2009 Niblets Awards--Vote Now!

The 2009 Niblets Awards (hosted by Mormon Matters) nominated this blog for "Best New Blog" and "Best Historical Post". If this blog is to win, your help is needed. Voting should only take a couple minutes. Vote for Cultural Mormon Cafeteria and all of your wildest dreams will come true!

Alma Matter--Does the Name Verify or Disprove the Book of Mormon's Authenticity?

In my previous post on the topic of "Virginal Conception", readers may have noticed that the Hebrew word "alma" pertains to a young woman of marriageable age. Some critics have taken issue with this feminine word being used as a masculine name in the Book of Mormon, insisting that this discredits the scripture's historical claims. Many Mormon apologists/scholars have rebutted this accusation, even asserting that this name actually validates the Book of Mormon's authenticity. Says one apologist:

The name “Alma” must be the most amusing evidence on Book of Mormon names that we have. As Hugh Nibley has pointed out, “Roman priests have found in this obviously Latin and obviously feminine name--(who does not know that Alma Mater means "fostering mother"?)--gratifying evidence of the ignorance and naiveté of the youthful Joseph Smith--how could he have been simple enough to let such a thing get by?” Surprisingly enough, for some of us, Alma has been attested to as a male Hebrew name in a number of ancient inscriptions. In the now infamous Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblical scholar Yigael Yadin discovered an inscription that he translated as Alma ben Yehuda, or “Alma son of Judah.” In another find, on clay tablets from Tell Mardikh (in northwestern Syria) we find eight different references to the personal name al6-ma on six tablets, referring to merchants who by and large were male in that period of time. The Semitic nature of this name, a variation of Akkadian, gives us great evidence of the presence of the Hebrew, male name of Alma both predating and postdating Lehi’s journey from Jerusalem. http://www.angelfire.com/az3/LDC/amww.htm#_Toc531697936

Although I concur that the findings noted above effectively rebut the assertion challenging the Book of Mormon's authenticity... I disagree that the findings should count as evidence confirming the Book of Mormon's historical claims. Why? Because Alma was also used as a masculine name in late 18th to early 19th century America, before the Book of Mormon was published. Having spent a mere hour plugging in various surnames into the genealogical database at familysearch.org, I gathered the following forty-seven examples:

1. Alma SMITH - Ancestral FileGender: M Birth; Married to Sarah Gates, 8 Jan 1789. Presbyterian Chk, Ballston Center, Saratoga, N Y
2. Alma A. Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 1823 , Tuscaloosa, Alabama
3. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: About 1811 Of, Providence, Rhode Island
4. Alma Smith - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 30 NOV 1800 Shoreham, Addison, Vermont
5. Alma C. SMITH - 1880 United States Census / MinnesotaSelf Gender: Male Birth: 1814 VT
6. Alma E. L. SMITH - 1880 United States Census / IndianaSelf Gender: Male Birth: 1820 IN
7. Alma [chase] - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: About 1793 Stephenstown, , Sullivan, New York
8. ALMA F. CHASE - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 10 OCT 1822 Standish, Cumberland, Maine
9. Alma RICHARDS - Ancestral FileGender: M Birth/Christening: Sep 1780 Of, Hartford, Hartford, Conn.
10. ALMA CAPRON - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 18 JAN 1793 East Greenwich, Kent, Rhode Island
11. Alma Harris - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: About 1803 Of, Albion, Orleans, New York
12. Alma L. HANSON - 1880 United States Census / MaineSelf Gender: Male Birth: [1819] ME
13. Alma [cowdery] - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 12 AUG 1805 Hartland, Hartford, Connecticut
14. Alma Spalding - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 1790 Sheffield, Massachusetts
15. Alma Spalding - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 20 FEB 1796 , Connecticut
16. Alma Spalding - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 27 FEB 1796 New Marlboro, Berkshire, Massachusetts
17. Alma Otis Johnson - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Other: About 1787 Of, Leyden Twp, Lewis, New York
18. Alma Johnson - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: About 1792 Of Middletown, Connecticut
19. Alma Scott - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 25 APR 1792, Northampton, North Carolina
20. Alma R. SCOTT - Ancestral FileGender: M Birth/Christening: 4 Sep 1822 Fairfax, Franklin, Vermont
21. ALMA SCOTT - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 09 AUG 1786 Cornwall, Addison, Vermont
22. Alma Phelps - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 21 JUN 1814 Smithfield, Fayette, Pennsylvania
23. Almus ANDERSON - 1880 United States Census / MassachusettsSelf Gender: Male Birth: [1824] MA
24. Alma White - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 18 JUL 1797 Upper, Middletown, Middlesex, Connecticut
25. Alma [wait] - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: About 1816 Of, Massachusetts
26. Alma Lee - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 19 SEP 1810 Of, Washington Twp, Dutchess, New York
27. Alma Clark - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 1795 Lee, Berkshire, Massachusetts
28. Alma Clark - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 03 OCT 1797 Lebanon, New London, Connecticut
29. Alma Clark - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 18 APR 1824 Of, Dunkirk, Chautauqua, New York
30. Alma J. Clark - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 1825 , Missouri
31. Alma STARK - 1880 United States Census / OhioFatherL Gender: Male Birth: [1798] PA
32. ALMA LYON - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 07 JUL 1794 Of, Weston, Fairfield, Connecticut
33. Alma Ann [lane] - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 05 MAY 1820 Billerica, Maine
34. Alma Roberts - Pedigree Resource FileGender: M Birth/Christening: abt 1817 Pittsford, Rutland, Vermont
35. Alma Young - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: Jackson, Alabama
36. ALMA CROSS - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 10 JAN 1790 Newton, Middlesex, Massachusetts
37. Alma Taylor - Pedigree Resource FileGender: M Birth/Christening: 13 May 1769 York, SC
38. Alma Tyler - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 16 MAR 1812 Bradford, Essex, Massachusetts
39. Alma Ticknor Pease - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 28 JUL 1802 Of, Canaan, Columbia, New York
40. Alma Coe Lyman - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 26 MAR 1786 Of, Middlefield, Middlesex, Connecticut
41. Alma Browne - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: About 1796 Of, Greene, New York
42. ALMA BROWN - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 1821 Peacham, Caledonia, Vermont
43. Alma - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 08 SEP 1780 Fitzwilliam, Cheshire, New Hampshire
44. Alma Grant - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 1812 Lake Geneva, Walworth, Wisconsin
45. Alma [thompson] - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 27 MAY 1802 Of, Charlton, Worcester, Massachusetts
46. Alma Thompson - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: About 1807 Of, , Caledonia, Vermont
47. Alma Thompson - International Genealogical Index / NAGender: Male Birth: 1822 Grantsville, , Washington, New York


Does the name Alma disprove the Book of Mormon's authenticity? No. But the name doesn't verify its authenticity either.

Announcement

John Whitmer Books and I have negotiated a contract for a book deal. If you haven't already, subscribe to this blog, and you will be among the first to know when the book is available.




John Hamer's (President of the John Whitmer Historical Association) commentary: "I can tell you, we're very excited about this book. Mike's solid, original research overturns a lot of conventional wisdom about a topic that is absolutely fascinating.... I think this is a book a lot of folks will be interested in reading."

Hieros Gamos

The Problem of Virginal Conception[1]

In reaction to dogmatic online criticisms I've read against the LDS Church this week, I decided to post this short paper (with revisions) that I wrote several years ago.

[S]ince Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with Jesus, and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danae, and Melanippe, and Auge, and Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, and not one who is writing in serious tone.[2]

Many early Christians rejected the parallels non-believers drew between the Christian Nativity and paganism. While defending the event as unique and true, believers (like Origen quoted above) at times attacked the critics personally, declaring them unintelligent or insincere. Other Christians admitted that parallels indeed existed, but then asserted that the pagan similarities were the mere work of the devil. Justin the Martyr wrote, “when I hear… that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this.”[3]

Although today’s Christian scholars may not assert that pagan similarities came by way of demonic influence, most (it would seem) maintain that their Gospel is unique and distinct from paganism. Biblical scholar Raymond Brown argues that one should not draw parallels between the virginal conception and pagan myths (whether Egyptian, Greek, or Roman), since unlike the conception of Jesus, sexual intercourse is presupposed in pagan mythology. “These ‘parallels’ consistently involve a type of hieros gamos where a divine male, in human or other form, impregnates a woman, either through normal sexual intercourse or through some substitute form of penetration,” says Brown. “[T]here is no clear example of virginal conception in the world of pagan religions that plausibly could have given first-century Jewish Christians the idea of the virginal conception of Jesus.”[4] Thomas Boslooper likewise insists that the “The Christian formula is unique. The idea which it contains—divine conception and human birth without anthropomorphism, sensuality, or suggestion of any moral irregularity—is to be found nowhere in the literature in the world outside the canonical biblical narratives.”[5] “The story is not depicted as pagan stories,” agrees Ben Witherington III, “where a god mates with a human woman, for there is no mating involved. Jesus is a gift given to Mary through a miracle [virginal conception].”[6]

The apologetic that Christian scholars like Brown, Boslooper, and Witherington make to disassociate Christianity from paganism, is grounded upon the same un-established premise. At risk of being called insincere, a buffoon, or an agent of Satan, I argue that it is not an established fact that the New Testament teaches virginal conception.[7]

Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke give an account of the conception and birth of Jesus. Matthew begins with angel Gabriel appearing to Joseph in a dream, after he had discovered that Mary (to whom he was betrothed) was pregnant. The angel tells Joseph, “[D]o not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”[8] The author of Matthew then explains, quoting LXX (Greek Septuagint) Isaiah 7:14, “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’—which means, ‘God with us.’”[9]

Some scholars have argued that the idea of virginal conception came about due to this Septuagint [mis]translation of Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word almah, which simply refers to a “young woman of marriageable age,” is translated into the Greek as parthenos. And since (so it is assumed) parthenos, unlike the Hebrew almah, specifically refers to virginity, it is concluded that Greek-speaking Christians must’ve derived the concept of virginal conception from this inaccurate translation. This assertion, however, is problematic for two reasons. 1) If the Greek rendering of Isaiah 7:14 indeed spoke of virginity, then we should expect to find the interpretation among Greek-speaking Jews. Such an interpretation of this passage, however, cannot be found. Raymond Brown makes this point forcefully:

Many scholars, although they know that Isaiah did not speak of a virginal conception, think that his prophecy was thus interpreted by Greek-speaking Jews (LXX of Isa 7:14) and that this explains why Hellenistic Jewish Christians phrased their ideas about the origins of God’s Son in terms of a virginal conception. But… there is no reason to believe that the LXX of Isa 7:14 either referred to a virginal conception or was so interpreted by Jews.[10]

2) Parthenos does not exclusively refer to virgins, but rather is a term even applied to rape victims. We read in LXX Genesis 34:1-4 of Shechem raping Dinah, who later told his father that he wanted the parthenos for his wife. Biblical scholar Charles D. Isbell explains, “there is simply no single word [whether almah, bethulah, neanis, or parthenos] in the language of the ancient Near East which carries in and of itself the idea of virgo intacta.”[11] There is, however, a phrase that can carry the idea. This leads us to considering the Nativity as portrayed in the Gospel of Luke.

The young woman (parthenos) Mary is informed by the angel Gabriel, “[T]hou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest.”[12] Mary, seemingly confused by the news, responds, “How can this be, seeing I know not a man?”[13] This phrase indicates virginity, since “know” is a euphemism for sexual intercourse.[14] Mary’s response, “I know not a man,” therefore is “the exact semantic equivalent to our English word ‘virgin.’”[15] Charles Isbell believes that Luke uses this phrase specifically to present virginal conception. “Luke is at pains to present a virgin birth doctrine,” says Isbell. “Luke relies upon specific, technical legal terminology which no one could misunderstand and which writers in the ancient world had been using in the same way for hundreds of years before this time.”[16]

Here is where Isbell and I may slightly disagree. Although I concur that Luke intends to present Mary as a virgin prior to the conception, the narrative does not say whether she remained one during and after the conception. Mary’s virginal declaration (that she had not known a man) was made prior to the event ever taking place.

There is an alternative way for translating this passage, which may shed further light on Mary’s question. Biblical scholar Jane Schaberg has translated it as, “How will [estai] this be, since I have not had sexual relations with my husband [andra]?”[17] Shcaberg prefers this translation because “it does not prejudice the reader to think immediately of an event that is considered physically impossible.” She further translates andra to “husband” (instead of “any man”) to alert the reader “to the possibility that the conception will be by someone other than Mary’s husband.”[18] Although Schaberg contends that the conception occurred through rape or seduction by another (mortal) man, the translation she gives could likewise be used to substantiate the possible scenario of Mary being impregnated sexually by deity (hieros gamos).

The angel responds to Mary’s question, saying, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”[19] Raymond Brown believes this passage—and others like it in Matthew—compellingly present virginal conception. “[T]he human difficulty of the virginity of Mary must be overcome by divine power in the conception of Jesus. It was creatively overcome without loss of virginity through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.”[20] “The Holy Spirit,” he says, “is the agency of God’s creative power, not a male partner in a marriage between a deity and a woman (hieros gamos).”[21] Brown remarks again, “[T]he begetting is not quasi-sexual as if God takes the place of a male principle in mating with Mary.”[22]

With these statements Brown undermines a minority view held by some, that the angel’s declaration (the Holy Spirit would come upon her, and that she’d be overshadowed by the power of the Most High[23]) carries sexual connotation.[24] Such a view was promoted by the Spanish Post-Reformation Cardinal Toletus, and the modern scholar D. Daube, who believed the phrases allude to “a rabbinic debate over Ruth 3:9 where Ruth presents herself at night to Boaz as his handmaid (cf. Luke 1:38) and asks him to spread (periballein) his mantle over her.”[25] But even if Brown is indeed correct in his judgment for rejecting this minority view (which I am convinced remains unsettled),[26] his contention that the mere involvement of the Holy Spirit indicates non-sexual conception is weak. David T. Landry explains:

The angel’s response to Mary’s objection does not provide clear guidance in this matter [of virginity], since it contains its own ambiguity…. Thus the angel’s words mention divine agency, but certainly they do not rule out the possibility that Mary will subsequently conceive a child in the normal human fashion (i.e. with a male partner [or even God himself]) with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The combination of the oddity of Mary’s words and ambiguity of the angel’s response seem to place the virginal conception in some jeopardy.[27]

The doctrine of virginal conception remains an open question in the New Testament. Since the narratives do not rule out the possibility for sexual conception, there is little (or no) scriptural basis for distinguishing the Nativity from pagan mythology.[28]


_____________

[1] Virgin birth is a phrase that is often used by Catholics and Protestants in different ways. While most Protestants use it in reference to Mary’s virginal status from the conception of Jesus to his birth, Catholics additionally use it to include their belief of Mary’s perpetual virginity after birth. I am instead using the phrase virginal conception to only refer to the common Christian view that Jesus was conceived through non-sexual and entirely supernatural means.
[2] Origen Against Celsus, Ch 37; as found in software The Complete Christian Collection (Packard Technologies, 1999).
[3] Dialogue of Justin, ch. 70; as found in software The Complete Christian Collection.
[4] Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1979), 523 fn 17.
[5] Thomas Boslooper, “Jesus’ Virgin Birth and Non-Christian ‘Parallels,’” Religion and Life (Winter, 1956-57) Vol. XXVI:1, p. 96.
[6] Ben Witherington III, The New Testament Story (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004), 189.
[7] Much like Origen’s insult to Celsus, Boslooper gives the jabbing remark: “None of these ideas are at all comparable to the biblical formula. No one who is interested in scientific objectivity would call them similar.” Thomas Boslooper, 95.
[8] Matt 1:21.
[9] v. 22-23.
[10] Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of The Messiah, 523-24; See also 145-49. Justin the Martyr makes note of the seemingly common Jewish interpretation of the passage, “But you [Jews] and our teachers venture to claim that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, ‘Behold, the virgin will conceive,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman will conceive, and bear a son.’” Ireneas similarly records, “The Lord Himself did save us, giving us the token of the virgin. But this was not as some allege—who presume to expound the Scripture as: ‘Behold, a young woman will conceive, and bring forth a son.’ For this as Theodotion the Ephesian has translated it, and Aquila of Pontus—both of whom are Jewish proselytes.” Tertullian notes the same: “You [the Jews] have the audacity to lie, as if the Scriptures actually said ‘a young female’ was to conceive and bring forth, rather than ‘a virgin.’”
[11] Charles D. Isbell, “Does the Gospel of Matthew Proclaim Mary’s Virginity?” Biblical Archeological Review (1977), 3:2.
[12] Luke 1:31-32.
[13] Luke 1:34.
[14] We likewise read in Matt 1:25 that Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” Such a statement, however, is not a denial that deity “knew her.”
[15] Charles Isbell, 30:2.
[16] Ibid.
[17] David T. Landry, Narrative Logic in the Annunciation of Mary (Luke 1:26-38), http://personal1.stthomas.edu/dtlandry/mary.html (accessed 25 December 2009).
[18] Ibid.
[19] Luke 1:35.
[20] Raymond Brown, 301.
[21] Ibid., 137.
[22] Ibid, 314.
[23] As well as Mary’s statement that the Lord had “done great things unto [her].” Luke 1:49.
[24] Barbara G. Walker writes, “Mary’s impregnation was similar to Persephone’s. In her Virgin guise, Persephone sat in a holy cave and began to weave the great tapestry of the universe, when Zeus appeared as a phallic serpent, to beget the savior Dionsus on her. Mary sat in the temple and began to spin a blood-red thread, representing Life in the tapestry of fate, when the angel Gabriel ‘came in unto her’ (Luke 1:28), the biblical phrase for sexual intercourse. Gabriel’s name means literally ‘divine husband.’” Barbara G. Walker, The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983), 1049.
[25] Raymond Brown, 290 fn 35.
[26] Joseph Fitzmyer uses rather strong language, supporting the view that both he and Brown share: “There is not the slightest evidence that either of the verbs involved has ever been used in relation to sexual activity or even more broadly in connection with the conception of a child.” As quoted by David T. Landry.
[27] Ibid. Bracketed words added by me.
[28] Bart D. Ehrman wrote, “It may be that he [Luke in particular] has modeled his portrayal of Jesus for these converts from other Greco-Roman religions. He presents the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader who was conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.” A Brief Introduction to the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 104.

Merry Xmas--'Tis the season to take offence?

Christmas card from David O. McKay to President Joseph F. Smith’s family, wishing them a “Merry Xmas.”

Among the several responses my recent blog post received (most of which appeared on message boards) was the following remark coming from an active Latter-day Saint: “The one thing that bugs me is people writing Xmas instead of Christmas. To me that takes Christ out of Christmas."

Sadly, the assertion echoes an attitude not all that uncommon in the LDS Church; thanks in part to the influence of Apostle Boyd K. Packer, who had expressed the same offense in a speech delivered to Brigham Young University students: “I shudder when I see the sign that says 'Merry Xmas.' It is symbolic, I suppose, of what has been done in an effort to cross Christ out of Christmas.” BYU Speeches of the Year, 1962 (delivered 19 December 1962), p. 4.

Although such claims have been debunked time and time again, every year the controversy still manages to rear its ignoramus head.

Happy Holy Days--‘Tis the season to take offence?

Last week I made the “mistake” of telling an elderly woman leaving my place of employment, “Thanks for coming in. Happy Holidays.”

She quickly shot back, “No, it is Merry Christmas!”

“Yes mam. Merry Christmas, and have a Happy New Year,” I replied, hoping she would understand that I wasn’t excluding Christmas with the phrase, but rather was including other holidays along with it.

She reacted more frustrated than ever, shaking her head and finger (in unison, in fact), “This is about religious freedom... This is about freedom of speech... your employer has no right to tell you what to say,” yadda, yadda, yadda.

I thought, “Religion? I am agnostic. Freedom of speech? That’s ironic. Isn’t it YOU who is telling me what to say?”

But I bit my tongue.

“I’m sorry, mam. No... They didn’t tell me what to say. Merry Christmas.”

The woman’s friend (obviously embarrassed by the scene she was making) gave a disapproving nudge, and they finally made their way to the door. Just before their exit, the lady (who had previously taken offence) turned around, smiled and said, “Thank you for saying ‘Merry Christmas.’”

She left satisfied--at the expense of me feeling bullied and anything but the Christmas spirit.

Later I realized that my company’s policy actually is for their employees to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.”

Sigh...

To avoid future confrontation at my place of work, I will therefore opt to say neither. For the rest of the year I will instead be telling people, “Have a great day/good night” or “Enjoy the rest of your weekend.”

Are we all happy now?

Brigham Young's Masonic Cipher

The following[1] entry is given in Brigham Young's diary, dated January 6th, 1842:

The characters Brigham Young used in his encrypted text are similar to this[2] Royal Arch cipher recorded in Oliver Huntington’s journal two years later, January 21, 1844:

Ciphers like this were published and circulated widely in anti-Masonic exposes in Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s day. The possible relationship between Brigham Young’s cipher and Royal Arch freemasonry is of particular interest, as it provides additional evidence to confirm that the Saints indeed had access to secrets of Royal Arch freemasonry before Joseph Smith was formally initiated (on March 15, 1842), and before the Nauvoo endowment was introduced shortly thereafter (May 4, 1842).[3]

I mentioned Brigham Young’s encrypted journal entry online recently, identifying the cipher with Royal Arch freemasonry. But to my surprise, one LDS apologist (writing under an anonymous pseudonym and claiming to be Mason) denied that the cipher Young employed was even a Royal Arch cipher at all:

Folks, this is NOT the Royal Arch cipher--no matter who says it is. There are no closed triangles in the Royal Arch cipher used all over America and most of England (only one Chapter in England of which I am aware ever used closed triangles, and that was Friendship Chapter, R.A.M., in 1769, but even these differed from what is in the above scan of the journal), nor are there intersected characters such as like a ┴ symbol therein in the Royal Arch cipher. It may be based upon a Royal Arch cipher but it is more likely based upon a similar form of cipher upon which Royal Arch cipher is derived, having a common but divergent source. Even the Royal Arch cipher is said to be based upon a previously existing cipher scheme. [4]

I asked the apologist to substantiate his claim that the cipher was “more likely based upon a similar form of cipher upon which Royal Arch cipher is derived, having a common but divergent source.” He then quoted historian Arturo de Hoyos:

The Royal Arch cipher used in the United States is actually a variation of a Hebrew Qabalistic cipher known as aiq beker or "the Qabalah of Nine Chambers." {24}

*****

{fn. 24} Compare Francis Barrett, The Magus, or Celestial Intelligencer (London: Lackington, Allen and Co., 1801), 2:65 (illus. fac. p. 66); E.A.W. Budge, Amulets and Superstitions (London: Oxford University Press, 1930), pp. 402-405; S.L. MacGregor Mathers, The Kabbalah Unvailed (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1926), p. 10. As an amusing side-note, I add that while writing the first version of this paper (1992) my then nine-year-old son presented me a message in the R.A. cipher which he hoped would confound me. When I asked him for the source he retrieved A Big Color Activity Book: Nintendo Super Mario Bros. (Racine, Wisconsin: Western Publishing Co., 1989), p. 42. So much for Masonic secrecy! [5]

As will later be seen, the apologist’s use of Arturo de Hoyos as an authority on the matter ended up biting him in the end.

He additionally posted an image of a source that Arturo de Hoyos had cited—a page found in Francis Barrett’s The Magus (1801):

He neglected to explain, however, exactly how Arturo de Hoyos’s commentary (which said nothing about Brigham Young, or his journal entry) confirmed that the cipher Young employed was “more likely based upon a similar form of cipher upon which Royal Arch cipher is derived, having a common but divergent source.” He remained convinced that the ┴ illustrated on Barrett’s page was beyond coincidence (although triangles were entirely missing in the illustration). “The ┴ character most certainly came from the Qabalistic cipher,” insisted the apologist.

Being intreagued by this apologetic, I decided to further research Brigham Young’s cipher. As luck would have it, Arturo de Hoyos was the first scholar to have translated Young’s journal entry. De Hoyos decoded the entry as follows:

I WAS TAKEN INTO THE LODGE

J SMITH W[eded]A[nd]S[ealed] AGNESS[6]

I spent about an hour, toying around with the entry and translation. My hypotheses being: 1) the inverted "T" figures were just that—inverted T's; 2) the triangles were actually the V-shaped characters (having the third line drawn to make them complete triangles). I then drew the template for the Royal Arch cipher key, and compared Arturo de Hoyos' translation to the characters in Brigham Young's journal entry, to see where they fell (plugging in my results, later filling in missing letters not found in the journal entry). My hoped for result: that the letters would appear on the grid in an alphabetical order, and therefore show (at least) a dependence on the Royal Arch cipher.

The results[7] of my experiment:

As one can see, the cipher characters for letters A-R are identical to the Royal Arch cipher transcribed by Oliver Huntington two years later

The S-Z portion of the key:

1) letter "T" was removed from the sequence and simply inverted
2) the V-shaped characters are completed as triangles
3) the triangles were reversed (pointing in opposite directions)

It is also notable that Brigham Young made a few careless errors while encrypting his journal entry: He correctly encrypted the "H" when writing "SMITH", but messed up when writing "THE". He correctly encrypted the "S" when writing "SMITH", "WAS", and "WAS" (a second time as an acronym for "WEDDED AND SEALED"), but then messed up when writing "AGNESS". He messed up both of the times that he encrypted "O"; when writing "INTO" and "LODGE".

The journal entry had five errors out of thirty-six characters—92.8% correct. This percentage is comparable to an encrypted text found on this[8] Royal Arch medal:

Five errors out of forty-one characters—only 91.8% correct. Adding or omitting dots in the characters, or reversing the their orientation, were very common errors to make. Brigham Young was of no exception.

One can see that this Royal Arch cipher key above is slightly different than the one Oliver Huntington recorded in his diary. As it turns out, several (if not countless) versions of the Royal Arch cipher exist—a fact that severely undermines the apologist’s argument, which assumed that Brigham Young’s cipher wasn’t a “Royal Arch” cipher at all, simply because it was different from the one he (the apologist) was most familiar with.

Although other forms of the Royal Arch cipher can be listed here, I will instead share an email[9] that I received from Arturo de Hoyos, the historian that the apologist relied upon to challenge my initial claim (posted with permission):

Mike,

Yes, I am the person who first decoded Brigham Young's January 6, 1842 journal entry. It was indeed written in a form of the Royal Arch cipher. However, there are many permutations of this substitution cipher. The letters may be placed in almost order in order to make it more secure. I believe that Brigham rearranged the letters for this very reason.

The Masonic exposures of the Morgan episode merely revealed the *simplest* and *most common* forms. You note that you have been unable to find a form with all the symbols used. Subsequent to decoding the diary entry I have seen manuscripts which employ all the symbols Brigham used. It is, in essence, quite unsophisticated.

I'm happy that you've enjoyed "Committed to the Flames." It was a fun project.

Regards,

Arturo de Hoyos, 33°, Grand Cross, KYCH
Grand Archivist and Grand Historian
Supreme Council, 33°, Southern Jurisdiction, U.S.A.

Oddly enough... even after I presented this information, the apologist continues to insist that he is right. Go figure.

___________________

[1] Image from http://www.masonicmoroni.com/Images3.htm

[2] Ibid.

[3] Royal Arch freemasonry contains important masonic parallels to the LDS temple endowment, and therefore appears to be a probable source from which Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (who, with the help of Wilford Woodruff and others, revised the endowment after Smith’s death) drew their inspiration.

[4] http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/45897-mormons-masons-temple/page__view__findpost__p__1208742878

[5] Arturo de Hoyos, "The Mistery of the Royal Arch Word," Heredom vol. 2 (1993), 11 and fn 24.

[6] Arturo De Hoyos decoded this entry on May 21, 1991; as cited in Tim Rathbone's article, Brigham Young's Masonic Connection and Nauvoo Plural Marriages, fn 32.

[7] Three images created by author.

[8] Everett R. Turnbull and Ray V. Denslow, A History of Royal Arch Masonry (1956) vol. 3, p. 1366-67.

[9] Arturo de Hoyos, email to author, 30 October 2009.