Robert F. Smith Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 In the spirit of inquiry, what's the precedent for angels giving and taking back artifacts? Angels bring or transfer a number of objects: sword (Gen 3:24, I Chron 21:30), hot coal (Isa 6:6-7), books (Jer 15:16, Ezk 2:8-10, 3:1-3, Rev 10:2,9-10, D&C 77:14), golden censer (Rev 8:3-5), sickle (Rev 14:19), large stone (Rev 18:21), etc. So, presumably, they are capable of taking objects back as well.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) Anybody here know enough Italian to say how this guy's name was pronounced? Moron-aye?Moron-eee?Moron-eye?......................................................Moroni is a name well-known to Italian, and would be pronounced mohr-OHN-ee, with lengthening and stress on the middle syllable. Aside from Pope Celestine V (Pietro Angelerio da Morrone), there was a Bishop Orazio Moroni (1546-1603), and Bishop Galeazzo Moroni (died Sept 1, 1613). Pope Paul IV imprisoned his rival, Cardinal Moroni in 1557. Another, Cardinal Gaetano Moroni died Nov 3, 1883. Edited February 2, 2015 by Robert F. Smith
Uncle Dale Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 So it appears there is no precedent for such a thing in the OT? Edited to add: It appears that your reference is devoid of any angel taking back the plates? Is that right, or did I miss something? I'm not sure. The relevant documents are in Latin -- a couple ofstudies done in Europe years ago -- one published in German, I think. I'd be interested in hearing from anybody who has looked into the oldeverlasting gospel on copper plates story -- to see what reportedlyhappened to those alleged angel-transmitted sacred plates. UD 1
danielwoods Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Angels bring or transfer a number of objects: sword (Gen 3:24, I Chron 21:30), hot coal (Isa 6:6-7), books (Jer 15:16, Ezk 2:8-10, 3:1-3, Rev 10:2,9-10, D&C 77:14), golden censer (Rev 8:3-5), sickle (Rev 14:19), large stone (Rev 18:21), etc. So, presumably, they are capable of taking objects back as well. Presumably, but is there a precedent for such action? Which leads to the question of why would they?
Uncle Dale Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) Presumably, but is there a precedent for such action? Which leads to the question of why would they? From 2nd Baruch, Chapter 6, vss. 1-7: 1 And it came to pass on the morrow that, lo! the army of the Chaldees surrounded the city, and at the time of the evening, I, Baruch, left the people, and I went forth and stood by the oak. 2 And I was grieving over Zion, and lamenting over the captivity which had come upon the people. 3 And lo! suddenly a strong spirit raised me, and bore me aloft over the wall of Jerusalem. 4 And I beheld, and lo! four angels standing at the four corners of the city, each of them holding a torch of fire in his hands. 5 And another angel began to descend from heaven. and said unto them: 'Hold your lamps, and do not light them till I tell you. 6 For I am first sent to speak a word to the earth, and to place in it what the Lord the Most High has commanded me.' 7 And I saw him descend into the Holy of Holies, and take from there the veil, and holy ark, and the mercy-seat, and the two tables, and the holy raiment of the priests, and the altar of incense, and the forty-eight precious stones, wherewith the priest was adorned and all the holy vessels of the tabernacle.... The angel takes the holy things up into celestial realms -- evidently topreserve them from Chaldean defilement and to have them ready for theendtimes (see Book of Revelation, where the ark, etc. are in heaven). UD Edited February 2, 2015 by Uncle Dale 1
ALarson Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 The interpreters were taken away with the plates when the pages were lost. I can't remember if they were ever returned, I am thinking perhaps not save when the angel appeared to the three witnesses. The Interpreter article I linked to probably has this info in it, at least I remember it being there but I may be confusing it with another one I read. Joseph did state that they were returned:"In the meantime while Martin Harris was gone with the writings, I went to visit my father’s family, at Manchester. I continued there for a short season and then returned to my place in Pennsylvania. Immediately after my return home I was walking out a little distance when behold the former heavenly messenger appeared and handed to me the Urim and Thummim again, (for it had been taken from me in consequence of my having wearied the Lord in asking for the privilege of letting Martin Harris take the writings which he lost by transgression,)..." But for some reason, Joseph did not use them again to translate the Book of Mormon OR the eyewitnesses didn't see him using them. Any Thoughts? 1
ALarson Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Here's more (this gives the remainder of the quote above and then more information): ....and I enquired of the Lord through them [the Urim and Thummim] and obtained the following revelation ... (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 2).After I had obtained the above revelation, both the plates and the Urim and Thummim were taken from me again; but in a few days they were returned to me, when I enquired of the Lord, and the Lord said thus unto me....Now behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings which you had power given unto you to translate, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost them: and you also lost your gift at the same time, and your mind became darkened; nevertheless, it is now restored unto you again, therefore see that you are faithful and continue on unto the finishing of the remainder of the work of translation as you have begun....Behold, wicked men have taken them from you; therefore, you have delivered them up; yea, that which was sacred unto wickedness. And, behold, Satan has put it into their hearts to alter the words which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated, which have gone out of your hands; and, behold, I say unto you, that because they have altered the words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to be written; and on this wise the Devil has sought to lay a cunning plan, that he may destroy this work....Behold, I say unto you, that you shall not translate again those words which have gone forth out of your hands.... And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those [same] things that you have written, which have gone out of your hands, are engraven upon the plates of Nephi [another part of the Book of Mormon plates].... Therefore, you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi … and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the Devil” (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 3). 1
danielwoods Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 From 2nd Baruch, Chapter 6, vss. 1-7: 1 And it came to pass on the morrow that, lo! the army of the Chaldees surrounded the city, and at the time of the evening, I, Baruch, left the people, and I went forth and stood by the oak. 2 And I was grieving over Zion, and lamenting over the captivity which had come upon the people. 3 And lo! suddenly a strong spirit raised me, and bore me aloft over the wall of Jerusalem. 4 And I beheld, and lo! four angels standing at the four corners of the city, each of them holding a torch of fire in his hands. 5 And another angel began to descend from heaven. and said unto them: 'Hold your lamps, and do not light them till I tell you. 6 For I am first sent to speak a word to the earth, and to place in it what the Lord the Most High has commanded me.' 7 And I saw him descend into the Holy of Holies, and take from there the veil, and holy ark, and the mercy-seat, and the two tables, and the holy raiment of the priests, and the altar of incense, and the forty-eight precious stones, wherewith the priest was adorned and all the holy vessels of the tabernacle.... The angel takes the holy things up into celestial realms -- evidently topreserve them from Chaldean defilement and to have them ready for theendtimes (see Book of Revelation, where the ark, etc. are in heaven). UD Thanks. I appreciate the reference, but it appears that even in this reference, the angel doesn't take it to the celestial realms, rather it is given to the Earth. "8. And he spake to the earth with a loud voice:"Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the mighty God, And receive what I commit to thee, And guard thou them until the last times, So that, when though art ordered, thou mayst restore them, So that strangers may not get possession of them….. 10. And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up."
Uncle Dale Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Thanks. I appreciate the reference, but it appears that even in this reference, the angel doesn't take it to the celestial realms, rather it is given to the Earth. "8. And he spake to the earth with a loud voice:"Earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the mighty God, And receive what I commit to thee, And guard thou them until the last times, So that, when though art ordered, thou mayst restore them, So that strangers may not get possession of them….. 10. And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up."Well, those old-timey vision guys didn't always explain their pipe dreams very clearly. Even John at Patmos only saw the ark, etc. as if in some indescribable future scenario.Still, there were those who said that the temple furnishings were in heaven and would be returned to earth when the New Jerusalem was a reality.The key concept is that of angelic removal and protection, no matter where the city limits of Celestial Zion are drawn.UD
california boy Posted February 3, 2015 Author Posted February 3, 2015 As the person that started this thread, I want to just thank everyone that provided insight into this question. I have learned quite a bit. You guys are a great resource.
Calm Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Joseph did state that they were returned:But for some reason, Joseph did not use them again to translate the Book of Mormon OR the eyewitnesses didn't see him using them. Any Thoughts?No, but thanks for correcting my memory. On another issue, it just occurred to me that if Joseph did create the breastplate as a prop, doing it so that it didn't fit him so he couldn't really use it was rather unusual. Here he is trying to impress people and at best he is having to look through one lense at a time, probably closing one of his eyes while he is doing it and looking a bit foolish at least.
Coreyb Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) What I find interesting is that if Joseph was fabricating the story, why would he associate the "interpreters" with a breastplate and not refer to them as Urim and Thummim until much later (possibly prompted by someone else like William Phelps), or do references to a breastplate only come later as well? Edited February 3, 2015 by Coreyb 1
Uncle Dale Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 What I find interesting is that if Joseph was fabricating the story, why would he associate the "interpreters" with a breastplate and not refer to them as Urim and Thummim until much later (possibly prompted by someone else like William Phelps), or do references to a breastplate only come later as well? Or, to turn things around -- why suddenly introduce thebiblical terminology and subsequently generally make therecorded history support and agree with the U&T jargon? One possibility is that at the beginning of the "translation"in Harmony, the concept of a radical "restoration" of allsacred things back to Adam had not yet jelled in Smith'smind. Did he start out thinking his work would lead to a Reformation -- and only later conclude that the endgamewas to be a Restoration? If a restoration, then what was to be restored? The ark ofthe covenant? Aaron's rod? Polygamy? Urim and Thummim? At some point these questions began to arise. But when? UD
Coreyb Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) That's kinda the question I am trying to get at. You seem to be quite studied Uncle, do references to a breastplate precede references to "Urim and Thummim" as opposed to "interpreters"? Edited February 3, 2015 by Coreyb
Guest Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I have a question promped by one of the other threads. I remember growing up being told that Joseph Smith received the urim and thummim along with the gold plates and that he sometimes used the urim and thummim to transilate. Is this still being taught? Was it ever taught? Was it related to the peep stone story of translating? Any thoughts?Yes, as well as a "seer stone". Long after Moroni had taken the plates, while Joseph lived in Nauvoo. Hyrum asked Joseph to put on paper D&C 132, so that Hyrum could take it to Emma and show it to her. When Hyrum asked for this he said; I will go and get the U&T, but Joseph told him that he did not need it, that he knew it completely soon after the Church was organized. I wonder if they had the U&T in 1844, who has it now. Also if they had that, did they also have the Liahona and the sword of Laban? Also it is not a "peep stone", but a "Seer Stone". Something all who are worthy will have after the resurrection. You can find it in Revelation 2: 17, for those that overcome the world they will receive a "White Stone" (Seer Stone) and a "new name". Those that "overcome the world" are those who understand and work to "keep their appetites and passions within the bounds The Lord has made.
Uncle Dale Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 That's kinda the question I am trying to get at. You seem to be quite studied Uncle, do references to a breastplate precede references to "Urim and Thummim" as opposed to "interpreters"? I don't have time at the moment to do the search,but the 1830 Book of Mormon, Smith's papers andThe Evening and the Morning Star are availableon-line. You may have to do the research yourselfand report back to us. Who knows, you may discover something important. UD 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Presumably, but is there a precedent for such action? Which leads to the question of why would they?Presumably on orders from the Divine Council.
ALarson Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Given that the box itself was made out of slabs, it could have been quite large: The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them. calmoriah, is there a list of what the box contained? This topic is now of interest to me and I'll try to do some research on my own. Is it believed that Moroni buried all of the contents in the box? I know I'm revealing my lack of knowledge on this topic and probably should already know this, so thanks for any help! Edited February 3, 2015 by ALarson
Calm Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Podcast on it:http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/06/05/faith-and-reason-6-artifacts-retrieved-from-moronis-stone-box-2/ 1
Calm Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 https://books.google.com/books?id=c6XtAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335&dq=plates+sword+of+laban+breastplates&source=bl&ots=pHzN7Mw6ck&sig=NUhTSn8DKxxJaL7Ds_1rWXlrfKY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wxrRVIH_G8SnyATo4gE&ved=0CDoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=plates%20sword%20of%20laban%20breastplates&f=falseRight side, mid page...looks like only plates, breastplate and interpreters were in the box, the sword of Laban and Liahona were shown to the Three Witnesses iirc so some think they were in the box, but probably not....
ALarson Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Great...thanks calmoriah! As always, you are a great source for great references. I'm off to read and listen.
Bernard Gui Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 So it appears there is no precedent for such a thing in the OT? Edited to add: It appears that your reference is devoid of any angel taking back the plates? Is that right, or did I miss something?Is it your contention that everything must have an OT precedent? If so, why?
Bernard Gui Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) If you have heartburn with the "stone in the hat," perhaps this will bring some soothing relief. The process of questioning for Divine aid with the Urim V'Tummim' was done in the following manner: When a question arose whose implications were so consequential that the entire congregation of Israel would be effected-such as, for example, the question of whether or not to go out to war - then, the King of Israel (or the commanding officer of the army) would ask his question before the High Priest. An ordinary person, or someone not representing the entire community would not ask of the urim v'tummim.The High Priest stands facing the Ark of the Testimony, and the questioner stands behind him, facing the priest's back. The questioner does not speak out loud, neither does he merely think the question in his heart; he poses his query quietly, to himself - like someone who prayers quietly before his Creator. For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?" The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer. https://www.templeinstitute.org/beged/priestly_garments-8.htm Reminds me of Alma 43 (Alma possessed the Interpreters). 23 But it came to pass, as soon as they had departed into the wilderness Moroni sent spies into the wilderness to watch their camp; and Moroni, also, knowing of the prophecies of Alma, sent certain men unto him, desiring him that he should inquire of the Lord whither the armies of the Nephites should go to defend themselves against the Lamanites. 24 And it came to pass that the word of the Lord came unto Alma, and Alma informed the messengers of Moroni, that the armies of the Lamanites were marching round about in the wilderness, that they might come over into the land of Manti, that they might commence an attack upon the weaker part of the people. And those messengers went and delivered the message unto Moroni. Edited February 4, 2015 by Bernard Gui
Uncle Dale Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) ....For example, he will ask "Shall I go out to battle, or shall I not go out?" The High Priest is immediately enveloped by the spirit of Divine inspiration. He gazes at the breastplate, and by meditating upon the holy names of G-d, the priest was able to receive the answer through a prophetic vision-the letters on the stones of the breastplate, which would shine forth in his eyes in a special manner, spelling out the answer to the question. The priest then informs the questioner of the answer.... So some may say -- and so some may believe to be factual history. Our Protestant seminary Hebrew class took a field trip from Columbusdown to Cincinnati and we had ample opportunity to converse withsome Hebrew Union College profs and students. The subject wasgenerally 3000 year old grammar, idioms, etc. But, at one point -- over cakes and coffee -- one of the professorssaid some things about King Saul. I got the impression that he wasnot very enamored with the Israelite monarchy, but he did seem moresupportive of the early prophets (Saul himself being known to hangaround with those odd fellows). The professor's opinion of how Saul sought (and expected toreceive) oracular advice/counsel was via a "yes-or-no" responsefrom two stones -- perhaps cast as lots, or perhaps viewed insome special direction of illumination -- so as to produce thepositive or negative effect of an "answer." Now maybe that guy had no idea what he was talking about -- maybehe was a fake of some sort. But everyone there seemed to accepthis opinions as having both historical and theological weight. At the time, I was still too much attached to Mike Quinn's thinking,to take the Cincinnati teacher's instruction to heart. Quinn had saidthat the biblical U&T consisted of sacred spectacles -- and that wasgood enough for me. But, thinking back upon that episode, I'm now left to wonder what theconsensus opinion is today -- among the sort of biblical scholars whowrite and publish peer-reviewed research into the times and traditionsof the early monarchy? Anybody have a current reading list on hand? UD Edited February 4, 2015 by Uncle Dale
danielwoods Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Is it your contention that everything must have an OT precedent? If so, why? I haven't made any contention. But, since you asked. The lack of a precedent is a contributing factor and it creates a difficult context or backdrop for believability. For example, the classic "The dog ate my homework…" line is used to hide the fact that homework wasn't ever done. It's convenient in that no evidence is needed to make the claim. So, if there's no precedent and if there's no logical reason for angels to take something back (as in why would they need it anyway?), then the answer, "The angels took them back…" creates the same feeling as other made up excuses.
Recommended Posts