Historical Mormon Smackdown: Academic influence Edition!

Hello and welcome back. I have been thinking a lot about the influence of LDS academics on the landscape of our church. They do have influence, but is it enough or the right variety? What is the role of the LDS academic? Well, what better way to begin this than with a web-poll.

To that end, I was wondering if you feel that, since we’ve had LDS academics of one stripe or another since the 50’s, if they have had any influence on the leaders of the church? Certainly not the kind of influence that Christ has had (nor am I suggesting otherwise), but have they helped shape the way that the Brethren understand and teach LDS theology. I think yes, but I am not sure how much. With that bias in mind, we have the following:

Which LDS academic’s influence was most evident over conference: Hugh W. Nibley or Robert Millet?

Obviously, Hugh Nibley is the LDS scholar par excellance. Would we even have LDS scholarship without him? Probably, it would look and sound much differently. He is an essayist, theologian, ancient historian, firebrand, and mensch. He is particularly fond of the gospel as taught by President Brigham Young. Go here to read his article on Brigham Young in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (you’ll need to scroll down).

Robert Millet was the dean of the BYU religion department . He is the author of several books, including the recent Another Jesus. He is partially responsible for the recent emphasis on grace in the church, as is evidenced here (Choose talk #11).

Please vote to the left and discuss below.

Cave of John the Baptist

This story relates progress in the excavation of Suba Cave, located about 15 miles west of Jerusalem. The link to the Baptist is controversial, resting mainly on some drawings on the walls and some evidence of baptisms. The real news is that this cave was a happenin’ place in the 7th century BCE, making it a feature of Isaiah’s era.

The original website is here. I totally recommend you click that link for the pictures. To my non-archeologist’s eye, the details of the enlargements are fascinating. I have enclosed the narrative below.

Continue reading “Cave of John the Baptist”

King David’s Double Anointing

King David is one of the most dynamic and enigmatic of all the figures of the Bible (Halpern, 3-13). He was favored of God, but utilized whatever means he could to secure the throne, including murder and treason. Yet it is through his unorthodoxy that God works out common good for Israel.

One piece of the text of the books of Samuel which I found intriguing are David’s two anointings: one at Hebron by the house of Judah, and the other at Hebron by “all the tribes of Israel.” The Bible (the Deuteronomistic History, at least) uses two technical terms for describing the Northern Kingdom and the Southern Kingdom. For the southern kingdom, the one that receives most of the attention in the OT, terms such as “Israel” or “Judah” are employed to refer to the tribes of the south. In the North, other terms are used (like “Ephraim”). However, when the authors want to mention all the tribes together, as in the case of the united monarchy under David and Solomon, the technical term employed is “all Israel.” In our example here (2 Sam. 5:1), we see “all the tribes of Israel” (Heb. cal shibtei yisrael); clearly a reference to both the north and the south. This is an exciting moment in the text of the OT – the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom are united, both unanimously choosing David as their king.

Here is the NRSV’s version of the details of David’s first anointing at Hebron, before the tribe of Judah:

2 Samuel 2:1-4 After this David inquired of Yahweh, “Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah?” Yahweh said to him, “Go up.” David said, “To which shall I go up?” He said, “To Hebron.” 2 So David went up there, along with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel, and Abigail the widow of Nabal of Carmel. 3 David brought up the men who were with him, every one with his household; and they settled in the towns of Hebron. 4 Then the people of Judah came, and there they anointed (Heb. mashach) David king over the house of Judah.

Later, the northern kingdom wants in on David’s protection, and here the NRSV illustrates David’s second anointing before all Israel:

2 Samuel 5:1-5, 10 Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron, and said, “Look, we are your bone and flesh. 2 For some time, while Saul was king over us, it was you who led out Israel and brought it in. The LORD said to you: It is you who shall be shepherd of my people Israel, you who shall be ruler over Israel.” 3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron; and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel. 4 David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. 5 At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years… 10 And David became greater and greater, for the LORD, the God of hosts, was with him.

During the restoration of the gospel, Joseph Smith would restore what he called (publicly) the “fullness of the priesthood,” which would take place for the first time in the front upper room of the red brick store on Water Street in Nauvoo on September 28, 1843. Joseph himself dictated the words of the ceremony to William Marks and Hyrum Smith and received this blessing under their hands (Ehat, 94-96). The fulness of the priesthood comes by way of anointing, after the individual had already received an initial anointing. Joseph continually linked the power of the fulness of the priesthood to that of “a king and priest” and to the power of Elijah. Six months after restoring the fullness of the priesthood, Joseph said:

“Now for Elijah, the spirit power & calling of Elijah is that ye have power to hold the keys of the revelations ordinances, oricles powers & endowments of the fulness of the Melchezedek Priesthood & of the Kingdom of God on the Earth & to receive, obtain & perform all the ordinances belonging to the Kingdom of God even unto the sealing of the hearts of the hearts fathers unto the children & the hearts of the children unto the fathers even those who are in heaven.” (WJS, 329.)

In that same discourse, Joseph briefly mentions the murder of Uriah the Hittite, and David’s standing before God. Among the statements made about David’s standing, Joseph said:

“Although David was a King he never did obtain the spirit & power of Elijah & the fulness of the Priesthood.” (WJS, 331.)

Ehat & Cook’s footnote on this statement indicates that “…although David was anointed a king by the Prophet Samuel, it was not, according to this teaching of Joseph Smith, after the order of the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood.” (WJS, n. 27, p. 390.)

I have since thought that the connection between David’s two anointings, and Joseph Smith’s understanding of two anointings (especially as they relate to kingship in Israel), are the cause behind Joseph Smith’s clarification of David’s fate. Perhaps Joseph knew that David’s two anointings (or possibly three anointings, counting the 1 Samuel 16 narrative by Samuel) might have appeared to his inner circle, according to the text, that David received the fullness of the priesthood. What would his listeners, who knew about the fullness of the priesthood, think of David after he kills Uriah if indeed David received the same two anointings that they received? Would David, the greatest king Israel had known, be doomed to reside in Hell for eternity? Joseph Smith, I believe, understood this dilemma and set out to clarify it for his audience on March 10, 1844, the discourse mentioned above. For Joseph, David’s two (or three) anointings were not the same as the anointings conferred by the spirit and power of Elijah, which Joseph aptly explains in the same discourse. This would allow for David’s final redemption. Rather, these anointings were the conferral of the kingdom of Israel only, and not to be confused with the rituals which Joseph Smith restored in September of 1843.

Bibliography:

Ehat, Andrew F. Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the Priesthood Succession Question. M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1982.

Ehat, Andrew F. & Lyndon W. Cook. The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph. BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980.

Halpern, Baruch. David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King. Eerdmans, 2001.

And the winner is…

The Restoration of the Priesthood has beaten the Book of Mormon in a poll of the most influential forces in today’s Mormonism. The final vote was 18-13. I would like to thank everyone who participated.

So, does this tell us anything interesting? Also, any suggestions for the return of Historical Mormon Smackdown next week?

March Mormon Doctrine Madness: Final Four winners!

And the winners are:

11 Restoration of Priesthood Authority 21
1 Joseph Smith 17

1 The Book of Mormon 26
6 Sacrament Meeting 10

So, the championship game tomorrow will be
1 The Book of Mormon vs. 11 Restoration of Priesthood Authority

Maybe this means good things for George Mason.

March Mormon Doctrine Madness: Final Four announcement [corrected]

The Elite Eight results are:

1 – Joseph Smith 23
9 – Gordon B. Hinckley 22

11 – Restoration of Priesthood Authority 24
12 – Saving Ordinances 11

1 – The Book of Mormon 31
8 – The 2nd Official Declaration 4

6 – Sacrament Meeting 26
10 – Relief Society 7

The final four matches are:

1 Joseph Smith vs. 11 Restoration of Priesthood Authority

1 Book of Mormon vs. 6 Sacrament Meeting

Wow! That Joseph Smith/Gordon B. Hinckley match came down to the wire (overtime, even)
[edited to reflect the actual bracket]
Also, after yesterday’s games, I suddenly don’t feel so bad about having an 11 seed make the final.

March Mormon Doctrine Madness: Elite Eight

1 – Joseph Smith vs. 9 – Gordon B. Hinckley

Which is the more influential force in Mormonism today
Joseph Smith
Gordon B. Hinckley
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com

11 – Restoration of Priesthood Authority vs. 12 – Saving Ordinances

Which is the more influential force in Mormonism today
Restoration of Priesthood Authority
Saving Ordinances
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com

1 – The Book of Mormon vs. 8 – The 2nd Official Declaration

Which is the more influential force in Mormonism today?
The Book of Mormon
The 2nd Official Declaration
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com

6 – Sacrament Meeting vs. 10 – Relief Society

Which is the more influential force in Mormonism today?
Sacrament Meeting
Relief Society
  
Free polls from Pollhost.com

Please Vote and Comment Below!