LDS Freedom Forum

Came across this well done Youtube research video and thought it worth sharing. Its conjecture about Melchizedek is lacking and inacurate, but the video is done as cleanly as possible considering the author's sources (i.e. no modern revelation). It caused me to reexamine what Joseph Smith has ever said about it (whether in scripture or not) and I was satisfied in finding that not only did he not teach that personally but that the scriptures that came through him seem to imply the opposite, that Shem and Melchizedek are two different people. Maybe many of you already knew this, but I thought it was quite worth my time to watch (it has some interesting implications with other accepted scriptural narratives in terms of timelines). Below are the relevant scriptures I found in my resultant study (also one quote from a classic Ensign article), followed by the video itself:

Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father" (Alma 13:18).

Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah" (D&C 84:14, emphasis added).

[...] Many Saints and gospel scholars have wondered if these men were the same person. The truth is, we do not know the answer.... There is a case for their being two distinct personalities" (Gygi, Alma E., "Is it possible that Shem and Melchizedek are the same person?", Ensign, November 1973, web).

I don't personally have any definite opinion on this topic. Just for the conversation's sake, let me give alternative readings for those verses.

Shem/Melchizedek reigned at some point under his father Noah.

Shem/Melchizedek received the priesthood through the lineage of his fathers, from Adam even till his father Noah.

That Melchizedek was Shem is the only thing that makes sense to me. Inho's speculation is accurate, IMO. Shem and Melchizedek were living at the same time if the chronologies are remotely correct; yet Abraham goes to Melchizedek to pay tithing and recieve his blessing. It's obvious that Shem held the rights of the firstborn, so who is this Melchizedek guy? And why is HE the guy that preaches repentance to a wicked people such that his community forms a second Zion community with similar blessings to Enoch's city? (They obtain Heaven). ( see JST Genesis 14).

Could it just be that Melchizedek is his TITLE? The Hebrew is variously translated King and Priest, or King of Righteousness. He is referenced as High Priest. Why wouldn't this be Shem's position if he was righteous, (and he was)?

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/11/i-ha ... n?lang=eng

.

BringerOfJoy wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 1:10 pm Could it just be that Melchizedek is his TITLE? The Hebrew is variously translated King and Priest, or King of Righteousness. He is referenced as High Priest. Why wouldn't this be Shem's position if he was righteous, (and he was)?

Imho & BringerOfJoy:

Neither of you watched the video, obviously, which is the point of the post (though I enjoyed your shoot-from-the-hip standard Mormon information). The point of the whole video is that the timeline of the genealogy is flawed and very possibly intentionally edited in the Masoretic Hebrew text. The video goes to show how that every other major Hebrew source, all of which vastly predate the Masoretic text, include the interesting addition of 100 years of life to the genealogies of each descendant between Shem and Abraham. With the older corroborative data in place, there is a break of about 500 years between Shem's death and Abraham's birth, making them no longer contemporaries.

Though the author of the video lacks the additional revelation to take this thought to the next step, the obvious implication is that Melchizedek, who was certainly a contemporary of Abraham, is a descendant of Shem through another line of descendants, as is implied in D&C 84:14.

Please take time to watch the video and then let me know your thoughts.

BruceRGilbert wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 1:19 pm

Doctrine and Covenants 138:
38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,

39 And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.

40 Abel, the first martyr, was there, and his brother Seth, one of the mighty ones, who was in the express image of his father, Adam.

41 Noah, who gave warning of the flood; Shem, the great high priest; Abraham, the father of the faithful; Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, the great law-giver of Israel;

42 And Isaiah, who declared by prophecy that the Redeemer was anointed to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that were bound, were also there.

BruceRGilbert:

Joseph F. Smith's vision includes Shem, who was undoubtedly a great high priest in his day, but does not use the name Melchizedek. Though it's possible that the revelation implied that these two individuals are one in the same, it is not explicit enough to conclude that outright. Your perspective is certainly in the majority and I thank you for including it in this discussion. However, verse 14 of section 138 that you quoted is obviously not a genealogy or a full priesthood lineage (see D&C 84)--note the gap not only between Shem and Abraham but also from Jacob to Moses in the same verse.

.

BruceRGilbert wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 1:59 pm

Lectures on Faith:
Lecture 2:52 It appears from this account, that Nahor, brother of Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Salah, Arphaxed, Shem, and Noah, all lived on the earth at the same time. And that Abraham was 18 years old when Reu died, 41 when Serug and his brother Nahor died, 75 when Terah died, 88 when Arphaxed died, 118 when Salah died, 150 when Shem died, and that Eber lived 4 years after Abraham's death. And that Shem, Arphaxed, Salah, Eber, Reu, Serug, Terah, and Nahor, the brother of Abraham, and Abraham, lived at the same time. And that Nahor, brother of Abraham, Terah, Serug, Reu, Eber, Salah, Arphaxed, and Shem, were all acquainted with both Noah and Abraham.

Excellent! Now we have a pretty clear contradiction to the proposition that Shem and Melchizedek are different people in the form of a timeline included in the Lectures on Faith (though it is no longer considered scripture, so does it have less weight in this discussion?). I propose that the timeline included in the Lectures on Faith is based on the text (which they say themselves [see below]) and not on revelation:

There is some difficulty in the account given by Moses, of Abraham's birth. Some have supposed, that Abraham was not born until Terah was 130 years old. This conclusion is drawn from a variety of scriptures, which are not to our purpose at present to quote. Neither is it a matter of any consequence to us, whether Abraham was born when Terah was 70 years old, or 130. But in order that there may no doubt exist upon any mind, in relation to the object lying immediately before us, in presenting the present chronology, we will date the birth of Abraham at the latest period: that is, when Terah was 130 years old. It appears from this account, that from the flood to the birth of Abraham was 352 years" (Lectures on Faith 2:42, emphasis added).

Why the conjecturing and uncertainty on the disputed age of Terah if this account was based on revelation? Because it wasn't; it was based on the King James version of the bible, whose source was the Masoretic Hebrew text. But, as the foregoing quote demonstrates, the accuracy of these particular dates was not crucial for the point that was being made by the lectures, which point is the following:

The knowledge of the existence of a God, must have continued from father to son, as a matter of tradition, at least. For we cannot suppose, that a knowledge of this important fact, could have existed in the mind of any of the before mentioned individuals, without their having made it known to their posterity" (Lectures on Faith 2:53, emphasis added).

Can this point still be maintained without the overlap of Shem and Abraham's lives? Yes. So the point of the lecture is not lost though the data used includes the erroneous notion that these two men were contemporaries. That bit of potential fiction introduced to the Masoretic text has no bearing on the conclusion drawn in the lecture.

Therefore I submit that the Lectures on Faith incorporates flawed genealogies that are explicitly indicated as not being accurate for a purpose yet maintainable despite said inaccuracies. With this counterpoint in mind, BruceRGilbert, I again assert that Melchizidek and Shem were two different people, and do so with confidence that our shared faith in Joseph Smith's revelations may remain intact.

I'm good with the knowledge imparted by modern-day revelation: Shem and Melchizedek are the same person. We can agree to disagree about this.

I haven't watched the video yet, but the Book of Jasher reveals that Shem and Melchizedek were the same person. It's a great read. It may not be considered cannonized scripture, but the Old Testament mentions the Book of Jasher twice.

There is enough information to support either case. I've studied it out and came to no certain conclusion, but if so, it fits. Here is another link to play with. I like to think they are one and the same.

http://academic-genealogy.com/ancientan ... es.htm#013

Interesting idea but problematic for LDS re:
-dispensations
-millenium
-modern revelation

I also found the idea of motive unconvincing. Like Early christians are going to find the last minute changing of geneology a convincing argument against the authority of Jesus. Apparently a real discrepancy exists, so there is definitely a mystery.

I'm just going to have to admit I don't know for sure, but am not comfortable making a new conclusion.

For me, Shem was Shem and Melchizedek was Melchizedek.

I did read an article by a speculative LDS once who claimed that Jehovah has been upon the earth twice; once as Melchizedek and once as Jesus.
I think he based his claim of the title "prince of peace" which, he claimed, is a title reserved for deity.

BruceRGilbert wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 2:26 pm I'm good with the knowledge imparted by modern-day revelation: Shem and Melchizedek are the same person. We can agree to disagree about this.

Thanks for participating in the discussion, BruceRGilbert. I really appreciate your points and I want you to know that though I have started this thread I am seeking to understand the topic myself rather than trying to convince everyone of a particular viewpoint.

That said, could you please point me to the "knowledge imparted by modern-day revelation" that indicates that Shem and Melchizedek are the same person? As far as I am aware, the places where that knowledge is imparted is in olden-day revelation, specifically the Book of Jasher as has been mentioned in this thread, which is not canonized scripture at that. If it is to D&C 138 that you refer, then I would like to know if you have any comment on my response to that earlier (quoted below for convenience):

Joseph F. Smith's vision includes Shem, who was undoubtedly a great high priest in his day, but does not use the name Melchizedek. Though it's possible that the revelation implied that these two individuals are one in the same, it is not explicit enough to conclude that outright. Your perspective is certainly in the majority and I thank you for including it in this discussion. However, verse 14 of section 138 that you quoted is obviously not a genealogy or a full priesthood lineage (see D&C 84)--note the gap not only between Shem and Abraham but also from Jacob to Moses in the same verse."

If it is not to that reverse that you refer, then what modern-day revelation do we have that you cite? Also, the Ensign article I cited earlier comes to the conclusion that Shem and Melchizedek may or may not be the same person with the limited information we have.

braingrunt wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 2:36 pm Interesting idea but problematic for LDS re:
-dispensations
-millenium
-modern revelation

I also found the idea of motive unconvincing. Like Early christians are going to find the last minute changing of geneology a convincing argument against the authority of Jesus. Apparently a real discrepancy exists, so there is definitely a mystery.

I'm just going to have to admit I don't know for sure, but am not comfortable making a new conclusion.

Thank you for your post. I too find the motive somewhat lacking, but not without foundation in our Mormon perspective. The mysterious dropping of the 100 years off of each person is certainly mysterious, as you said. The Jews who made those unauthorized changes, if it was a Jew or Jews who did it, then they would have done it, I submit, not to fool the Christians but to resist the further proselytization of Jews into Christians through scriptural arguments.

I want to know what problems you see with this notion and modern revelation, as you stated above. I am willing to believe either idea, but I always submit to modern revelation when there are contradictions. I have not seen a clear example of this yet, though many contributors here feel strongly that they exist. Could you please show me?

Certainly, then, it ought become a matter of prayer - this is the ultimate modern revelation that will have significant enough bearing to persuade you about the question, anyway.

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 2:56 pm

braingrunt wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 2:36 pm Interesting idea but problematic for LDS re:
-dispensations
-millenium
-modern revelation

I also found the idea of motive unconvincing. Like Early christians are going to find the last minute changing of geneology a convincing argument against the authority of Jesus. Apparently a real discrepancy exists, so there is definitely a mystery.

I'm just going to have to admit I don't know for sure, but am not comfortable making a new conclusion.

Thank you for your post. I too find the motive somewhat lacking, but not without foundation in our Mormon perspective. The mysterious dropping of the 100 years off of each person is certainly mysterious, as you said. The Jews who made those unauthorized changes, if it was a Jew or Jews who did it, then they would have done it, I submit, not to fool the Christians but to resist the further proselytization of Jews into Christians through scriptural arguments.

I want to know what problems you see with this notion and modern revelation, as you stated above. I am willing to believe either idea, but I always submit to modern revelation when there are contradictions. I have not seen a clear example of this yet, though many contributors here feel strongly that they exist. Could you please show me?

What BruceRGilbert posted, "Shem, the great high priest" from the DC, and the bit from the lectures on faith--I find those not unconvincing. Beyond that I admit I don't know.

Further damaging the motive idea, is that the idea of Shem being melchizedek predates Jesus. Unless satan was getting ready in advance.

So what do you think of the dispensation problem? Is it a non-issue for you?

braingrunt wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 3:18 pm

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 2:56 pm

braingrunt wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 2:36 pm Interesting idea but problematic for LDS re:
-dispensations
-millenium
-modern revelation

I also found the idea of motive unconvincing. Like Early christians are going to find the last minute changing of geneology a convincing argument against the authority of Jesus. Apparently a real discrepancy exists, so there is definitely a mystery.

I'm just going to have to admit I don't know for sure, but am not comfortable making a new conclusion.

Thank you for your post. I too find the motive somewhat lacking, but not without foundation in our Mormon perspective. The mysterious dropping of the 100 years off of each person is certainly mysterious, as you said. The Jews who made those unauthorized changes, if it was a Jew or Jews who did it, then they would have done it, I submit, not to fool the Christians but to resist the further proselytization of Jews into Christians through scriptural arguments.

I want to know what problems you see with this notion and modern revelation, as you stated above. I am willing to believe either idea, but I always submit to modern revelation when there are contradictions. I have not seen a clear example of this yet, though many contributors here feel strongly that they exist. Could you please show me?

What BruceRGilbert posted, "Shem, the great high priest" from the DC, and the bit from the lectures on faith--I find those not unconvincing. Beyond that I admit I don't know.

Further damaging the motive idea, is that the idea of Shem being melchizedek predates Jesus. Unless satan was getting ready in advance.

So what do you think of the dispensation problem? Is it a non-issue for you?

Excellent point about the tradition predating Jesus' lifetime! Is that tidbit per the inclusion in the Book of Jasher? I will have to research its origins and timeline. Thank you for adding this information to the conversation. Though this point is halted out the gate by the entry for Melchizidek in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Jewish sources equating Melchizedek and Shem are late and tendentious" ("Melchizedek," Encyclopedia of Mormonism [EOM], web).

I must not be familiar with the dispensation problem. Is it that if Shem was still alive in Abraham's day then Abraham could not have been the opener of a new dispensation?

I have heard it speculated that Melchizedek and his people were translated and joined the City of Enoch, probably from the following Joseph Smith translation of Gensis 14:

And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven. And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore, he obtained peace in Salem and was called the prince of peace" (Genesis 14:32-33 JST).

If that is the case, is it possible that the person to whom Abraham paid tithes was a translated Shem? This could be his new name after the change. Again, not being aware of the dispensation problem, I wonder if this bit of speculation helps clear that up at all. Could you please help me understand what the dispensation problem is as I am ignorant of it?

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 3:38 pm

braingrunt wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 3:18 pm

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 2:56 pm

braingrunt wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 2:36 pm Interesting idea but problematic for LDS re:
-dispensations
-millenium
-modern revelation

I also found the idea of motive unconvincing. Like Early christians are going to find the last minute changing of geneology a convincing argument against the authority of Jesus. Apparently a real discrepancy exists, so there is definitely a mystery.

I'm just going to have to admit I don't know for sure, but am not comfortable making a new conclusion.

Thank you for your post. I too find the motive somewhat lacking, but not without foundation in our Mormon perspective. The mysterious dropping of the 100 years off of each person is certainly mysterious, as you said. The Jews who made those unauthorized changes, if it was a Jew or Jews who did it, then they would have done it, I submit, not to fool the Christians but to resist the further proselytization of Jews into Christians through scriptural arguments.

I want to know what problems you see with this notion and modern revelation, as you stated above. I am willing to believe either idea, but I always submit to modern revelation when there are contradictions. I have not seen a clear example of this yet, though many contributors here feel strongly that they exist. Could you please show me?

What BruceRGilbert posted, "Shem, the great high priest" from the DC, and the bit from the lectures on faith--I find those not unconvincing. Beyond that I admit I don't know.

Further damaging the motive idea, is that the idea of Shem being melchizedek predates Jesus. Unless satan was getting ready in advance.

So what do you think of the dispensation problem? Is it a non-issue for you?

Excellent point about the tradition predating Jesus' lifetime! Is that tidbit per the inclusion in the Book of Jasher? I will have to research its origins and timeline. Thank you for adding this information to the conversation. Though this point is halted out the gate by the entry for Melchizidek in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Jewish sources equating Melchizedek and Shem are late and tendentious" ("Melchizedek," Encyclopedia of Mormonism [EOM], web).

I must not be familiar with the dispensation problem. Is it that if Shem was still alive in Abraham's day then Abraham could not have been the opener of a new dispensation?

I have heard it speculated that Melchizedek and his people were translated and joined the City of Enoch, probably from the following Joseph Smith translation of Gensis 14:

And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven. And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore, he obtained peace in Salem and was called the prince of peace" (Genesis 14:32-33 JST).

If that is the case, is it possible that the person to whom Abraham paid tithes was a translated Shem? This could be his new name after the change. Again, not being aware of the dispensation problem, I wonder if this bit of speculation helps clear that up at all. Could you please help me understand what the dispensation problem is as I am ignorant of it?

I'm referring to the lds concepts that
1) the earth gets 7000 years of existence, including the millenium
and
2) that roughly each 1000 years has a specific prophet head, and description
(see book of revelation on 7 seals, plus the d&c interpretation of the 7 seals)

Sneaking in 600+ years is a problem for us. I mean, I can already feel that 7000yr limit breathing on the back of my neck, even without those 600+ years thrown in.

braingrunt wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 3:46 pm

Baurak Ale wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 3:38 pm

braingrunt wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 3:18 pm So what do you think of the dispensation problem? Is it a non-issue for you?

I must not be familiar with the dispensation problem. Is it that if Shem was still alive in Abraham's day then Abraham could not have been the opener of a new dispensation?

I have heard it speculated that Melchizedek and his people were translated and joined the City of Enoch, probably from the following Joseph Smith translation of Gensis 14:

And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven. And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore, he obtained peace in Salem and was called the prince of peace" (Genesis 14:32-33 JST).

If that is the case, is it possible that the person to whom Abraham paid tithes was a translated Shem? This could be his new name after the change. Again, not being aware of the dispensation problem, I wonder if this bit of speculation helps clear that up at all. Could you please help me understand what the dispensation problem is as I am ignorant of it?

I'm referring to the lds concepts that
1) the earth gets 7000 years of existence, including the millenium
and
2) that roughly each 1000 years has a specific prophet head, and description
(see book of revelation on 7 seals, plus the d&c interpretation of the 7 seals)

Sneaking in 600+ years is a problem for us. I mean, I can already feel that 7000yr limit breathing on the back of my neck, even without those 600+ years thrown in.

Thank you for the requested clarification, braingrunt. As to those two issues:
(1) I am aware of the 7,000-year history of mankind concept as is connected with the Book of Revelation's book with seven seals, and I believe that to be true; and I understand the seventh-thousand year period to be the "day of rest" of that whole history, the millennial reign of Christ.
(2) Though I am aware of periods of apostasy and renewal of the Gospel, or new disbursements or dispensations of the Gospel, I have not heard before that each dispensation fits into a 1,000-year period or that each 1,000-year period has a "specific prophet head." Of course, the notion of a dispensation head is not lost to me; for instance Joseph Smith is the head of this latest dispensation, of course. I am under the impression that this former concept—that of filing earth's history with the Gospel into convenient headings under the names of most-prominent priesthood holders—is a Mormon tradition rather than a true principle.

To this end I cite the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, not as an authority on the matter, but as a supporting witness to my hunch:

It has become traditional in some unofficial LDS commentaries to refer to seven major dispensations named after the principal prophet of each: Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ..., and Joseph Smith.... However, this list does not take into account other dispensations, such as those among the Jaredites, the Nephites, and the ten lost tribes of Israel ("Dispensations of the Gospel," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Web, emphasis added).

Also, there's a near-2,000-year gap between Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith, despite there being a sixth seal in the Book of Revelation that appears to contain significant events and would reasonably match up with the year 1,000 AD (assuming we're within or on the verge of the opening of the seventh seal). And in other places, such as the time between Abraham and Moses (in the range of 400+ years between their births), the time between dispensation heads, so called, is less than the 1,000-year seal length.

So with the clean-cut dispensation tradition upended, it becomes possible to fit Melchizedek in as a contemporary of Abraham yet a descendant or possible subordinate to Shem. As the Book of Mormon states concerning him in support of this very idea that he's a "middle man" of sorts:

[Melchizedek] did reign under his father. Now, there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards" (Alma 13:18-19, emphasis added).

Therefore I do not perceive a 1,000-year dispensation problem in this regard, for I do not perceive a 1,000-year dispensation principle in the first place.

Adding in 600 years of lost Biblical history to our accepted timeline does seem problematic at first when we consider how that we are most-likely near to or within the beginning of the millennium (discussions on the "half-hour of silence" in the Book of Revelation ought to be reserved for another thread, I suppose). So do we assume that our whole timeline is accurate enough to dismiss the correction of an additional 600 years? I wouldn't be so quick to assume that our Biblical timeline is so prohibitively accurate.

JohnnyL wrote: ↑March 30th, 2018, 6:16 pm https://bookofmormonnotes.wordpress.com ... -by-grego/

Excellent assessment! Thank you for adding this here, JohnnyL. I like the insight he brings to the D&C 138 issue: it does not seem to be a coincidence that both Enoch and Melchizedek are missing from its account. Very interesting!

Kingdom of ZION wrote: ↑March 31st, 2018, 10:12 am...I have a 37 page paper on Melchizedek that when finished, I will post the link to it.

I look forward to it!