Monday, May 29

MAILBAG - DaVinci Code and Mormons

I received an e-mail from Larry that says:

I was wondering what is the general view of Mormons to the Da Vinci Code. While I have not read the book, I did get some of the details from "EWTN Live" last Week.

Some of the facts asserted by the book are exactly what I was taught as a Mormon. For example: Jesus is not God. That he was married to Mary Magdalene (at the wedding
Feast at Cana). That they did have children as Joseph Smith was a litteral decendant of Jesus.

I've been meaning to respond to this e-mail for a while, but I've been having problems finding a whole lot about the Mormon church's "official" statement on the church.

However, I did this link on the SperoNews blog. This is an article written in the Salt Lake Tribune. I'm pretty sure that it's tongue-in-cheek, but then again, I too went to Seminary early in the morning, and I too was taught that Jesus was most probably married and that Mary Magdalene could have been his wife. So take it with a grain of salt, and enjoy!

Living History: Debunking 'Da Vinci Code': Christ's kin live in Utah

By Pat Bagley
Salt Lake Tribune Columnist
Salt Lake Tribune

Dan Brown, author of the phenomenal best-seller, The Da Vinci Code, (currently also a major motion picture starring Tom Hanks, as if you didn't already know), was sued recently for plagiarism. A couple of angry authors thought Brown stole their idea.

The book in question, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, is not a thriller, not a romance, not even a heart-rending memoir that will later turn out to be a pack of lies. It is a book which marshals dubious documentation and tediously footnoted arcane citations to argue that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalene, they had children and, after the crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus' family to France.

It's all nonsense, of course. Even the British court agreed. Without even a single reference to homicidal papist albinos, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is nothing at all like The Da Vinci Code. The case was thrown out.

And besides, everyone knows Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus' children to England and, later, the descendants emigrated to Utah.

Full Text


At 4:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is a link to a local TV station in slc giving the LDS Church's statement on the Da Vinci Code.

In Response to Larry's e-mail. Some people in the LDS Church may have the opinion that Jesus was married, but that has never been official Church Doctrine. I have been a member all of my life, and I have never heard the idea that Joseph Smith was a descendent of Christ. No one that I know has ever taught that and that certainly is not Church Doctrine.

At 1:19 PM, Blogger Larry said...

Dear Anonymus,
I'm afraid you are the exception to the rule. As it has been nearly 30 years since I was Mormon I had to look around the internet to confirm what I, and most Mormons were taught. The internet is filled with the references, Doctrine and Covenants 113, Orson Hyde, etc. It is all there for the looking. Remember there was no internet in my young days. I was taught from Mormon books.

The Mormon Church is denying all this now because they are trying so hard to go mainstream. Do the research. To paraphrase: "To be deep in history is to cease to be (Mormon) Protestant."

At 2:02 PM, Anonymous syntaxpunk said...

I agree that the LDS church does not 'officially' teach that Christ had children or that Joseph Smith is a decendant of Jesus Christ, however, quite a few prominent LDS apologists do. Observe the following statements by LDS apologist Kerry Shirts:

I wish the LDS church would speak authoritivatively on this issue once and for all.

At 2:18 PM, Blogger doug said...

Ditto here. I'm a "lifelong" active member, ex-missionary, etc.

I've heard rumors, whispers, read old talks, etc, about Jesus being married, but never anything official. And Joseph Smith being a descendant? Never.

At 2:37 PM, Anonymous cjmr said...

FWIW, the assertion in the full text that Martin Luther believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had been married is just that--an assertion. It is based on a personal letter of Luther to a friend, not an official teaching document. As far as I know, the Lutheran church has never taught that as doctrine. It was certainly never mentioned in my 30+ years as a Lutheran before my conversion.

At 12:23 PM, Blogger glorybe said...

Well, I got a chuckle out of it. :)


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home