Angels In Sodom

[inquiringmind]

I was reading Genesis 19 today, and I was wondering if Joseph (or any of his successors in the first presidency) ever had any further revelation on the two angels who visited Sodom.

In the previous chapter, three men are mentioned--were two of them these angels?

Could they have been Adam and Noah?

Edited July 10, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Robert F. Smith]

No identity is given to the two angels in Gen 19:1, but they are clearly the same two who set out for Sodom in Gen 18:22, while Abraham had a conversation with the third, who is described in that verse as the LORD (Yahweh).

[BCSpace]

I like to think they were just some regular, and mortal, guys.

[Sevenbak]

What is most interesting to me about this whole episode is that Abraham fed the 3 angels. (bread, butter, milk and calf) How was that possible as this was pre-ressurection, even if one was the pre-mortal Lord? There's has to be more to the story than has been revealed.

[rongo]

I think they were translated beings (e.g., three Nephites or John the Revelator), from the City of Enoch, City of Salem, etc. ---- and hence able to eat and do other anthropomorpic things.

[cinepro]

I was reading Genesis 19 today, and I was wondering if Joseph (or any of his successors in the first presidency) ever had any further revelation on the two angels who visited Sodom.

In the previous chapter, three men are mentioned--were two of them these angels?

Could they have been Adam and Noah?

“We are not justified in teaching that our Heavenly Father, with other heavenly persons, came down, dusty and weary, and ate with Abraham. This is not taught in the 18th chapter of Genesis. The first verse of that chapter should read as follows: ‘And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre.’ That is a complete thought. The second part of this paragraph has nothing to do with the Lord’s appearing to Abraham . . . : ‘And he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him.’ These three men were mortals. They had bodies and were able to eat, to bathe, and sit and rest from their weariness. Not one of these three was the Lord. ” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:16.)

In the Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 18:23 states definitely that “the angels . . . were holy men, and were sent forth after the order of God.”

Old Testament Institute Manual

[The Nehor]

I am guessing they were prophets or High Priests after the order of Melchizedek as the word for angel can also be taken to mean holy man.

Now I have a visual image in my head of a High Priest Group Meeting with angry men banging at the door demanding the right to rape people inside.

[inquiringmind]

Thank you.

What about the angel who wrestled with Jacob in Genesis 32:24-32?

[Robert F. Smith]

What about the angel who wrestled with Jacob in Genesis 32:24-32?

Hosea 12:4(5) does refer to an "angel" in that incident, but Gen 32:24-32 doesn't. Speiser's Anchor Bible edition has the following translation:

24(25)... some man wrestled with him until the break of dawn

26(27)"Let me go, for it is daybreak."

Jacob replied: "I will not let you go unless you bless me."

27(28)"what is your name?" He answered, "Jacob."

28(29) Said he, "You shall no longer be spoken of as Jacob,

but as Israel, for you have striven with beings divine ('elohim) and human,

and have prevailed."

30(31)Jacob named the site Peniel (face of 'El), meaning, "I have seen God face to face,

yet my life has been preserved."

31(32)The sun rose upon him just as he passed Penuel (face of 'El), limping on his hip.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[inquiringmind]

Hosea 12:4(5) does refer to an "angel" in that incident, but Gen 32:24-32 doesn't. Speiser's Anchor Bible edition has the following translation:

24(25)... some man wrestled with him until the break of dawn

26(27)"Let me go, for it is daybreak."

Jacob replied: "I will not let you go unless you bless me."

27(28)"what is your name?" He answered, "Jacob."

28(29) Said he, "You shall no longer be spoken of as Jacob,

but as Israel, for you have striven with beings divine ('elohim) and human,

and have prevailed."

30(31)Jacob named the site Peniel (face of 'El), meaning, "I have seen God face to face,

yet my life has been preserved."

31(32)The sun rose upon him just as he passed Penuel (face of 'El), limping on his hip.

Did Joseph say anything about this?

Was it a man or an angel?

[Ron Beron]

Did Joseph say anything about this?

Was it a man or an angel?

I actually wrote something on this awhile back and I somewhat gratuitously repost here...

God At Penuel?

Over the last view years I have been left with some questions as to the veracity of the story contained in Genesis about Jacobs meeting with “God/angel”. Something about it seemed both familiar yet distant. The story begins in Genesis 32

24 ¶ And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.

26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.

27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.

28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.

30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

31 And as he passed over Penuel the sun rose upon him, and he halted upon his thigh.

Many have said that Jacob actually wrestled with God or El. Jacob even says that he has seen God “face to face” or penu/el. Earlier though, he states the Yahwist states the Joseph wrestled with a man. Hosea complicates the matter by stating that Jacob actually wrestled with an angel.

“He strove with the angel and prevailed, he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with him –”Hosea 12:4.

So which is it?

There are several things that bother me least of which is why God would wrestle with anyone unless it was in a psychological way? And, apparently God isn’t much of a wrestler because he almost loses to Jacob. Secondly, why is the meaning behind being afraid of the light of dawn? Third, why the emphasis on the blessing and name change? All fairly complex, but which can be answered with an examination of the folklore behind the story.

In Herman Gunkel’s excellent book, The Folktale in the Old Testament, he states basically that the story is a Elohist and Yahwist retelling of a much older folktale where God is a lesser El of a demonic type. Several clues lead to this. One, is the creature shyness of the light. Comparatively, the demon lilitu or Lilith mentioned in Isaiah, (34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.) is a demon of the night. Another factor that compels us to accept the assailant is the fact that it laid in wait to attack Jacob at the ford of river, Jabbok, as Hosea states, “like a panther on the way” (Hos. 13:7). In fact, Gunkel accepts the creature as a demon of the river (page 86).

There are secondary elements here that also enlarge the folktale scenario. First, is Jacobs compulsion for the need to know the name of his attacker and failing that getting a blessing.

In the Odyssey IV, 384, Menelaus wrestles with Proteus, a sea god, until he gives to him his wisdom. Similarly, King Midas captures Silenus and compels him to give knowledge before daybreak when “night is past and the early morning sun shines, the dream stops and the spirits of the dream lost their power.” (FrederickLeyn, Das Marchen, 1911). Elsewhere in the OT there are similar stories particularly in Genesis 19:15 where the “angels” “hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.” In Psalms 91:5 the Lord states, “You will not be afraid of the terror by night, Nor of the arrow that flies by day;”

(See similar stories in Exodus 12:22, 2 Kings 19:35, Isa. 17:4 and poignantly Psalms 46:5, “5 God is in the midst of her. She shall not be moved. God will help her at dawn.” )

Now, why the name? The creature refuses to give it’s name. In the ancient world a name can be a powerful tool, or even one of a destructive nature. It could heal or destroy. Many blessing or prayers in the scriptures or, in fact, invocative magic. One reason we close our prayers in Jesus’ name is invoke his authority. Consider also the German folktale of Rumpelstiltskin whose name was magical. One reason that God’s name remains ineffable is because of the tremendous power behind it. He simply remains, ” Ehyeh asher ehyeh” “I Am who I Am.” or more playfully “I am Ea” bringing up a Sumerian connection to the god Ea or Enki. For this reason Jacob is renamed Israel, Abram is renamed Abraham, and Sarai is renamed Sarah.

An additional intriguing connotation comes up with the impending next day meeting with his estranged brother Esau. One German commentator (E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nacbarstamme [Hamme 1906]) has suggested that the story of Jacob and Esau reflects an earlier Phoenician myth of Hypsouranios, the wise culture hero who invents housing and his wild man sibling, Ousoos. In this myth Jacob or Hysouranios represents the Sun in the morning and his brother Ousoos or Esau represent the night or demon. In this way the wrestling incident represents a prelude to the next morning conflict with his brother.

Lastly, there is modern component to this story that may reflect on our understanding of Joseph Smith. One in DC 129:8

“If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel• anything; you may therefore detect him.”

If we consider this in the story of Joseph’s vision we see elements of Jacob’s adventure with that of Joseph’s.

“15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.”

While not an absolute parallel to Jacobs wrestling we can certainly see many elements of the earlier story with this one.

In summary, while many of the stories contained in the OT certainly contain an amount of historicity many more are dependent on folk legends that go further back. The story of Jacob is just one of them.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The challenge I have with threads like this is that it seems to me to be some kind of attempt to get answers from a text that was never intended to answer the kind of questions being asked of it.

The other interesting aspect of it is that we have this tendency (as LDS and as part of a larger Christian audience) to make the assumption that the story is really remotely about Lot. It isn't. Lot is Abraham's foil in this story. He is the comic relief. When God suggests that there weren't any righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah, it isn't because Lot was righteous (he isn't). Lot's name means "veiled" and he doesn't see anything - he is more blind than the people of Sodom after they become blind (as part of the narrative). We know almost immediately who the angels are - but Lot doesn't. And that's part of the whole point of the narrative. Struggling to identify specifically who they are is in some ways exactly what the text says about what the people of Sodom themselves were trying to do. Lot continually resists the instructions that they give him. He doesn't go willingly. He is constantly afraid of what will happen when he does. The angels are a prop within the narrative to help us "know" what is going on (usually long before Lot himself figures it out).

The narrative starts with Abraham negotiating with God over whether Justice or Mercy should prevail. God is showing Abraham that he can be merciful through his dealings with Lot - God is not showing Abraham he can be just (i.e. rescuing Lot because of Lot's personal righteousness - Lot's actions can only be perceived as righteous only if we are trying to come to a predetermined interpretation of the narrative). The Justice part we already see in the destruction of the cities on the plain.

In Jewish tellings, Abraham successfully passed his 10 trials of faith. Lot had one, and he failed it.

Ben M.

[maklelan]

In the original version of the story (Genesis 32, that is), Jacob should be understood to be wrestling with God himself. Yes, it makes God seem kinda puny, and it's bizarre, but the story is a folk etymology for the name Israel (ישראל), which seems to mean "he will strive with El." They had to come up with some kind of circumstance that would present Jacob "striving" with God himself. In Gen 32:28 God states, "you have striven with elohim," which in the Hebrew is שרית עם אלהים. Hos 12:3-4 seems to say Jacob actually wrestled with an angel, but a closer look shows the word "angel" is actually a late interpolation. V. 3 ends with the phrase שרה את־אלהים, "he strove with elohim." The very next words, which begin v. 4, are וישר אל־מלאך, "and he strove with an angel." Notice, however, that the particle אל is used here, which is means "to" or "toward." It doesn't really mean "with." Hos 12:3 and Gen 32:28 use particles that mean "with." Why do we have that particle here? אל looks more like El, or God, and if we lose the word for "angel," מלאך, we're left with וישר אל, or, to remove the spaces, וישראל, "and Israel."

Hos 12:4 begins with the explicit connection of the pericope with the name Israel. It makes the folk etymology clear. The word "angel" was later added in order to avoid the notion that Jacob strove with God and won. The tradition contained in Genesis 32 may not have been recorded in that text by this time, which may explain why no such change was made to Genesis. This is supported by the reference to someone weeping in Hosea. Genesis records no such event, which means the author of Hosea may have been relying on a separate version of the tradition. Either way, the stories are easy to harmonize in the final canon by just reading Genesis 32 in light of Hosea 12. Since the latter equates elohim, or "deities," with angels, there's no difficulty simply understanding "he strove with elohim" to mean "he strove with deities," which could be angels. This is further supported by the plural "men" parallel to elohim. "He strove with divine beings and with men, and he prevailed."

Edited July 14, 2012 by maklelan

[CASteinman]

I think it is interesting that there, in the middle of a city that it the epitome of sinfulness, two angels made appearance.

[Robert F. Smith]

In the original version of the story (Genesis 32, that is), Jacob should be understood to be wrestling with God himself. Yes, it makes God seem kinda puny, and it's bizarre, but the story is a folk etymology for the name Israel (ישראל), which seems to mean "he will strive with El." They had to come up with some kind of circumstance that would present Jacob "striving" with God himself. In Gen 32:28 God states, "you have striven with elohim," which in the Hebrew is שרית עם אלהים. Hos 12:3-4 seems to say Jacob actually wrestled with an angel, but a closer look shows the word "angel" is actually a late interpolation. V. 3 ends with the phrase שרה את־אלהים, "he strove with elohim." The very next words, which begin v. 4, are וישר אל־מלאך, "and he strove with an angel." Notice, however, that the particle אל is used here, which is means "to" or "toward." It doesn't really mean "with." Hos 12:3 and Gen 32:28 use particles that mean "with." Why do we have that particle here? אל looks more like El, or God, and if we lose the word for "angel," מלאך, we're left with וישר אל, or, to remove the spaces, וישראל, "and Israel."

Hos 12:4 begins with the explicit connection of the pericope with the name Israel. It makes the folk etymology clear. The word "angel" was later added in order to avoid the notion that Jacob strove with God and won. The tradition contained in Genesis 32 may not have been recorded in that text by this time, which may explain why no such change was made to Genesis. This is supported by the reference to someone weeping in Hosea. Genesis records no such event, which means the author of Hosea may have been relying on a separate version of the tradition. Either way, the stories are easy to harmonize in the final canon by just reading Genesis 32 in light of Hosea 12. Since the latter equates elohim, or "deities," with angels, there's no difficulty simply understanding "he strove with elohim" to mean "he strove with deities," which could be angels. This is further supported by the plural "men" parallel to elohim. "He strove with divine beings and with men, and he prevailed."

Yes, this has all the earmarks of a tiqqun sopherim.

[Robert F. Smith]

I actually wrote something on this awhile back and I somewhat gratuitously repost here...

Ephraim Speiser, Genesis (1964), 256-257, had a somewhat different explanation of what he termed "the supreme test at Penuel":

. . . a desperate nocturnal struggle with a nameless adversary whose true nature does not dawn on Jacob until the physical darkness had begun to lift. The reader, of course, should not try to spell out details that the author himself glimpsed as through a haze. But there can surely be no doubt as to the far-reaching implications of the encounter. Its outcome is ascribed to the opponent's lack of decisive superiority. Yet Jacob's injury was grave enough to cost him the contest, if such a result had been desired. And for another thing, the description now embodies three distinct aetiologies: (1) The basis for the name Israel; the change of names is itself significant of an impending change in status (as with Abraham and Sarah; see Sec. 20); (2) The origin of the name Penuel, for which a basis is laid in vss. 21-22 by their fivefold use of the stem

pny

(von Rad). (3) The dietary taboo about the sciatic muscle. Any one of those motifs would suffice to color the whole account.

One may conclude, accordingly, that the encounter at Penuel was understood as a test of Jacob's fitness for the larger tasks that lay ahead. The results were encouraging. Though he was left alone to wrestle through the night with a mysterious assailant, Jacob did not falter. The effort left its mark--a permanent injury to remind Jacob of what had taken place, and to serve perhaps as a portent of things to come. Significantly enough, Jacob is henceforth a changed person. The man who could be party to a cruel hoax that was played on his father and brother, and who fought Laban's treachery with crafty schemes of his own, will soon condemn the vengeful deed by Simeon and Levi (xxiv) by invoking a higher concept of morality (xlix 5-7).

[rongo]

There is also the interesting priesthood lineage given in D&C 84 to explain how Jethro held the Melchizedek Priesthood. It follows an extra-biblical line of authority stemming from Esaias, who "lived in the days of Abraham" and "received it under the hand of God" (D&C 84:6-13). I have heard people explain this away using D&C 36:2 (Esaias wasn't ordained by Elohim, he was ordained by some unnamed servant ----- thus, he can be considered to have been ordained by God in the same way that God "lay[s his] hand upon [us] by the hand of [His] servant."

I don't find this convincing. It's interesting that Abraham himself didn't transfer the keys of the dispensation of Abraham in the Kirtland temple (D&C 110), someone named Elias did. Why didn't Abraham ordain Esaias? It seems that there were all sorts of interesting conditions and situations at that time that would give rise to the necessity of Elohim ordaining branches of the priesthood other than Abraham.

I have heard some say that Elohim himself can't come to earth in its fallen state (nonsense ---- what about right after the Fall, or the First Vision?), but it seems that thre are times when He has and used His physical body.

[Ron Beron]

Ephraim Speiser, Genesis (1964), 256-257, had a somewhat different explanation of what he termed "the supreme test at Penuel":

. . . a desperate nocturnal struggle with a nameless adversary whose true nature does not dawn on Jacob until the physical darkness had begun to lift. The reader, of course, should not try to spell out details that the author himself glimpsed as through a haze. But there can surely be no doubt as to the far-reaching implications of the encounter. Its outcome is ascribed to the opponent's lack of decisive superiority. Yet Jacob's injury was grave enough to cost him the contest, if such a result had been desired. And for another thing, the description now embodies three distinct aetiologies: (1) The basis for the name Israel; the change of names is itself significant of an impending change in status (as with Abraham and Sarah; see Sec. 20); (2) The origin of the name Penuel, for which a basis is laid in vss. 21-22 by their fivefold use of the stem

pny

(von Rad). (3) The dietary taboo about the sciatic muscle. Any one of those motifs would suffice to color the whole account.

One may conclude, accordingly, that the encounter at Penuel was understood as a test of Jacob's fitness for the larger tasks that lay ahead. The results were encouraging. Though he was left alone to wrestle through the night with a mysterious assailant, Jacob did not falter. The effort left its mark--a permanent injury to remind Jacob of what had taken place, and to serve perhaps as a portent of things to come. Significantly enough, Jacob is henceforth a changed person. The man who could be party to a cruel hoax that was played on his father and brother, and who fought Laban's treachery with crafty schemes of his own, will soon condemn the vengeful deed by Simeon and Levi (xxiv) by invoking a higher concept of morality (xlix 5-7).

I reread Speiser after I posted the above and it is interesting that there are so many explanations to the event. His subsequent encounter with Esau needed to be explored and overcome, otherwise he couldn't assume the authority he felt was his. Not to be glib, but to explore the motivation, but did you notice that this encounter was similar to Luke Skywalker's encounter with himself (masked as Darth Vader) on Dagobah? Jung would have loved this piece.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Ron Beron

[CASteinman]

I don't find this convincing. It's interesting that Abraham himself didn't transfer the keys of the dispensation of Abraham in the Kirtland temple (D&C 110), someone named Elias did. Why didn't Abraham ordain Esaias? It seems that there were all sorts of interesting conditions and situations at that time that would give rise to the necessity of Elohim ordaining branches of the priesthood other than Abraham.

A footnote from a book about the D&C gives this interesting information:

[The] identification of Elias as Noah is supported by a correlative of Luke 1:17-19, where the angel who appeared to Zacharias introduced himself as Gabriel; of D&C 27:6-7, where Elias is identified as the personage who visited Zacharias; and where the Prophet Joseph Smith states that Noah is Gabriel (TPJS 157). Furthermore, Elias held "the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things" (D&C 27:6). This was the mission of Noah following the flood (Gen 9:1). Noah's tie with Abraham would possibly be that Abraham's life overlapped the life of Noah and the covenant with Abraham was an extension of Noah's mission to restore all things (Lectures on Faith 2:52). The Book of Jasher, for what it's worth, teaches that Noah raised Abram for thirty-nine years (9:5-6).

There was no need for Elohim to come to earth at this time. There were a variety of righteous Priesthood holders around.

[ANACO]

Since they "nuked" the plain of Sodom and Gomorrah, I would say they were angels.

Edit:

I'll defer to Cinepro's comment above.

Edited July 14, 2012 by ANACO

[Ron Beron]

Since they "nuked" the plain of Sodom and Gomorrah, I would say they were angels.

Edit:

I'll defer to Cinepro's comment above.

Either that or a astral visitor who happened to make calamitous contact with Earth.

[rongo]

There was no need for Elohim to come to earth at this time. There were a variety of righteous Priesthood holders around.

We agree that there were plenty of priesthood holders around, but I think we know next to nothing about the "flow chart," proximity, and conditions. Just look at the lineage given in D&C 84, and that's all that we know.

The fact is that there are anthropormphic passages (Penuel, the LORD eating with Abraham, etc.) that are clearly meant to convey anthroporphism (and which were understood by those peoples to convey that ----- despite modern presentism that tries to downplay that).

I'm curious what you (and others) think about Elias in D&C 110. Why didn't Abraham restore the keys of the dispensation of Abraham? None of us know, because that's all we have to go on, so we're just left to our own ideas. Are there other ideas besides

a) it was Abraham operating under the title/office of an Elias

b) it was a prophet of Abraham's time we know nothing else about

c) it was the Esaias who received the priesthood under the hand of God during the time of Abraham

Interesting to think about, no matter where any of us fall on this spectrum.

[CASteinman]

We agree that there were plenty of priesthood holders around, but I think we know next to nothing about the "flow chart," proximity, and conditions. ....

I'm curious what you (and others) think about Elias in D&C 110. Why didn't Abraham restore the keys of the dispensation of Abraham?

You are right. This is dim antiquity and what we think we know may not be as we think it is.

We have some information that all Priesthood seems to flow out of Noah's family. Noah/Gabriel/Elias, Shem/Melchizedek and Abraham are the three great Priesthood characters of this age and they are all the Family of Noah -- who was actually at the head of this dispensation.

That is why it was he who came and restored the keys of that dispensation -- a dispensation we know from Abraham who came out of apostasy and discovered the Truth and became a Friend to God. Through him, all the nations of the earth would be blessed and so we consider that to be his dispensation, but apparently it was not -- it was Noah's. It would see that All the Nations (remaining) were blessed through him as well.

Sperry thinks Esias was ordained by Abraham.

[rongo]

You are right. This is dim antiquity and what we think we know may not be as we think it is.

We have some information that all Priesthood seems to flow out of Noah's family. Noah/Gabriel/Elias, Shem/Melchizedek and Abraham are the three great Priesthood characters of this age and they are all the Family of Noah -- who was actually at the head of this dispensation.

I have never accepted the Shem/Melchizedek link. For starters (going back to D&C 84, again), verse 14 states that "Melchizedek . . . received it through the lineage of the fathers, even till Noah." This is a really odd way to phrase it if Melchizedek was actually Shem, the son of Noah, isn't it? (Hat tip to Hugh Nibley for this thought, in arguing that Shem wasn't Melchizedek. I think it's a really good point).

Sperry thinks Esias was ordained by Abraham.

Well, Esaias "was blessed of [Abraham]" (verse 13), but the one right before it (verse 12) is the one that point-blank says "And Esaias received it under the hand of God."Why in the world would God or Joseph have written these two verses this way if the intended thought was simply that Abraham ordained Esaias? It seems to me that some people go to great lengths of convoluted reasoning and exegesis not to have Elohim Himself ever perform ordinances (or visit the earth), because, well, because He just couldn't have, that's all. Despite the plain renderings of what is there.

[CASteinman]

I have never accepted the Shem/Melchizedek link. For starters (going back to D&C 84, again), verse 14 states that "Melchizedek . . . received it through the lineage of the fathers, even till Noah." This is a really odd way to phrase it if Melchizedek was actually Shem, the son of Noah, isn't it? (Hat tip to Hugh Nibley for this thought, in arguing that Shem wasn't Melchizedek. I think it's a really good point).

I don't think its a particularly great insight. I think the weight of evidence is that Shem and Melchizedek are the same.

Well, Esaias "was blessed of [Abraham]" (verse 13), but the one right before it (verse 12) is the one that point-blank says "And Esaias received it under the hand of God." Why in the world would God or Joseph have written these two verses this way if the intended thought was simply that Abraham ordained Esaias? It seems to me that some people go to great lengths of convoluted reasoning and exegesis not to have Elohim Himself ever perform ordinances (or visit the earth), because, well, because He just couldn't have, that's all. Despite the plain renderings of what is there.

I understand about plain renderings. D&C 36 says that Edward Partridge would be ordained by God -- but through the ministrations of Elder Rigdon. In D&C 27, Jesus says that He ordained Joseph Smith -- but through Peter James and John.

Its a very teensy tiny leap -- and entirely consistent with the way God works with man -- to say that God ordained Esaias -- by the hand of someone (like Abraham).

To say otherwise is to describe an event that is extremely weird, contradictory to how God works and has never seen before, as far as we can tell.