At the end of a long day at the newspaper where I was an editor, I was packing up to leave when I felt the gentle nudging of the Holy Spirit. I sensed God leading me to go into the business office and invite my atheist friend to come with me to an Easter service at my church. The impression was so strong that I figured something dramatic was about to happen.

I walked into the office. The place appeared empty except for my friend, who was sitting alone at his desk. Perfect! I reminded him that Easter was coming and asked if he would come to church with Leslie and me. He turned me down cold. I asked if he was interested in spiritual matters, and he emphatically said no. I asked if he had any questions about God, and again he said no. I explained why the resurrection was so important, but he wasn’t interested.

With all of my evangelistic overtures being instantly shut down, I began to feel embarrassed. If God really had prodded me to talk with him, then why was he so uninterested? Finally, I stammered as I backed out of the office, “Well, uh, if you’ve ever got any questions, um, I guess you know where my desk is.”

What was that all about? I couldn’t understand why he was so resistant. I finally concluded that maybe I was going to be one link in a long chain of influences that would eventually lead him to Christ. Yet, as far as I know, he remains a skeptic to this day.

Skip ahead a few years. By this time I was a teaching pastor at a church in suburban Chicago. After I spoke one Sunday, a middle-aged man walked up, shook my hand, and said, “I just want to thank you for the spiritual influence you’ve had in my life.”

“That’s very nice,” I said. “But who are you?”

“Let me tell you my story,” he replied. “A few years ago I lost my job. I didn’t have any money and I was afraid I was going to lose my house. I called a friend of mine who runs a newspaper and said, ‘Do you have any work available for me?’ He asked me, ‘Can you tile floors?’ Well, I had tiled my bathroom once, so I said, ‘Sure.’ He told me, ‘We need some tiling done at the newspaper; if you can do that, we can pay you.’

“So one day, shortly before Easter, I was on my hands and knees behind a desk in the business office of the newspaper, fixing some tiles, when you walked into the room. I don’t think you even saw me. You started talking about God and Jesus and Easter to some guy, and he wasn’t interested at all. But I was crouching there listening, and my heart was beating fast, and I started thinking, ‘I need God! I need to go to church!’

“As soon as you left, I called my wife and said, ‘We’re going to church this Easter.’ She said, ‘You’re kidding!’ I said, ‘No, we are.’ We ended up going to your church that Easter—and my wife, my teenage son, and I all came to faith in Christ. And I just wanted to thank you!”

I was dumbstruck! This was a new form of outreach: ricochet evangelism, where the gospel bounces off a hard heart and zips around the room until it hits a heart that is more receptive. Who could have foreseen that—except the amazing God of grace?

There is nothing more exciting than letting God use you to reach out to others for Him. This is the antidote to a dry, boring, vanilla Christian life. When you’re living on the evangelistic edge, that’s when your prayer life is the most fervent, because you’re asking God for His help and guidance in talking to your friends about Him; it’s when your worship is the most heartfelt, because you’re praising the God of the Second Chance, who loves your spiritually confused friends even more than you do; it’s when your Bible study really comes alive, because you’re not just looking for abstract theological truths, but you’re searching for insights that might help you reach your neighbor; it’s when your dependence on God is at its greatest, because you know that apart from the work of the Holy Spirit there’s nothing you can do to bring anyone into the kingdom.

This is where the spiritual action is! So how can you participate in the unexpected adventure? Let’s examine three important elements: we need to be available, prayerful, and authentic.

First, be available. In the story I just recounted, about all I had to offer God was my availability. Think about it: I didn’t even know who I was really talking to. I spoke as I sensed the Holy Spirit was leading me, but I did so filled with doubt and confusion about why my words weren’t connecting—yet God used me in unexpected ways.

My ministry associate Mark Mittelberg, coauthor of our book The Unexpected Adventure, tells about wanting to reach out years ago to Kyle, a friend he’d gone to school with. At the time Mark was new in his relationship with Christ, and he had not yet become a serious student of theology and apologetics. As a result, he felt intimidated in trying to share his faith with Kyle, who had been one of the smartest people in their class.

Despite his feelings of inadequacy, Mark made himself available. He sensed he was in over his head, but he did his best to explain the difference Jesus had made in his life. More than that, he invited Kyle for a long car ride, during which he played a tape of a teacher who made the gospel clear. And when the recording ended, you guessed it: Kyle understood the message and was ready to receive Christ. Mark pulled the car over to the side of the highway and led Kyle in a prayer of commitment— amazed at how God was working.

Again, the key was availability. If you want to be used by God in the lives of others, make yourself available to Him each day—and watch for the opportunities He’ll bring.

Second, be prayerful. I was reminded of the power of prayer a few years ago when I was just about to baptize a woman. Feeling a nudge from the Holy Spirit, I turned to the woman’s husband and asked, “Have you given your life to Jesus?”

What happened next shocked me: he burst out sobbing. “No, I haven’t,” he said. “But I want to right now.”

I was stunned—but right then and there, I prayed with him to receive Christ and then I baptized the two of them together. As I walked off the stage, another woman ran up, threw her arms around me, and kept sobbing, “Nine years, nine years, nine years!”

“I’m sorry,” I said, “but who are you, and what do you mean?”

It turned out she was the man’s sister, and she and the man’s wife had been praying for him for nine long years—seeing no glimmer of spiritual interest. But they persevered and kept praying, and look what God did!

Maybe you’ve been praying for a friend or loved one for a long time, but you’ve started to lose heart. Bring that person to mind. As those two women would wholeheartedly tell you— never give up hope, and never stop praying.

Third, be authentic. The importance of this became clear to me when a young nurse named Maggie, who had experienced abuse at the hands of people who claimed to be Christians, began attending our church. Soon she was part of a small group of spiritual seekers who were meeting with a Christian couple to investigate faith issues. Maggie ended up writing this poem about those two leaders:

Do you knowdo you understandthat you representJesus to me?

Do you knowdo you understandthat when you treat me withgentleness,it raises the question in mymindthat maybe He is gentle, too.Maybe He isn’t someonewho laughs when I am hurt.

Do you knowdo you understandthat when you listen to myquestionsand you don’t laugh, I think,“What if Jesus is interested inme, too?”

Do you knowdo you understandthat when I hear you talkhonestly about arguments andconflict and scars from yourpast that I think,“Maybe I am just a regularpersoninstead of a bad, no good littlegirlwho deserves abuse.”

If you care, then I think maybeHe cares—and then there’s thisflame of hope that burns insideof meand for a while I am afraid tobreathebecause it might go out.

Do you knowdo you understandthat your words are His words?That your face is His face tosomeone like me?

Please, be who you say you are.Please, God, don’t let this beanother trick.Please let this be real.Please!

Do you knowdo you understandthat you representJesus to me?

A few days after sending me that powerful poem, Maggie told me, with great joy and excitement, that she had given her life to Christ. When I asked her what prompted her to step across the line of faith, her reply was simple. “Well,” she said, “I just met a whole bunch of people who were like Jesus to me.”

Here’s the encouraging news: you and I can do this! We don’t need a doctorate in theology. We can make ourselves available, we can pray, and we can live authentic Christian lives. Do these things—and watch for opportunities to experience the unexpected adventure of a lifetime.

—Lee Strobel

Lee Strobel, the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and has been interviewed on numerous national television programs. Lee Strobel and Mark Mittelberg’s latest book, The Unexpected Adventure, is a devotional designed to help people seize opportunities to talk with others about Jesus (www.theunexpectedadventure.com).

In recent months, however, the Church has faced a series of attacks that have challenged both its carefully burnished image and its standard methods of self-defense.

Some of the criticism has centered on Tom Cruise, the world’s most famous Scientologist. But other challenges—including public protests that have attracted thousands of people around the globe, criticisms from former members and a relative of the Church’s current leader, and mysterious chemicals that were mailed to Church offices—represent the latest chapters in the long-running battle between the Church and its assorted and increasingly vocal critics.

And just as the recording and publishing industries have been forced to address the implications of our digital age, the Church has struggled to come up with an effective strategy for battling people who use the Internet to organize mass protests, distribute internal Church documents, hack Church Web sites, and create online communities for ex-members and other vocal critics.

Front-Page News

Even though celebrity journalist Andrew Morton’s Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography was neither a critical nor popular success, the book’s highly anticipated January 15 release provided the mainstream media and the blogosophere with an occasion to focus on Scientology and the man who, for most people, is a better-known Church icon than its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. The results were less than flattering for both the actor and the Church.

Morton, who previously wrote books about Princess Diana and Madonna, labeled Cruise a “movie messiah” who exploits both “the unfettered power of modern celebrity” and “our embrace of religious extremism.”

As for Cruise’s willingness to be the “poster boy” for Scientology, Morton says Cruise has used his own “charm and persuasiveness” to promote the organization’s “relentless expansion” while obscuring its “totalitarian zeal” with his own sex appeal and fame.

Morton gives readers a combination of facts (Cruse was introduced to Scientology by first wife Mimi Rogers), rants by ex-members (who expose the Church’s inner workings), and his own psychological interpretations (Cruise’s deep emotional needs made him vulnerable to the lure of a powerful organization to which he could dedicate himself).

Both the Church and a spokesperson for Cruise have criticized the book and claimed that its author did not seek them out for comment. “Accuracy and truth were not on Morton’s agenda,” said a Church statement.

And questions about the book’s accuracy were among the factors leading Macmillan, which planned to publish the book in Britain, to announce in April that it would be too risky to do so, given the UK’s more stringent libel laws. A Macmillan spokesman told London’s Telegraph: “By the time our lawyers had been through it, there was nothing left but red ink. We have explored every possible option, but have concluded that once the potentially defamatory sections are taken out, there is not enough left to make a good read.”

Star Struck

Cruise’s million-dollar smile has been featured in dozens of films, but his star doesn’t shine as brightly as it once did. His last major film was Lions for Lambs, a movie about the war in Afghanistan, which fared poorly at the domestic box office.

Even his media appearances have become more problematic. In 2005 he angered many fans when he turned an appearance on the Today show with Matt Lauer into a Scientology-driven anti-psychiatric attack against Brooke Shields, who had taken antidepressant medications after the birth of her child. And his June 2005 couch-jumping exuberence over Katie Holmes on Oprah Winfrey’s TV show convinced some fans he had lost his mind—a perception he tried to repair during a May 2 interview with Oprah at his Colorado estate.

During that May appearance, Cruise apologized for his earlier behavior and sought to present a calmer, friendlier face, both for himself and Scientology, which he said was “not the only way” to find God. Or as New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley wrote, “the encounter was less like a movie star interview than like a news conference with a political candidate seeking to undo a gaffe.”

Cruise remains a major player behind the scenes. In 2006 he and longtime production partner Paula Wagner were put in charge of United Artists, the venerated Hollywood studio founded nearly a century ago by Charlie Chaplin and others. But Cruise’s connections to Scientology have complicated things for UA’s first Cruise/Wagner release, the World War II drama, Valkyrie.

In June 2007, German officials cited Cruise’s link to the “cult” of Scientology as one reason for originally prohibiting United Artists from filming scenes of Cruise at German military installations. The government later allowed the scenes to be filmed, but the film has encountered other problems, and its release date has been pushed back twice.

According to the New York Times, the controversy over Valkyrie shows that Cruise “appears to be both an asset and a liability.”

“Anonymous” on the Attack

While most people have heard of Tom Cruise and Andrew Morton, no one’s exactly sure who is behind the group called Anonymous, which has used the Internet to organize attacks on the Church of Scientology. And that’s just the way leaders of Anonymous want it.

In the last year, people claiming to be affiliated with Anonymous have claimed credit for a variety of anti-Scientology activities:

• When the Church pressured YouTube (the popular site that enables anyone with a camera) to remove copyrighted materials from the site, including a video of a 2004 speech by Cruise, Anonymous posted its own video that portrayed the Church as a Big Brother seeking to trample freedom of speech and thought.
• Anonymous also organized a series of attacks on Church computers that shut down its main Web site (www.scientology.org) for a day in January, forcing the Church to switch to an Internet service provider with tougher security.
• And in February representatives of Anonymous allegedly mailed packets of white powder to twenty-three Church offices in California, causing evacuations, road closings, and an FBI investigation.

The reaction to the Anonymous attacks has been mixed. Some critics have cheered the antics of Anonymous, rejoicing in the fact that the Church has been less successful at halting its activities than it has been in the past when it sought to muzzle critics who used the mainstream media as their platform.

On the other hand, the take-no-prisoners approach of the attacks has worried some long-time critics of the Church who fear that they may bring about reprisals that stifle opponents of Scientology. As critic Mark Bunker of the www.xenutv.com Web site told the Los Angeles Times, “I hope it doesn’t hurt the larger critic community who have been speaking out for years about Scientology’s abuse.”

The World Wide Web of Intrigue

Anonymous has also used the Web as a platform to announce its campaign to destroy the Church and to call for worldwide protests, one of which drew thousands of people to anti-Scientology events at major cities throughout the world February 10.

Hundreds of masked protesters and gawkers showed up at rallies held in front of some of the Church’s Los Angeles facilities, where they carried signs and handed out brochures criticizing the Church’s crusading zeal and costly courses. the Los Angeles Times reported that other rallies were held in Boston, New York, Toronto, the U.K., and Australia.

But Anonymous isn’t the only group using the power, reach, and anonymity of the Web to go after Scientology. Other critics have upload­ed hundreds of anti-Church videos on YouTube.

Some of the videos are simple productions. One entitled “Scientology Crazy Follow­ers” (www.youtube.com/ watch?v=pPol_ m8wm8Y) is shot with a hand-held camera and features an individual who is prevent­ed from attending a protest rally because the Church had the street in front of its building closed to public access. The video has been seen more than one million times.

TV and film actor Jason Beghe, who reached Scientology’s OT 5 level and appeared in promotional videos for the Church, has also released a series of anti-Scientology videos on You Tube claiming that the organization is a dangerous rip-off. You can find his profanity-heavy three-minute “preview” video at: http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZvmvlZM1gw.

Other YouTube videos are creating bigger problems for the Church. One eye-opening video entitled “Scientology advocates violence against psychiatry” (http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=hfu7Sr50N7U) features a pirated copy of a speech by Church leader David Miscavige about the Church’s 2006 campaign “for the global elimination of psychiatry.”

The speech, which Church officials acknowledge is at least partly authentic, was clearly intended for an audience of the faithful. But now, thanks to the power of the Web, viewers can see for themselves how Miscavige sounds when he preaches to the choir. And, as many people have indicated in their responses on YouTube, their look into the inner workings of the Church have not increased their affection for Scientology.

The video has been taken down by YouTube at the request of Church officials. (YouTube honors such requests when organizations or TV networks claim that copyrighted material has been released without consent.) But in some cases, after anti-Scientology videos have disappeared from YouTube they have reappeared thanks to critics who then upload them again.

The video attacks have led the Church to create an online “Scientology Video Channel,” which offers numerous Church-sanctioned videos. When Web surfers go to www.scientology.org, they are sent to the video site and must click on a home page link to go to the main Scientology site.

Rebellious Kids

There have always been former Scientologists who speak out about the Church, but in recent months three big-league insiders have joined the chorus of critics.

Jenna Miscavige Hill (the niece ofScientology leader David Miscavige), Kendra Wiseman (the daughter of Bruce Wiseman, president of the Church’s anti-psychiatricgroup, Citizens Commission on Human Rights), and Astra Woodcraft, whose parents joined Scientology’s elite Sea Organization when she was seven (and who was featured in a 2005 Glamour magazine article entitled “Why I Fled Scientology”) launched ExScientologyKids.com, a site for people who grew up in Scientology.

The site’s home page describes their goal: “We offer non-judgmental support for those who are still in Scientology, discussion and debate for those who’ve already left, and a plethora of easy-to-understand references for the curious.” And the site offers a variety of materials, including discussions of the Church’s disconnection policy, which requires members to disaffiliate from family, friends, or loved ones who leave the organization.

In April, Nightline, ABC TV’s late-night news show, did a segment called “Growing Up Scientologist” featuring Hill and Woodcraft, who described their difficult journey away from the Church.

Both women talked about the long hours they were required to work on Church tasks and the verbal attacks they received when they complained about being separated from family members. Woodcraft also discussed her pregnancy, and the response from Church leaders who suggested she get an abortion. (The Church denies it promotes abortion as a policy, and says it leaves the choice up to individual members.)

The Church declined to comment for the story until the last moment, sending ABC a statement on the day the program aired saying it would not respond to the women’s charges or impugn their character. The show remains among the most popular Nightline segments that viewers can watch on the ABCNews.com site.

Still Fighting

Ever since the Church’s founding in 1955, Scientology has been a target for scrutiny and criticism because of its colorful founder, controversial history, unique doctrine, aggressive posture, and focus on celebrities.

Such criticism has taken on new dimensions in the Internet era, when people can view once-private Church videos or buy used e-meters, the devices that are used in Scientology “auditing” sessions and often appear on the Ebay Internet auction site.

Over the last two decades, the Internet has proven itself to be a powerful force in the world of religion, for groups both small and large. On the Web, even obscure groups like Heaven’s Gate have been able to proclaim their messages to the world. The Heaven’s Gate site even survived the group itself, whose nearly forty members engaged in a March 1997 mass suicide at a house in California.

The Web also empowers critics of religion, and most religious organizations have scrambled to develop strategies to address attacks and other negative buzz generated by “anti-” sites.

What makes the Internet-based attacks on Scientology so problematic are the ease with which critics can reach a vast audience, combined with the difficulty the Church has in silencing them.

But Scientology is not rolling over and playing dead. It is fighting back with its own videos, and it is trying to use copyright law to contain Internet links of Church-owned videos. Ironically, such responses run the risk of actually increasing Web traffic for controversial materials the Church seeks to suppress but that survive and thrive at a variety of sites.

The Church also prevented members of Anonymous from successfully staging a March 15 protest in front of the Church’s Los Angeles headquarters by scheduling a competing rally with the city.

But Church critics are more organized than in the past, and the war they are waging online is proving to be a difficult battle for Scientology leaders.

—Steve Rabey

By the time of Smith’s death, he had translated only a portion of the papyri that was attributed to Abraham. While this new record followed the creation story, it varied in significant ways from that of Genesis. Smith’s claim, if valid, would make these papyri the oldest biblical manuscripts in existence. Writing in 1938 Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, of Brigham Young University, boasted of the importance of the find:

The Book of Abraham will some day be reckoned as one of the most remarkable documents in existence…the author or editors of the book we call Genesis lived after the events recorded therein took place. Our text of Genesis can therefore not be dated earlier than the latest event mentioned by it. It is evident that the writings of Abraham…must of necessity be older than the original text of Genesis. I say this in passing because some of our brethren have exhibited surprise when told that the text of the Book of Abraham is older than that of Genesis.

Although the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1945 would eventually push the date of the oldest Bible manu scripts back to the second century BC, they still would not be as old as Smith’s claim for the writings of Abraham. Thus, if Smith’s assertion were accurate, the papyri in his possession would be priceless. The importance placed on the papyri can be seen by the fact that in 1835 the Mormons negotiated with Chandler to buy his collection for $2,400, a significant amount in the cash-strapped community.

Many people are aware that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, Mormons) has additional writings it considers scripture besides the Bible. The most well known of these is the Book of Mormon, whose main storyline deals with an ancient group of Israelites who migrated to the Americas about 600 BC. However, few people are familiar with their other two sacred texts, the Doctrine and Covenants, containing revelations given to their prophets, and the Pearl of Great Price, composed of the Book of Moses (a revelation), the Book of Abraham (purported translation of papyrus), an extract from Joseph Smith’s revision of the Bible, and extracts from his Church history. While each of Smith’s additional scriptures are open to criticism, we will focus on the problems associated with his Book of Abraham.

THE PAPYRI

After Joseph Smith’s death, when the Mormons were forced out of Illinois in the 1840s, most of the Church papers were brought west with Brigham Young. The Smith family retained possession of the Egyptian material, however, which later changed hands and over the course of years the papyri dropped from public view.

Like the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith professed to translate the Book of Abraham from authentic ancient records. During this time the study of Egyptian hieroglyphs was in its infancy, which no doubt left Joseph Smith feeling free to offer his interpretation of the papyri without challenge. While Frenchman Jean-François Champollion had been involved in deciphering the Rosetta Stone in the 1820s, which proved to be the key to translating Egyptian hieroglyphs, his research was little known in the United States during Smith’s lifetime.

Joseph Smith first developed his Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar using various hieroglyphs from the papyri and then composed an English explanation. In July of 1835 he recorded in his history, “The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”²

He worked on his translation for the next several years, finally publishing it in the March 1, 1842, issue of the Mormon newspaper Times and Seasons. The Book of Abraham was next printed in England in 1851 as part of a booklet, the Pearl of Great Price, which was later canonized in 1880. Included in the Book of Abraham were three illustrations taken from the papyri, labeled Facsimile No. 1, 2, and 3. Below are the three scenes with a brief explanation.

Facsimile No. 1

Smith described this as “Abraham fastened upon an altar” and “The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.”³ However, Egyptologists would later identify this as a standard scene from the Book of the Dead,⁴ showing the god Anubis overseeing the embalming of Osiris. Underneath the couch are four canopic jars used to store the person’s organs, representing the sons of Horus.⁵

Facsimile No. 2

In Smith’s purported translation of the text, he explained that the central figure represented “Kolob,” the first creation nearest to the “residence of God.” Other figures related to priesthood, various planets and stars, the measurement of time, and “God sitting upon his throne.”⁶ However, this object is known as a hypocephalus, a magical disc placed under the head of a mummy to aid the person in his journey after death.⁷ The figures represent well-known Egyptian deities. The Mormon copy is similar to a number of other such objects in various Egyptian collections around the world.⁸ Smith identified Figure 7 (lower right area) as “God sitting upon his throne,” while Egyptologists identify the figure as Min, the Egyptian god of male sexual potency, shown with an erection.⁹

Facsimile No. 3

Joseph Smith explained that this was a picture of “Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne,” with Pharaoh standing behind him. Abraham is said to be “reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy.”¹⁰ However, Egyptologists identify this as the Judgment Scene from the Book of the Dead, showing Isis standing behind the seated figure of Osiris. Standing in front of the seated figure, according to Smith, is a “Prince of Pharaoh.” Smith identified the next figure as “Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters” and the black figure as “Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.” However, the three figures in front of Osiris have been identified as Maat (the goddess of truth), the deceased person (for whom the papyrus was made), and the black figure is the half-man, half-jackal deity Anubis.¹¹

SMITH’S TRANSLATION UNDER SCRUTINY

By 1860 Egyptology had advanced to the point where it could be used to test Joseph Smith’s ability as a translator. Even though the papyri were no longer known to be in existence, the printed facsimiles from the Book of Abraham could still be scrutinized. They were submitted to the French Egyptologist M. Theodule Deveria, who not only accused Joseph Smith of making a false translation but also of altering the scenes shown in the facsimiles.¹²

By the turn of the century the study of Egyptology had progressed considerably, as seen in the 1895 classic The Egyptian Book of the Dead, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge. The growing body of knowledge on Egyptology led Rev. F. S. Spalding, Episcopal Bishop of Utah, to contact eight leading scholars of his day and request their evaluation of Joseph Smith’s illustrations in the Book of Abraham. These statements were published in 1912 under the title Joseph Smith Jr., as a Translator.

One of the scholars who examined Smith’s work was James H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago, who wrote: “These three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ depict the most common objects in the mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrate that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”¹³

The other Egyptologists whom Spalding contacted rendered similar verdicts of Smith’s erroneous interpretations.

That same year the New York Times ran a large article with the startling headline, “Museum Walls Proclaim Fraud of Mormon Prophet.” The article quoted the various Egyptologists contacted by Bishop Spalding and gave an overview of the problems with Joseph Smith’s interpretation. The article explained, “Much of Bishop Spalding’s work was done in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in this city. The ten rooms of the Egyptian collection yielded proof in such abundance that any layman, even in Egyptology, can take the drawings as published in the sacred Mormon record and reproduced on this page of THE TIMES, and find dozens of duplicates of certain figures in them on the walls of the Museum and in its cases of Egyptian objects.”¹⁴

The following year saw another challenge to the facsimiles. Noted scholar Samuel A. B. Mercer published his article “Joseph Smith as an Interpreter and Translator of Egyptian” in 1913. Dr. Mercer observed, “No one can fail to see that the eight scholars [quoted in Bishop Spalding’s booklet] are unanimous in their conclusions. Joseph Smith has been shown by an eminently competent jury of scholars to have failed completely in his attempt or pretense to interpret and translate Egyptian figures and hieroglyphics.”¹⁵

Marvin Cowan, a Baptist missionary working among the Mormons, had been told by various Mormons that the pamphlet by F. S. Spalding was outdated, so in 1966 he decided to ask various scholars for their assessment. He sent copies of the Book of Abraham facsimiles to Richard A. Parker, of the Department of Egyptology at Brown University, and requested his opinion of the photos. Parker responded: “The pictures you sent me [from the Book of Abraham] are based upon Egyptian originals but are poor or distorted copies.…The explanations are completely wrong insofar as any interpretation of the Egyptian original is concerned.…Number 1 is an altered copy of a well known scene of the dead god Osiris on his bier with a jackal-god Anubis acting as his embalmer.”¹⁶

One has only to look at any credible source on Egyptian deities to see that the figures in the Book of Abraham facsimiles are standard images from the Book of the Dead.¹⁷ To suggest that Abraham would use pictures of pagan gods to illustrate the true God is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Old Testament. Genesis 17:1 records that God revealed Himself to Abraham saying, “I am the Almighty God.” Later God instructed Moses, “I am the LORD: and I appeared unto Abraham…but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them” (Exod. 6:2–3 KJV). In the Ten Commandments God specifically stated that He had delivered the children of Israel out of Egypt and that they were to reject all pagan deities, specifically stating that no one was to make any image or likeness of God (Exod. 20:2–4). Joseph Smith’s identification of these pagan deities with the God of Abraham makes no more sense than to claim that a statue of the Buddha actually represents Jesus Christ in prayer or claiming the Hindu goddess Parvati is actually the Virgin Mary.

Today the Book of Abraham contains the same claim of being an authentic translation of the papyri as was originally published in the Times and Seasons: “The Book of Abraham, Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith. A translation of some ancient records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”¹⁸

While the facsimiles have come under attack, there was no way for the scholars to test Smith’s purported translation of the papyri, as it was assumed they had been destroyed. However, Smith’s translation would be put to the test in 1967 when a number of pieces of the long-lost papyri were presented to the LDS Church by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.¹⁹

After Joseph Smith was killed in 1844, the mummies and papyri were retained by his widow, Emma Smith. Some of these were later sold to the Chicago museum, which burned to the ground in the great Chicago fire of 1871. Thus it was assumed that the papyrus designated as the Book of Abraham had been destroyed. Actually, some of Smith’s papyri had been preserved and were eventually purchased by the Metropolitan Museum in 1947.²⁰ Since the papyri were only dated to the time of Christ, and the museum had a number of examples from that period, the museum felt they could divest themselves of the pieces. Working through Prof. Aziz Atiya, of the University of Utah, they arranged the return of the papyri to the LDS Church.²¹ This was not exactly a gift, but had been made possible by an anonymous gift to the museum.²²

Once photos of the papyri were printed in the 1968 Improvement Era,²³ the official LDS magazine, scholars began the search to determine which piece Smith had utilized in his translation. The piece was identified by comparing Joseph Smith’s translation papers and his Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar with the papyri.²⁴ It was soon determined that Smith had used characters from the piece of papyri identified as “XI. Small ‘Sensen’ text (unillustrated),”²⁵ also referred to as the Book of Breathings (a condensed version of the Book of the Dead). On pages 30-31 is an illustration of the way the hieroglyphs line up on the papyri and the way they are aligned in Smith’s manuscript next to the English.

All of the first two rows of characters on the papyrus fragment can be found in the manuscript of the Book of Abraham that is published in Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.²⁶ Other manuscript pages show that he used almost four lines of the papyrus to make fifty-one verses in the Book of Abraham. These fifty-one verses are composed of more than two thousand English words!²⁷ A person does not have to be an Egyptologist to know that it would be impossible to translate more than two thousand words from a few Egyptian characters.

This piece, Joseph Smith’s XI Small “Sensen” text, has been translated by several Egyptologists with virtual agreement. Contrary to Smith’s version, the English translation takes up just slightly more space than the actual hieroglyphs. Professor Parker’s translation was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought:

1. [……]this great pool of Khonsu 2. ‘Osiris Hor, justified], born of Taykhebyt, a man likewise. 3. After (his) two arms are (fast)ened to his breast, one wraps the Book of Breathings, which is 4.with writing both inside and outside of it, with royal linen, it being placed (at) his left arm 5.near his heart, this having been done at his 6.wrapping and outside it. If this book be recited for him, then 7.He will breath like the soul(s of the gods) for ever and 8.ever.²⁸

Mormon scholars, realizing the problems of defending a literal translation for the Book of Abraham, have now proposed that either (1) Smith didn’t use the “Sensen” text and the piece Smith did use no longer exists or (2) it doesn’t have to be a literal translation of the papyrus, but could be a revelation triggered by looking at the artifacts. Some also propose that Smith used the drawings from the papyri only to illustrate his revelation, not that they originally were drawn to illustrate a composition by Abraham.²⁹ However, the heading of the Book of Abraham still carries the official statement that it is a translation of the papyrus. If the Book of Abraham is a product of revelation, not an actual translation, and the facsimiles were not drawn to illustrate Abraham’s text, one wonders why the Mormons needed to invest so much money to acquire these pagan documents in the first place? In Joseph Smith’s day, the papyri were certainly presented to the public as actually being Abraham’s record.

DOCTRINAL INNOVATIONS

The Book of Abraham consists of five chapters and three illustrations. The text begins with Abraham in “the land of the Chaldeans,” bemoaning the fact that his forefathers “were wholly turned to the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”³⁰ The four gods that are listed are the same as Smith’s identification of the gods in Facsimile No. 1. Smith seems to have assumed that the Chaldeans (in the region of Iraq) shared the same religion as the Egyptians, with their priests answerable to Pharaoh. Chapter 1:2–3 relates Abraham’s ordination to the priesthood, wherein he is made a High Priest (thus reenforcing the LDS concept that the priesthood is necessary to act in God’s behalf). The chapter goes on to describe the founding of Egypt by Egyptus, a daughter of Ham. Verse 27 tells us that Pharaoh was “of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood.” This passage was long used as the scriptural justification for the LDS Church not to give its priesthood to blacks. Since 1978, when the Church finally gave blacks the priesthood, this verse has been ignored. In the current LDS college manual, The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, the verse is not discussed. There is instead a quote from the First Presidency about the granting of priesthood to all worthy men “without regard for race or color.”³¹

Chapter 2 redefines the Abrahamic covenant as being the priesthood and endless posterity. This has been interpreted as meaning celestial (temple) marriage.³² The Book of Abraham was published at a time when Joseph Smith was trying to secretly introduce the doctrine of plural marriage to a few of the Church leaders and this text would have served as a reenforcement of his new teaching on the need for plural wives in order to increase ones’ posterity, to fulfill the law of Abraham.³³ The chapter ends with God instructing Abraham to lie about Sarai being his wife and to say she is his sister. This contradicts Genesis 12:12–13 where it is Abraham, not God, who comes up with the idea of lying. One assumes that Smith redirected this story to justify himself to the Church leaders for his lying to his wife and the public about his secret polygamy. If God could tell Abraham to lie, why not Smith?

Chapter 3:21–27 introduces the concept of premortal existence, that men and women had a prior life (“coexisted”³⁴) with God before being born on earth. Those who were “noble” in their pre-earth life (man’s first estate) were to be the “rulers” on earth (man’s second estate). This led to an interpretation that everyone’s birth on earth is a direct result of his/her worthiness in a prior life in heaven, thus the belief that those less valiant were born black while the righteous were born white.³⁵ The Bible, however, clearly teaches that only the Godhead has eternal existence. We are God’s creation and did not have a spiritual existence prior to our birth on earth. When Jesus declared, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58 KJV), He was claiming to be truly God and that Abraham had a beginning. In Zechariah 12:1 we read that God “formeth the spirit of man within him” (KJV).

Chapters 4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham seem to be a rewrite of the Genesis creation story with the addition of multiple gods involved in the process. For instance, verse 3 reads, “And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.” Curiously, this contradicts his earlier revelation of Moses’ account: “And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light.”³⁶ If Moses was as inspired as Abraham, why didn’t he understand that the creation was accomplished by a council of gods? During the early years of Mormonism, Joseph Smith preached the standard doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. However, by the 1840s he had begun to teach a plurality of gods, completely ignoring the biblical doctrine of one eternal, unchanging God and even contradicting his earlier writings.³⁷

TEST THE SPIRITS

The Bible calls us to “test the spirits” and examine the teachings of those professing to be prophets.³⁸ When we apply these tests to Joseph Smith and his book of scripture, we are left with (1) a book that is not an authentic translation of a document written by Abraham and (2) a text that teaches heretical doctrine. Therefore, the only course for the Christian is to reject both Joseph Smith and his scripture.

notes

1 Joseph Smith, The History of the Church, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 236.

2 “Figures of the Past,” in Among the Mormons: Historical Accounts by Contemporary Observers, ed. William Mulder and Russell Mortensen (New York: Knopf, 1958), 136–37.

3 Sidney B. Sperry, Ancient Records Testify in Papyrus and Stone, Course of Study, Adult Department, M.I.A. (1938), 83.

4 Smith, vol. 2, 238.

5 Book of Abraham, Explanation of Facsimile No. 1, Pearl of Great Price, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

6 Richard A. Parker, “The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Preliminary Report,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 3, 2 (Summer 1968): 86.

7 http://www.akhet.co.uk/4sons.htm.

8 Pearl of Great Price, Explanation of Facsimile No. 2.

9 Rt. Rev. F. S. Spalding, Joseph Smith Jr., as a Translator (Salt Lake City: The Arrow Press, 1912), 26. Photo reprint by Utah Lighthouse Ministry under the title Why Egyptologists Reject the Book of Abraham.

10R. C. Webb, Joseph Smith as a Translator (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1936), 130, 165, 173, 175, 177, 179.

11 “Min Is Not God,” Salt Lake City Messenger, no. 111(November 2008), http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/min.htm.

12 Pearl of Great Price, Explanation of Facsimile No. 3.

13 Spalding, 23; http://www.egyptologyonline.com/gods_and_goddesses.htm.

14 Deveria’s work was originally published in French in 1860 and then reprinted in English in A Journey to Great Salt Lake City, by Jules Remy and Julius Brenchley (London: W. Jeffs, 1861). Then in 1873 T. B. H. Stenhouse included Deveria’s work in his book The Rocky Mountain Saints: A Full and Complete History of the Mormons (New York: D. Appleton and Company). Included were side-by-side comparisons of Smith’s interpretation with Deveria’s explanation of the facsimiles, 513–19.

15 Spalding, 26–27.

16 “Museum Walls Proclaim Fraud of Mormon Prophet,” New York Times, Magazine Section Part Five, December 29, 1912; http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/nytimes1912papyrus.htm.

17 Samuel A. B. Mercer, “Joseph Smith as an Interpreter and Translator of Egyptian,” The Utah Survey 1, 1 (September, 1913): 11.

18 Letter by Richard A. Parker, Dept. of Egyptology, Brown University, March 22, 1966.

19 http://www.egyptologyonline.com/book_of_the_dead.htm.

20 Book of Abraham, Pearl of Great Price, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

21 Jack E. Jarrard, “Rare Papyri Presented to the Church,” Deseret News, November 27, 1967, 1.

22 “The Facsimile Found—The Recovery of Joseph Smith’s Papyrus Manuscripts—An Interview with Dr. Fischer,”Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 2, 4 (Winter 1967): 56.

23 “The Facsimile Found: The Recovery of Joseph Smith’s Papyrus Manuscripts—A Conversation with Professor Atiya,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 2, 4 (Winter 1967): 51.

24“An Interview With Dr. Fischer,” 64.

25 “New Light on Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papyri,” Improvement Era, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (February 1968), 40–41.

26 Grant S. Heward and Jerald Tanner, “The Source of the Book of Abraham Identified,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 3, 2 (Summer 1968): 92–97.

27 Improvement Era, February 1968, 41. See Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 311.

28 Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, photo reprint by Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1966.

29 Tanners, 312–13.

30 Richard A. Parker, “The Book of Breathings (Frag. 1, the ‘Sensen’ Text, With Restorations from Louvre Papyrus 3284),” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Summer 1968): 98.

31 See articles on Book of Abraham in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 1, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 132–38.

32 Book of Abraham 1:1–6.

33 The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, Religion 327, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2000, 32.

34 PGP Student Manual, 34.

35 Doctrine and Covenants 132:30–32.

36 “Premortal Life,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 3, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1123.

37 Speech of Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests’ Quorum, in Nauvoo, April 27, 1845, printed by John Taylor, 30.

38 Book of Moses 2:3, PGP.

39 Isa. 43:10–11; 44:6; 45:5. See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1977), 345–47, 369–73. For his earlier teaching on God, see Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:27–29; 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, Lectures on Faith, Section V; 1981 Doctrine and Covenants 20:28.

40 Deut. 13:1–3; 18:22; 1 John 4:1; 2 Pet. 1:15–16; Acts 17:10–12.

       Consider a dogma virtually unheard of before the nineteenth century. Within years it morphed from humble beginnings in the British Isles into a worldwide phenomenon. Millions extolled its virtues with unbending devotion and evangelistic fervor. By the twentieth century, its cardinal doctrines permeated bastions of education, and penetrated corridors of influence and power. Masters of mass communications championed its tenets and academic institutions churned out its messengers. Despite being a misreading of data, it is so assumed that those who oppose it are shouted down as reactionaries. Its proponents consider themselves keepers of orthodoxy and react with cult-like fanaticism when their presuppositions are questioned. Though its underpinnings are racist, luminaries from politicians to playwrights laud its virtues.

The dogma to which I refer is Darwinian evolution. The intellectual revolution it initiated provided the scientific substructure for some of the most significant atrocities in human history. Hitler’s genocidal mania was fueled by Darwin’s racist contention that “civilized races of man will almost exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”^[1] In the end, Hitler’s philosophy that Aryans were superhuman and Semites subhuman, led to the extermination of some six million Jews.  

      Like Hitler, Karl Marx, the father of communism, saw in Darwinism the scientific and sociological support for an economic experiment that eclipsed even the horrors of the Holocaust. Sigmund Freud, the founder of modern psychology, was also a faithful follower of Charles Darwin. His belief that man was merely a sophisticated animal led him to postulate that “anxiety, paranoia, and other mental disorders each embody modes of behavior that were once adaptive for the human species in the stages of evolution.”^[2]

Dr. John L. Down labeled Down syndrome “Mongoloid idiocy’ because he thought it represented a ‘throwback’ to the ‘Mongolian stage’ in human evolution.”^[3]

       “Throwbacks,” of course, are undesirable. For evolution to progress, it is crucial that the unfit die as that the fittest survive. Marvin Lubenow aptly portrays the ghastly consequences of this notion in his book, Bones of Contention: “If the unfit survived indefinitely they would continue to ‘infect’ the fit with their less fit genes. The result is that the more fit genes would be diluted and compromised by the less fit genes, and evolution could not take place.”^[4]

      Nowhere were the far-reaching consequences of such cosmogenic mythology more evident that in the pseudo-science of eugenics. Eugenics hypothesized that the gene pool was being corrupted by the less fit genes of inferior people. As Michael Crichton has pointed out, the theory of eugenics postulated that “the best human being were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones––the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the ‘feeble-minded.’…The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded––Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks––and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.”^[5]

      The logical progression from evolution to eugenics was hardly a surprise. What is breathtaking, however, is the vast rapidity with which this baseless theory was embraced by the cultural elite. Crichton notes that its supporters ranged from President Theodore Roosevelt to Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Eugenics research was funded through philanthropies such as the Carnegie and Rockefeller foundations and carried out at prestigious universities such as Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton.

      Legislation to address the “problem” posed by eugenics was passed in blue states ranging from New York to California. Eugenics was even backed by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Medical Association. Those who resisted eugenics were considered backward and ignorant. Conversely, German scientists who gassed the “feeble-minded” were considered forward thinking and progressive and were rewarded with grants form such institutions as the Rockefeller Foundation right up to the onset of World War II.

      It wasn’t until the ghastly reality of eugenics reached full bloom in the genocidal mania of German death camps that it quietly vanished into the night. Indeed, after World War II, few institutions or individuals would even own up to their insidious belief in eugenics. Nor did the cultural elite ever acknowledge the obvious connection between eugenics and evolution.

      Eugenics has faded into the shadowy recesses of history but the tragic consequences of the evolutionary dogma that birthed it are still with us today. Ideas have consequences and the consequences of this cosmogenic myth can hardly be overstated. This is not just an issue, this is the issue; how one views their origins ultimately will determine how they live their life. I talked about this at length with my guest Dr. Jay Richards, Dr. Jonathan Wells, and Dr. Stephen Meyer on the February 12^th and 13^th editions of the Bible Answer Man broadcast, which you can access off our Website at www.equip.org. I also recommend the following resources which can be purchased as a package at our Website or by 1-888-700-0274, these resources are

Fatal Flaws

The Case for a Creator DVD

The Privileged Planet DVD

Icons of Evolution DVD 

Yoga has become one of America’s most popular exercise regimens for staying fit. Seventy-five percent of health clubs in the United States offer yoga classes.²⁷ Athletes are also increasingly using yoga to limber up for other sports, such as golf.

Furthermore, yoga asana competitions, which have long been held in India, are becoming increasingly popular in America. Bikram Choudhury has established regional and international Bishnu Charan Ghosh Cup championships and he is also leading a campaign to have competitive yoga included in the Olympics.

Yoga In the Workplace

It is becoming increasingly common for major corporations to provide yoga for their employees as a means of reducing stress and promoting general health. Entrepreneurial yoga teachers have formed businesses to service this market. One such company, Yoga at Work, states on its Web site, “Join a rapidly growing list of major companies like Nike, HBO, Apple, Forbes, General Electric, PepsiCo and Chase Manhattan that rely on yoga to keep their employees healthy, happy, focused, fully engaged in their work.”²⁸

According to a blog entry titled “Mandatory Yoga at Work” by law professor Paul Secunda, the National Law Journal reports that “employers are increasingly mandating that employees have healthy lifestyles, or face repercussions. Mandatory wellness programs are popping up everywhere, lawyers say, requiring everything from cholesterol screening to weight-loss plans and yoga classes. Several employers are starting to reward employees with extra cash for meeting certain company health goals. Others are fining those who refuse to take part in programs.”²⁹

Yoga In Health Care and Medical Research

A 1990 study showed that yoga combined with other healthy practices was effective in treating arterial blockage. In recent years further research of yoga has yielded some tentatively positive results for relieving carpal tunnel syndrome, asthma and other pulmonary conditions, substance abuse, depression, anxiety, insomnia, multiple sclerosis, lower back pain, and obesity. Further claims have been made for yoga’s beneficial effects in preventing or managing numerous additional afflictions. It is becoming increasingly common for mainstream physicians and psychiatrists to prescribe or recommend yoga as therapy, and for hospitals and physical therapists to incorporate it in their treatment regimens.³⁰

There are some proven health benefits to yoga practice, but most of those claims have only anecdotal support; thus, they should not be magnified out of proportion. Further, the press has noted a “surge of muscle and ligament sprains, disk injuries, and cartilage tears,” “mild to moderate sprains of the knees, shoulder, neck, or back,” and “soft-tissue and joint injuries” associated with yoga, with some of the injuries sustained being quite serious.³¹

A New York Times article raises the question whether yoga’s negative effects may at times outweigh its positive ones: “‘The extreme range of motion yoga develops does not necessarily have an advantage, and it may be counterproductive,’ said Dr. Shirley Sahrmann, a professor of physical therapy at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. Like dancers, practitioners of yoga cultivate overly flexible spines, which often cause problems in resting posture. ‘In my business,’ Dr. Sahrmann said, ‘I have more problems with people who have excessive mobility than limited mobility.’”³²

Yoga’s effect on behavior is not always positive, either. At Ringerike Prison in Oslo, Norway, a trial yoga program was stopped after some prisoners became more aggressive and agitated, while others developed sleeping problems. “[The warden] said that deep breathing exercises could make the inmates more dangerous, by unblocking their psychological barriers.”³³

In 2002, the New York Times reported that at seven San Francisco public schools “with more on the way-the ‘yoga break’ has taken its place beside typical school rituals like recess and the Pledge of Allegiance….” The schools had trained teachers so that yoga could be included not only in physical education but in the regular classroom as well. Furthermore, “in Seattle, 15 of 97 public schools have yoga as a warm-up in gym class, and it is an elective for high school students….” The Times also reported that a Los Angeles “nonprofit group called Yoga Inside…sponsors classes in 31 states, many in schools in poor urban neighborhoods.” Lastly, “the Accelerated School in South Central Los Angeles, an acclaimed public charter school, introduced yoga classes for all students last year.”¹⁷

A couple of years later, Fox News did a story on tensions that were developing over the incorporation of yoga into the Aspen Elementary School curriculum in Colorado. Steve Woodrow, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Aspen, and other parents of children in the school “complained to the school board, claiming it was a clear violation of the separation of church and state. ‘If you study yoga its roots clearly are within Hinduism,’ Woodrow said…. Even some of the most basic yoga terms, he claims, may cause elementary school students to bring up questions that have answers based in Eastern religious philosophies.”¹⁸ Fox News reported that the American Yoga Association (AYA) and the school disagreed. It quoted from the AYA’s Web site, which states:

Yoga is not a religion. It has no creed or fixed set of beliefs, nor is there a prescribed godlike figure to be worshipped in a particular manner. Religions for the most part seem to be based upon the belief in and worship of things (God or godlike figures) that exist outside oneself. The core of Yoga’s philosophy is that everything is supplied from within the individual. Thus, there is no dependence on an external figure, either in the sense of a person or god figure, or a religious organization. The common belief that Yoga derives from Hinduism is a misconception. Yoga actually predates Hinduism by many centuries.¹⁹

Interestingly, a yogi at a yoga Web site where the Fox News article is posted made the following candid admission in a forum for responses to the article:

In all honesty, I agree with this guy that Yoga is a religious system. One can try to get around that by saying its just exercise, but really its not. In India it is definitely religious, and in the U.S. it certainly is “New Age”. Its a bit like legalizing marijuana. That alone might not be a big deal, but it leads people down a certain path to harder drugs. So start out with the soft sell of yoga as exercise, and you plant the seed of diverting the child towards certain religious systems. While I may not personally be offended, I can certainly see how a religious Christian would object.²⁰

Three years later, in 2007, Steve Woodrow and other concerned parents not only in Aspen but across the country were losing the battle. Tara Guber, the creator of the “Yoga Ed.” program that was implemented in Aspen, simply took the overtly Hindu language out of the program while keeping everything else intact, and the strategy worked. As the Associated Press reported:

Guber crafted a new curriculum that eliminated chanting and translated Sanskrit into kid-friendly English. Yogic panting became “bunny breathing,” and “meditation” became “time in.”

“I stripped every piece of anything that anyone could vaguely construe as spiritual or religious out of the program,” Guber said.

Now, more than 100 schools in 26 states have adopted Guber’s “Yoga Ed.” program and more than 300 physical education instructors have been trained in it.

Countless other public and private schools from California to Massachusetts- including the Aspen school where Guber clashed with parents-are teaching yoga.²¹

For Children before and beyond the Schools

The push to teach yoga to the young is not limited to the schools or to school-age children. Yoga studios across the country have been adding kids’ yoga to their schedules, and several booming businesses have popped up,²² such as Marsha Wenig’s YogaKids International based in Michigan City, Indiana,²³ Jody Komitor’s Next Generation Yoga on Manhattan’s Upper West Side,²⁴ and Helen Gerabedian’s Itsy Bitsy Yoga in Marlboro, Massachusetts.²⁵

The stated plan is to teach preschoolers hatha yoga at first and thus pique their interest in yoga, and then when they’re older teach them how to meditate and the philosophy behind it all. All of this is spelled out in Jody Komitor and Eve Adamson’s The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Yoga with Kids. The book claims yoga is “spiritual” but not “religious” and is therefore compatible with all religions, but then proceeds to teach about the eight limbs of yoga, karma, prana, chakras, and other doctrines unique to the religion of Hinduism.²⁶

John Hagee is a New York Times best-selling author, prominent televangelist on Trinity Broadcasting Network, and pastor of the 19,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio. In his latest book he argues that Christians are obligated to support the political state of Israel (pp.84-85). He demands that we support Israel in anything it does, because we as Christians have “a biblical mandate to stand in absolute solidarity with Israel” (84, emphasis added). His book In Defense of Israel is virtually a hagiography (or overly idealizing presentation) of Jews and Judaism that borders on Judeolatry.

Hagee rebukes Christianity for anti-Semitism while he himself extols Judaism, declaring Jerusalem his “spiritual home” (12), speaking of Jews as his “spiritual brothers” (36, 173), even worshiping with them (144), and stating that they are “quite literally God’s children” (51, emphasis in original) whom “we are commanded to love unconditionally” (2).

In Defense of Israel is a study in relentless confusion and massive inaccuracy, containing nearly as many errors as pages. The following addresses the most glaring of these.

Hagee’s Historical Confusion. He states that Acts 11:26 occurred “forty years after the crucifixion” (93), around AD 70, but it actually occurred in the early 40s during “the reign of Claudius,” according to Acts 11:28.¹

He states that Jesus went to His first Passover “at the end of his twelfth year” (95), but instead He did so “when He became twelve” (Luke 2:42). He thinks Paul “wrote most of the New Testament” (98), although Luke did, in terms of volume, writing twenty-five percent of it.

Hagee believes, incredibly, that as a child Jesus studied the Mishnah (a collection of Jewish traditions and scriptural interpretations) and the rest of the Talmud (96). The Mishnah was compiled around AD 200, however, and the Talmud 200 years later. On page 97, he speaks of “the creation of the world in seven days,” whereas it happened in six days (Gen. 1; Exod. 20:11; 31:17). He states that Caiaphas “was appointed by Herod” (127), but he was appointed by Valerius Gratus, more than twenty years after Herod died.

Hagee’s Theological Errors. Hagee also appears to have some theological confusion-for example, he confuses the virgin birth with the immaculate conception of Mary (93). This leads to serious doctrinal errors, which I list below.

1. Hagee claims that Jesus did not come to be the Messiah. He writes, “not one verse of Scripture in the New Testament…says Jesus came to be the Messiah” (136; cf. 137, 140, 145). Jesus is called “Christ” (Messiah) throughout the New Testament, however. Peter declares, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt.16:15-16), as do Martha (John 11:27) and Jesus Himself (John 10:24-25), and John writes his gospel “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ” (John 20:30-31). In Matthew 26:63-64 the high priest demands, “tell us whether You are the Christ.” Jesus responds, “You have said it yourself.” Also, Paul set about “confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ” (Acts 9:22).

2. Hagee maintains that “the Jews did not reject Jesus as Messiah” (132), since “Jesus had to live to be the Messiah” (135). Early in John’s gospel, however, we read that “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11). At the end of His ministry Jesus weeps: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem… how often I wanted to gather your children together…and you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37, emphasis added). Clearly then, Hagee is wrong for declaring that the Jews did not reject Jesus. Furthermore, Christ did come to die, for Paul busied himself “explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, ‘This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ’” (Acts 17:3; cf. 3:18; 26:23).

3. Hagee teaches that the Jews did not kill Jesus. He vigorously argues that this is “one of those deadly New Testament myths” and that “no justification can be found in the New Testament to support this lie” (125; cf. 122). Peter, however, preaches, “Men of Israel….this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” (Acts 2:22-23, emphasis added.” Stephen declares that the same Jews were the “betrayers and murderers” of “the Righteous One” (Acts 7:52). Paul charges that “the Jews…both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets” (1 Thess. 2:15; see also Acts 2:36; 3:13-15; 4:10; 5:28, 30; 10:39; 13:27-29; 26:10).

4. Hagee argues that “the Old Covenant is not dead” (158). Paul, however, writes that the Old Covenant’s glory was fading even when Moses gave it (2 Cor. 3:7, 13) and “has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it” in the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3:10). Hebrews 8:13 thus notes that “when He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”

Lamentably, the fact that Hagee is a best-selling author reminds us anew that, as God proclaimed, “my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hos. 4:6).

NOTES

1. All Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

· One out of four new mothers is unmarried.

· 1.5 million abortions are per­formed each year in the U.S. alone.

· Presently, one million teenagers become pregnant every year. Teenage births have reached their highest level in fifteen years.

· 54 percent of High School youths have had sex, and there are a reported 2.5 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases among teenagers every year.

· 500,000 cases of incurable genital herpes are reported every year, along with 1.4 million cases of gonorrhea, 130,000 cases of syphilis, 4 million cases of chlamydia, and 300,000 cases of hepatitis B.

As shocking as these statistics are, the situation becomes even more alarming when the crisis of AIDS is brought into the picture. For example, there are approxi­mately one million Americans and eleven million individuals worldwide infected with the AIDS virus. The World Health Organiza­tion (WHO) estimates that “the number of infected people will soar to 40 million, including 10 million children, by the end of the decade.”¹ In the United States alone, the current accumulative death toll from AIDS – about 120,000 – is higher than the number of lives claimed by the Korean and Vietnam wars combined.

It is projected that “more Americans will die of AIDS in the next two years than have died in the past 10,” as the disease’s rate of spread continues to accelerate.² It’s no won­der why Dr. Ward Cates, formerly of the Cen­ters for Disease Control (CDC), said the fol­lowing about AIDS: “Anyone who has the least ability to look into the future can already see that the potential for this disease is worse than anything mankind has seen before.”³

The greatest tragedy, however, is that while tens of millions worldwide are dying from this dreaded pandemic, we continue to run from the God who holds the solution. Rather than facing squarely the root prob­lem of sin (the underlying moral disease), we continue instead to gaze helplessly at its ripened fruit. Instead of “repent and return to biblical morality,” “safe sex” is chosen as the slogan for the campaign against AIDS, a campaign humankind cannot afford to lose. Consequently, the public marches onward – misguidedly believing that its catchy rhetoric and latex solutions can more than adequately thwart the danger at hand.

While abstinence is conveniently written off as a mere pipe dream, condoms are vig­orously championed as the best “realistic” line of defense against AIDS despite an estimated failure rate ranging from 1.5 to 10 percent (with some placing the figure as high as 36 percent). It is noteworthy that a recently released CDC study conducted at New York clinics reports that “21 percent of females with sexually transmitted diseases said that their partners used condoms regu­larly.”⁴ It is thus not surprising to find one journalist concluding that “fighting AIDS with condoms is like fighting lung cancer with filter tips.”⁵

Worse still, as we witness the steady col­lapse of our health care system, many are attempting to transform AIDS from the species-threatening pandemic that it is to a civil rights issue. Looking downward rather than upward, they point to edu­cation and economic resources as “the solution” which is the rationale behind turning our schools into con­dom distribution centers. And all the while, they continue to perpetuate the myth that homosexuality is a viable alternative lifestyle.

Is there a solution to the AIDS crisis, this deadly fruit of the sexual revolution? As unwilling as the secularists may be to hear it, the answer is Jesus Christ. Only He can transform the human heart and thus save humankind from hedonism and HIV, and, more importantly, from humankind’s greater moral disease of sin (Isa. 53:4-6; 1 Pet. 2:24). Only by returning to biblical morality can Ameri­cans hope to reverse the spiraling statis­tics cited above.

As followers of Christ, we ought to fall on our knees and intercede for America and the world, as Abraham did for Sodom and Gomorrah. Now is the time for Christians to become equipped to expose the farce of the sexual revolution and communicate the truth of a Creator God who wrote the manual on life and living — the Bible. Now is the time to look at AIDS patients as a mission field, people for whom Christ died. It is time to realize that the very future of our nation (and planet) depends upon our willingness to cooperate with the Great Physician, Jesus Christ.

The big push for safe sex and condoms is but an illusory placebo for a very real and dangerous threat. And unless a sober plea for a permanent solution is voiced, we can only expect the situation to worsen. As Christians, it is incumbent upon us to shake the world from its fanciful complacency and turn its attention back to the One who offers the only true and lasting answer. With 12 million cases of sexually transmitted dis­eases occurring every year in the U.S. alone, commentator Cal Thomas’s conclusion, reflecting biblical morality, is right on target: “Free love is a free ride to destruction.”⁶

¹ Lawrence K. Altman, “Tests of AIDS Vaccine Scheduled to Begin in Two Years in Four Countries,” New York Times 11 November 1991, A5.

² Jerry Adler, “Safer Sex,” Newsweek, 9 December 1991, 58.

³ Cited in David Chilton, Power in the Blood (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, 1987), 5.

⁴ EP News Service, 29 November 1991, 6.

⁵ Joseph Sobran, “Virtue Is Practical and Desirable,” Conservative Chronicle, 27 November 1991, 1.

⁶ Cal Thomas, “Free Love Is a Free Ride to Destruction,” Los Angeles Times, 11 November 1991, B11.