While disassembling the St. Telios church the museum discovered that the building which was over 600 years old had original paintings underlying the protestant white wash.  These paintings were not fantastic designs and creations of a wealthy class or church where money was not an object.

These paintings as the one on the right demonstrates were more like sacred attempts by local artists to point to the divine.  Simplistic in tone but not in message.  In fact this painting is of the Trinity encapsulating the Father on the throne, the Holy Spirit on the top of the cross in a form of a dove and God the son upon the cross.

In each case this manifestation of God as three while in one in some ways is found in the modern bible in the old testament.  Yahweh is just one name for God.  There is also El, Elohim, El-Shaddai and Adoniah which is translated often as LORD (though literally means master) in the English language versions.  Each of these names means something slightly different to Biblical era Israelites and the Jewish exiles.

For scholars these names were the first hint that maybe the Torah or the first five books of the Old Testament was not the work of a single writer but a mash up of various writers. For the Documentary Hypothesis these names of God meant different things. Much like how we identify the Trinity as three separate personages to use Joseph Smith’s dated term.

The difference with scholars is that they see each of these as different because in large part they are taking from different writers.  Each with a different historical and political reason for their viewpoint.  In some ways that would seem easy, but even with these names there is more confusion as each so called group uses all of them.  So not so straight forward and obvious.  In fact after Moses received the name of God as Yahweh they converge and use either Yahweh or Adonai.

So what to make of this idea.  Well you can look at it two ways.

1. The reasons for the various names is that before Moses the Patriarchs did not know Yahweh by that name so for narrative purposes it was not mentioned.

2. Or is it a case of different writers using different conventions or traditions J writes about God = Yahweh throughout while E, and P only bring the name in after Moses.

If 2 is correct then how do we view these naming conventions and do they make a difference.  A scholar may say that it points to the Canaanite origins because El was the head of their gods and Yahweh was a storm god who was not as important.  If that is the case then how do the reconcile the eventual merger of the two names.

One reason argued is that E was a Northern Israeli version of the Torah while J is the Jewish version.  What seems odd then is why did the P or Priestly version then adapt the E version of the story.  So much so that some argued at times that there is no E and that what we think of as E is really P.

In a Mormon perspective then we are left with some interesting ideas.

 Multiple names for deity

If one looks at archaeology and other sources scholars like to point to multiple deities of Canaanite gods make up the the beginnings of the monotheistic Israelites.  For many Christians and Jews that would be a difficult argument and for most Mormons as well.  Yet if we believe in a idea of becoming gods ourselves than it would be logical that there would be more than one God.  In fact we make that statement quite clearly.

So the concept that there may be some bleed over about the names of God and the names of gods seems to be less problematic in some ways for us.  Not a perfect fit I grant you but it might be something to explore as others have done with Asherah.  In some ways the alternative message might be that as Mormons we are ready to keep an open mind rather than close ourselves off on a book that we believe the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly.

I have more thoughts on all of this later specifically is E real, if it is real does it represent the brass plates?  Also what are we to make of the academic retrenchment arguing against the Documentary Hypothesis but now to bed.

When I first and secondly read the Old Testament I found these first five books particularly hard to overcome.  In much of the later three books I was glazed over.  In some respects I put that on a combination of thousands of years separating me from the authors and the fact that the book we used in the LDS church is so full of Shakespearian era dialect that it almost impossible to make it through without a guide to get you through.

But as I have learned over the years having a document compiled by multiple authors by an editor who for reasons only known to him/them left conflicting stories to intermingle in the book.  It now made sense in a totally different way why I could find this all so much more difficult to read.

The idea that documentary hypothesis works well with me for that reason to begin with.  The idea that there are multiple writers with varying agendas makes perfect sense.  As a historian I have noted that the past is a combination of everyone’s viewpoint.  From the eye witnesses to the various second hand accounts to the academic papers each offer a slice of a historical argument and each of us makes are piece with what we can accept.  Sometimes we accept myth making over history because it makes us feel better.  Sometimes we prefer history because we want to see a fair viewpoint.

At times with ancient literature we only have their word for it.  In some cases archaeology can help but it cannot always answer in a definitive way.  Many times it is educated guess work no different than a historian looking at Herodotus or Julius Caesar.  So while one has to be careful at making broad gestures I think it is important that we understand the academic need to understand why things came to be.  

Given those ideas we now have to go back and examine what our own challenges are with this hypothesis.  Will it always be something which we cannot agree like Evangelical Christians who see this as challenging to their understanding to their view point on Biblical inerrancy. Similar to Muslims who see the Quran as a book from God to man with no middle interpretation.  

What I am proposing here is an examination of the articles by Barney, Sorenson and others who argued for the hypothesis and see whether the foundations of this idea and how these compare to Book of Mornon scholarship and if there are ways we can build a bridge to where each of the variant ideas carry us and how they can be defined.  Is there four authors, many more fragments which make up the five books, is there points that come from after the exile that must be evaluated in light of what Joseph translated.  

I personally love Sorenson’s hypothesis that the brass plates were the Northern tribes version of the Bible which make up the E version or P version of the scriptures depending on the current viewpoint.  Whereas J version speaks to the Jews in Judah during the monarchical period. In many ways I want to continue that discussion.

So I hope you will join me in this process as it has been a while since I wrote here I hope you will join me along the road.  Apologies if this does not completely make sense but hopefully we will achieve something of interest for more than just me.

It is fascinating to see how this plays out.  I am convinced that the BC court will rule that polygamy should be protected, while illegal underage marriages and abuse should be prosecuted.  If the Canadian courts are to be consistent with the trends over the past 1o years I can see no other reaction.   There seems to be no law against multiple partners, laws were struck down on other definitions of what a marriage entails so there is little that can be said in favour of single partner unions over a multiple partner other than what havoc it will play with divorce and pension laws.

While there are other reasons to be unhappy with what is going on in Bountiful (there are some who are saying things are not so bad others would of course disagree) there is little that can be presented that would justify continuing discrimination under this evaluation.

I think I have been pretty clear that I do not defend anything going on in Bountiful, I have heard a few horror stories that also do not surprise me.  Yet polygamy, either polygyny or polyandry,  as a relationship is seemingly little different from other monogamous relationships that can have abuse and problems.  Of course this could be the tip of a another relationship iceberg and may prove that government sponsorship of marriage in general is just not tenable if what the definition becomes is always legally moved to various more distant goal posts.

This reference case could just be the beginning of a new world for those who believe and practice polygamy.

But I thought I would stick to some scholarly writers to gather the information on the day that kids anticipate and parents prepare knowing that the best thing to come out of the experience is a parent tax and an extended kids snacks for schools we no longer have to put out for a month.

The Pagan Roots

Halloween most people know is a pagan holiday in origin which much like the Solstice was co-opted by the early Christians to change the focus away from the pagan rituals and to make it more Christian centred.   The origins are Celtic.  We mostly know this from Gaulic Celtic sources¹.

In Celtic worship November 1st was the New Year for them, it was called Samhain.   The Celts viewed the day as starting at sun down, so thus the New Year started on what would be October 31st for our understanding.  Geo Athena Trevarthen explains that there was good religious reason for this:

Why should the year begin in darkness?  In The Conquest of Gaul Caesar said Celtic Gauls claimed descent from Father Dis, a god of death, darkness and the underworld. Consequently, each day began at night. The year begins with darkness because all things do; just as the baby forms in the mother’s womb, the new day begins in midnight’s darkness.

So an interesting understanding comes from this, the Celtic idea for the new year is not spring, when things are new in nature, or at the winter solstice where day begins to return again rather it came from another origin.  They saw darkness as the origin of life, so thus it was something to celebrate.   For us who live in an age where darkness is conceived as something to be frightened of this is likely a strange concept.  Anyone who has lived, especially in Wales, during a winter of cold, wet, and dark, would understand why this was seen as such a significant event.

A major reason for this day in Celtic myth was a celebration of death and life, death from the loss of those who will not survive the cold winter months and for the conception of new life which, lets be honest here, was one thing that would be common in months after the harvest and most of the hard work was done.   Sitting by the fire only gets you so far at the end of the day.

Another Celtic portion to the modern version of the day was the release of chaos during the darkness of that period.  In later folklore this idea was personified in a letting loose of youth.  Perceived by some as a way to keep reign on them the rest of the year.  In Scotland and Ireland this meant teens and children would play practical jokes and some not so harmless tricks on others in the community.

As Jack Santino says, “All Hallows Eve, alias Hallow Even, alias Hallowe’en is an ancient Celtic pre-Christian New Year’s day in modern dress.”²

The later folklore

Of course the other side to this celebration was the idea that the veil between the dead and the living was weaker in these dark days.  So that links to ancestors were built up.  Sometimes tables were set for the dead, other times it meant that they would picnic at ancestors graves or in general commemorate their dead relatives.   In a way it expanded the celebration even more into something significant and important.³

As the folklore of the day grew it also grew into new directions.  In Ireland and in some parts of the United States it was common to associate the day with marriage.  Be it finding a ring in some bread, or standing in front of a mirror wishing to see your mate, or even hiding corn meal in the bed for ghost to write on it the name of whom they are to marry.  In fact there are a number of myths and legends about ways to find your future spouse on Halloween.⁴

Also in Ireland there is a great deal of association of Halloween with sweets.  In older times this might be spiced apples or other treats.

As well of course the Christian community changed the association of the New Year with All Saints Day which celebrated the annual cleansing of the souls of mankind in spiritual purgatory and All Souls Day on November 2nd which commemorated the opening of purgatory, thus another reason for the dead to rise up to haunt the living as they closed in on their release.

Celts then looked at life and death differently and thus passed on to their ancestors in the British Ilse a view of death as another step in life.  Maybe this is why Christianity was able to spread wide in Roman Celts.

North American transmission

Meanwhile here in North America the arrival of Irish, Scots and Welsh to these new countries, particularly the Irish exodus after the potato famine saw a great expansion of traditions that were lost in puritan northern America.  With them came Christmas and Halloween.

With Halloween the traditions and myths changed once again, in part due to passage of time and the influx of non-Celtic influences.  The Origins of Jack-o-lantern is one of a blacksmith called Jack who is forced to wander the earth to evil for heaven and too tricky for hell, having got one over on the Devil.  He wanders the earth with his lantern made from a vegetable with coal in the middle.

Yet now the dead instead of those of older origin are now Princesses, Witches, Stormtroopers, and Transformers.  The older begging by the dead for food is now a jaunt around the neighbourhood for Candy, chips and in some cases soft drinks.  In many ways we have done to the day what we did to Christmas, turned into another way to express our capitalist nature through socialism.  Everyone spends money to spread the wealth to those with none, leaving the giver with none.  Combine that with the fascination with costumes and Hollywood getting into the act and it is a perfect synergy for the modern society we live in.

Back in Britain now the American Holiday

With all this British and Irish tradition it seems slightly strange how American this holiday is perceived even in the United Kingdom.  The modern version is said to have arrived with the GIs in the 1940s and over the years gained some popularity.  However, in my own experience it was not the Halloween I grew up with as many times those coming for treats were young teens and pre-teens without any decipherable costume and a expectation of a monetary reward over the more traditional types.

In the end the Celtic origins remain, in a way the day now is much more recognizable in the November 5 celebrations called Bonfire Night in the UK currently but more commonly known as Guy Fawkes Day.  Where the tradition of a bonfire combined with a effigy of Guy Fawkes join a celebration which appears much more pagan than the simple macabre celebration of the death of the leader of the gunpowder plot.    It is the only real “holiday” in Britain from August until Christmas.

Here in North America the celebration of Halloween carries with it much that is Celtic with modern twists but the heart of the celebration still exists.  For all the Church tried to do to defeat the celebration it carries on in the hearts and minds of Children in North America.

Happy Halloween!

2. Jack Santino, Halloween in America: Contemporary Customs and Performances, Western Folklore
Vol. 42, No. 1 (Jan., 1983), 8.

3.  Helen Sewell Johnson, November Eve Beliefs and Customs in Irish Life and Literature, The Journal of American Folklore, American Folklore Society Vol. 81, No. 320 (Apr. – Jun., 1968), 134.

4. Johnson, 135.

5. Santino, 8.

In The Grand Design Hawking argues that, “”It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

He argues that gravity alone will always do it without any kick necessary from any Eternal power.   Part of his proof is the discovery of other planets in other solar systems.  To Hawking it proves that God did not create a world specifically in the perfect place for a once in an eternity chance of humanity.  I am not a physicist, nor have a I read the book, but just going on what I have read in various sources here is my unscientific opinion.

I think most Mormons accept that the universe is run under laws.  They are natural laws which govern all level of worlds.  That is one thing that both science and our faith agree.

Hawking and others seem to see that as justification for the lack of a God like figure.  I think most Mormons see it as God in everything.  We see his power in how the universe is governed not under pure chaos as some feel but rather under a structure and order which is influenced by God where necessary to get the right outcomes.  I would suggest that is how each of our lives work.

Give that then rather than seeing earth as an accident of one time positioning seems counter to the Mormon understanding of the universe.

Abraham 3

11 Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made;

12 And he said unto me: My son, my son (and his hand was stretched out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.

In this writing it appears that Abraham was introduced to the concept that the earth was not alone and that there were many more like them.  To my mind the simple discovery of more earths does not suddenly suggest that this one is just some cosmic event ruled only by gravity.  In my estimation we have known about other planets for a while now, ever since some one realized Mars and Venus were not simply stars.

I think that the big bang or the new Darwinian moment that some are spinning, much like Book of Mormon DNA everyone will go too much on both sides.

Though I think he did a great service for the Creation from Nothing crowd:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking writes.

So there you go Creation from nothing DOES exist, or doesn’t, or something…

Personally I think that is a stretch of logic but as I say my physics ended in grade 12 so I might not be the most logical source for an opinion ;0).