Who Was Melchizedek?

For anyone who has read the Bible, particularly the Hebrew Bible (a.k.a. Old Testament), chances are you remember the long lists of names and genealogies that drone on seemingly forever. These are the parts of the Bible that most people skip over because...well...they seem boring, pointless and make us want to throw the Bible at the cat or dog.  And for the most part, you don't need to be a Bible scholar to recognize the fact that most of these names are of individuals who don't matter to the Bible story and have no real importance to Christian or Jewish theology.  I mean, does it really matter that the Sons of Gomer are Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah!?!

But every once in a while the Bible does briefly reference a name of an individual who actually played an extremely significant role in the development of Jewish and Christian theology. Enoch, for example, is only mentioned briefly in the Hebrew Bible (he's mentioned much more in the New Testament actually) as being a man who "walked with God."  Or what about the tale of Ehud, the coolest ninja in the world who single-handedly killed Eglon, the evil, fat-ass Moabite king. And let us not forget about dear ol' Queen Athaliah, whose six-year reign ended with the attempted assassination of all her grandchildren (to destroy the royal blood line of David) and reintroduced the worship of Baal into Jerusalem. Yes, the Bible is indeed full of random and obscure characters, who though not much is said about them, play a critical role in the development of both Judaism and Christianity.

One such character is Melchizedek, the "King of Salem."  From the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), we are told that Melchizedek was, "the priest of the most high God" (Genesis 14:18) to whom Abraham paid his tithes.  The only other reference to Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible is found in Psalms 110:4, which states:

The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

From these verses we can only glean a few tidbits of information on who Melchizedek was and why he was so important. For Abraham to pay tithes to Melchizedek suggests that Abraham considered himself subordinate to this "King of Salem."  And as Psalms states, the "order of Melchizedek" suggests that more than one individual has claimed the priestly rights/titles/status as the figure mentioned in Genesis 14.

Still, none of this tells us much about who Melchizedek ultimately was, or if he was even a singular individual.  After all, many Christian scholars protest that the name Melchizedek is more of a title than it is a person's name, or that it might be the preincarnate Christ.  After all, Melchizedek literally means  "my king (is) righteous(ness)" or "King of Peace."  Wasn't Jesus also referred to as the "Prince of Peace?" And as we learn from Hebrews 5:5-6, Jesus himself is identified as being a "high priest" after this order:

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.  As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Is it possible that the Melchizedek mentioned in the Hebrew Bible could be one in the same person as the Melchizedek spoken of by Paul in his letter to the Hebrews?

While some may argue that this supposed link between Jesus and Melchizedek is proof that they are one in the same being, I believe it can be made quite clear that Jesus and Melchizedek are two very different people but of the same priesthood order (or authority).  In other words, Melchizedek (of the Hebrew Bible) is a foreshadowing (like many other things found in the Hebrew Bible) of the Supreme High Priest, who is Jesus Christ.

A good illustration of how Melchizedek served as a foreshadowing of Christ comes from the Nag Hammadi Papers.  These documents (found in upper Egypt in 1945), which date back to at least the 1st century A.D., contain a number of Gnostic writings that touch on some of the typical Christian debates of that time period.  Included in this treasure trove of writings is the following on Melchizedek:

And immediately, I arose, I, Melchizedek...and I will not cease, from now on, forever, O Father of the All, because you have had pity on men, and you have sent the angel of light...When he came, he caused me to be raised up from ignorance, and (from) the fructification of death to life. For I have a name: I am Melchizedek, the Priest of God Most High; I know that it is I who am truly the image of the true High-Priest of God Most High...I shall pronounce my name as I receive baptism now (and) forever, (as a name) among the living (and) holy names, and (now) in the waters. Amen.

Note how Melchizedek (who refers to himself as "I") references the "angel of light" who caused [him] to be raised up from ignorance [and] death."  We see in this text that Melchizedek sees himself as a foreshadowing of Christ who is the "true High-Priest of God Most High." Melchizedek had only received "the image" of the "true High-Priest."

The Zohar adds a measure of clarity on how Melchizedek conducted himself as High Priest. Like many other prophets, Melchizedek's labors served to divide the righteous from the unrighteous, as any "Priest of the Most High God" would be expected to do:

Hence in the days of Abram MELCHIZEDEK KING OF SALEM (salem = completeness), i.e. God whose throne was then established in its place and whose sovereignty therefore became complete, brought out bread and wine i.e. produced the appropriate food for the whole world, and did not withhold blessing from all the world; from the upper grades he brought forth food and blessings for all the worlds. AND HE WAS A PRIEST TO THE MOST HIGH GOD, the whole thus being in the most perfect order; to show that as the wicked upset the world and cause blessing to be withheld, so the righteous bring blessing to the world and for their sakes all its inhabitants are blessed. And he gave him a tenth of all to wit, of those blessings which issue from “all”, the source of all the blessings which descend upon the world. According to another explanation, God gave Abram a tenth (The Zohar, Yeshivat Kol Yehudah, vol. 1, Pp. 262).

From both the Zohar and Biblical accounts, it is clear that Melchizedek was a divisive character, who rebuked the wicked and praised the righteous.  Add to it the following passage from the world of Mormon theology:

Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever. And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth par of all he possessed.  Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a TYPE OF HIS ORDER, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.  Now this Melchizedek was king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness; But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did PREACH REPENTANCE UNTO HIS PEOPLE. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the PRINCE OF PEACE, for he was the King of Salem; and he did reign under his father (my emphasis).

Note how Melchizedek is a "type" of the "order" of Christ and that his people called him "the Prince of Peace."  Again, Melchizedek served to foreshadow Christ, they were NOT the same person.

Any further doubt that Jesus and Melchizedek are the same person is smashed to pieces by Paul, who clearly speaks of how Melchizedek is a foreshadowing of Christ in Hebrews, Chapter 7:

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Verse 3 is of particular note, since it employs the phrase "made like unto." In the Greek Septuagint, the verb "aphomioo" is used in this context.  And as Professor D.W. Burdick points out:

The verb "aphomoioo" always assumes two distinct and separate identities, one of which is a copy of the other.  Thus, Melchizedek and the Son of God are represented as two separate persons, the first of which resembles the second" ("Melchizedek," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Revised, G.W. Bromiley, vol. 3, Pp. 313).

From these verses (and the other sources mentioned above) the haze over Melchizedek begins to clear.  Melchizedek is not Jesus, nor is he a messianic figure.  He is a foreshadowing of Christ who is to come.  The "Order of Melchizedek," which has been mentioned several times in several of the aforementioned references, is therefore a holy calling given through priesthood (see what Paul said on the matter in the scripture reference above).  Interestingly enough, the world of Mormon theology has this to say on the matter:

There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.

This sort of explanation fits with what we know about Melchizedek from the sources available to us. Melchizedek was the best of men. He was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ, who was to come. Melchizedek was a champion of peace and a king over a holy land (some scholars believe his Kingdom of Salem was the precursor to JeruSALEM). Though very little can be found in the Bible on his life, other sources help to augment the story and fill in the missing pieces.  And what we are left with is a picture of a man who was indeed a foreshadowing of Christ...a Prince of Peace.

Book Review: Architects of Annihilation

Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction. By Gotz Aly and Susanne Heim (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2002. Pp. 514).

The events that led up to the atrocities of the Holocaust have been a source of ardent debate for historians. Being able to add clarity to the fog of Holocaust historiography is no small task for any writer. In their work, Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction, historians Gotz Aly and Susanne Heim have effectively provided simple but convincing evidence that adds a new perspective to this critical historical event. Instead of prescribing to the traditional view of Holocaust historiography, Aly and Heim have challenged the status quo interpretation of the causes of the Holocaust by rejecting the notion that Nazi atrocities are simply too evil to be understood from a scholarly perspective. Instead, Aly and Heim suggest that it is both logical and prudent to view the Holocaust as a well constructed and detailed plan of mass execution (Pp. 4-5).

The central component in the development of Aly and Heim’s thesis is their suggestion that the Nazi extermination of the Jewish population was not motivated purely by racial hatred, but by a desire to establish German economic hegemony over the whole of Europe. In an effort to secure their economic destiny, the Nazi regime embarked on a, “negative population policy,” which sought to achieve, “an optimum population size” (Pp. 4). In other words, the Nazi’s targeted undesirable groups of the population in an effort to purify the German economic machine. The Nazi justification for the elimination of specific groups of the population came from the belief that, ‘Europe was one vast wasteland crying out for ‘readjustment’ and ‘reconstruction,’” (Pp. 7). Aly and Heim suggest that the Jewish population made a perfect target for the Nazi’s “negative population policy,” because of their strong participation in the German and Austrian economies, which was quickly branded as a detriment to Germany’s quest for economic superiority. Instead of being branded and persecuted by racist xenophobes, Aly and Heim suggest that the Jewish population’s sufferings originate out of the Nazi doctrine of economic domination.

To help support their claims, Aly and Heim appeal to the role of Auschwitz as a micro history of sorts, which they believe is representative of the larger Nazi policy of “negative population.” Aly and Heim point out the fact that the construction of Auschwitz coincided with Germany’s plan to improve the economic situation in Poland. From the Nazi perspective, Poland was a virtual economic backwater in desperate need of modernization. According to Aly and Heim, the construction and implementation of Auschwitz as a means of population control became a medium through which Poland could be put on the path towards economic prosperity, In other words, the “undesirable” or “excess” segments of the population that were seen as a burden to the Polish economy could simply be collected and eventually eliminated in the most efficient way possible. This bold move towards “social modernization,” in which segments of the Polish population were forced into camps such as Auschwitz, gave the Nazi regime all the justification it needed to further its acts of brutality.

In addition to their analysis of Auschwitz and other parts of Eastern Europe, Aly and Heim devote a large amount of their book to the role of social and economic “technocrats,” who they believe were the principle developers of the Nazi policy of population control. In this regard, Aly and Heim are, yet again, directly challenging the traditional historiography of Holocaust research. Instead of placing the blame on the shoulders of Nazi elites, Aly and Heim suggest that it was the contributions of social scientists (sociologists, economists, demographers, etc.) that were instrumental in developing the Nazi doctrine of negative population. Aly and Heim clearly support the notion that the German policy of population control would not have come to fruition without the involvement of these social “technocrats,” who were given free rein to develop and present their Darwinian-influenced ideas of population control and economic growth to the Nazi hierarchy.

Though clearly a unique perspective into the development of German economics and population control, this book fails to address the role of racism anti-Semitism in the Nazi doctrine of “negative population.” Despite Aly and Heim’s sporadic mentioning of German racism, there is a noticeable omission of its possible influence in shaping Germany’s policy towards the “undesirable” segments of society. Instead, Aly and Heim suggest that German racism and anti-Semitism were used as a secondary influence, which helped to bring about the primary goal of German economic superiority.

Despite its controversial claims, Architects of Annihilation should be seen as an enlightening perspective into the possible motives behind the horrors of the Holocaust. Gots Aly and Susanne Heim’s interpretation of Nazi policy is likely to inspire a plethora of debate between critics and supporters on the issue. Regardless of what skeptics or believers may say, this work should remain as a unique contribution to the historiography of the Holocaust.

Holy Envy

A Challenge to
All That Believe

Krister Stendahl, the Late, great Professor of Theology at Harvard, once gave a sermon in which he outlined what he believed were the three rules of religious understanding. They are:

1.When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

2.Don't compare your best to their worst.

3.Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

The phrase "holy envy" is one that caught the attention of many, and the idea is one that I agree with 100%. Too often, people of faith get caught up in the finger-pointing game. For whatever reason we can sometimes believe that "exposing" the negative aspects of other faiths will somehow add legitimacy to our own belief system. And though I agree that all religions need to be dissected and deserve serious scholarly scrutiny, sometimes I think we can forget that all religions are essentially striving for the same thing: to make people better than the sum of their parts.

For this reason, I would like to issue a challenge to my fellow blog buddies. At some point during this holiday season demonstrate your "holy envy." What are some of the things that you like in other religions? What do Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, etc. do on a regular basis that you would like to adopt into your personal life? What would you like to see your own religion do better?

Of course, nobody is asking you to compromise on your beliefs. Faith is a very personal and intimate aspect of life. However, if you cannot see the good in other belief systems then perhaps you are looking at the wrong things. Having "holy envy" for specific practices/beliefs of others is, perhaps, the only occasion in which God will be OK with you being covetous. Take advantage of it!

With this in mind, here is my "holy envy" list (in no particular order or preference).

Islam: The Masters of Prayer
I think we all recognize that Islam has unfortunately gained an undeserved reputation in the Western world. Too many people associate being Muslim with being an extremist, a terrorist, a radical, and/or a heathen. These stereotypes are, of course, based on fear and ignorance. Reality is that Islam is a beautiful faith with much to be admired. The Qur'an is a wonderful holy book chalked full of insightful, inspiring messages that are worthy of our respect.

For me personally, the thing I have admired most about Islam is their INCREDIBLE devotion to prayer. In my opinion nobody does it better. For Muslims, the practice of prayer ("Salah" which means "connection") is fundamental to their faith. The Salah is one of the 5 Pillars of Islam and is arguably the most fundamental component (along with reading the Qur'an) of what it means to be a Muslim. The Salah requires Muslims to pray at least five times a day at specific times. Each of these prayers has a unique purpose that brings the believer closer to Allah. Of course, Muslims are encouraged to pray more than just those five daily occurrences, but the five "required" prayers illustrate the emphasis that Islam has on prayer. Needless to say, Muslims make prayer as much of their daily routine as drinking water. How many of us can say the same? As Sura 2 (Al-Baqara), verse 238 states:

Guard strictly your habit of prayers Especially the middle prayer, and stand before Allah in a devout frame of mind.

What fantastic advise!

I have actually had the opportunity to pray with a group of Muslims during one of their daily prayers and it was an experience I won't soon forget.

Hinduism: If It's True, It's True
The Western world can sometimes misunderstand/misrepresent Eastern religions, and Hinduism, being one of the largest religions in the East, is no exception. What I love about Hinduism is that it doesn't obsess about "being right" like so many Western faiths. Too often religions in the Western world will attack one another in an effort to discover who is "more true." In addition, Western religions do, on occasion, have a hard time accepting certain truths (i.e. science) which appear threatening to their respective doctrine. Essentially, the division between Western religions and Hinduism can be summed up this way: Western religions sometimes let their religion stand in the way of truth, while Hinduism doesn't let truth stand in the way of religion.

Some may see this approach as being too doctrinally liberal. After all, Hinduism is far less restrictive than other faiths. But Hinduism isn't about doctrine but about the individual's approach to God. Hinduism insists that all of humanity (and all religions) are striving for the same God, just in a different way. The important thing is to put one's life in harmony with the divine through meditation, tolerance, etc. It's emphasis on the individual's unique journey as opposed to strict doctrine allows Hinduism to fully accept scientific discovery and adapt to a changing world. In short, Hinduism simply strives to cling to truth, regardless of the source.

Catholics: It's a Matter of Reverence
A lot of people see the Catholic faith as outdated, too conservative or too superstitious, but nobody can doubt that Catholics are the best at showing sober, sincere reverence for the divine. The liturgy of the Catholic mass is saturated with solemn reverence for both God and the Eucharist, as are all of the significant days of their liturgical calender. Yes, you probably won't find upbeat Christian rock music coming from their churches but that is what makes the Catholic faith so special. It insists upon the individual demonstrating his/her quiet, heartfelt respect for God through solemn ritual and purposeful repetition.

Too often the modern day "disciple" wants to be "entertained" when he/she goes to church, and too many churches today are more than willing to compromise on this matter. Catholicism, however, has managed to maintain their quiet reverence in the face of a changing (and evermore loud and obnoxious) world. As a result, Catholicism has not forgotten one of the most important aspects of religion in general: church isn't about you, it's about God.

Jehovah's Witnesses: A Religion of Action
We've all experienced it. You lie in bed on a Saturday morning, happily smiling at your alarm clock as you bask in the knowledge that the busy work week is over and you can finally sleep in, when all of a sudden..."DING DONG!" Who could possibly be knocking at your door at 7:30 in the morning! And what to your wandering eyes should appear when you open the door? Those darn Jehovah's Witnesses!

Yes, we all may get irritated from time to time when our weekend slumber is disturbed but have you ever tried to see it from their perspective? Are you not amazed at incredible devotion that so many JW's have for their faith? After working a busy week themselves, the JW's get up bright and early in the morning to spend the weekend sharing their faith with anyone who will listen, usually meeting with anger and scorn from those "Christians" they have "disturbed."

As a former missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I can sympathize with those JW's who know first-hand just how hard it is to knock on doors and talk to people, most of whom are furious to see you at their door (they act as if knocking on their door is the same as desecrating a loved one's grave). But what is amazing about Jehovah's Witnesses is that they don't proselyte for only two years (as Mormon missionaries traditionally do). They do it for their entire life. Getting out and sharing the "good news" is in their DNA. To be a Jehovah's Witness is to be a hard worker, and very few religious people can out-work a JW!

Judaism: You'll Never Keep it Down!
Most Christians have a healthy respect for Judaism. The religion essentially serves as a father figure for Christians. After all, without Judaism you wouldn't have Christianity!

But what most Christians don't stop to ponder is the fact that the Jews are TOUGH AS NAILS!!! Has any other religion been through the hell that they have? Time and time again the Jews have faced violent opposition that has threatened their very existence. And despite all of these terrible atrocities (almost too many to mention) the Jews are still going strong. What the Jews would call "routine discrimination" would likely break other faiths. Judaism is the epitome of fearless faith in the face of evil. It is the refiners fire of affliction that has put grit in their teeth and made them some of the most resilient people on the planet. There's no doubt in my mind that Judaism is the embodiment of the phrase "when the going gets tough, the tough get going."

Evangelical Christianity: Scriptures and Patriotism
I'll admit that I have, from time to time, knocked Evangelical Christian beliefs on a few points that I don't agree with. And though I will likely never embrace their belief in America being a "Christian Nation" or their rejection of evolution, I cannot deny that Evangelical Christians are second to none in their appreciation of scripture. Their love of the Bible and its teachings have inspired a countless number of Evangelicals to live a more Christ-like life.

In addition, I believe that Evangelical Christians tend to be some of the most patriotic people you will ever meet. In consequence, they unapologetically defend this nation in the face of ridicule and scorn. Evangelical Christians enthusiastically show their love and support of God and country in such a way that their zeal has become incredibly contagious. As a result, they have improved the lives of millions in their communities. Having lived in Colorado Springs (a very Evangelical community) I have seen with my own eyes how a love of God's word and country can bring about beautiful change in a community. In essence, Evangelicals have followed the admonition of Christ to "let your light so shine."

In short, I am grateful for the wonderful lessons that are to be learned from the diverse approaches to religion that each religion embraces. I realize that I didn't mention every religion in this post (there are so many great faiths that have much to be admired) and my omission is by no means a judgement against them. Aside from groups like Scientology or the Jonestown cult, I believe that having "holy envy" for the practices/beliefs of others can only serve to help build bridges of understanding and increase one's personal conviction in the divine. For these reasons, I am personally very grateful for the prayers of the Muslim, the truth-seeking of the Hindu, the reverence of the Catholic, the work ethic of the Jehovah's Witness, the resilience of the Jew, and the patriotism and love of scripture of the Evangelical. It is my hope that I can better incorporate these teachings/beliefs into my own life and worship. God knows I need the help! =)

Francis Salvador: Forgotten (or Perhaps Never Known) American Hero

Just off of Highway 52 in Charleston, South Carolina rests the beautiful and famous Washington Park. Along with being a popular location for weddings and other social gatherings, Washington Park also serves as the location for several historical monuments, including statues of George Washington, memorials for the southern Confederacy, and plaques dedicated to the memory of local and national heroes.

Amongst these various plaques, tucked away in an obscure corner of the park, resides an obscure memorial to one Francis Salvador:

The plague reads:

Commemorating

Francis Salvador

1747 – 1776

First Jew in South Carolina to hold public office

And

To Die for American Independence

He came to Charles Town from his native London in 1773 to develop extensive family landholdings in the frontier district of ninety six. As a deputy to the provincial congresses of South Carolina, 1775 and 1776, he served with distinction in the creation of this state and nation, participating as a volunteer in an expedition against Indians and Tories, he was killed from ambush near the Keowee river, August 1, 1776.

Born an aristocrat, he became a democrat, an Englishman, he cast his lot with America.

True to his ancient faith, he gave his life for new hopes of human liberty and understanding.

Erected at the time of the Bicentennial celebration of the Jewish community of Charleston.

Approved by the historical commission of Charleston SC

Chances are that most Americans have never heard of Francis Salvador. If I am being honest, I can't recall ever hearing about him until graduate school, and even then it was only in passing. In reality, Salvador's story isn't all that dramatic, which is probably one of the many reasons he goes relatively unrecognized. Yet despite his historical obscurity, Salvador's story is worthy of our attention, for it is a story of faith, patriotism and sacrifice.

Born in 1747, Salvador was the fortunate decedent of the very successful Joseph Salvador: businessman and leader of the Portuguese Sephardic Jewish community in Britain. Thanks to his sharp business instincts, Joseph Salvador had gained incredible wealth and prestige, which made him the natural choice to become the head of the British East India Company. In addition, Joseph Salvador also became an advocate for impoverished Jews living in Britain, whom he aided by assisting in their settlement in Georgia (a difficult prospect, since Jews were a relatively unwelcome group in the "New World").

Thanks to his family's success, Francis Salvador's early years were spent in luxury. But as is often the case with life, the storms of economic and world turmoil caused the Salvador family to lose much of its wealth and prestige. After the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 destroyed their Portuguese property and the East India Company collapsed, draining the family's resources, the Salvador family was left with only one prospect: immigrate to the American colonies (where they held property) and start anew.

Francis Salvador arrived alone at South Carolina in 1773. His hope was to establish himself on his family's land and then send for his wife (Sarah) and their three children. The timing of his arrival, however, brought a new set of unanticipated challenges that eventually pulled Salvador in a different direction. The fires of the American Revolution, which were blazing hotter with each passing day, led Salvador to become a passionate and vocal voice for American independence. Within a year of his arrival, Salvador won a seat in the South Carolina General Assembly. In 1774, South Carolinians elected Salvador to the Revolutionary Provincial Congress, which began to meet in January 1775, and in which Salvador regularly revealed his passion for the cause of independence.

In addition to his political service to South Carolina, Salvador also fought in the South Carolina Militia, where he earned the nickname, "Southern Paul Revere" for his brave late night ride to warn the countryside of an impending Cherokee attack. And though his service in both the militia and the elected assembly were, by all accounts, exemplary, Salvador's service to the cause of liberty was short-lived. During a military engagement on July 31st, 1776, Salvador was shot and later scapled by a group of hostile Cherokee Indians and local Loyalists. And though he lived long enough to see the militia defeat the Cherokee/Loyalist attack, Salvador eventually succumbed to his wounds and died at the tender age of 29.

The response to Salvador's death was felt throughout the colony. As historian Michael Feldberg points out in his book, Blessings of Freedom:

A Friend, Henry Laurens, reported that Salvador's death was "Universally regretted", while William Henry Drayton, later chief justice of South Carolina, stated that Salvador had "sacrificed his life in the service of his adopted country." Dead at twenty-nine, never again seeing his wife and children after leaving England, Salvador was the first Jew to die in the American Revolution. Ironically, because he was fighting on the frontier, Salvador probably never received the news that the Continental Congress in Philadelphia had, as he urged, adopted the Declaration of Independence.

Francis Salvador's legacy is usually nothing more than a side note in the history books. For the most part, Salvador is remembered for being the first Jew killed in the American Revolution and little more. And though his death is noteworthy, the life of Francis Salvador is deserving of much more than a simple side note or an obscure memorial. In reality, Salvador is the embodiment of what made the American Revolution special. He was a foreigner, a Jew and a wealthy English aristocrat who became a trusted comrade alongside his fellow native, Christian American revolutionaries.

Perhaps the words of his Washington Park memorial capture the true legacy of Francis Salvador best:

Born an aristocrat, he became a democrat; An Englishman, he cast his lot with the Americans; True to his ancient faith, he gave his life; For new hopes of human liberty and understanding.

***Interesting Side note: Despite Salvador's incredible service, the South Carolina Constitution of 1776 prohibited anyone not of the Christian faith from being elected to office. Interesting that the very state, which benefited from Salvador's impeccable service, would prohibit those of his faith from following in his footsteps.***

Defending the Book of Mormon: The DNA Rebuttal

In the past year, a number of religious, scientific and historical skeptics have come forward with new evidence that they believe completely and utterly destroys the validity of the Book of Mormon. This new evidence, which centers on several DNA studies, states that the claims made in the Book of Mormon, particularly regarding the origins of Native Americans, is completely and utterly bogus. Now, as most religious people are aware, one cannot prove the validity/invalidity of the Book of Mormon (or any scripture for that matter) purely with science. Scripture, and religion in general, are matters of faith which transcend the physical world. As a result, any person of faith (from almost any religion) will tell you that a spiritual conversion is paramount to understanding matters of faith. And as our missionaries have been stating for over 100 years, one needs to pray sincerely and with real intent to the only source (God) that can give your soul clarity on such issues.

With all of that aside, I want to focus on these alleged "smoking gun" discoveries that supposedly shed "irrefutable" doubt on the validity of the BoM.

First off, as some of you probably already know, the Mormon Church recently made a one-word change to the introduction of the BoM. The old version read:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principle ancestors of the Native Americans (my emphasis).

The new version reads as follows:

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and thy are among the ancestors of the Native Americans (my emphasis). "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

So why the change? First off, let's keep in mind that this is NOT the first time that the Mormon Church has made changes to the BoM. There have been literally hundreds of changes over the years. Unlike many Evangelical Protestants, we as Mormons do not accept the doctrine of Sola Scriptura -- i.e the infallibility of scripture. We accept that ALL scripture (including the BoM) is written by man, and therefore subject to human error. Even the Title Page of the BoM reminds us of this:

And now, if there are any faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgement-seat of Christ.AndAnd now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God...

This simple fact helps us understand the change. The Mormon Church has always tried to update and correct its doctrine/scripture when necessary.

Now, skeptics will claim that these changes are the symptom of a church cover up. They will say that these recent DNA discoveries have forced the Mormon church to change fundamental doctrines in an effort to appease the scientific community. They are mistaken. The Mormon Church has never EVER claimed that our scripture was perfect. In fact, the very man who translated the BoM made such a claim:

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

Nowhere does Joseph Smith say that the BoM is infallible. Instead, he says "most correct." This still allows for human error to occur, but does not take away from the book still being the "most correct" of any on earth.

Now, this whole controversy over one stupid little word is the result of some recent scientific discoveries. In 2006, around the same time that the change to the BoM introduction was made, scientists were testing the DNA of several old Native American tribes that were still in existence. Their results: the DNA of Native Americans IS NOT Jewish/Hebrew/etc., but instead is ASIAN. As a result, Mormon skeptics have literally pounced on this proclamation and declared it to be proof-positive that the BoM is/was a fraud. After all, how can one refute DNA evidence? Isn't this the same evidence that is declared to be 99.8% accurate in a court of law? Case closed, right?

Not so fast.

There are a few factors that we must take into account before we simply declare this study to have closed the book on the BoM case. Here are four key issues that all of us (including the Mormon faithful) need to consider:

#1: New World Colonization
From all credible archaeological and historical accounts, the "New World" was populated with between 300 and 400 million native inhabitants. As we all know, after Christopher Columbus "sailed the ocean blue in 1492" and discovered the New World, a literal fever of exploration, colonization and conquest caused the Spanish, French, Dutch, English, Portuguese and others to stake their claims in these strange lands beyond the Atlantic. And as history shows, the European conquest was a huge success, a success that inadvertently caused the literal genocide of the vast and diverse Native American population. Between the early years of Columbus' discovery (1492) and the onset of the American Revolution (1776) most experts estimate that the amount of death (caused primarily by European disease) took the lives of over 80% of all Native people. In other words, 8 in 10 Native Americans were dead before the United States ever became a nation.

So what does this mean for the BoM? Simply put, the DNA samples taken from these various ancient tribes is only indicative of 20% of all Native Americans. In other words, the test conclusively proves that 2 in 10 Natives don't match what is preached in the BoM.

But it gets worse.

#2: Mitochondrial DNA
As most laymen (or women) know, DNA are the basic building blocks of life that is past on to offspring through sexual contact. Both male and female chromosomes combine to create a new life form, whose genetic makeup is a mix of both paternal and maternal DNA (I realize that as a novice in science I have no right to make any profound comments on DNA research but I think my very simplistic explanation is sound for this topic).

Now, when testing the descendants of a particular individual/race/civilization, scientists are not able to simply take a regular DNA sample. Instead, they must look to MITOCHONDRIAL DNA. The Mitochondria is often referred to as "the powerhouse" of the human cell. And for some reason, it contains its own DNA that can be traced back thousands of years to determine one's origins. From all scientific standards, the testing of mitochondrial DNA is foolproof and considered a solid scientific practice. As a result, any assault on the testing of mitochondria, from the perspective of accuracy, would be futile. HOWEVER, there is one key element to mitochondrial DNA that does shed doubt on the DNA testing of Native Americans. Mitochondrial DNA is MATERNAL. In other words, a male cannot pass on his genetic material into the mitochondria of his children. Only the female can accomplish this.

So what does this mean for the DNA testing of Native Americans? It means that the results are a representation of FEMALE genetic origins. And since men account for roughly 50% of the human population, we are forced to omit 50% of all Native Americans from this test. So, we take our 20% of surviving Native Americans and divide it in half, which gives us roughly 10%. Simply put, the DNA testing of living Native Americans proves that only 10% of all Native Americans are of Asian decent.

Hence the reason for the change in the BoM intro. The testing clearly proves that 1 in 10 Native Americans do not fit with the BoM story. So, in an effort to reflect this reality, the Mormon Church has made the change..."AMONG the ancestors of the Native Americans."

#3: Reading the BoM the Right Way
This probably sounds conceded. I'm not suggesting that I know the right way to read the BOM. That's a personal decision. Instead, I am suggesting that we get rid of an old but persistent myth when reading the BoM. For too long, members (and non-members alike) have assumed that the BoM is the story of three separate migrations to the New World: the Jaredites, Lehi and his family, and the people of Mulek. The BoM mentions these three, AND ONLY THESE THREE independent migrations. For some reason, it is assumed that these parties arrived to a virgin land, vacant of any other human life, and that somehow these relatively small migrations multiplied until they became large enough to fill all the lands from Canada to the tip of South America.

My question: where does it say ANYTHING to this effect in the BoM? Why do we insist that Nephi, Lehi, Bro. of Jared, etc. were the ONLY people living here? Isn't that quite presumptuous? For one thing, the wives/daughters of Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, etc. would have had to give birth to HUNDREDS of children each in order to hit the numbers that Columbus and other explorers encountered in 1492. Physically speaking, this was impossible for women of the ancient world.

Perhaps the following analogy will help make sense of this. When we read the records of the Puritan settlers of Massachusetts, they often make it sound as though they stumbled upon a fresh, untouched, virgin land just waiting for them to colonize. As we know this wasn't the case. Literally thousands of Native Americans lived in and around the region, not to mention the fact that a dozen or so European ventures had already been in the area. The Puritans didn't discover a virgin land and neither did Lehi, Nephi, etc.

#4: What Tribe Were They?
Last point. Remember what tribe Lehi was from? He was the son of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt (1 Nephi 5: 14-16). And as we know, Joseph had two sons: Ephraim and Manasseh. Now, we have no way of knowing which of the two Lehi came from, but it is at least very likely that they came from Manasseh. Why? Manasseh was a nomadic, wandering tribe that was heavily involved in shipping, trade and sheep-hearding. And if you recall, Nephi, Laman, etc. were unfamiliar with Jerusalem when asked to return to the city by Lehi. I find it interesting that Nephi keeps calling Jerusalem the "Land of our Inheritance" instead of "Home." Could it be that they were hardly ever there? Wandering about as Manasseh had always done? As quasi-nomads?

And then there's the case of Lehi. Isn't it amazing that he had no problem wandering in the "wilderness." It was almost as if he had done it before...lots of times. Could he have been a trader? How did he and his kids learn Egyptian?

And remember Ishmael? Back in Lehi's Day, "Ishmael" was a VERY popular name among...not Jews...but the ARABS! Why would Lehi be friends with an Arab?

Of course this is all speculation, but the evidence seems to support it. And here's one last thing to consider about Manasseh: Since they were a wandering tribe, that meant they were regularly in contact with other civilizations. In fact, national identity in the ancient world was nothing like it is now, and as a result, the intermixing of blood was common. Could Manasseh have incorporated some Asian blood? Oh, and keep in mind that the Assyrians conquered and led away the tribe of Manasseh during their conquest of Jerusalem. It wouldn't be hard to see how intermixing could have taken place at that time as well!

In conclusion, the so-called "smoking gun" evidence provided by DNA testing is anything but. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on that.  In the end, The Book of Mormon, like any book of scripture, requires faith.  Science, history, etc. have their roles but so does scripture, and for that I am glad we have the Book of Mormon today.

Did Jesus Endorse a Separation of Church and State?

And if so, How Far Did
He Want it to Go?

So I realize that this post is likely to ruffle a few feathers. After all, many people have very passionate feelings about the man from Nazareth known to billions of followers as Jesus the Christ. With this in mind, I will try to treat the topic with as much care as I can.

The very question posed in this post probably seems strange. After all, Jesus and his teachings, at least for the devout Christian, seem to transcend trivial political issues like church/state separation. Why would the Savior of mankind care about political ideology, governmental structure, etc. when he himself was called "King of kings and Lord of lords"? Shouldn't that suffice? Why would Jesus waste his time addressing the relatively mundane details surrounding issues like prayer in school, the oaths of the Pledge of Allegiance, the role (if any) that organized religion should play in the halls of government, etc., etc. etc.? Perhaps Gov.Mike Huckabee said it best when asked what Jesus would do as a modern politician:




And perhaps he is right. Surely Jesus would spend his time dealing with more important matters, right?

Not so fast.

While it is true that Jesus' primary goal was to bring people to him as the Savior of mankind, it would be both foolish and inaccurate to state that he cared nothing of the affairs of this world. And even though he made it clear that his "kingdom was not of this world," Jesus was, on occasion, quite vocal and passionate about the affairs this world.

Render to Caesar

During his ministry, Jesus was, from time to time, confronted by some of the more prominent members of Jewish society in an effort to confront him or catch him in a lie of sorts, all in an effort to discredit the man whom they esteemed as an enemy to their agenda. On one occasion, two different groups (the Pharisees and Herodians) confronted Jesus in an effort to "entangle him in his talk." Both the Parisees and Herodians hated Jesus (for different reasons) and believed that entangling him in his words, especially on hot-button political matters, might discredit him in the eyes of his followers. We read of what happened in Matthew 22:

15. Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

16. And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

17. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

18. But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

19. Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

20. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21. They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

22. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

There's a great deal to dissect in these eight verses. First off, the Pharisees and Herodians attempt to trap Jesus by appealing to his teachings regarding the supremacy of god. In Roman society, Caesar was esteemed to be a deity and those who rejected such teachings were often met with ridicule and scorn. Taxes were the predominant way in which homage to Caesar was acknowledged and as a result, any attempt to avoid them was met with severe consequences. So, in the minds of the Pharisees and Herodians, Jesus was trapped. If he answered that man should not pay tribute to Caesar he would be seen as an enemy of the state. But if he agreed with paying tribute, he would come off looking like a hypocrite, since Jesus had emphasized the supremacy of the kingdom of god to that of man.

So what was Jesus to do? Blast their argument to oblivion of course! Matthew tells us that Jesus "perceived their wickedness" and got right to the heart of the matter. By using a mere penny (most certainly a denarius in Roman coinage) Jesus completely and totally surprised (or as Matthew states "marveled") his audience by uttering the now famous phrase, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." This simple phrase completely baffled the Pharisees to such a degree that they simply walked away with their tail between their legs. Jesus came away the clear victor.

Church/State Separation as a Christian Concept

So why where the Pharisees and Herodians so baffled by Jesus' seemingly simple remark? After all, this wouldn't sound that profound of a rebuttal to politicians or theologians today. Well, let's keep in mind that we are speaking of the ANCIENT world; a world that had long fused the political and theological worlds together by establishing kingships, Caesars and other "divine" rulers. The notion of an independent church, separate and sovereign from the secular world, was more than just a novel concept. It was revolutionary. As a result, we can logically and rationally proclaim that a separation between church and state is very much a CHRISTIAN concept. As my blog buddy Brian Tubbs points out by quoting Dinesh D'Souza's bestselling book, What's So Great About Christianity:

D'Souza argues that the "separation of religion and government" was a "Christian idea" and that Jesus was the "first one who thought of it." D'Souza points to Jesus' confrontation with the Herodians and Pharisees in Matthew 22 as the birth of the concept.

D'Souza explains that, for the ancient Greeks and Romans, the "gods a man should worship were the gods of the state." Accordingly, "patriotism demanded that a good Athenian make sacrifices to the Athenian gods and a good Roman pay homage to the gods of Rome."

Well, along come the Christians, who refuse to worship the Roman gods. This was unacceptable to Roman authorities (at least prior to Constantine)...

In Matthew 22, Jesus clearly teaches that Caesar is entitled to certain "things" (and he implies taxes as being among those "things"), but draws a line of distinction. Caesar is NOT entitled to everything, only some things.

Likewise, Jesus implies a limit in the other direction. While God is sovereign and all-powerful, Jesus nevertheless explains (later to Pilate): "My kingdom is not of this world."

According to D'Souza, "God has chosen to exercise a limited domain over earthly rule, not because He is limited, but because He has turned over part of His kingdom to humans for earthly supervision."

Jesus of Nazareth was clearly in favor of a separation between church and state not because he wanted a secular society but because he wanted a moral one, and the best way to ensure that was to take religion out of the hands of the politicians. Jesus and his apostles had seen first hand what religious politicians (Pharisees, Herodians, etc.) had done to religion and Jesus clearly wanted no part of it. Rarely if ever did Jesus "trash talk" anyone but he certainly did with these types. As he stated in Matthew 12:34:

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

And throughout his ministry, Jesus would continue his insistence on church/state separation:

"My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)

"You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world." (John 8:23)

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve god an mammon." (Matthew 6:24.)

"The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me." (Luke 22:25–26, 29)

"He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" (Luke 18: 9-14)

And Jesus didn't stop there. Even when tempted of the devil and the masses to be made a king (a physical, worldly king since he was presumably already "King of kings") over all the land, Jesus flat-out refused:

"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4: 5-8)

"Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" (Luke 12:13–14)

"Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone." (John 6: 13-15)

But with all of his apparent disinterest (or insistence in a separation between church and state) in secular matters, Jesus was quick and fierce in his defense of religious sovereignty. In the only account of his resorting to violence, Jesus was more than willing to "throw down" with those who made a mockery of the temple:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" (John 2:13–16)

For Jesus, the pollution of worldly distractions had defiled the Lord's temple; an offense that was far worse than the introduction of religion into government. Simply put, the temple of the Lord was to be free of secular distractions, political rhetoric and worldly wealth. It was a house of sacrifice and prayer. Politicians and greedy capitalists be damned! =)

In light of such evidence, it is abundantly clear that a separation of church and state was, and still is, a CHRISTIAN concept. The very founder of the faith saw tremendous advantages to both church and state when both are put in check and denied the right to overpower the other. Under such a system, religion and government would mutually flourish not as opposing forces but as equal partners in creating a free and moral world. One could not exist without the other, and one could not exercise dominion over the other.

Our Founding Fathers (both the ultra-pious and "infidel" types) had a perfect understanding of this concept. They saw that the establishment of a joint church/state government had brought nothing but misery to the world, and they were hell bent on ensuring that it wouldn't happen in the "land of the free":

"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country." (George Washington, 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274).

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites

I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." (Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814).

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." (James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785).

These quotes, and the thousands of others like them, do not illustrate an abhorrence of religion on the part of the founders, but instead illustrate the incredible depth of understanding they possessed with regards to Jesus' true teachings. In other words, the founders were able to cut through the B.S. and get at the core of the matter. A separation of church and state was THE FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT to ensuring a free republic. Losing sight of this all-important concept was to lose sight of freedom itself, to lose sight of Jesus himself.

And, thank God, the founders didn't lose sight of either.

The Leo Frank Fiasco

***Cross-posted at Beyond the Badge***

Who Killed
Mary Phagan?

As horrible as it may sound to say, murder cases seem like a dime a dozen these days. A whole slew of real life crime shows have a veritably endless supply of murder cases at their disposal, making these programs some of the most popular shows on television today.

Despite the obvious fanfare and obsession that some have for terrible acts of violence, every once in a while a crime will come along that tears at the heartstrings of American society and invokes powerful emotions of anger, sadness, revenge, etc. Cases ranging from the Lindbergh Kidnapping of the early 1930s to the JonBenet Ramsey case in the 1990s have been catapulted to international attention, often causing extreme reactions from anxious onlookers.

But when it comes to high profile murders, there is perhaps no case that is more dramatic than that of Mary Phagan. Though on the surface she may appear like any other average thirteen-year-old girl, her murder was anything but, for it invoked passionate feelings that stretched far beyond Phagan's relatively simple and uneventful life. Lingering racial, religious and social tensions came into play in such a way that eventually elevated the Phagan murder to national attention. Or as one documentary of the case put it:

Considered one of the most sensational trials of the early 20th century, [the Phagan murder] seemed to press every hot-button issue of the time: North vs. South, black vs. white, Jew vs. Christian, industrial vs. agrarian. In the years since, it has inspired numerous books and films, TV programs, plays, musicals and songs. It has fueled legal discussions, spawned a traveling exhibition and driven public forums.

But all public notoriety aside, the Phagan murder (like any murder) boils down to the fundamental reality that a young woman's life was prematurely ended because somebody chose to end it. As a result, the demands of justice require society to uncover the "who" and "why."

As is the case with any violent crime, victimology (the studying of victims and their life patterns) takes on an incredibly important role, for it is by looking at the life, habits, risk factors, etc. of victims that investigators are able to narrow down the list of possible suspects. In the case of Mary Phagan, this becomes somewhat problematic, since she lived a relatively average life that was free of most major risk factors...

...except for one.

Like many children of her era, Phagan was forced to work to help provide for her mother and five siblings. During the early years of the 20th century, child labor was relatively common, especially in developing urban cities like Atlanta (where Mary Phagan grew up). The emergence of industrialization and mass production had forced many poor families to send their children into the workplace. As a result, Mary Phagan began employment at the National pencil Factory when her youthful vulnerability and inexperience could easily be exploited.

It was at this pencil factory that Mary Phagan encountered a diverse assortment of employees. Everyone from poor children (like herself), immigrant Jews and African Americans still trying to make a living for themselves and their families in the post-Civil War south were thrown together in the emerging industrialized workplace of Atlanta.

The manager of the National Pencil Factory was a young Jewish American named Leo Frank. Frank, who had graduated from Cornell University and worked a number of apprenticeships in pencil manufacturing, had established himself as a relatively stable member of the "jet set" community. Contrary to what many may think, a large portion of the Jewish community in the south experienced a good deal of success and social prestige during the early years of the 20th century. Many Jewish shop owners, merchants, etc. rose to prominence in southern society where their beliefs and practices were at least tolerated by their Christian neighbors. However, the further influx of Jewish immigrants to the south helped to fuel the bias of many "traditional" southerners. For Leo Frank, Atlanta (and much of the south in general) was teetering on the balance beam of social and racial strife. All that was needed was a spark to ignite an inferno.

The spark came on April 27, 1913, when Mary Phagan's dead and beaten body was found in the basement of the National Pencil Factory. Police were summoned to the factory when Newt Lee, a night watchman at the factory, reported finding a body of a deceased female. Phagan had apparently been strangled, raped and discarded in the dirt and mud of the basement. In addition, police discovered two handwritten notes neatly placed on Phagan's body, a pile of fresh excrement underneath the elevator, a small piece of cord and a large number of bloody fingerprints. Despite finding this treasure trove of evidence, investigators demonstrated almost complete incompetence in the processing of the scene. Every single bloody fingerprint was lost while other trace evidence was never collected. In fact, police actually loaned out many pieces of collected evidence (clothes, photos, etc.) to local reporters, some of it never to be returned. Newt Lee, who was the first to report the crime, was immediately imprisoned and kept under lock and key for over four months without ever being charged. In short, the police proved to be almost entirely unreliable.

In the immediate aftermath of the murder, police focused their attention on several factory employees, including the manager Leo Frank who accompanied police to the factory on the night Phagan's body was discovered. According to police, Frank appeared extremely nervous and was visibly shaken when asked to return to the factory. As one investigator would later testify:

Mrs. Frank came to the door; she had on a bathrobe. I stated that I would like to see Mr. Frank and about that time Mr. Frank stepped out from behind a curtain. Frank's voice was hoarse and trembling and nervous and excited. He looked to me like he was pale. He seemed nervous in handling his collar; he could not get his tie tied, and talked very rapid in asking what had happened. He kept insisting on a cup of coffee.

For many, Frank's nervousness was a clear sign of guilt, while for others it was simply the normal reaction of a man who had been awaken in the middle of the night by police and asked to accompany them to a murder scene. Either way, Frank's demeanor at the time was eventually used against him as "evidence" of his guilt (Click here for source material).

In addition to Frank, a factory janitor by the name of Jim Conley was also suspected of being involved in the murder. Conley, an African American, had been working the night of Phagan's murder and had also behaved strangely. At least two employees claimed that they saw him washing a shirt (which appeared to be covered in blood) that Conley claimed was dirty from cleaning the basement. In addition, Conley, while in a drunken stupor, allegedly told a friend (on the night of the murder) that he had "already killed one person for money" and "didn't want to kill another." When interviewed by police, however, Conley insisted that he wasn't at work, was illiterate and that he never knew Mary Phagan. However, Conley was forced to change his story when confronted with conflicting evidence. Police were able to prove that Conley had in fact been working the night of the murder and had known Phagan.

In addition, the most damning hole punched in Conley's story was his alleged illiteracy. Despite his claim, cops were able to prove that Conley was not only literate but had, in fact, penned the two notes found on Mary Phagan's body (click here to see the notes). Several handwriting experts were able to prove that Conley had written the notes. These notes (which were allegedly written by Mary Phagan as she was being murdered) essentially stated that "a long tall negro black" was responsible for the killing.

Faced with the truth, Conley concocted a new, sensational story in which he was forced by Leo Frank to write the notes. In addition, Conley told investigators that Frank had summoned Mary Phagan to his office and had told Conley to essentially stand guard outside while Frank conversed with Phagan. Conley then stated that Frank, who was visibly shaking and sweating, informed Conley that he had killed Phagan. Frank then allegedly ordered Conley to dispense with the body in the basement furnace. Police, however, found several problems with the story. If Frank had wanted the body burned then what was the point of placing notes on her body? In addition, a fresh pile of excrement had been found at the base of the elevator. If Conley had taken the body down via the elevator (as he claimed) why was the excrement untouched? Despite these obvious lies, police actually seemed to side with Conley. They believed that Frank held enough pull as a manager to make Conley conspire to such a cover up. Ignoring the obvious holes and downright lies in his story, investigators essentially embraced Conley's story and eventually made him their key witness against Frank.

On May 23, just short of a month after the murder, Leo Frank was indicted for the murder of Mary Phagan. The grand jury, which included 5 Jewish participants, only needed 10 minutes to indict Frank, claiming that "clear evidence" of Frank's guilt made the decision an easy one. Of course most of this "clear evidence" came from the "reliable" mouth of Jim Conley.

At trial, Frank's attorney's relied heavily on Frank's alibi, which they believed clearly exonerated their client. For the defense, the timeline of events leading up to Phagan's death made it impossible for Frank to have been involved in the murder. In addition, Frank's attorneys clearly chose to play the race card. And while it's understandable that the defense would want to pass guilt to Jim Conley, the racial bit was an obvious response to the already mounting antisemitism surrounding the trial. Unfortunately for Frank, the trial had become a public circus in which race and religion became more important than the actual case (I will discuss the social impact of the trial in part II). So when the defense made statements like, "A dirty, filthy, black, drunken, lying nigger is behind this" it's clear that even Frank's attorneys were feeling the mounting social tension.

In addition to calling on Jim Conley, the prosecution also relied on the testimony of several factory employees who claimed that Frank had made advances towards Phagan in the past. And while the validity of such testimonies are difficult to prove/disprove, it's important to note that many of these "testimonies" had been initially taken by investigators who had given these witnesses an abundance of liquor during questioning.

To make a long story short, Leo Frank was eventually found guilty, primarily because of the "expert" testimony of Jim Conley. The following day, Frank was sentenced to hang for the crime but the sentence of death was eventually commuted by Governor John Slaton (more on this coming in part II). The governor's decision set off a massive response of anger and hostility from those who were convinced that Frank was guilty. As a result, Frank was eventually kidnapped from the jail in which he was housed and lynched by the mob (the only recorded lynching of a Jew). Included in the mob was a former governor, mayor, 3 lawyers and several of Frank's co-workers. Frank's final words were, "I think more of my wife and my mother than I do of my own life."

The Leo Frank fiasco is virtually a textbook example of the criminal justice system gone terribly wrong. The combination of inept police investigators, biased prosecutors, a pathetic defense and the obvious influence of mounting mob anger gave Leo Frank zero chance at a fair trial. And whether or not you believe Frank to be guilty there can be no doubt that the man's trial was a fiasco. By the rules of law, evidence, etc. Frank never should have even seen the inside of the courtroom.

As for Jim Conley, who many feel was the true killer, he received only 1 year on a chain gang for his part in the cover up. In addition, it's worth noting that a former factory worker named Alonzo Mann stated that he saw Conley alone at the factory (Frank had gone home) and that it was Conley who disposed of the body and threatened to kill Mann if he talked. Conley's lawyer also later stated that Conley was "obviously guilty."