Angels In Sodom

[volgadon]

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

I personally find the evidence for it rather flimsy.

[rongo]

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

Good discussion. What evidence do you find for this? As far as I know, there isn't anything that leads to this idea, other than a desire for it to be so. I am genuinely interested in a weight of evidence I haven't noticed.

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.

Well, only if we discount the passages that say so . . . . I agree that most would probably agree with you, but simply because the thought of God Himself performing ordinances strikes them as odd. I don't see any good reason why He couldn't or wouldn't, given circumstances.

[CASteinman]

Good discussion. What evidence do you find for this? As far as I know, there isn't anything that leads to this idea, other than a desire for it to be so. I am genuinely interested in a weight of evidence I haven't noticed.

The evidence is of three kinds:

1. It is held to be so by traditional Jewish Sources. These may be echos of ancient knowledge.

2. It is alluded to in Revelation: Melchizedek is said to be "such a great high priest" (D&C 107) and Shem is said to be "The Great high Priest" (D&C 138) but in that same revelation, the Great Melchizedek is not mentioned at all.

3. It makes sense in multiple ways:

Melchizedek is more like a Title -- Melech Zadok -- King of Righteousness.

Shem was ":the great high priest" but his ministry is never discussed. Instead, Melchizedek's ministry is discussed.

Shem's parents are known. Melchizedeks parents are unknown.

The land inherited by Shem included the land of Salem. Salem is where Melchizedek was King.

Shem was the ecclesiastical authority after Noah Died. Abraham paid tithes to the King of Salem -- Melchizedek.

Abraham stands next to Shem in the patriarchal order of the priesthood and would surely have received the priesthood from Shem; but D&C 84:14 says Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek.

[CASteinman]

I don't see any good reason why He couldn't or wouldn't, given circumstances.

The good reason is that this is not how God does things. He sends messengers. it also violates the way things are supposed to work -- with Jesus as the intermediary between man and God.

[Ron Beron]

The evidence is of three kinds:

1. It is held to be so by traditional Jewish Sources. These may be echos of ancient knowledge.

The only sources I am aware of are late medieval which state this and then at some controversy. What sources are you presenting?

The Catholic Encyclopedia as well as Bruce R. McConkie have shown some doubt...

The Rabbins [Rabbi's] identified Melchisedech with Sem, son of Noe, rather for polemic than historic reasons, since they wished to set themselves against what is said of him as a type of Christ "without father, without mother, without genealogy" (He., vii, 3).

In the Epistle to the Hebrews the typical character of Melchisedech and its Messianic import are fully explained. Christ is "a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech" (Heb,. vii, 6; Ps., cix, 4); "a high priest forever", etc. (Heb., vi, 20), ...i.e. order or manner (Gesenius), not after the manner of Aaron. The Apostle develops his teaching in Heb., vii: Melchisedech was a type by reason (a) of his twofold dignity as priest and king, (b) by reason of his name, "king of justice", © by reason of the city over which he ruled, "King of Salem, that is, king of peace" (v.2), and also (d) because he "without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened unto the Son of God, continueth a priest forever" (v.3). The silence of Scripture about the facts of Melchisedech's birth and death was a part of the divine plan to make him prefigure more strikingly the mysteries of Christ's generation, the eternity of His priesthood."

And

There is an unsupported tradition to the effect that Melchizedek was the same person as Shem the son of Noah. That this could hardly have been the case is seen from the revelation which says: "Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah." (D. & C. 84:14.) In other words, there seem to have been at least two generations between Melchizedek and Shem.10

Edited July 15, 2012 by Ron Beron

[SamIam]

Good discussion. What evidence do you find for this? As far as I know, there isn't anything that leads to this idea, other than a desire for it to be so. I am genuinely interested in a weight of evidence I haven't noticed.

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.” From this definite account of driving the “nations apart, when the ancient hills did bow,” all reflecting minds may judge that man was scattered over the whole face of the earth: And with the

superior knowledge of men like Noah, Shem, (who was Melchisedec [Melchizedek]) and Abram, the father of the faithful, three contemporaries, holding the keys of the highest order of the priesthood: connecting the creation, and fall; memorising [memorizing] the righteousness of Enoch; and glorying in the construction of the ark for the salvation of a world; still retaining the model and pattern of that ark, than which a great, ah, we may say, half so great a vessel has never been built since; for another ark, be it remembered, with such a ponderous living freight will never be prepared as a vessel of mercy by command of Jehovah: That was so perfectly built as to brave the fury of the elements a year: and with the image of the tower whose peering top reached the sky in daring magnificence; and with that mighty combination of intellect, when the whole earth was of one language, and the plains of Shinar the capitol...(Times and Seasons, Vol 5 p 746, Nauvoo, Illinois, December 15, 1844, Elder John Taylor Editor as printed in the A Compilation Containing the Lectures on Faith, a Treatise on True Faith, Shem Was Melchizedek compiled by NB Lundwall. )

In the tradition of a new name marking rights of passage, I see no problem with Shem being later known as Melchizedek.

Edited July 28, 2012 by SamIam

[rongo]

But what do people do with that D&C 84 reference that pretty clearly indicates that more than one generation separate Melchizedek and Noah?

[SamIam]

But what do people do with that D&C 84 reference that pretty clearly indicates that more than one generation separate Melchizedek and Noah?

You are not alone in your question as this footnote explains:

22. The idea, for example, that Melchizedek was Shem has been found in Church literature since John Taylor qualifiedly volunteered it in Times and Seasons 5 (December 15, 1844): 745-46, as "not allowing it to be revelation but history." That history, however, is suspect, and some Church writers have prudently declined to follow it. See John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, ed. G. Homer Durham (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960), 232; Charles E. Haggerty, "Melchizedek . . . King of Salem," Improvement Era 55 (1952): 512. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960) refers to the idea that Shem was Melchizedek as an unconfirmed Hebrew tradition. But others have gone to extraordinary lengths to preserve that connection, see Hyrum Andrus, Principles of Perfection (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1970), 422, even in the face of D&C 84:14: "Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah." For a more tentative approach, see Alma E. Gygi, "Is It Possible That Shem and Melchizedek Are the Same Person?" Ensign 3 (November 1973): 15-16. D&C 138:41 only speaks of Shem as "the great high priest." The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, while silent on any connection between Melchizedek and Shem, adds many other relevant details to the Genesis account, mentioned further below. For other information about the power of the Melchizedek priesthood as "the power of 'endless lives,' " and about Melchizedek giving the priesthood to Abraham, see TPJS, 322-23.(John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, 2 vols.)

Personally, I don't know that we can say conclusively one way or the other...I hold on to the Shem=Melchizedek probably only because it was the first thing I learned and I have not taken adequate time to study the issue to come to my own understanding. Until then I'll hang with that perspective but it could go either way.

[SamIam]

But what do people do with that D&C 84 reference that pretty clearly indicates that more than one generation separate Melchizedek and Noah?

Here is the reference from the 1973 Ensign found at this link:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/11/i-have-a-question#footnote2-03037_000_013

Is it possible that Shem and Melchizedek are the same person?

Alma E. Gygi

...Because of this state of knowledge on our part, many Saints and gospel scholars have wondered if these men were the same person. The truth is, we do not know the answer. But an examination of the scriptures is fascinating, because it seems to indicate that these men may have been one and the same. For example, here is the case for their oneness:

1. The inheritance given to Shem included the land of Salem. Melchizedek appears in scripture as the king of Salem, who reigns over this area.

2. Shem, according to later revelation, reigned in righteousness and the priesthood came through him. Melchizedek appears on the scene with a title that means “king of righteousness.”

3. Shem was the great high priest of his day. Abraham honored the high priest Melchizedek by seeking a blessing at his hands and paying him tithes.

4. Abraham stands next to Shem in the patriarchal order of the priesthood and would surely have received the priesthood from Shem; but D&C 84:5–17 says Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek.

5. Jewish tradition identifies Shem as Melchizedek.³

6. President Joseph F. Smith’s remarkable vision names Shem among the great patriarchs, but no mention is made of Melchizedek.

7. Times and Seasons (vol. 6, p. 746) speaks of “Shem, who was Melchizedek. …”

On the other hand, there is a case for their being two distinct personalities. Many persons believe D&C 84:14 is proof that there are perhaps several generations between Melchizedek and Noah. The scripture says, “Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah.”

If it does turn out that Shem and Melchizedek are the same person, this scripture should prove no stumbling block, because it could be interpreted to mean that priesthood authority commenced with Adam and came through the fathers, even till Noah, and then to Shem.Alma E. Gygi, Salt Lake City businessman.

While not conclusive, I do find that the commonalities of their descriptions compelling.

Edited July 28, 2012 by SamIam

[Zakuska]

<snip> Quote from Joseph Smith translation?

So we can cross anything the ECFs wrote from Joseph Smith list of study materials.

http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/justin-martyr/

This was one of their favorite proof texts to prove that there was a second power in heaven besides the creator of heaven and earth.

[CASteinman]

I personally find the evidence for it rather flimsy.

Referring to the list of evidences in #28. Sometimes in Genealogical Research you cannot find original documents for proving relationships. So you produce a finding paper that meets certain Standards of Proof:

• a reasonably exhaustive search;
  
• complete and accurate source citations;
  
• analysis and correlation of the collected information;
  
• resolution of any conflicting evidence; and
  
• a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.
  

With this in mind, how is it so flimsy?

Unless you mean that the remaining documentation is so sparse as to be unusable or unreliable, which is a matter of opinion only.

[Maidservant]

See chapter 16 about Shem/Azonideck

Chapter 18 with the Sodom story

in The Book of Jasher (the site would not allow a link, but it is easily found online).

= = = = = = = = = =

The story of Jacob wrestling with God/angel/man I take as a graph for what almost all the scriptures yield--a graph for our entire reason and purpose for coming to the mortal plane as children of God and what we can expect to experience here.

Coming to earth IS our "wrestle with the angel" [insert 'God' if you like].

This story is not about Jacob. It is about us.

How we wrestle. How we become damaged. How we wring from that struggle our Blessing and our Name. How we rise, exhausted in the morning and go forward again.

The stories of Genesis were not prepared as a history, or at least not in the sense of method of how history is prepared today. They were sacred texts that yield transformation only for people who have the keys. Otherwise they remain myths for the blind.

For the sodom story--angels are men and men are angels. But these were men with priesthood authority. Abraham was not the only, or even main, priesthood organization at this time. As we know, Melchizedek at least had authority. Abraham is the story we have, for reasons of history having to do with--well, just the way history for us in this part of the world has unfolded. (Meaningless, say for just an example, to the unfolding of history for the Chinese.)

Lot, while no Abraham (who is?), was a good man if a bit, hm, in the world. The English text as it stands does not hold up to any scrutiny and Lot is not guilty of offering his daughter, for example.

Lot put the men under his "tent" (the sacredness of guests in the "Eastern" culture) just as did Abraham.

[SamIam]

See chapter 16 about Shem/Azonideck

The story of Jacob wrestling with God/angel/man I take as a graph for what almost all the scriptures yield--a graph for our entire reason and purpose for coming to the mortal plane as children of God and what we can expect to experience here.

Coming to earth IS our "wrestle with the angel" [insert 'God' if you like].

This story is not about Jacob. It is about us.

What you are describing above fits into an even more recognizable form very well. While some prefer to consider these types and shadows only, I consider them both actual events as well as types and shadows of symbolic events.

Judging by symbolism of a New Name this has potential to be viewed through the lens of a temple ordinance. The wrestle could potentially represent a certain embrace. It is imbued with a higher sense of earnestness than we might observe in our temple experiences which retain the practice quality of our training process. However, this with Jacob is illustrious of when the day for practice becomes the real event in the sense of the effort and earnestness implied. For me this parallels the Enos event nicely.

The stories of Genesis were not prepared as a history, or at least not in the sense of method of how history is prepared today. They were sacred texts that yield transformation only for people who have the keys. Otherwise they remain myths for the blind.

Agreed. For myself as stated before, I do consider this an actual and therefore a potentially historical event.

however, the emphasis is not on it's historical value but in its conveyance of an actual spiritual process of transformation that is as much a wrestle for Jacob as it will be for all who partake of such a blessing.

For the sodom story--angels are men and men are angels. But these were men with priesthood authority. Abraham was not the only, or even main, priesthood organization at this time. As we know, Melchizedek at least had authority. Abraham is the story we have, for reasons of history having to do with--well, just the way history for us in this part of the world has unfolded. (Meaningless, say for just an example, to the unfolding of history for the Chinese.)

Again, is there not a parallel of the angels that are always assigned to the task of destroyers in the judgements of God. Sodom is a type and shadow of a final judgement being rendered. Men yes, perhaps, if resurrected beings but it seems inconsistent to me to be simply mortal men with priesthood authority acting in the power of final judgement. This thought is predicated upon a quote of Brigham Young where he talks about the economy of heaven. In this sense I would apply it to mean that one who has not actually been final judged would not be in a position to judge others. Although I can see where we might consider that these two have been judged and wield the sealing power of the priesthood in that powerful fashion such as Nephi receives in Helaman or that Enoch wields to protect Zion. Still, even the two who die in the streets of Jerusalem protect the people with power for a while but it is after the three days of their bodies lying in the street that finds them resurrected and then an angel sounds a trump of judgement and earthquakes destroy a tithe of the people.

Lot, while no Abraham (who is?), was a good man if a bit, hm, in the world. The English text as it stands does not hold up to any scrutiny and Lot is not guilty of offering his daughter, for example.

Lot's status as a righteous man is mentioned here:

2 Peter 2:

6

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned

them

with an overthrow, making

them

an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

7And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8

(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed

his

righteous soul from day to day with

their

unlawful deeds;)

9The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

I have always appreciated this verse for the observation that though Lot's priorities were out of sorts, he nonetheless was known by his heart and we can hope for the same though we may wonder at our own behaviors from time to time.

Edited July 28, 2012 by SamIam

[Maidservant]

I consider them both actual events as well as types and shadows of symbolic events.

I loved everything you had to say in your post, and add to my thoughts here.

I tend to think of these stores as actual also at this point (with Genesis as a whole), or at least there is no reason why there is not ultimately a set of events and people upon which these stories are based. I am in transition on this kind of thinking however. And this PARTICULAR story about the "wrestle with the angel" just seems highly stylized and not necessarily historical, not because angels or God wouldn't wrestle with men, I have no problem on that, but just the level of stylization/symbolism just seems to point (in my mind) a different reason other than historicity for including that element.

I also have long been someone who concludes for the historicity of Genesis and I have often said that a metaphor cannot be a metaphor without having been lived as an event at some point. However again my transition and where I am at is that I am struggling with the age of the text(s) from which we have these stories and so I am asking myself about the PREPARERS, RECORDERS and TRANSMITTERS of these stories and texts and THEIR purpose for the preparation and that is a much bigger question for me than "Is Jacob and his journey real? Or really happened?" And my point would be that the PREPARERS of these stories may have crafted them very carefully for spiritual purposes. Anyway, I would not say anything as a conclusion at this point, it's all just a big exploration for me at the moment. Will probably take years before I come to another plateau in my understanding on it.

You know, there is a story written about me and the birth of my first son. The birth of my first son is something of a legend in our extended family for a variety of reasons. One of my late husband's aunts is a writer and she wanted to write this story of the birth of my son. But she wrote this story from her own thinking on it, which was pretty much second and third hand (she was never there). It was just a family story to her. Meaning that she got 90 percent of the details wrong. Someone who was male, she wrote as female. She assigned a backstory and a motivation to one of the "characters" that simply wasn't the case. I'm sure she thought it was true, but it was someone's guess somewhere, but no one actually KNEW that character, they were just assessing from their outside observations. And most important, she wrote this story without ever asking ME what happened, ha ha!

Anyway, she brought this story to me after it was done and I was sick at all the errors, but at the same time I realized that that wasn't the point. I'm sure that four generations from now the story of the birth of my son will still be told but it will be highly inaccurate. But a great story still, with the main essence still there.

Is my son's story true, real and historical? Yes.

Is my son's story of spiritual value, and could it even have symbolic, eternal, metaphorical significance for eternity? Yes.

Is my son's story the truth? No, she got it all wrong. Yes, see above.

Are me and my son real people? I've got six hours of child labor that says we are.

Does the wrongness of the third item cross out the rightness of the first two and the one above? No.

Would it have been great to have the real story and could I write another "version" and will there be forever wranglings through the ages about versions and details and where they really got the story? Yes.

So I take Genesis with a grain of salt in terms of "reality" and "historicity" if that's what I need from it. But I am still asking myself--WHY does this text AS a text exist in my life at all in terms of WHO made it first, second, third, sixtieth--and why it is still before my eyes?

Edited July 28, 2012 by Maidservant