Morfor: Da Vinci Code Your Life

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Wednesday, March 3, 2004 | Mark Morford, I swear to God I'm not helping her choose her subject matter

[presidio9]

I understand Dan Brown's dad likes to wear ladies underwear.

Maybe that's why a self-confessed "lit snob" like Morford had such a blast with it.

Honestly, Mark. I know you monitor these threads. You told me once. The DaVinci code is old news. Newsweek and the like did their cover stories months ago! You are not adding anything new. Why not go back to subjects that you know something about, like anal sex and your irrational hatred of our President?

[Just mythoughts]

"Dale Brown writes transparent mysteries for vapid housewives."

The "Code" is a millenia-old conspiracy to protect the "truth" (the Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and the Church has hidden that fact from us to sujugate women and thereby stay in power).

Liberal liars are not the issue, IMO, the credibility of the author is what is at issue. We can't get side tracked into the veracity of what is written, but the credibility of the author.

Remember we have a new STANDARD.

[Steve_Seattle]

If Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, why should the church try to hide it? That's the flaw in all these conspiracy theories about early Christianity, i.e., Jesus attracted followers, who - for some unknown reason - immediately falsified everything about his life and created a church diametrically opposed to what he really stood for.

[Steve_Seattle]

The only thing Morford can write about with any credibility is the male anus.

[Just mythoughts]

["If Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, why should the church try to hide it?']


The "church" did not hide anything. The marriage spoken of is a spiritual analogy not a physical.

[hang 'em]

A better way to complain about Mark Morford

News of Mark Morford's latest disgraceful San Francisco Chronicle article has spread like wildfire the last 36 hours. Quite a few people have expressed their displeasure with his irresponsible rantings, writing him directly. I'm not convinced that writing the guy does anything more than let him know that he's succeeding in angering people he obviously wanted to anger. He's a print-medium version of a radio shock jock: he wants to raise our hackles.

I would like to emphasize, as I did in my original post on the matter, that he should lose his job at the Chronicle, since he's going to cost his employer advertising dollars if he continues. That's the way to be truly effective. Certainly, you should copy Morford on your complaint, but he's much more likely to get that special sinking feeling when he realizes that he's simply a 3rd party in the complaint.

The SF Chronicle does have an impressively comprehensive "Address Book" page, from which I'll excerpt this interesting little tidbit:

Reader representative: If you have comments on The Chronicle's coverage, standards or accuracy, please call Dick Rogers, the readers' representative, at (415) 777-7870. Written comments can be e-mailed to readerrep@sfchronicle.com, faxed to (415) 442-1847, or addressed to Readers' Representative, c/o San Francisco Chronicle, 901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103. For information on delivery, billing or how to become a subscriber, call (800) 281-2476.

The Chronicle has a page listing contact information for the people who run the revenue side (advertising makes up the lion's share of a newspaper's revenue stream).

Consider contacting these people directly:

* George Raine - Business Reporter, Advertising and Marketing
* Beverly Best - Retail/National Sales Manager - (415) 777-7244

And here's the masthead: the people who actually run the paper's operations. Contact them.
Posted by Russell Whitaker at February 27, 2003 05:47 PM | TrackBack

[BrooklynGOP]

for some unknown reason - immediately falsified everything about his life

I thought that parts of the New Testament was put together, by Constantine, 3 centuries after the Crucifiction? Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Mr. Jeeves]

If the real-life Mary Magdalene looked anything like Monica Bellucci, it would be an advantage for the church to make the marriage known!

[BrooklynGOP]

I would like to emphasize, as I did in my original post on the matter, that he should lose his job at the Chronicle, since he's going to cost his employer advertising dollars if he continues.

Same people who cried censorship and conspiracy regarding Mel Gibson and Passion are now calling for censorship themselves. Rich.

[Steve_Seattle]

My point is that in first century Judaism, there would have been nothing scandalous about Jesus having a wife; it was the norm. So if he were in fact married, there would be no point in his followers trying to hide the fact, there would be no reason for any "coverup." I haven't read "The Da Vinci Code," but my impression is that it alleges Jesus was married in the normal sense of the term, not in some "spiritual" sense.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

You "talked" to him once? That must have been a funny conversation.

[Just mythoughts]

[My point is that in first century Judaism, there would have been nothing scandalous about Jesus having a wife; it was the norm. So if he were in fact married, there would be no point in his followers trying to hide the fact, there would be no reason for any "coverup." I haven't read "The Da Vinci Code," but my impression is that it alleges Jesus was married in the normal sense of the term, not in some "spiritual" sense.]

I understand your point, however, one must consider the source of WHO was writing about "first century Judaism" to give credibility to what this book tries to claim.

I concur with using the WORD "ALLEGES" sounds alot like the word "ACCUSE".

[BrooklynGOP]

If Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, why should the church try to hide it?

Allegedly, so it doesn't undermine the Church's teachings on celibacy and to defuse any potential claims that Christ has any surviving bloodline (which would make him a mortal prophet).

[Steve_Seattle]

I believe that Constantine convened the Council of Nicea, which finalized the canon of the Bible and determined which books to include and which to leave out. But Constantine himself did not author any of those books or decide which to include. Most scholars attribute the four gospels to the period 60-90 A.D. Some of the letters of Paul are given an earlier date - as early as the 50's. Most of the rejected Gnostic texts are given dates in the 100-200 range.

[Steve_Seattle]

The church's teaching on celibacy came hundreds of years after the Bible was composed.

[BrooklynGOP]

My point still stands. I guess there was nothing "immediate" about "falsifying".

[man of Yosemite]

"Wicked..in a good way."

Here's someone who just never got it. I wonder where he stands on the war on terror? He probably blames us for all the people being blown up in Irag, thinking it would be the Garden of Eden were it not for us.

[BrooklynGOP]

The church's teaching on celibacy came hundreds of years after the Bible was composed.

Oh? But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. (I Cor., vii, 7-8 and 32-35.)

[Steve_Seattle]

Paul was expressing his opinion - not binding on anyone - at a time when the church believed the return of Jesus and the end of the world were imminent; with such beliefs, marriage seemed relatively unimportant. Mandatory celibacy was not imposed on the priesthood until centuries later.

[aruanan]

Morfor: Da Vinci Code Your Life

Da Vinci code: utter crock.