Elias and Elijah identity problem

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Today in stake conference Elijah and the spirit of finding dead ancestors was discussed. The first thing that popped into my head was Elijah and Elias being referred to by JS as distinct individuals where scholars understand that Elias is simply the greek version of Elijah of the hebrew scriptures. Can anyone else add any color to this issue? Did JS think Elias was John the Baptist?

[jfro18]

Apologists work themselves into knots on this one to give JS an out, but yeah, he clearly thought they were separate beings.

I'd check out the MormonThink writeup on this one and then FAIR if you're feeling adventurous. MT's take is @ http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/eliasandelijah.htm

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

From the FAIR article:

Joseph Smith was not the only one to understand Elias in this sense

Some critics have seen Joseph's ideas above as completely ad hoc: but, he was not the only one to understand Elias in this sense. Alexander Campbell, a noted American clergyman, wrote an attack on the Book of Mormon in which he expressed a similar idea:

The Jews gave up their business and attended to him. He obtained one Nathan in Jerusalem to pass for his Elias, or forerunner.[4]

I think it is interesting how FAIR just shows that yet another parallel appears from our cousin restoration religion that would have been a common theological import from scottish enlightenment ministers in the 19th century.

[jfro18]

From the FAIR article:

Joseph Smith was not the only one to understand Elias in this sense

Some critics have seen Joseph's ideas above as completely ad hoc: but, he was not the only one to understand Elias in this sense. Alexander Campbell, a noted American clergyman, wrote an attack on the Book of Mormon in which he expressed a similar idea:

The Jews gave up their business and attended to him. He obtained one Nathan in Jerusalem to pass for his Elias, or forerunner.[4]

I think it is interesting how FAIR just shows that yet another parallel appears from our cousin restoration religion that would have been a common theological import from scottish enlightenment ministers in the 19th century.

Somehow I doubt that FAIR will continue to note the other things Joseph "agreed" with Campbell on like the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods that the Campbellites were teaching until Rigdon met with Joseph and it was quietly tucked into their doctrines.

edit: and as Palerider notes below, FAIR is trying to grab onto something that is not there as a way to protect Joseph's inability to know that Elias and Elijah were one and the same.

[Palerider]

From the FAIR article:

Joseph Smith was not the only one to understand Elias in this sense

Some critics have seen Joseph's ideas above as completely ad hoc: but, he was not the only one to understand Elias in this sense. Alexander Campbell, a noted American clergyman, wrote an attack on the Book of Mormon in which he expressed a similar idea:

The Jews gave up their business and attended to him. He obtained one Nathan in Jerusalem to pass for his Elias, or forerunner.[4]

This is a completely unfair characterization of what Campbell is saying. No one is disputing that the greek term "Elias" is used to describe Elijah as a forerunner (Mount of transfiguration) or a prophet in the spirit of Elijah (John the Baptist).

Yet because Campbell uses the term "Elias", Fair wants to insinuate that Campbell believes they are two separate people which is not the case whatsoever. Campbell is simply using the New Testament term "Elias" to refer to someone claiming to be an "Elijah" type character.

Total obfuscation.

ETA:

Even if Campbell HAD been thinking in terms of Elijah and Elias being two different individuals (which he wasn't), since when would that have made Joseph correct?

If two scientists hold to the same incorrect theory, they're STILL wrong. More people believing wrongly in what you believe, doesn't make you right...

How many times were we taught that in church?

This is the same stupid reasoning they use to excuse Joseph's peepstoning and treasure digging adventures and fraud. "Well, everyone was doing it at the time. It was pretty common...." So that makes it o.k.???

Well, Emma's father knew it for what it was and that's why he rightly disapproved of Joseph.

[Hagoth]

If Elias is really John the Baptist, why did Joseph call him by that name when he conferred the Aaronic priesthood, but by a totally different name that would cause such confusion when he appeared in the temple? Maybe it was John the Baptist's New Name!

Also, why didn't Joseph ever talk about this experience afterward? The account in the D&C was originally written in third person (by Warren Cowdery?) and much later changed to first person. And why did he continue to talk about the coming of Elijah as a future event? And why didn't Oliver Cowdery talk about it? This event has come to be almost as significant in modern temple-idolizing mormonism and the First Vision, and it is equally problematic.

[slavereeno]

If two scientists hold to the same incorrect theory, they're STILL wrong. More people believing wrongly in what you believe, doesn't make you right...

Yeah next time this gets used I am going to ask if the person if they think leaches cure a fever. After all, for a time "everyone" was doing it so it must have been right?

[jfro18]

If Elias is really John the Baptist, why did Joseph call him by that name when he conferred the Aaronic priesthood, but by a totally different name that would cause such confusion when he appeared in the temple? Maybe it was John the Baptist's New Name!

Also, why didn't Joseph ever talk about this experience afterward? The account in the D&C was originally written in third person (by Warren Cowdery?) and much later changed to first person. And why did he continue to talk about the coming of Elijah as a future event? And why didn't Oliver Cowdery talk about it? This event has come to be almost as significant in modern temple-idolizing mormonism and the First Vision, and it is equally problematic.

Yet another thing never taught in church... I had no idea that D&C 110 was never taught in Joseph's lifetime and that Oliver never even discussed it until death.

Reading a little BYU write-up on this and it's fascinating. Of course they believe it happened, but it's amazing that Joseph had it written down contemporaneously yet never taught it or spoke of it... that's such a momentous event once again never revealed.

[el-asherah]

To broaden this discussion a little bit, if I remember correctly there are 3 Greek name transliteration cases that Joseph Smith misunderstood.

• Elijah / Elias
  Isaiah / Esaias
  Joshua / Jesus

Elijah / Elias
The Elijah/Elias confusion shows up in D&C 110. Where Elias appears in the Kirtland temple and then leaves, and then Elijah appears. As if they are two separate different prophets. The apologistics of Elias being a ancient prophet with a Greek name before Greek existed has always left me scratching my head.

Isaiah / Esaias
The Isaiah/Esaias confusion shows up in D&C 76. "These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;"

Joshua / Jesus
The name Jesus is an artifact of the Great Apostacy, where Christ's name was transliterated numerous times going from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to German to English. With the Greek transliteration making the largest change from the -ua ending (greek feminine) to the -us ending (greek masculine). I find it especially ironic that recently the Church insists on being called by its true name, "Even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", when Christ's true name is really Joshua (Yeshua).

[Hagoth]

That comment is pure gold.

[moksha]

Joseph Smith was not a biblical scholar, so we should cut him some slack as far as thinking that different spellings represented different people. Not having any divine insight, I know I could easily make that mistake.

President Nelson could easily rectify this misunderstanding by declaring both the use of the name Elias to be the work of Satan and that we should use The Person Formally Recognized as Elijah in all our communications, so as to be pleasing the Lord and his General Authorities.

Hope that helps.

[Hagoth]

That one too.

[jfro18]

Joseph Smith was not a biblical scholar, so we should cut him some slack as far as thinking that different spellings represented different people. Not having any divine insight, I know I could easily make that mistake.

President Nelson could easily rectify this misunderstanding by declaring both the use of the name Elias to be the work of Satan and that we should use The Person Formally Recognized as Elijah in all our communications, so as to be pleasing the Lord and his General Authorities.

Hope that helps.

Can I steal this?!?

[græy]

This whole thread is pure gold! Thank you, everyone for your valuable contributions to our organization.

[MoPag]

This whole thread is pure gold! Thank you, everyone for your valuable contributions to our organization.

YAASSS^^^^

Also, the Homer Simpson translation of Jesus is Jebus.

Jebus.png (124.63 KiB) Viewed 8590 times

[deacon blues]

I'm reminded that D&C 107:2-4 suggests that God wants us to avoid saying holy names too often.

"Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek priesthood." D&C 107:2-4

That is why the name 'Melchizedek Priesthood' is used. I'm confused how this "too frequent repetition of his name" would apply today.

I like that Mormonthink reminded me of Richard Packham's work. If you haven't read Richard Packham's, "Why I Left the Mormon Church" you need to.

[jfro18]

Someone posted this link recently about the Elias/Elijah problem with Joseph Smith's vision... and I guess in some ways it's the same type of apologetics you see on FAIR, etc. http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com ... pture.html

There's a little more on the page (and some summaries of the problems already outlined here), but this is the main argument:

This is an essential question and one that is rarely discussed by both critic and apologist. However, if Joseph Smith knew that OT Elijah and NT Elias were the same person, this blows the critics’ claims out of the water, as their thesis necessitates ignorance of this fact on the behalf of Joseph Smith.

That Joseph Smith did know that OT Elijah and NT Elias were the same person can be seen, for instance, in D&C 35:4, where it is Elijah, not NT Elias who is coupled with John the Baptist, notwithstanding the KJV NT coupling Elias with John the Baptist in. Matt 16:4; Mark 8:28, and Luke 9:19, 54 (emphasis added):

Thou art blessed, for thou shalt do great things. Behold, thou wast sent forth, even as John, to prepare the way before me, and before Elijah—which should come and thou knewest it not.

Moreover, in D&C 133:55, Moses and Elijah are coupled with one another, again, notwithstanding Moses and NT Elias being coupled with one another in the KJV New Testament in the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:3-4; Mark 9:4-5; Luke 9:30, 33):

And from Moses to Elijah, and from Elijah to John, who were with Christ in his resurrection, and the holy apostles, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, shall be in the presence of the Lamb.

In vol. 2, no. 2 of the Times and Seasons (p. 212) from 1840, Joseph Smith allowed for a parenthetical comment to his use of Elias that further indicates that he knew OT Elijah and NT Elias were the same person (his corresponding journal entry does not have the parenthetical comment):

When looking over the sacred scriptures, we seem to forget that they were given through men of imperfections, and subject to passions. It is a general belief that the ancient prophets were perfect -- that no stain, or blemish ever appeared upon their characters while on earth, to be brought forward by the opposer as an excuse for not believing. The same is said of the apostles; but James said that Elias (Elijah) was a man subject to like passions as themselves, and yet he had that power with God that in answer to his prayer it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and a half.

Furthermore, that Joseph Smith’s followers knew that OT Elijah and NT Elias were the same person can be seen in an article from the Times and Seasons (vol. 4 no. 8, pp. 120-23 [1843]) entitled, “The Elias.” This article tackles the debate as to the relationship between the identity of John the Baptist and Elijah (discussed below), but the author shows his knowledge of OT Elijah being NT Elias with the following quote (p. 120):

Who is Elias? There has not been so much difficulty in identifying him with Elijah . . .

Recently, one non-LDS scholar has written an entire article on Joseph Smith's use of "Elias," and has stated it is preposterous that Joseph Smith did not know the fact that OT Elijah and NT Elias were the same person, all the more in light of the fact that Sidney Rigdon, a well-trained, biblically literate preacher who was Joseph Smith's right-hand man for many years, would have known this rather basic fact

It just seems odd to think that Joseph knew Elias and Elijah were the same person if he claimed to see them both separately... but maybe I'm not complicating things enough.

ETA: It's also odd that your argument to defend Joseph's incorrect usage of seeing both Elias and Elijah is to say others around him knew they were the same. The added (Eligah) from the scribe in the history of the church document referenced was added by the scribe as they compiled the history years later, and (Eligah) was *not* in the original source.

And again, noting that Rigdon would've known they were the same only makes Joseph's mistake worse, because Rigdon was not involved in that vision and as such would've had no way to correct Joseph since that vision wasn't published until 1852.

Am I missing something? This article is so smug in how they claim this "blows the critics’ claims out of the water," but I just don't see it.

[Hagoth]

It just seems odd to think that Joseph knew Elias and Elijah were the same person if he claimed to see them both separately... but maybe I'm not complicating things enough.

OK, what I see as the significant fact about Section 110 is that it was not canonized until 1880, after someone (who?) changed it from third person to first person.

This type of apologetics drives me crazy with the circuitous way it walks all around the problem and loses site of the actual text, which I think is pretty clear:

12 After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed.

13 After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us...

For one thing, why would John the Baptist represent the dispensation of Abraham, and not of Jesus? Perhaps the bigger problem is that this event was not told in first person by either of the two participants. The Joseph Smith Papers project attributes it to Oliver's brother Warren Cowdery.

The vail was taken from their minds and the eyes of their understandings were opened. They saw the Lord standing upon the breast work of the pulpit before them...

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... 10/1#facts

It is clearly not a dictation by either Joseph or Oliver. If I were an apologist I think I would run with this angle; just say that Warren screwed it up. Of course, that comes with a lot of it's own baggage, like why Joseph Smith didn't dictate it directly in first person, and how is it that we have this section of scripture that was changed from third person to first person by someone else down the line to make it look legitimate. It was not considered scripture in the first few editions of the D&C and it made its first appearance in Salt Lake City in the Deseret news in 1852.

[jfro18]

It is clearly not a dictation by either Joseph or Oliver. If I were an apologist I think I would run with this angle; just say that Warren screwed it up. Of course, that comes with a lot of it's own baggage, like why Joseph Smith didn't dictate it directly in first person, and how is it that we have this section of scripture that was changed from third person to first person by someone else down the line to make it look legitimate. It was not considered scripture in the first few editions of the D&C and it made its first appearance in Salt Lake City in the Deseret news in 1852.

Yeah I was editing my last post as you replied... the 1852 part is a big problem there because Joseph never really claimed the vision before his death, yet it's a cornerstone of the entire LDS priesthood claim. And while the JSP claims that Cowdery spoke of the vision, it speaks of end times and not at all of seeing Moses, Elias, or Elijah... so did Oliver *ever* mention it either?

From what I can see there are only two contemporaneous mentions of the vision:
1. Michael Marquardt, The Rise of Mormonism: 1816–1844: "“They [the Mormons] have lately had what they term a solemn assembly. This was at the completion of the lower story of the Temple which is finished in a very singular order having four Pulpits on each [Page 261]end of the House and curtains between each. Also, curtains dividing the house in the center. They have had wonderful manifestations there of late behind the curtains. This was in the night. Their meeting held for several nights in succession. None but the Prophets and Elders were admitted. The number of Prophets now amounts to twelve. Some can see angels and others cannot. They report that the Savior appeared personally with angels and endowed the Elders with powers to work Miracles”

2. WW Phelps in a letter in April 1836: “On Sunday, April 3, the twelve held meeting and administered the sacrament. It was a glorious time. The curtains were dropt in the afternoon. And there was a manifestation of the Lord to Br Joseph and Oliver, [by] which they [learned] thus the great & terrible day of the Lord as mentioned by Mal[a]chi, was near, even at the doors.”

That would be the only two accounts any apologists seem to find... they do match to the timeline, but it is odd that no one else mentioned it in journals/letters/etc... but it's still something to hang on to.

So the question is how did Joseph Smith claim to see two people who are the same, and why did the 'vision' get recorded as it did by Warren Cowdery only to be changed to first person and even then not mentioned until well after Joseph's death?

You're right though - apologists should just through Warren Cowdery under the bus and be done with it, but that would also screw up what the church has now been teaching for almost 170 years.

On another note... D&C 2 was written in 1838 that proclaimed Elijah would return to restore the priesthood, which was two years after Joseph claimed the visitation happened. Pretty interesting, isn't it?

[2bizE]

Ok, the elephant in the room question...
What were you doing at stake conference 5 fingers?