Van Hale - Book Of Mormon Historicity

[Cobalt-70]

1. Why did the angel identify himself as Moroni, one of the fictional Nephites? Was this messenger from God lying? Or did Joseph Smith just make that part up?

Smith's story of the visit of Moroni was written in 1838, 15 years after the dream/vision occurred. I'm sure it was a vivid experience when he had it, but have you ever had a dream that you can still remember with perfect accuracy after 15 years? Over the intervening time, the meaning of the vision and its relationship to the the Book of Mormon undoubtedly evolved. Most likely, Smith's original understanding was that Moroni was a treasure guardian spirit. It is not even certain at what point he understood the name of the angel, because there is evidence he told some people the angel was Nephi.

2. Where did the numerous artifacts (the plates, Laban sword and breastplate, the interpreters, etc.) come from? Did God just make them up to convince Joseph Smith (thus, God created forgeries)? And why would God manufacture this evidence for a fictional book? Or did Joseph Smith (and others) lie about having them, or make his own fake artifacts?

If the artifacts, including the plates, were physical in a scientific sense, their mere existence is not proof that they have anything to do with the translation dictated by Smith while looking at the stone in his hat. We already know, based on the Book of Abraham, that Joseph Smith's understanding of what it means to "translate the Egyptian language" is not what we understand it to be from an academic perspective. I think Smith really did believe he had found artifacts, and that this was no lie. But either they were accessible to his spirit eyes only, or they were real artifacts that Smith used as a catalyst to create an inspired fictional work of scripture, much as he did with the Book of Abraham.

3. Why has God been silent in correct this misperception about the Book of Mormon's story for 182 years? Why has God let every prophet since Joseph Smith teach that it is historical? Why has God never said, "Oh, and by the way, the Book of Mormon isn't actually history, so stop teaching people that it is." Is God deliberately trying to create barriers to faith here?

Anyone who believes in the LGT could ask the same question about why it didn't seem to be a high priority for God to "correct" the hemispherical model, or the misperception that Native Americans today are Lamanites, or "primarily" descended from Lamanites.

Are you willing to suggest that Elder Oaks has weak faith?

I don't know him well enough to judge. But my impression is, despite the rhetoric, that when the rubber hits the road he would not likely apostatize if he concluded that the Book of Mormon was fictional.

[DBMormon]

Smith's story of the visit of Moroni was written in 1838, 15 years after the dream/vision occurred. I'm sure it was a vivid experience when he had it, but have you ever had a dream that you can still remember with perfect accuracy after 15 years? Over the intervening time, the meaning of the vision and its relationship to the the Book of Mormon undoubtedly evolved. Most likely, Smith's original understanding was that Moroni was a treasure guardian spirit. It is not even certain at what point he understood the name of the angel, because there is evidence he told some people the angel was Nephi.

If the artifacts, including the plates, were physical in a scientific sense, their mere existence is not proof that they have anything to do with the translation dictated by Smith while looking at the stone in his hat. We already know, based on the Book of Abraham, that Joseph Smith's understanding of what it means to "translate the Egyptian language" is not what we understand it to be from an academic perspective. I think Smith really did believe he had found artifacts, and that this was no lie. But either they were accessible to his spirit eyes only, or they were real artifacts that Smith used as a catalyst to create an inspired fictional work of scripture, much as he did with the Book of Abraham.

Anyone who believes in the LGT could ask the same question about why it didn't seem to be a high priority for God to "correct" the hemispherical model, or the misperception that Native Americans today are Lamanites, or "primarily" descended from Lamanites.

I don't know him well enough to judge. But my impression is, despite the rhetoric, that when the rubber hits the road he would not likely apostatize if he concluded that the Book of Mormon was fictional.

That's a pretty elaborate framework......

So it takes more faith to believe it that way? perhaps

Not a single prophet or apostle has taught it that way, not a single heavenly messenger has taught it that way, not any of the BOM witnesses explain it this way, nor any of the early church leaders explain it that way. Meanwhile you feel it is a higher faith to go off the reservation and take up a belief that has been taught by no-one?

Maybe,

I know if a prophet or an apostle stated this from the stand and the others sustained what he said, we would real quick get to the heart of who has oil in their lamp and who doesn't.

I am grateful you make it work that way, and Elder Holland has remarked that we want to be patient with individuals who don't believe a historical BOM but patience involves him knowing his stance is correct while he is willing to wait and hope and assist you in getting there.

Edited September 20, 2012 by DBMormon

[cinepro]

I had no idea that Van Halen was mormon.

[Kevin Christensen]

On the notion that Joseph Smith understood Moroni as a treasure guardian, see Mark Ashurst McGee:

"Moroni as Angel and as Treasure Guardian"

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=600

After carefully assessing the sources, I found that all the eyewitness accounts of the Moroni visitations portray him as an angel. This is not a matter of interpretation but an indisputable fact. Morris and I have also demonstrated that, in the earliest sources, either Moroni is called an "angel" or his status as a heavenly messenger is implied. Again, this is not a matter of interpretation. It is a fact that Vogel must concede. In proceeding to issues of corroboration and contextualization, we move into interpretation. Here I am not at all implying that the debate is over or that the contextual analysis conducted by Vogel (or by myself or Morris) is irrelevant. But any analysis of this depth should begin with rigorous source criticism. Exploring further into issues of corroboration and context led Morris and me to acknowledge the relevance of the treasure-seeking context of the Moroni visitations and the possibility that Joseph viewed Moroni as a treasure guardian. However, our investigations did not negate the possibility that he also understood Moroni as a divine messenger. Rather, they supported the view that he understood Moroni as a divine messenger—and primarily so—from the very beginning.

Also Larry Morris, who provides all of the important sources and arranges them in terms of first hand, eye-witness, and late, second, third, or whatever.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=1&id=567

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[DBMormon]

On the notion that Joseph Smith understood Moroni as a treasure guardian, see Mark Ashurst McGee:

"Moroni as Angel and as Treasure Guardian"

http://maxwellinstit...18&num=1&id=600

Also Larry Morris, who provides all of the important sources and arranges them in terms of first hand, eye-witness, and late, second, third, or whatever.

http://maxwellinstit...17&num=1&id=567

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Someday Kevin, I hope to be like you. You always just answer the question or concerns or thoughts, with really kind, to the point, responses. I never sense any attitude or sarcasm, or showmanship. You truly are a Christlike Disciple.

Thank you

[teddyaware]

Someday Kevin, I hope to be like you. You always just answer the question or concerns or thoughts, with really kind, to the point, responses. I never sense any attitude or sarcasm, or showmanship. You truly are a Christlike Disciple.

Thank you

Was thinking exactly the same thing myself. Kevin is a gentleman.

One of my daughter's childhood friends had a father who was locally famous for his ability to stay calm, cool and rational in any situation, no matter how angry and out-of-control everyone else involved might be. He never resorted to answering verbal attacks with ad-hominen, 'eye for an eye' invective. As a result of this remarkable talent (coupled with a reasonable degree of intelligence), it is said he never lost am interpersonal argument or business dispute. Pride, vindictiveness and hair-trigger tempers are not the hallmarks of those blessed, spiritually-advanced persons whom the Lord calls "the peacemakers."

Edited September 20, 2012 by teddyaware

[Cobalt-70]

On the notion that Joseph Smith understood Moroni as a treasure guardian, see Mark Ashurst McGee:

"Moroni as Angel and as Treasure Guardian"

McGee acknowledges that Moroni was a treasure guardian, in addition to whatever else he was. It is a false dichotomy to ask whether Moroni was an angel or a treasure guardian. The real questions are: (1) When did Smith realize that Moroni was a resurrected being, rather than a spirit (angels can be spirits, too)? The answer appears to be 1838. (2) When did Smith realize (or at least first disclose) that the guardian's name was Moroni? The answer again appears to be 1838.(3) When do we date the theological and scriptural discussion which Smith attributed to the Moroni vision? It seems the answer is late 1830s, based on Smith's theological development at the time.

On the other hand, the earliest references to the angel/guardian later called Moroni, from people who first heard the story in the 1820s, focus on the magical elements of the story: the "commandments" Smith was to follow with exactness before being allowed to receive the plates. The magical bolt that shocked Smith when he first tried to get his hands on the plates. The plates' dissappearance and teleportation back into the box. The necessity of bringing the "right person" to retrieve the plates, etc.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Someday Kevin, I hope to be like you. You always just answer the question or concerns or thoughts, with really kind, to the point, responses. I never sense any attitude or sarcasm, or showmanship. You truly are a Christlike Disciple.

Thank you

Word.

[RobertAC]

I remember attending a lecture on recent Near East archeology, and being told that while Genesis may be the first book of the Bible, it is not the oldest and likely was borrowed from Mesopotamian sources. I had the opportunity to discuss biblical archeology with the lecturer, who was Jewish, and I was surprised to learn that among Jewish scholars that there is question as to whether Moses is an historical figure. Apparently, Jewish theologians and historians have long considered (for the last 300 years or so) that parts of the Old Testament are not historically accurate, but that it nonetheless retains its religious importance and profundity.

Indeed, many religions have important events described within their texts that cannot be corroborated by outside sources. Yet their adherents do not seem bothered by the lack of outside proof. For those who believe in the message of the Book of Mormon, but not necessarily its historical accuracy, it would seem defeating to demand that such believers unquestionably accept the book's accuracy where no outside archeological or historical sources can support that belief.

[Dan Vogel]

On the notion that Joseph Smith understood Moroni as a treasure guardian, see Mark Ashurst McGee:

"Moroni as Angel and as Treasure Guardian"

http://maxwellinstit...18&num=1&id=600

Also Larry Morris, who provides all of the important sources and arranges them in terms of first hand, eye-witness, and late, second, third, or whatever.

http://maxwellinstit...17&num=1&id=567

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin,

The point I was making is that Christianity has associated angels with special creations of God, not with dead mortals, whereas treasure guardians can be dead mortals. I suggest that part of the way Joseph Smith transformed the story was to change the definition of angel.

[hagoth7]

...Indeed, many religions have important events described within their texts that cannot be corroborated by outside sources. Yet their adherents do not seem bothered by the lack of outside proof. For those who believe in the message of the Book of Mormon, but not necessarily its historical accuracy, it would seem defeating to demand that such believers unquestionably accept the book's accuracy where no outside archeological or historical sources can support that belief.

With the research compiled in Nephites in Europe, I demonstrated where the Nephite narrative intrudes on known history. So historical support for the Nephite record does exist - albeit in unexpected places.

While Van Hale is welcome to entertain the notion of a fictional record, I find his view of the Book of Mormon much more difficult to swallow than simply embracing the record for what it claims to be.

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

The point I was making is that Christianity has associated angels with special creations of God, not with dead mortals, whereas treasure guardians can be dead mortals. I suggest that part of the way Joseph Smith transformed the story was to change the definition of angel.

Dan,

If Joseph changed the definition angel, he did so in harmony with the Bible, regardless of traditional teachings about angels as special creations. See Rev 22:8-9:

8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I ^afell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

Someday Kevin, I hope to be like you. You always just answer the question or concerns or thoughts, with really kind, to the point, responses. I never sense any attitude or sarcasm, or showmanship. You truly are a Christlike Disciple.

Thank you

Thanks for the compliments, though I think a wider reading of things i have written in various places might topple me from that particular pedestal. If I think sarcasm or showmanship happen to be the best way to make a point in a given situation, or if I'm just feeling cranky, then I'll use them. Case in point, my very first LDS essay (Dialogue, winter 1991) asks the question of whether "gospel scholarship should be an exercise in spiritual masochism..." And one of my Sunstone essays has what I admit is a showy and sacastic title, "On Wagging the Dog."

Cobalt,

McGee acknowledges that Moroni was a treasure guardian, in addition to whatever else he was.

It seems to me that this sentence twists McGee's point regarding the angel that the earliest primary sources (as he and Morris demonstrate in rigorous detail) make Moroni primarily an angel, not secondarily an angel, in addition to being a treasure guardian, not an angel despite being primarily a treasure guardian. Tone and emphasis matter. And the chronology of existing sources demonstrates that it was the late, hostile, second hand, third hand, and who knows how far removed, that labored to turn the angel into a treasure guardian, and not an angel. McGee, Morris, and more recently, Brant Gardner, look very closely at the sources and the cultural context. You are correct that in the earliest accounts, the two are not mutually exlusive, but if you read both essays carefully, if should be inescapably obvious who was changing the story most radically, and why, and why in that hostile environment, Joseph deemphased, without denying the other side.

The overwhelming thrust in Mormon studies since the publication of No Man Knows My History to the present has been to go to the originial sources, and to consider who is first hand, contemporary, eye-witness, and who is less than that, and to then read in context. McGee and Morris's essays represent some of the best of that approach.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[nealr]

(2) When did Smith realize (or at least first disclose) that the guardian's name was Moroni? The answer again appears to be 1838.

Nope. Several sources that pre-date 1838 identify the angel as Moroni, not the least of which is D&C 27:5. Other examples can be seen here: http://en.fairmormon.org/Moroni%27s_visit/Nephi_or_Moroni

Now, your comment in post #51, in response to my assertion that the angel claimed to be one of the fictional Nephites, you wrote, "Most likely, Smith's original understanding was that Moroni was a treasure guardian spirit." But this is a false dichotomy. Treasure guardians were quite often the person who buried the treasure in life. So I don't see how that negates or responds to the problem. The rest of that post has to play fast loose with facts to try and disconnect the plates and other artifacts from the translation (or even that Joseph was lead to them by God). Read the three witnesses statement. They heard God testify that the translation, from the record, was true. Appealing to the Book of Abraham does not help your case, as I am not particularly sympathetic to the "catalyst" theory.

Point well taken on my third question, though. You got me there.

[Cobalt-70]

Kevin,

The point I was making is that Christianity has associated angels with special creations of God, not with dead mortals, whereas treasure guardians can be dead mortals. I suggest that part of the way Joseph Smith transformed the story was to change the definition of angel.

That raises an interesting question: when was the first instance when Joseph Smith identified an angel as a dead mortal? Was it 1832 (D&C 77:9)? As to his first identification of an angel as a resurrected mortal, I think that dates to 1838, in his Elders Journal article in which he identified the angel who visited him in 1823 as being the resurrected Moroni.

[Cobalt-70]

If Joseph changed the definition angel, he did so in harmony with the Bible, regardless of traditional teachings about angels as special creations. See Rev 22:8-9:

Rev. 22:8-9 does not actually say that angels are dead mortals. It just says that angels are fellow servants with righteous mortals. Smith's view of angels as dead mortals does conflict with the traditional Judeochristian tradition, which is reflected in Psalms 148:2-5 (echoed by Colossians 1:16 and a few other passages). I think that originally, angels were subordinate gods within the ancient Hebrew pantheon (divine council), but then when Hebrews adopted monotheism, they were demoted to something less than gods.

[Bob Crockett]

When Christians encountered Peter in Acts after thinking that he had been killed, they exclaimed that they thought that he was Peter's angel.

[Cobalt-70]

It seems to me that this sentence twists McGee's point regarding the angel that the earliest primary sources (as he and Morris demonstrate in rigorous detail) make Moroni primarily an angel, not secondarily an angel, in addition to being a treasure guardian, not an angel despite being primarily a treasure guardian. Tone and emphasis matter. And the chronology of existing sources demonstrates that it was the late, hostile, second hand, third hand, and who knows how far removed, that labored to turn the angel into a treasure guardian, and not an angel. McGee, Morris, and more recently, Brant Gardner, look very closely at the sources and the cultural context. You are correct that in the earliest accounts, the two are not mutually exlusive, but if you read both essays carefully, if should be inescapably obvious who was changing the story most radically, and why, and why in that hostile environment, Joseph deemphased, without denying the other side.

The overwhelming thrust in Mormon studies since the publication of No Man Knows My History to the present has been to go to the originial sources, and to consider who is first hand, contemporary, eye-witness, and who is less than that, and to then read in context. McGee and Morris's essays represent some of the best of that approach.

There flaws problems with Morris's analysis. One is that there are accounts by only five people who arguably claim to have heard the Moroni story prior to 1827. The year 1827 was when we know, for sure, that Smith was characterizing the treasure guardian as an angel and putting the story into a largely religious context.

Of these five, four (Lucy and William Smith, Joseph Knight Sr. and Jr.) had long term relationships with Joseph Smith and the opportunity to hear Smith recharacterize the story within an increasingly religious context post-1827. The other, Lorenzo Saunders, does mention that the guardian was an "angel," but he did not actually say that Smith referred to the guardian as an angel in 1823. Actually, Saunders claimed that he heard the story from the Smiths in 1823, and then again in 1827, by which time Smith might have been calling the treasure guardian an angel). And considering that Saunders' account was not given until 1884, not much significance can be given to the fact that his account uses the term "angel." Despite using the terms "angel" and "revelation," Saunders' account frames the account in strongly magical terms, which is why most apologists don't like it and question its reliability. I think it is reliable in general, but like any 60-year old story, things like dates, sequence, and terminology might be jumbled a bit from the passage of time and later reflection.

Thus, Morris's analysis, and your interpretation of McGee's analysis, are fundamentally flawed. I agree with a lot of what McGee says, to the extent he is saying that the identification of the treasure guardian as an angel was relatively early, and that Moroni was both an angel and a treasure guardian. It really doesn't matter when Smith started calling the treasure guardian an angel, because all the earliest accounts, be they pre-1827 or post-1827, focus primarily upon the magical elements of the story. And that is regardless of whether or not the person hearing the story is favorable or unfavorable toward Mormonism.

I don't think there is any getting around the conclusion that Smith's original understanding of Moroni, circa 1823, was primarily within the context of treasure digging and magic. Smith himself even seems to acknowledge this, given that his first thought in finding the plates was to think he had struck it rich. And you would expect that if a treasure guardian appeared to a magic treasure seer and directed him to buried treasure, he would understand the treasure guardian within the context of his magical worldview. The evidence points to 1827-28 as the time frame in which the non-magical religious nature of what Smith was doing really took shape.

[Cobalt-70]

Nope. Several sources that pre-date 1838 identify the angel as Moroni, not the least of which is D&C 27:5. Other examples can be seen here: http://en.fairmormon...Nephi_or_Moroni

D&C 27:5 dates to 1835. I note that the FAIR article also cites a reference to Moroni is in Mormonism Unvailed (1834), but this reference does not actually say that Moroni was the angel. It is a fourth-hand story about Smith having seen the prophet Moroni as an old man walking along the side of the road, who offered to let him see the monkey in his box for five cents, but actually it was the golden plates rather than a monkey, and Smith missed the chance to get the plates back. (Moral of the story: if an old man wants to show you "his monkey," don't be creeped out.) I don't know what to make about the monkey story, but it might, sorta, indicate that some Mormons were identifying the treasure guardian as Moroni by 1834 or prior. If Smith actually told the monkey story, and it wasn't just invented by Joseph Knight or Leman Copley, this might move the date in which Smith started identifying the treasure guardian as Moroni to 1829.

If there is evidence to an early date for identifying Moroni as the treasure guardian, I have nothing against that. It does make logical sense that the treasure guardian would be the same guy who buried the treasure. But I just don't think there is any evidence of, or reason for, dating this identification prior to the translation of the Book of Mormon when Smith learned the name of the guy who buried the plates.

Read the three witnesses statement. They heard God testify that the translation, from the record, was true. Appealing to the Book of Abraham does not help your case, as I am not particularly sympathetic to the "catalyst" theory.

The testimony of the three witnesses says that "we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of god, for his voice hath declared it unto us." That doesn't say that God said the translation was "from the record." Indeed, Smith never translated "from the record." He translated from his seer stone in the bottom of a hat. Plus, the three witnesses statement does not necessarily say that the four of them heard an actual booming voice from heaven formed into specific words that they could remember and make distinctions based on grammar and word choice. God's often declares things through a still, small voice.

[Dan Vogel]

Dan,

If Joseph changed the definition angel, he did so in harmony with the Bible, regardless of traditional teachings about angels as special creations. See Rev 22:8-9:

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I don’t think you are reading the passage correctly. The angel is not saying he is the spirit of a dead prophet, but is a servant of God, the same as the prophets and those who keep the saying of the book (cf. 19:10). It’s not just traditional teachings about angels, but quite clearly the understanding of the culture that wrote the Bible, as any Bible dictionary can explain. Outside the Bible, a few sources referred to dead saints as angels. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith’s communion with the spirit of a dead mortal places the story closer to treasure lore, than to an angel story, especially given the part about Joseph Smith’s being attacked or thrown back.

[Robert F. Smith]

Who is proposing that the Book of Mormon isn't true, or that its message is not crucial for salvation? Not me.

Well, you said:

Cobalt-70, on 18 September 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

There is a vast difference between a lie and a mistake. God of course didn't make a mistake--that was Joseph Smith. You could say that the Book of Mormon is a fictional work of profound truth, and that it is because of Joseph Smith's human frailty that he was under the impression it was a history of the Indians.

You say here that the Book of Mormon is fiction, that Joseph believed it to be a real history, and that he made a mistake. Will the real Cobalt please stand up?!

Edited September 24, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I had no idea that Van Halen was mormon.

I think that he is Catholic, but there was this item on the internet:

]Jake Ezra Schwartz (guitar, vocals) is the chair guitarist for the Tony Award-winning Broadway musical The Book of Mormon, whose cast album recently won a Grammy Award. Jake is an accomplished musician/arranger/band leader/teacher who has grown up playing guitar all over New York and across the country. Jake seeks to play guitar with soul, intensity, and grace. One of his lifelong dreams was to meet his ultimate guitar hero Eddie Van Halen, who recently attended Mormon, and after the show, he graciously signed Jake's guitar writing "Got crazy VH (Van Halen) style, Jake!!".

However, Mick Jagger did wear a salamander over his left breast in his "One Hit to the Body" video in the Stones' "Dirty Work" album. Maybe a secret sign?

[Robert F. Smith]

I remember attending a lecture on recent Near East archeology, and being told that while Genesis may be the first book of the Bible, it is not the oldest and likely was borrowed from Mesopotamian sources. I had the opportunity to discuss biblical archeology with the lecturer, who was Jewish, and I was surprised to learn that among Jewish scholars that there is question as to whether Moses is an historical figure. Apparently, Jewish theologians and historians have long considered (for the last 300 years or so) that parts of the Old Testament are not historically accurate, but that it nonetheless retains its religious importance and profundity.

Indeed, many religions have important events described within their texts that cannot be corroborated by outside sources. Yet their adherents do not seem bothered by the lack of outside proof.

There is no direct secular evidence for Moses or the Exodus as described in the Bible, just as there is no direct evidence for Abraham and for many other persons and events in biblical history. Even when we can verify the existence of particular individuals and secular events via archeology, we are still stymied when it comes to miraculous events and claims about them. At this remove, it is very difficult to separate out folklore and deliberate metaphor from real history. Part of the problem is that biblical writers were not modern historians, and often had a variety of purposes in writing or editing their narrative accounts, which are not evident to those not schooled in scholarly critical analysis. It is a category mistake to imagine that these documents are to be judged by modern assumptions. However, such questions can be addressed in other ways. I take a look at the Moses and Exodus question at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/51104640-Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

So that you might understand and judge for yourself, I recommend that you take several college courses on Bible (say, the Bible as literature) and on biblical languages. If you live in SLC, I recommend the biblical Hebrew course now being taught at the UofU by David Bokovoy. They also have a Religious Studies program there, which you might find meaningful. Or you might want to delve into archeology. Check out your local colleges and universities.

For those who believe in the message of the Book of Mormon, but not necessarily its historical accuracy, it would seem defeating to demand that such believers unquestionably accept the book's accuracy where no outside archeological or historical sources can support that belief.

You are certainly free to believe whatever you want, but be advised that there is a wealth of outside archeological and historical sources that support belief in the Book of Mormon.

[volgadon]

Rev. 22:8-9 does not actually say that angels are dead mortals. It just says that angels are fellow servants with righteous mortals. Smith's view of angels as dead mortals does conflict with the traditional Judeochristian tradition, which is reflected in Psalms 148:2-5 (echoed by Colossians 1:16 and a few other passages).

Really? It conflicts? What do you say, then, to a rather famous and influential example of angel who was once a mortal man?

[Robert F. Smith]

McGee acknowledges that Moroni was a treasure guardian, in addition to whatever else he was. It is a false dichotomy to ask whether Moroni was an angel or a treasure guardian. The real questions are: (1) When did Smith realize that Moroni was a resurrected being, rather than a spirit (angels can be spirits, too)? The answer appears to be 1838. (2) When did Smith realize (or at least first disclose) that the guardian's name was Moroni? The answer again appears to be 1838.(3) When do we date the theological and scriptural discussion which Smith attributed to the Moroni vision? It seems the answer is late 1830s, based on Smith's theological development at the time.

On the other hand, the earliest references to the angel/guardian later called Moroni, from people who first heard the story in the 1820s, focus on the magical elements of the story: the "commandments" Smith was to follow with exactness before being allowed to receive the plates. The magical bolt that shocked Smith when he first tried to get his hands on the plates. The plates' dissappearance and teleportation back into the box. The necessity of bringing the "right person" to retrieve the plates, etc.

In the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, T. H. Gaster listed "angel" as an fiery being, a reptile, etc., and in Acts 23:9, it was not clear whether "a spirit or an angel" spoke to someone. We might as well discuss biblical cherubim, seraphim, fiery flying serpents, and brazen Nehushtan.

This confusion is not new or American, and we can consider several variations on the Benjamin Saunders affidavit and his Sept 17, 1884, Kelly interview (RLDS Archives): Eighty-year-old Orson Saunders told the New York Herald in June 25, 1893, that his uncle Benjamin Saunders of Palmyra had passed on to him the story of Joseph's acquisition of the golden plates: "The place seemed on fi[r]e," he said. Joseph found "an enormous toad . . . squatting on the" Book of Mormon plates, which suddenly expanded in size, becoming "a flaming monster with glittering eyes, until it seemed to fill the heaven" -- a powerful description which accords in other respects with Oliver Cowdery's earlier description of the encounter. Willard Chase, who was connected with the Saunders family by marriage, was the source of the transforming toad story in Howe's Mormonism Unvailed. Anyhow, the Chicago Times, Aug 7, 1875, page 1, col. 3, has the angel (like Saunders’ "flaming monster") hurling Joseph "to the plain below," and this comports with Mother Lucy Mack Smith’s own account of Joseph’s first visit to the hill: He “reached forth” to “take” the plates, “but was hurled back to the ground” (L. F. Anderson, ed., Lucy’s Book, 347). Oliver Cowdery earlier said that, at that moment, “a shock was produced upon his system, by an invisible power which deprived him, . . of his natural strength” (Messenger & Advocate, 2/1 [Oct 1835], 198).

Teleportation indeed!!