youngest. It’s even possible that the last two brothers are twins.

Matt. 13:56 also makes it clear that Jesus had sisters (plural). The number of sisters is not specified, but the Greek text makes it clear that there were more than two (See Bible Dictionary: Brethren of the Lord). Although no names are provided in the scriptures, post-canonical sources have named at least three of these sisters: Mary, Anna, and Salome (Pan. 78:8:1; 78:9:6; cf. Ancoratus 60:1). Such sources may be several centuries removed from the time of Christ, but they appear to be based upon earlier sources no longer extant, leaving no particular reason to doubt their accuracy.

Controversy has existed for millennia regarding Jesus’ siblings. Although the context of the various references in the New Testament seems to reinforce that Mary and Joseph had children together after the birth of Jesus, such a notion is strongly refuted by Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and other longstanding Christian traditions. These traditions generally reverence the mother of Jesus as deity and/or as a perpetual virgin. Obviously, if Mary had additional children, it undermines many theological tenets of several major denominations, such as celibacy for clergy. Elder James Talmage in the notes of Chapter 18 of Jesus the Christ briefly summarizes the three alternate “theories” explaining these supposed “brethren” or siblings of Jesus. One prevalent hypothesis is that the siblings of Jesus were the children of Joseph from a former wife (Ephiphanian theory). Another is that such children were adopted by Joseph and Mary after the death of one of Joseph’s brothers (Levirate theory). The last is that such “brethren” were not siblings at all, but cousins (Hieronymian theory). These alternate explanations appear to ignore or dilute the point of the actual lesson being presented in the scriptural accounts. They also wrest the meaning behind the common appellation of Jesus as the “firstborn son” of Mary (which presupposes that she gave birth to more than one (see Matt 1:25, Luke 2:7)). The theory espoused by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and eventually accepted by most other Protestant denominations, is that Jesus was the eldest half-sibling of a large and bustling family belonging to Mary and Joseph, and is known as the Helvidian view.

Jesus Christ apparently had a very large family that included siblings, aunts, uncles, and a myriad of cousins—-as well as other integral kinship ties with Judean or Galilean Christians. This fact is deemed important here because of the blatant lack of focus it has received from most other fictional and/or historical accounts. In short, nobody talks about this subject! So many representations neglect the impact such a reality would have had upon the Savior’s life and ministry. Most know, for example, that John the Baptist was related to Jesus through Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth (Luke 1:34-37). But lesser known is that James and John, the brothers of the original First Presidency, were also Jesus’ cousins through Mary’s sister, Salome, wife of Zebedee (see Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, Matt. 4:21). Yup, that’s right. The original members of the First Presidency were all cousins and kinsmen. Add to this the fact that every apostle except Judas Iscariot was also from Galilee and we may find that there were blood ties that existed between practially every one in Jesus' closest circles of followers. We know, for example, that Peter and Andrew were brothers, and also that the Savior’s brother, James, became the first recorded Bishop of Jerusalem, and that after James’ martyrdom this position was inherited by another cousin of Jesus named Symeon Cleophas (father of the character Mary in the Tennis Shoes Adventure Series). So if all this is true, how is it that so much knowledge regarding the family of Jesus Christ has escaped the annals of history?

Even as late as the 140s A.D. a great, great grandson of the Lord’s brother, Jude, is said to have been Bishop of Jerusalem (Epiphanius, Panarion). A full century after that, a Christian writer named Julius Africanus reports that descendants of Jesus were still traveling about, doing missionary work from their bases in Nazareth and Kokhaba in Galilee, and tracing their genealogy back to the Savior as part of their testimony and teachings (Eusebius, HE 1:7:14). All in all, the early Church in Jerusalem appears to have been dominated by a select number of Galilean kinships, if not by direct relatives of Jesus Himself.

Although this fact is acknowledged by most modern historians and scholars, it has been overwhelmingly ignored by Christians in general for almost two millennia. There may be a very good reason why this information has been suppressed or forgotten, and it relates to issues that Latter-day Saints have been particularly sensitive about ever since the death of Joseph Smith—namely nepotism and Priesthood succession.

But I'm going to leave that discussion for a later post. Stay tuned.....

(c) Copyright 2009, Chris Heimerdinger