Readers
Crack the DaVinci Code
Edited and compiled
by Kathy Green
Read Article Here
DaVinci Doubts and
Reason’s Rebuke, by Karen Boren
Loved this article. I read
the book and it was an exciting thriller. However those
who would accept the book as Gospel truth, need to reevaluate
their definition of being a Christian. A good work of fiction
at best. An interesting story at best, Gospel? Hardly.
I'll stick with the Restored Gospel and follow the Prophets
first and always.
Alana Tompkins-Rhodes
Tooele, Utah
**
It is a MOVIE based on a NOVEL.
I would think everyone with an IQ over his shoe size would
realize this simple fact.
Karolyn Gillum
East Wenatchee,
Washington
**
My wife and I are impressed
by your research into the historicity of The Da Vinci
Code and the public reaction. However, we also believe
that Latter-day Saints reasonably educated in their religion
will not be taken, in either by Brown or the hype. We bought
the book when it first came out (before all the hype) but
didn't finish it. The writing was pretty bad, the story
too hokey. In any case, it was FICTION. Nuff sed.
Joan and Klaus Hansen
Kingston, Ontario,
Canada
**
The Da Vinci Code is
a book. A quick read but it is FICTION. “FICTION” means
not true.
Kandy Hunt
Niceville, Florida
**
I have come to the conclusion
that not many people who call themselves Christians really
know what they are. Tossed by every wind of doctrine, some
never doing the necessary studying to know what is true
and what is not.
The Da Vinci Code was
a great mystery novel for me. I knew it was fiction and
read it that way. Whether Christ was married or not does
not change who he is: the Son of God — our Savior. It makes
good dinner table discussion but that's about it. Like the
new finding of the Book of Judas, if he and Jesus were buds
or not, weather it was preplanned or not, it does not change
my testimony of who God and Christ are. They are still divine,
still in control and still whom I worship.
even if you aren't LDS but
grounded well in your faith you should not be shook by a
work of fiction. In the last days many things will test
and try us. Again with a strong testimony of the Savior,
and a grasp of the iron rod we will see threw the fog of
misinformation and walk straight ahead unscathed.
Randy Douglass,
Preston Idaho
**
I rarely am moved upon to write
letters to the editor, but in this case, I really feel that
I must. IT'S JUST A BOOK, okay? I have no idea why LDS
people and/or Biblical scholars feel they must go on and
on disproving the "facts" about what is clearly
a work of fiction that is a great read, which, like the
Harry Potter series, has encouraged a new generation of
readers. I am an English teacher/Relief Society president,
and I quite frankly am thrilled that some of my students
are reading this book instead of playing vile video games,
mindlessly watching television, or balancing a cell phone
on their ears while they are instant-messaging with a dozen
friends! (Worse yet, some are doing all of those things
at the same time.)
Give me a break; bring on The
Da Vinci Code!
Myrna Sheppard
Gilbert, Arizona
**
While I have no desire to read
the book, nor see the movie, I do have several email acquaintances
of high caliber (authors, editors, illustrators, etc.),
from across the country, who have labored over the pros
and cons of this Da Vinci Code topic. Most are agnostic;
many are Jewish, some are atheist, none are LDS. They only
know I see an all-joyful light at the end of the dismal
state of our world — which, to them, makes me a naïve "Mary
Poppins."
I sent them the entirety of
Karen's article, which makes solemn sacred sense. It then
really hit home to me, that what wasn't openly explained
in the bible or Book of Mormon should be taken as much too
sacred to flippantly puzzle over. Thank you for that statement,
Karen. You are wise and wonderful and CORRECT. I have
taken that wise counsel to heart.
Jael Ruesch
St. Augustine,
Florida
**
Thanks so much for Karen Boren's
essay challenging the assertions of Dan Brown's book The
Da Vinci Code and the much anticipated movie premier
coming up this weekend. I was initially offended by Ms.
Boren's claim that "Most people who read The Da
Vinci Code will not understand who wrote these alternate
“gospels” and why Gnostic theories did not (and cannot!)
replace the writings of Christ’s apostles in the New Testament.
I interpreted that statement as an arrogant assessment of
my ability to recognize truth. But then I realized that
she is right to make such a claim based on the willingness
of so many to be led astray by flimsy evidence.
I should say that I enjoyed
reading The Da Vinci Code and approached the entire
experience with an understanding that it was a work of fiction.
I found value in Dan Brown's work. However, if it raised
questions about the long-held belief that the canon of scripture
was closed and is limited to the works found only in the
Bible, I disagree. I believe God wants us to constantly
question accepted beliefs, and then seek our answers through
sincere study and prayer.
Lamonte John
Burke, Virginia
**
I recommend that Karen read
D&C 132:4. I think this book is fiction. It makes the
point that an apostasy took place therefore a restoration
must take place as it did in 1830. This book has caused
people to wake up and think about Christ and the bible and
to question their faith. I just hope the spirit of the
Lord can help them find the truth now that they are wondering
if their religion is true.
Maurice L. Twitchell
Bellevue, Washington
**
I'm a little floored over the
attention The Da Vinci Code is getting, even in the
pages of Meridian. I guess the sad fact remains that people
are truly searching for something to believe in, and it's
easier to believe nicely worded fiction than the truth.
And whether or not you are into the hype that surrounds
the movie, in the end it all comes down to one very interesting
work of fiction.
I've read the book and enjoyed
the little art history lesson I got from it; it was a pleasant
way to spend an afternoon. That is why I truly appreciated
Karen Boren's article on the book and upcoming movie, and
her comments on the question the book raises regarding a
possible marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. She
said, "Conjecture regarding the Savior's private life
is not pertinent to my salvation," and I echo that
with a hearty, "Amen, sister!"
Instead of people getting all
up in arms over this attack on Christianity, we should welcome
the opportunity to answer questions as they arise with our
friends who want to know what we think on the topic.
Julianne Caldwell,
Palm Bay, Florida
**
The Da Vinci Code is
a NOVEL and enjoyable reading like any mystery story, from
Tom Clancy to Robert Ludlum. I do not think that any Latter-day
Saint will take this as truth or that it will affect their
testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel as we understand
Church doctrine. Some people tend to forget that a novel
is entertainment; not education.
Linda Jones
Chewelah, Washington
**
I think it is wrong to paint
all LDS readers and movie goers with the broad stroke that
we would believe that The Da Vinci Code is anything
but a work of fiction.
I happen to believe that Dan
Brown is a gifted writer. But that being said, I don't
look to him for my source of truth about anything. I truly
think any clear minded Christian will enjoy this fictional
presentation. Enjoying a well-written book or watching
a movie on this subject matter, in my opinion, is not a
sacrilegious affront to the Savior, Jesus Christ. At the
same time, I am both amazed and amused by the reaction of
religious leaders, who ask their followers not to attend
the movie or read the book. Of what are they afraid?
Do they actually believe that
their followers can't think for themselves? Do they actually
believe that people are like cattle who can be herded into
a corral and branded?
My testimony and understanding
of the Gospel come from the source of all truth. Since
we do not have all the facts, we must have faith in something
and I choose to have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and
the scriptures who testify of him. However, it would not
alter my faith one iota if I learned in the hereafter, that
He was married in mortality. Speculation is just that —
speculation. I can imagine all sorts of things and put
them on paper. That does not make them true.
N. Lee Allphin
Joplin, Missouri
**
Before we close the book completely
and shut down something that we shouldn't, there should
be a few clarifications on your article.
First, the gnostic scriptures
include the Apocrypha, a book that we know Joseph Smith
mentioned reading with discernment. Good call for most
of these books.
Our scriptures, namely [books
of] the King James Version of the Bible, were "chosen"
from among hundreds of such manuscripts during the reign
of Charlemagne, known as the Nicene Creed.
Charlemagne had an issue, which
was simply this: Thrones were generally inherited through
the lineage of the House of Israel, and his own Captain
had a better claim to the throne than he did, through the
same lineage as Mary, the mother of Christ.
Charlemagne therefore chose
to allow into the accepted scripture ONLY those which downplayed
the feminine role in succession. By doing so, he opened
the door to the Papacy granting “Kings and Crowns” instead
of lineage. It was a disaster for the entire world.
The rest of these “unchosen”
accounts and witnesses were then burned or ordered destroyed.
Luckily there were a few who salvaged and saved, risking
their lives to do so. Clearly the apostasy had begun; there
is no doubt.
What it doesn't mean is that
everything written in them is null and void. They require
personal revelation. We can't throw out the baby with the
bath water.
Dan Brown's book is not truth,
nor is it gospel, neither are some of the books sources
completely false. Our job as Latter-day Saints is to remember
this simple truth. We testify of Christ, we know He is
our Redeemer. Therefore we take these alternate sources
with a grain of salt. "One of the grand fundamental
principles of Mormonism is to receive truth. Let it come
from where it may." (An American Prophet’s Record:
The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith http://www.lds-mormon.com/aapr.shtml,
p. 395.)
Anastacia Prisbrey
Ephraim, Utah
**
I love your closing statement.
And yes, the Holy Ghost is the witness of truth. I work
in a beauty shop, so you can imagine the talk after that
book came out. And so many will go with his word because
they haven't read The Word, and his might be easier to read.
I am continually thankful, to be blessed with the truthfulness
of this Gospel, and my testimony. I am sure this is just
a tip of the iceberg as to what is ahead to challenge the
truth. Thanks again for your testimony and great knowledge
that you shared.
Sheri, Kowal
Anchorage, Alaska
**
I enjoyed your article on The
Da Vinci Code. I haven't read the book and I don't
plan on seeing the movie. I think it would be a waste of
time. In fact, I hope the movie bombs out at the box office
since it denies the reality of Christ.
You made a comment about the
scriptures not saying that the savior was married. I don't
think they have directly said that anyway. It doesn't matter
to whom, but I'm sure He was. If you want to be sure too,
then very carefully read the following article: First Presidency
Message, “What I Hope You Would Teach Your Children about
the Temple,” By President Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign Apr-May
1986. You can find it on www.LDS.org or in the Ensign of course.
During your reading, remember how one obtains the glory
of the Celestial Kingdom, no matter who they are. All of
us must accept all the laws and ordinances of the Temple
in order to enter into the Kingdom of heaven. I believe
that the Ensign first presidency messages are scripture.
Logic should tell us that if
our Savior would be baptized, then surely he would also
accept all of the other saving ordinances He instituted
if for no other reason than to "fulfill all righteousness."
I'm sure He fulfilled all righteousness and accepted all
of the temple ordinances so that He could say, "It
is finished" on the cross.
He spoke in parables of certain
sacred things. It appears that our prophets do the same.
It protects sacred things in a remarkable way.
Tom Lugaresi
Los Gatos, California
**
Thanks, Karen, for two important
sentences:
1- "I believe that the
most crucial and damaging of the immense pack of lies that
Satan presents is the lie that Jesus is not the Son of God."
2- "I commend this
guide (reading the scriptures) to you for navigating the
increasingly choppy, spiritual waters of our day."
Thanks, Meridian, for sharing
Karen Boren's article.
Virginia Braley
Liberty Lake,
Washington
**
Excellent article! Thanks for
putting things into proper focus. Especially thanks for
the section at the last: Armored Against the Lies,
so hopefully we learn to study the best way, through the
Spirit. Thanks so much for printing this article. I did
not like the things being said, they did not 'resonate'
with me but I didn't know why. Now I do.
Alyn Olson
Spanish Fork,
Utah
**
WOW.
That is all I can say about
someone of Karen Boren's credentials (and others) would
deign to weigh in as expert testimony against a FICTIONAL
NOVEL. I have read the book and found it entertaining.
It did not shake my faith or make me think any less of my
Savior.
I also read Jurassic Park.
That FICTION NOVEL also had some "startling...claims"
purported to be fact. Namely, that we could take DNA from
fossilized insects that fed on Dino blood and create dinosaurs.
The author took some science and made an artistically licensed
leap to create a story. He did not say at the beginning
of his fictional story that it could not really happen.
He wanted his readers to come on the ride.
The same can be said for Dan
Brown. He took some facts and made the leap to create a
good page-turner.
I would say to all who are
up in arms. Take a step back, relax, and if it seems like
it is going to offend you... don't read it.
Mark Kleinman
Mesa, Arizona
**********************************************************
Birthday Brownies
Read Article Here
The Top Job, by Daryl Hoole
When I opened up Scot &
Maurine Proctor's Meridian Page the other day I was delighted
to "pull" up the cover article The TOP JOB — telling
about your experience of talking with a fourth grade class.
I enjoyed it so much I sent it to our children before Mother's
Day and shared it with the other couple working with us
in the Mission Office.
Today on the way back from
Zone Conference in Groton, Connecticut, we were talking
with the other office couple about the mess we had in cleaning
up the Cultural Hall. We serve Subway sandwiches, fruits,
chips and carrots, which work out beautifully. But after
the "birthday" recognitions, Sister Johnson has
brownies for the missionaries, and they eat them while walking
around visiting with the other missionaries. I was telling
Sister Frame about the rule you had that went something
like this "No meals on wheels and no eating on feet."
I think you used to have a small rug for each child they
had to sit on whenever they were eating. Is that correct?
Partially correct? Or way out in left field? I'm never
sure if things I think are really the way it was said OR
just part of my imagination. At my age I'm not sure of
LOTS of things anymore. Sister Frame thought it was great
anyway and thought we needed to do something about our problem.
Would you mind setting me "straight" on your exact
quote on where the children could eat? What a wonderful
opportunity those children are having by being instructed
by you. I'd love to be a FLY on the wall and be there to
hear you.
We are enjoying our service
here, time is flying by, and we'll be home before most people
even realize we've been gone. May the Lord bless you and
your family.
Sister LaPrele Sumsion
Currently serving
in Conncecticut
**
Sister Hoole responds:
My September column will be
about such things as "No meals on wheels," "Put
the house to bed before you go to bed," "Stop
dirt at the door," etc. I have a list of half a dozen
or practical, do-able suggestions; so I'm eager to go to
work on it. Thanks again for such a rewarding opportunity.
Daryl Hoole
*******************************************************
Cotton Picking Professor
Read Article Here
Book of Mormon Anachronisms,
by Michael R. Ash, Part III
Wheels, metals, swords, chariots
were widely used in Book of Mormon times as were ox carts,
etc. This article denotes the long known existence of toys
with wheels found in ancient American archeological sites.
Also found were copper tools that are hardened like steel
use for trepanning human skulls to remove tumors, some skulls
found have healed over as many times as three consecutive
surgical operations. (We have not learned yet how the copper
surgical instruments were made with such hardening that
a file only polishes them.)
Of especial note is that a
former Professor of Agronomy, J. Wayne Whitworth, of New
Mexico State University taught extensively that cotton is
not native to America and genetically originated in Egypt,
giving rise to his belief that cotton seeds were most likely
imported by Lehi therefrom in 600B.C. He devoted a lifetime
of research and teaching to cotton and the development of
long-staple Pima cotton, first grown at the Experimental
Station at Pima, Arizona, near Safford, Arizona. The long
staple variety doubled and tripled the amount of cotton
produced from each cotton plant. An assignment frequently
given to us as his Agronomy students was to develop our
own theory about the origin of cotton in America.
Thomas R. Shelley
Professional Agricultural
Engineer
Silver City, New
Mexico
**
The apologist articles you
have published recently, while interesting, fail to take
into account Joseph Smith's translating challenges. He must
have often felt very frustrated as he searched for corresponding
words in English for an ancient language that no one spoke
anymore. Michael Ash excuses the Book of Mormon peoples
for using the same words for items that mean different things
to us, now, when, really, it was the prophet trying to find
the best and most descriptive English words to explain
what he was translating.
It wasn't the Nephites who
used the word corn, it was Joseph Smith. It wasn't the Book
of Mormon peoples who used the word steel, it was Joseph
Smith. Steel can also mean something stronger than anything
else. It doesn't have to be literal. Therefore, the steel
weapons mentioned in the scriptures could just as easily
refer to how their weapon was better and stronger than anyone
else's, or any that had been used before.
When we consider how there
are scholars still discussing the translation of the Bible,
even though Greek, Hebrew, and even Aramaic are still being
spoken, is it any surprise that not every word in the Book
of Mormon accurately portrays exactly what Joseph Smith
understood yet could find no corresponding word in English?
Consider the passages where weights and measures are discussed
— I guess he just gave up trying to compare them to anything
in the 19th century. They must have been so different that
he just gave us the words used in Book of Mormon times.
Kudos to Joseph Smith for being able to translate so clearly
so much of the Book of Mormon. I find the fact that he did
not pause in his translation to give an accurate description
of those "swords" just more proof that there was
a more important message to be found in the scriptures than
the exact form of the weapons used to kill people.
Jessica Miller
Lethbridge, Alberta
Canada.
*************************************************
Corny Translation
Read Article Here
Finding Wheat, Barley, Linen
and Silk in the Book of Mormon, by Michael R. Ash
Quoting “In America, for instance,
corn refers to maize, but in England it means wheat,
and in Scotland oats. Likewise the term wheat
could have been used as labels used for other grains in
ancient America.”
In England and Scotland, “corn”
and “wheat” mean the same thing as they do in the US. “Maize”
is not a commonly used word on this side of the pond. Indeed,
the only time I have heard it used it when people are referring
to corn just like in the US. As for oats — oats
are oats, the same all over the world. They’re an entirely
different crop from corn and maize and wheat and are not
called “corn” — ever. They would never be used instead of
corn nor would they be confused with corn.
Regarding the word “linen”
—that word in the Book of Mormon has never been a problem
for readers in the UK as it’s a catch-all description for
anything that goes on a bed, i.e. “bed linen.” If you described
a specific material as “linen,” most people would not know
that you meant a particular material from a plant. This
usage is similar to what you recently said about oxen —
over here, they’re a specific animal (with funny looking
prominent hips and ribs) that is not a domesticated cow,
so again the use of the word in the Book of Mormon doesn’t
raise any eyebrows. A hundred years ago, oxen were often
the cattle of choice for farmers to use in plowing.
And finally, did you know that
the little church in Scotland at Rosslyn (the Templar church,
now to become famous due to The Da Vinci Code) has
pictures (engravings, I believe) of barley dating back to
pre-Columbus times, suggesting that the Knights Templar
traveled the Atlantic centuries ago?
The series fascinates me, especially
as you are supporting, for the most part, things I learned
years ago (way before I even joined the Church) and also
conclusions I have previously drawn myself. For example,
evidence for mastodons in particular exists in South America
— cousins of elephants, as you are aware, so again, their
inclusion in the Book of Mormon gives me no problem at all.
As a linguist, I know that
word usage changes with time so when Nephi, for example,
refers to steel, his meaning may not be the same as ours.
Take the word “chav.” This derogatory word, meaning someone
unpleasantly common, was not in use AT ALL five years ago.
There is speculation that it is an old gypsy word from over
a century ago, which possibly meant a foreigner. It literally
appeared from nowhere a couple of years ago and is now common
usage. When I was a child thirty years ago, “rip” meant
to tear — it had nothing to do with taking music from one
medium to another! Likewise “burn” — it meant something
to do with fire and heat! A mouse was a little tiny rodent!
A monitor was someone who kept an eye on things! “Whatever”
was not a one word derisory sentence! A server was a waiter
or waitress! I could go on and on!
Excellent series! I look forward
to more!
Linda
England
*************************************************
Measures of Success
Read Article Here
Three Quarters of a Century
and Counting, by Robb Cundick
Thank you for that splendid
article on the 4,000th Music and the Spoken Word. We do
not have BYU TV but were listening over the Internet and
my internet connection unexpectedly hung up, so I missed
some of what he said! Thanks so very much for sharing your
thoughts with us, I enjoy hearing your information and perspective
on the choir.
Dorothy Thompson
Lodi, California
