dismissive and racist — most people think that wise men would have ridden in BMWs, not on camels and that Jesus wore a rolex on his television show …

Is there a point to that T-shirt beyond being dismissive and racist?

I will wait for the next post.

I do want to ask if anyone else heard the far-out speculation I heard in Sunday School once that the 3 wise men were Nephi and Lehi (the sons of Helaman) and Samuel the Lamanite? Nephi and Samuel mysteriously disappeared from the land after they had preached. Nephi left all the records with his son Nephi. Nephi was esteemed as a great prophet who had much authority and power given him from God. Lehi was not a whit behind Nephi in righteousness. Helaman 16:14 says that “angels did appear unto men, WISE MEN, and did declare unto them glad tidings of great joy.” Samuel received divine protection from the arrows. Lehi and Nephi were encircled by fire to show that they could not be slain.

I think this was the gist of the Gospel Doctrine instructor’s adventures in unbridled speculation. I’m I the only one to hear of this?

Thanks for your thoughts. I have another post planned on 3 Kings Day, that I found fascinating. To me, it’s a more spiritual version of the 12 days of Christmas. As I mentioned above, I don’t think there is any evidence these Magi believed Jesus was a spiritual Messiah (though I have another post planned about the significance of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.)

The origin of the Wise Men is mysterious. While your explanation that they could have been Jews in exile is a possible explanation, consensus seems to indicate these men were gentiles, and from what I can tell, Zoroastrianism seems the most likely explanation.

The DVD says there were many contacts between Jews and Zoroastrians, and it does appear that Zoroastians assimilated some Jewish ideas into their religion, especially the coming Messiah. (They have also assimilated beliefs of other religions, like Hinduism.)

Your comment about “every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus is the Christ” seems to be a bit problematic. On the one hand, the Zoroastrians acknowledge the coming Messiah, so Christians will embrace this. However, Messiah has different definitions. Was Jesus a political Messiah, or a spiritual one? Many of Jesus’ followers believed Jesus was a Davidic figure who would free Israel from Roman rule. Under this definition, these followers embraced Jesus as more of a political Messiah, and it was only after his death that Christians believed Jesus’ true purpose was spiritual. There is no evidence that these Persian priests “confess[ed] that Jesus is the Christ”; ie accepted Christ as Savior of the world. The astrology of Saturn and Jupiter seemed to indicate a changing of the guard of Israeli leadership, and they probably believed in more of a political Messiah.

The scholars in the DVD mention that Herod was a troubled by the visit of the Wise Men. Michael Molnar notes that Persia and Rome were engaged in skirmishes between the borders of Rome and Persia. Certainly Herod would be troubled not only by the presence of Rome’s enemy (the Persians), but the prophecy that a Messiah would replace him as political leader Israel may have spurred him to extinguish all male children under 2. Herod was notorious for extinguishing all threats to his throne, even drowning his own son. He executed many he considered threats. There does not seem to be any evidence that all these children were killed, though scholars say it wouldn’t have been out of character for Herod to issue such a harsh edict.

So with that understanding of the scene the real issue of import becomes not that the Magi were of some other faith and had no intention of converting but rather that they were not of the house of Israel at all and in fact came to worship and “receive” Him would bring salvation to the world as His name implied ( Jesus gr: for Yehoshua Heb: for Jehovah Saves!)

I don’t how the dates and migration patterns work out off the top of my head. It seems more likely that a pre-Deuteronomist Jewish expatriate group would have the stronger, older Messianic focus and care more about the Messiah than a Zoroastrian. No disrespect to Zoroastrians, of course.

I’m fine with every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus is the Christ, so I’m fine with them being Zoroastrian astrologers. I just think there are additional hypotheses that could be studied out.

the documentary probably conflates the shepherds and wise men together. if my memory is correct, the shepherds visit Jesus in the manger in Luke.

rigel, the documentary says that the idea of a dark skinned wise man came from the renaissance period from the idea that the wise men represented the world, and renaissance artists wanted to portray all races and backgrounds for all people among the wise men. there are some really interesting legends about these wise men, and marco polo documented visiting the tomb of these wise men in iran. my friend from iran was familiar with this tomb. (perhaps i’ll write a follow up post on these legends.)

I’ve attended a seasonal “Star of Bethlehem” planetarium show at a local college, where the professor suggests, as you did, that the Magi were Zoroastrian priests from Persia, and mentions the alignment of Saturn and Jupiter, as well as several other astronomical possibilities for the Star.

I like that religion and what we know of Zoroaster, which is why I’ve written about them in past essays.

the documentary also says that these men were respectable, and may have been mistaken for kings. their visit with herod seems to support this view. in other words, they weren’t the halloween charicature of a witch or sorceror.

I remember in seminary hearing a lesson that only the righteous saw the star. the implication was that the wise men were chosen and righteous and that we needed to be similarly in tune with God. however, my seminary teacher didn’t mention these were non-jews (probable zoroastrian priests, which I think he probably didn’t know), and I don’t think he was intending to imply that they would have been righteous enough to receive such an important revelation. after all, do we expect zoroastrian priests to really receive this kind of revelation and not become a christian?

Does it bother you that the Wise Men may have been astrologers?

Not at all.

How would we feel if a member of another religions such as Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism, or even a Presbyterian said that Pres Monson was a prophet, but they decided to keep in their same religion?

Wouldn’t bother me at all.

Would we include such a reference if an astrologer like Jeanne Dixon made a proclamation of a Mormon prophet?

Don’t mistake comparing these wise men to what we call astrologers today. Though we do not know a single thing about who these men really were, the indication is that they were of a higher caste, at least than the writers of the Gospels. We really have no idea why Matthew made such a significant fuss about including the wise men in his account, except of course that it leads to the next part of the story of Jesus, which is Herod’s decision to kill all male babies under 2. Herod’s decision was made because the wise men did not return to him. There could possibly have been other wise men from other cultures come to see the God of this earth, but because their visit did not matter to the story, Matthew did not include it. Matthew’s account (and well all four accounts) are highly sparse. There is so much missing, which has led to people speculating wild things, that Jesus even went over to India!