Free Republic

Yawn.

Again.

And again.

Echo chamber dwellers unite!

Hey nana. Spiritual noob here. Since you appear to be the scholar in these parts, I had to turn to others to question your interesting though philologically loosey-goosey treatise on what the Urim and Thummim were or weren’t.

There just so happens to be a book, authored by a scholar not connected in any way with those dang mormons, considered by other scholars to be the singular modern treatment of this topic. I’m sure you’ve read it, but just in case here is a short review by another not-dang mormon. You will find his conclusions quite fascinating, I’m sure, particularly as to their use in receiving and disseminating revelatory guidance and answers. Weird.

Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel, The
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 1999 Review by Harbin, Michael A

(The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel. By Cornelis Van Dam. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997, 296 pp., $34.50.)

“Urim” and “Thummim” (UT) are the Hebrew names for the object or objects used by the OT high priest to determine God’s will for the Israelites. Their actual identity has puzzled scholars for centuries. They are not described. Their method of use is not explained. The etymology of the terms is at best uncertain. Even their mention in the OT is somewhat haphazard. Still, scholarly consensus has concluded that they are some form of “lot oracle” and for that reason, no detailed study of the UT has appeared since 1824. Van Dam asserts, however, that the lot theory does not satisfy all of the evidence and undertakes a new exhaustive examination of the issue.

Van Dam begins with a study of the history of interpretation. He performs a topical overview, which surveys the various interpretations from the time of Philo to date and evaluates the different theories.

From this, Van Dam turns to the ancient Near East to explore possible analogues. First he explores lot oracles and notes that the use of lot oracles in the ancient Near East seems to be less common than supposed, and that there is no real analogy to the UT. The same is true with teraphim, which he covers very briefly as associated with the UT. He then examines in more detail analogies that have been proposed by region: Mesopotamia, Hatti, Ugarit, Egypt, Arabia and even China. While he notes items of dress in these cultures that may be compared to the ephod of the priest (which held the UT), he does not find any comparable method of revelation. With this foundation, he begins to repudiate the lot-oracle concept.

After a chapter on the history of translation, Van Dam arrives at the heart of his work, the biblical usages. He surveys the UT within the context of divine revelation in general and notes that God used a variety of methods to provide revelation to Israel, and encouraged the people to inquire of him for guidance. This was tempered with a stringent prohibition against divination of any type, specifically including teraphim and apparently lot oracles. Van Dam argues that the UT could not be lot oracles since on several of the occasions we find it used, the answers recorded exceed the possible yes/no responses of the lots.

Drawing upon the traditional translation of “light(s) and perfection(s)” evidenced in ancient Jewish tradition and the LXX, as well as the role performed by the high priest who was entrusted with the use of the UT, Van Dam concludes that the UT was used to validate a prophetic statement from the high priest as true revelation from God. He argues that the UT was some type of stone that would illuminate (with “true” or “perfect” light) when removed from the ephod to verify the divine source of a declaration (p. 224).

So, what happened to the UT? Here, Van Dam is more tentative. He concludes that the UT were not used after David, probably because of priestly unfaithfulness, although he also sees a role for increasing written revelation that supplanted the need for immediate revelation. Tied in with priestly unfaithfulness, he also notes a parallel increase in the prophetic office.

Although many questions are left unanswered, overall, this is an excellent survey of a very important, although obscure, facet of OT worship. Van Dam has provided a very thorough and readable compilation of the material available on the subject. His conclusions, although not completely new, are thought-provoking as they tie together the spiritual and physical realms.

Michael A. Harbin

Taylor University, Upland, IN

I’m sure glad you have all proved my original post so totally wrong. No self-congratulatory echo chambers here. Move along.

I actually have no idea what you just said.

But if I assume that you are agreeing with the uber-bolded text above, I’m guessing you are excited about the idea that the said bones should have turned up somewhere by now.

To each his own, I suppose. How do you like the ark of the covenant?

Yes, ok.

But my question still stands — why does it matter? If the god of the universe tells someone by the spirit of truth what is true, why would that person care if modern archeologists found artifacts?

And if it does matter somehow, I’m fairly certain they just uncovered a new viking site in the middle of Old Town Stockholm. Last week. So the argument that something isn’t found today is hardly conclusive as to somethings possible existence.

And?

Which is more impressive, do you think? Dictating a 500+ page book, or translating it while looking at some ancient documents?

By the by, the urim and thummim were part of old testament rituals — more hocus pocus?

Your arguments are at odds with each other. First you say that the book of mormon isn’t what it claims to be because you can’t find any artifacts or archeological sites to back it up. Then you say that there is no evidence that god is, so you just have to believe and that’s ok. So which is it?

Either god reveals truth to his children or he doesn’t. It wouldn’t have occurred to me that he depended on archeologists to really drive his point home.

By whose judgment “should” all these things be available to be found? Where in the Bible does it say, “This book is true because you can identify various historical places in it where the characters claim to have been.”

Here I thought the Bible was true because it was true, and not because you could vacation in Palestine.

You place an inordinate amount of faith in physical proof of spiritual things. Good thing all the prophets and apostles who wrote the scriptures you rely on didn’t.

Isn’t it the duty of believers to come to a knowledge of the truth?

Isn’t that done both my study and by prayer?

Isn’t trruth the domain of the Spirit of Truth?

Isn’t it so that throughout scripture people are asked to do and believe things that were new, foreign, confusing, illogical, or unknowable at that time?

If the Spirit of Truth teaches truth to your spirit, at what point do you reject that because of something you may not understand?

It is arrogant and presumptuous for any of you to dismiss out of hand the witness of the Spirit of Truth to others. It is even worse that you so comfortably deem any such witnesses as demonic. Precisely who do you think you are?

Leaving mormons out of it for a second, if god is not a god of confusion, how else would you describe the current state of christianity? Fractured, fragmented, at odds, confused, subject to countless interpretive variations? Maybe you are clear as to your own beliefs, but why yours over the christian down the road who doesn’t go to your service? Or baptize the way you do? Or who follows one preacher over another? Or a pope?

Perhaps all of those differences don’t matter, as long as mormons and their practices are ridiculed enough.

So, let’s see if I get this straight.

1. Ex-mormons post stuff bashing current mormons because they are upset at the way they lived for some period of their own lives.

2. Born Again Christians post stuff bashing mormons because they are right and hope that by “asking questions” their charity for the poor condemned mormon souls will be on full display.

3. Otherwise-mormon opponents are just smarter.

Got it. Yes, I could not imagine how none of this gets old.

When one of my kids asks me a question in whose answer I know they aren’t at all interested, I don’t bother responding. Sometimes it’s also because I don’t have a great answer, but mostly it’s just a waste of time and energy. Since you guys seem to have all the answers already, I guess you fall into the second category.

As an aside, what’s with the juvenile noob comments?

Ok, let’s review.

1. The observation of an outsider with “no dog in the fight” is less relevant than the fiercely held biases of the opinionated.

2. Keeping people from learning about mormonism from mormons is preferable. Precisely how you would like others to learn about your faith, or professional skills, or political views, etc., I presume.

3. Protecting agnostics from the danger of mormonism is less important than protecting anyone else from the same.

4. You are taking credit for people making highly personal decisions about their faith. On the internet.

How about answering the question about jesus being taken from the earth? If god really wanted everyone to be christian he would have left jesus all resurrected and immortal on the earth forever and ever. [Naturally, I don’t really want an answer from you. This question is purely in satisfaction of my urge to ask something that I think is clever.]

Yawn.

I’ve been lurking for quite a while and I just can’t quite get why people here think they are doing good by posting stuff like this. Sorry for assuming, but it sure seems like it’s more about the posters’ own egos than helping any poor deluded Mormons. Self-congratulation usually ends with only one set of hands clapping.

Erecting a tired out echo chamber for Mormon bashers every couple of days must get old at some point.