2 Ne 27 13-19
I’ll start with outlining the specific fulfillment of this prophecy through Martin Harris and Charles Anthon. (The specificity of the prophecy, I think, requires an acknowledgment of the historical counterpart. But since we are all quite familiar with it, I want to focus more on other things in the text.)
Vs. 15: “him to whom the Lord shall deliver the book” (Joseph Smith)
Vs. 15: “another” (to whom the above delivers the words=Martin Harris)
Vs. 15: “the learned” (Charles Anthon)
Vs. 13: “a few” who view the book (the three witnesses)
Vs. 14 “as many witnesses” (the eight witnesses)
Several things that I want to discuss topically:
The “book”: The Hebrew here is “sepher” used throughout Isa 29:11-12. Sepher’s meaning is a little more general than just book or scroll. It seems to refer to any official document or record (i.e. anything that was worth writing permanently), a record of the kings, an account of a journey (log), a written order or commission, legal document, certificate of divorce, deed of purchase, law-book, or even book-learning.
It can also be a verb (saphar) in which case is means to recount or relate specifically to count something or take account of, or reckon
As a participle (sopher) it means scribe (i.e. the counter, secretary, or treasurer)
It has a derived noun as well (misephar) that means number or recount or accounting.
I bring this up in such detail because the root meaning of the word seems to be about history as (if I can use an anachronistic term) a discipline (and partially because I was so flattered that H/G would propose an article about the last Hebrew I did that it made playing with the language that much more fun). It is about the recording and preserving of important information. For a modern audience this is an important reminder that writing and documents were used for specific and important things (not just any random blogger saying whatever she wants).
The seal(s):
It seems to me that there are two seals discussed. One seal seals the whole of the book vs. 10 “For the book shall be sealed by the power of God.” The other seal seals the specific revelation that gives an account of the world from beginning to end vs 10 “and the revelation which was sealed shall be kept in the book”
The nature of the seals:
If I understand correctly, the seal on a scroll was intended to verify its origin not conceal its contents. Kings used seals to send messages so that the receiver would know the message was authentic. Anyone can break a wax seal if they want to read a scroll (what they can’t do is reseal the document). In the case of the plates, how could a seal be put on them that would physically preclude the holder from having visual access to the material? So while the physical seal is possible unless there were Da Vinci code type seals that would destroy the document if broken incorrectly, I think the seals here must be more than a physical bind on the document.
I bring this up because there is a logical inconsistency in this question of seals to me. Charles Anthon wants to see the book, but Martin Harris says he can’t bring the book because the book is sealed. What? How does having a seal on a book prevent its transportation? (Maybe Harris was just using this as an excuse as to why he couldn’t produce the book, but that seems a little unnecessary to put in a prophecy.) And why would not having the book prevent Anthon from seeing the copied characters? The Lord specifically say to take “these words that are not sealed” to the learned man. (Again, maybe just part of the story that Anthon wanted the book for his own career making or that a learned man couldn’t even read the unsealed words, but again why such specific prophecy about the seal and that even unsealed words were still effectually sealed when given to one without authority?)
It seems to me that the seal has less to do with visual access (seeing the plates by the 3 or 8 witnesses leaf by leaf didn’t break the seal presumably), than with authority to interpret. These seals are intended to withhold accessability because it is authority to read that breaks the seal like the seven seal in the Book of Revelations. In Revelation John can see the writing on the sealed book. 5:1, “And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside sealed with seven seals.” The requirement for breaking these seals is worthiness. 5:2 “And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?”
This for me is a return to the question of language. You have to be righteous not only to articulate your own experiences (and have them preserved in writing) but also to access the record, history of the others who are righteous. Harkening back to George’s astute question last week of “Can we assume that as long as history remains a mystery to us, as long as all we can produce is fragmented knowledge, it is a sign that we remain in this general state of insufficient grace to be able to read the meaning of all things?”
If this is correct and the seals are about authority rather than ability, then the question turns to how are authority and writing related. Throughout the scriptures and particularly in our two chapters, there is an emphasis on language, both spoken and written, as being the property of the righteous. The number one thing God seems to call servant to do is to prophesy and preach (specifically repentance). Although those who are learned consider themselves to be the guardians and masters of language their claim is illegitimate. Like the scribes in the NT who (John 5:39 our favorite scripture to misunderstand) “search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life” but are wrong because “they are they which testify of me.” The SCRIBES think they have jurisdiction over the text but because they didn’t find Christ in the language of scripture, they actually have nothing at all. So the verses about Charles Anthon seem to me a specific incident that shows a pattern of how language is not the property of the learned, but of the Lord. Since it is the word of the Lord which created all things (either literally that by speaking “Let there be. . .” or through the Word–Jehovah (of course in the Latin alphabet Jehovah begins with an I. . .hee, hee)), the power of God is connected to language and only those with authority from God can exercise the use of language through writing or speaking (cf. The Book of Life).
One last little note. . . I think these verses show a pattern of interaction in addition to being a prophecy of an incident is the out-of-place third person plural in verse 16. “And now, because of the glory of the world and to get gain will THEY say this, and not for the glory of God.” If this referred only to Charles Anthon, we would expect a singular pronoun rather than a plural. Perhaps this is a use of the so-called “singular they” retain from earlier English. However, because it is the only they in the verses about Anthon and it is in the only verse that could easily describe anyone not serving the Lord, I tend to think this shows that the story is one of a pattern. That pattern is: the Lord calls a prophet and gives him words, the prophet feels insufficient, (the Lord calls a helper,) the unlearned prophet can understand the language/message/vision that the learned cannot. Maybe it’s just because this pattern is generic but this seems to fit Moses and Aaron versus Pharoh, Joseph of Egypt and Pharoh’s dreams, Jesus and the scribes,. . .
Finally, this relation of language to power and authority underscores the contrast we’ve mentioned several times between the vital dead and the comatose living. Those who are dead but are still speaking still have power while those who are alive but unrighteous as like zombies.
Thank you for your thoughts, Julie. As always, I find myself humbled by the incredible work everyone else is doing.
Your mention of authority related to writing instantly put me in mind of Moses 6:7, where language is spoken of as a “priesthood.” I’ll go ahead and preempt Joe by mentioning D&C 128 and the lengthy discussion of writing found there.
I’ll also make quick note of something we’ve already been anticipating in v. 16–this is directly related to Nephi’s definition of priestcraft from 26:29-31.
In reading over these verses, I was personally struck by the difference between the two vocalizations mentioned: that of the learned (“I cannot read it”) and the unlearned (“I am not learned”). It seems to be that the former focuses on an action/work, while the latter views it as a question of being. Both are in response to a text. Could we perhaps see the record (as property of the Lord, written only by his (priesthood?) authority) as forcing our reception of it into one of two categories: grace versus works?
Finally, one further question: what does all of this mean for Nephi? As we’ve been discussing in George’s post, Nephi gradually comes to understand the role of his own record as being wrapped up in the sealed record of the last days. How does this notion of the authority behind writing influence Nephi’s shifting paradigm?
Julie says: “The Hebrew here is “sepher” used throughout Isa 29:11-12.”
Joe responds: Let me recommend another interesting paper from the same volume as the one on Isaiah 28 and the covenant with death: Hugh S. Pyper, “Surviving Writing: The Anxiety of Historiography in the Former Prophets,” in Exum & Clines, The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. This paper discusses all mentions of writing and the written in the former prophets (and hence not in Isaiah), establishing a persistent thematic connection between death and writing in the Hebrew Bible. Very interesting.
Julie says: “It seems to me that there are two seals discussed.”
Joe responds: This distinction you’ve drawn is very helpful!
Julie says: “If I understand correctly, the seal on a scroll was intended to verify its origin not conceal its contents.”
Joe responds: There is a kind of dialectic between the two “purposes” of the seal that is well worth thinking about. (Derrida, incidentally, takes up exactly this dialectic in his The Post Card.) On the one hand, the seal serves to identify an author, to authorize a text. On the other hand, the seal serves to establish the privacy of the written, if not to strip the written of its writtenness (to allow something written to pose as something spoken, limited to a certain context, etc.). The two intentions might be summarized as one by saying: to seal a text is to ward off (what Roland Barthes describes as) the death of the author. I want to think about all of this more.
Julie discusses the connection between language and the righteous.
Joe responds: I think what is most helpful in your discussion here is the shaking up it inevitably does of the standard readings of this text. Too often it is read as Joseph’s reworking of Isaiah after the Harris/Anthon event so as to make his own translation efforts a fulfillment of ancient prophecy. But I think you’ve shown that, even if one would like to take it that way, there remains a great deal of careful interpretive work to be done. I’ll have to work through these verses a bit on my own and then volunteer a few more detailed thoughts.
Julie, I think you’re correct about there being two seals under discussion. Formulating sealing as connected to authority rather than legibility is useful as well, in part because it conceptually allows for sealing in the context of texts as well as relationships.
As I reread the chapter up to this point, it was interesting to see what, specifically is described as being sealed.
v. 7 “the book shall be sealed” (the book contains the revelation of all/beginning to end)
v. 8 “things which are sealed up” (mentioned twice)
v. 10 “words which are sealed”
v. 10 “book shall be sealed”
v. 10 “the revelation which was sealed”
v. 11 “the words of the book which were sealed” (notice that the third person plural “were” indicates that the subject of “sealed” is the plural “words” and not the singular “book”)
v. 15 “these words which are not sealed” (negative example)
v. 17 “it [the book] is sealed”
v. 21 “things which are sealed”
v. 22 “thou shalt seal up the book again”
So we have books, things, words, and revelations being sealed (or specifically identified as not being sealed, which implies that they could be sealed).
Julie says “It seems to me that there are two seals discussed. One seal seals the whole of the book vs. 10 “For the book shall be sealed by the power of God.” The other seal seals the specific revelation that gives an account of the world from beginning to end vs 10 “and the revelation which was sealed shall be kept in the book”.”
This made me rethink v. 8 in particular, where there is another somewhat confusing plural reference to things sealed: “Wherefore, because of the things which are sealed up, the things which are sealed shall not be delivered in the day of the wickedness …” The first “things which are sealed up” appears to refer back to v. 7, which describes a sealed book that contains the revelation “from the beginning of the world to the ending thereof.” So the first “things” refers to the revelation. The second “things,” to me at least, seems to make more sense as a reference to a more general “things,” namely texts/books that are sealed. So v.8 reworded would read “Wherefore, because of the revelations which are sealed up (because of their sacredness, completeness), the various books/texts (containing the aforementioned revelation) which are sealed shall not be delivered in the day of the wickedness …”
Is there then a double sealing of both the words of the revelation and the books containing them? Would that be significant for any reason?
Thanks Kim, Joe, and Jenny for your comments.
Kim-
I was also thinking about the “priesthood of writing” as I was considering these verses so I’m glad you brought it up specifically and pointed out the other references. I hope we’ll be able to develop this more throughout the week.
Joe-
Thanks for the additional discussion of the seal. I like the Ronald Barthes quote that a seal “wards off the death of the author.” I also found your comment about the ancient seal as clay impressed by a stone with a name/mark on it. That definitely suggests to me the necessary retention of the author/authority of the text. One question I have is how strong is the physical barrier of the seal? Neither of the two uses of a seal that you mentioned actually prohibit ability to break the seal or see the symbols. Both uses suggest (if I’m reading your summary of Derrida correctly) that the seal offers literary protection rather than physical protection.
Jenny-
I appreciate your outline of how the word seal is used. I think your right that the first mention in verse 8 is to the specific revelation of the all and the second to the whole book (of which that revelation is only a part). So it seems that the book itself (presumably the gold plates) are sealed and within that seal is another seal upon the specific revelation.
I also think your comment on last weeks post about the spiritual possibilities of the nature of seals works well here. As I’ve focused and Joe’s elaborated on the meaning and possibilities of a physical seal, now we need to go back to your comment and think through the meanings of non-material seals.
I’m trying to riddle out the book/words/things/revelation business, as well as the at least two seals spoken of in the text. Here is what I’m coming up with so far:
It seems clear enough that there is only one book spoken of throughout chapter 27. It is clearly described at times as being sealed, but in such a way that it can be unsealed under the right circumstances. It seems to be divisible into two parts, one described either simply as the “words of a/the book” or as the “words which are not sealed”; and the other falling under several titles, including “the things which are sealed,” “the words which are sealed,” or the “revelation” that is “in the book.” This second part of the book seems to be separately sealed (separately, that is, from the book as a whole), but this seal is one that cannot be broken under any (temporal/mortal) circumstances. Mathematized a bit (sealed1 means breakably sealed; sealed2 means unbreakably sealed):
the book = words / things-words-revelation
(sealed) (not sealed) (sealed2)
A few questions that I think deserve attention: (1) What of the singular “book” over against the plural “words”? (2) What of the three different titles given to the sealed revelation? (3) What of the distinction between the two seals?
I’ll jot down a few of my own thoughts about each question in separate comments.
What of the singular “book” over against the plural “words”?
It is certainly significant that the singular book splits into two parts that are both given (for the most part, at least) plural titles: the “words which are not sealed” and the “words/things which are sealed.” As one moves from the total book to its several parts, there is a kind of (infinite?) proliferation or dissemination, each part being at least in some sense untotalizable (though one must still speak of the singular “revelation,” etc.), a scattering of so many words rather than a gathered “part.”
I don’t know what else to read into this, but I do imagine there are more fruitful ways to approach it. What else is there here?
What of the three different titles given to the sealed revelation?
The “sealed part” of the sealed book is given at least three different titles or names in chapter 27. From verse 7, the name “revelation” appears; from verse 8, the name “things which are sealed” appears; and from verse 10, the name “words which are sealed” appears.
First, revelation. Strictly speaking, this never functions as an identifying title for this “part” of the book. Rather, we are told that so many things/words contain or are made up of a total revelation. One could say that the word “revelation” functions as a kind of description of the content of the words.
While speaking of the revelation here, it is worth noting that the word “revelation” is more or less suddenly emerging in Nephi’s text here. The only form of the word “reveal” that appears before this discussion in 2 Nephi 27 is to be found in 2 Nephi 5:6, where Nephi speaks of those who believe in “the warnings and the revelations of God.” Besides that one passing mention, there is no word of revelation at all in Nephi’s writings until chapter 27 here, and here it appears five times (vv. 7, 10, 11, 22), always with reference to this revelation to be contained in the sealed words. Does this tell us anything more specific about the “content” of the sealed “part”?
Second, words and things. Only in verse 8 does one find “things” as a name for the revelation-”part” of the book. Everywhere else, they are “words.” Might this be a question of translation? The Hebrew word dbrym can be translated as both “words” and “things” (it is indeed the standard word for both “words” and “things”). But if it is merely a question of translation, why does Joseph give us “things” in the one instance?
At any rate, however, the fact that the singular “revelation” can be separated out as a description of the words/things’ content means that we can, for the most part, speak of both “parts” of the book being rather consistently described with the term “words,” the one being “not sealed” and the other “sealed.”
What of the distinction between the two seals?
There is a difficulty in coming up with any particular word to describe the two seals. For example, seal2 (the seal on the “revelation” in particular) could be said to be unbreakable because Joseph Smith does not seem to have had the authority to break it, whereas he does seem to have had the authority to break seal1 (the seal on the whole “book”). And yet the unbreakability of seal2 actually seems to be separable from its physical status, since Joseph has to be commanded, through Nephi, in verse 21: “Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time,” etc.
The converse is true as well: if seal1 seems breakable since Joseph is able to crack the book and read “the words which are not sealed,” it nonetheless seems to be the case that this seal is not physical and thus cannot be broken by human beings. This is emphasized in the Harris/Anthon bit: “And the learned shall say: Bring hither the book, and I will read them. . . . And the man shall say: I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed” (27:15, 17).
Thus seal1, breakable, would appear to be otherwise than physical, while seal2, unbreakable, would appear to be simply physical. That is, seal1, breakable, would seem to be, strictly speaking, the more unbreakable of the two; while seal2, unbreakable, would seem to be, strictly speaking, the more breakable of the two.
What of this reversal of sorts?
Taking up seal2 first, one could suggest that the physical simplicity of the seal arranges things so that Joseph Smith has to manifest his fidelity: while it would perhaps be the simplest thing in the world for him to try to break the seal on the “revelation,” that he doesn’t proves his fidelity. Might much the same not be said for seal1? The fact that seal1 can be broken, but that it cannot be broken through simple physical means, forces the breaking of this seal to be an act of God’s fidelity.
In essence, then, the book is doubly sealed: once through God’s fidelity, and once through Joseph’s.
Or something like that….
And so, question number 4: What does all of this tell us about the book?
Joe, just a quick note: I’m not certain I follow all the nuances of your thoughts on question #3, but I do like where you’re ending up. In fact, as I was reading through your comments above, I had a similar (but not well thought out) inclination regarding the seals—that a seer’s ability to open the seals is tied to his or her ability to refrain from opening a seal if they have not been commanded by God to do so. So Joseph’s refusal to “break” the portion of the plates that remained sealed (I’m using physical seal terminology, but that’s simply for ease of communication, not because I feel the seal is of necessity physical) was a witness to his faithfulness to God’s word.
It seems to me that much in these chapters and the gospel in general has to do with one’s ability to keep their word—both guard it, and in a sense, seal it against outside corruption. So perhaps the prophetic focus on language, writing, revelation, and words can point us to a behavioral interpretation of these chapters: how Nephi, Isaiah, and Joseph treat the revelations of God provides a model for our own relationship to the words of God in our lives (i.e., we need to be able to distinguish which words God would have us share, and which need to remain “sealed”)? Is there something structurally relevant in terms of knowledge or truth being split into the known and the unknowable?
Great post, Julie.
I love the idea of the seal having several possible meanings, and it seems you have teased them out very well. I especially find this idea of a seal indicating authority to be a lovely one. I want to mull that over some more, but I like the idea that perhaps revelations are sealed in the sense that they are always delivered through a medium of authority and for that reason they may also be indecipherable or undesirable to those who cannot accept that authority. Editorializing a little, it always amazes me how few people actually read the Book of Mormon, let alone with any degree of seriousness, because they simply cannot accept the premise upon which its emergence and authority as a book are based. That is why Anthon seems so paradigmatic. I have often wanted to theorize that very question, since it seems fundamental to the dilemma the book presents–in its physical form and very readable plain language, it is nevertheless enigmatic and productive of very different reactions, one which tends toward deep and faithful reading–setting some on a journey of deeper discovery and revelation– and another that tends toward a kind of illiteracy, resulting in a more stubborn conviction of what others already believed and knew. It seems there is rarely anything in between.
At the same time, however, even faithful readings, as we have been deliberating, are perhaps vulnerable to fragmentary and incomplete understanding, and thus seals are still operative. But at least once on the path toward charity and the mind of Christ, the seals can get broken, one by one, until we come to that perfect day of reading with the mind of Christ and understanding all things, a kind of reading moment it seems that a few prophets–Moses, the brother of Jared, Nephi, and others–have experienced in part. Their experiences are our promise of reading faithfully.
Just some thoughts. Thanks for these great thoughts.
We found Julie’s distinction (and Joe’s clarification) of the two different seals in verse 10 to be particularly helpful. As we’ve been reflecting on her comments though, we think that contrary to Julie’s assertion, the seals may indeed be about the ability to read sealed texts as well as about the authority to do so. Our primary support of this view is a consideration of Ether 3:22-28 which suggests that scriptural seals can include an indecipherable language of presentation as well as the authority to translate via the receipt of specifically designed interpreters:
the Lord to the brother of Jared: “‘And behold… ye shall write [the things which ye have seen and heard] and shall seal them up, that no one can interpret them; for ye shall write them in a language that they cannot read. And behold these two stones will I give unto thee, and ye shall seal them up also with the things which ye shall write. For behold, the language which ye shall write I have confounded; wherefore I will cause in my own due time that these stones shall magnify to the eyes of men these things which ye shall write.’
“And when the Lord had said these words, he showed unto the brother of Jared all the inhabitants of the earth which had been, and also all that would be; and he withheld them not from his sight, even unto the ends of the earth. For he had said unto him in times before, that if he would believe in him that he could show unto him all things–it should be shown unto him…
“And the Lord said unto him, ‘Write these things and seal them up; and I will show them in mine own due time unto the children of men.’ And it came to pass that the Lord commanded him that he should seal up the two stones which he had received, and show them not, until the Lord should show them unto the children of men.”
You’ll note here that (as in many other places in the book of Ether) Moroni has incorporated several key phrases from Nephi’s writings into his telling of the Jaredite narrative. Moroni and his father had only recently become aware of Nephi’s small plates and they were pretty excited about them (cf. WoM 1:3-6). Moroni, as well, seems anxious in his rendering of Ether to make connections between these two very different peoples who had been brought by the Lord to the Promised Land. One way he does this is by incoporating distinctive words from Nephi’s telling into his recounting of corresponding Jaredite episodes. So we see here connections with 2 Ne. 27, including such concepts as “sealing up” sacred writings, being shown “all things” in vision, and particular writings being reserved to come forth “unto the children of men” in “mine own due time.”
It’s interesting that when the record is delivered to the unlearned, the Lord delivers it to an intermediary (“him to whom he shall deliver the book” – v. 15) with a commandment to take it to the learned. When the learned rejects it, however, the book is given directly from the Lord to the unlearned.
George has reiterated what I mentioned above: the polarity of the responses to a text. But in this passage it appears that the difference of response could almost be attributed to the difference in delivery.
What can we make of it?
Kim, I think you’ve struck on something important: the learned receives only the words of the book (and then at a third remove: from Moroni to Joseph, from Joseph to Martin, from Martin to Anthon), while the learned receives the book itself. And all of this cannot be disentangled from the wording in Isaiah 29: the learned point out the sealedness of the book, the unlearned point out their inability to read. (Commentators often make mention of the fact that the unlearned overlooks the seal, while the learned does not.) More thinking to be done…
Wow! The comment have been very insightful comments, and I think we’re opening some interesting possibilities with them. So here are some more thoughts in response:
G/H-
I really like the connection to Ether you brought up but I want to clarify what I meant in the original post because you say: “We think that contrary to Julie’s assertion, the seals may indeed be about the ability to read sealed texts as well as about the authority to do so.”
I said “If this [my discussion on seals] is correct and the seals are about authority rather than ability,” but that was probably overstating. I shouldn’t have implied that the seals were only about authority, just that the ability and authority are linked, and it seems that you can’t have the ability without the authority. (Even is you have the ability to decipher the characters–as so many people do with Hebrew, Coptic, Greek, Latin, etc), you still may not have broken the seal because you can’t interpret them in any official way. The quotation from Ether even bears this out because “no one can *interpret* them; for ye shall write them in a language that they cannot *read*.” The interpretation (authority) and the reading (ability) are linked.
Because of the mention of reading and interpreting and seeing in these Ether references seem to me to suggest that both the ability and the authority over a text are involved in the seal. So in essence, does it work better if I say that I think the authority and the ability to read are linked and in fact the link between them is the seal itself (through both its physical and non-physical elements corresponding to ability and authority respectively–more below)?
My discussion of the physical seal was not to say it can’t exist. A physical seal is entirely possible (I’m working on assembling the historical evidence for this). I only wanted to say that a physical seal such as a wax impression, a clay casing, or a metal binding (like the Gold plates are often depicted as having) can’t by itself do what this seal is described as doing, namely concealing the text from reading/interpretation.
I certainly don’t think that the physical and non-physical parts of the seal are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think that the only way to explain the various descriptions of the seal is by understanding it in both physical and non-physical ways. Even in Ether the focus is on the more visual aspect of the seal, but that still doesn’t make it physical–it’s linguistic rather than physical. So I actually think that works very well with the possibilities of our seal in chapter 27.
This association with the visual element of the seal I think is really intriguing. Since a seer is one who has ability (often through a medium such as a stone), that suggests that the seal is linked to authority when taken with the imagery of blindness/drunken stupor/death compared to seeing/alert/alive that we have seen throughout this section.
Joe-
Thanks for the clarification on the seals. I agree that there only seems to be one book mentioned here despite the different verbage about it. ( I admit I was hoping the “book” could be interpreted more broadly as “writings” leaving the possibilities of it including other texts open, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.) However, I do wonder if both seals have physical and non-physical parts.
The universal seal (seal 1) is over the book as a whole. The physical part of that seal is the fact that the book is in a box where no one can find it without instruction. The non-physical part of the seal is the inability to access the text linguistically. Joseph broke both these seals, the physical because he was lead by Moroni, the spiritual because he was given the ability and authority to translate (through a medium).
The smaller seal (seal 2) also has physical and non elements, neither of which is broken. The physical presumably because this part of the plates was distinguished somehow, but also because Joseph did not have authority over this seal (your Joseph’s-seal-through-fidelity). Also, I thought the point you made that the word revelation is a description rather than a name is significant because it is actually the revealed (literally the veil-taken-back) portion that is sealed (veiled). I think the irony here is intentional because to access what is has been revealed, one has to pierce the veil, i.e. break the seal.
Kim-
Your comment about the method of delivery as well as the type of response I think can also play into this idea. Since the method that Joseph received the plates can be seen as at least an initial break of the seal because it is through a messenger with authority (Moroni). Then for Anthon the text is at least initially sealed because his reception is just UPS delivery of sorts.
George-
Your comment makes me wonder if there isn’t something like a seal still on this book. Since you said that so many people don’t read it because of it’s claim of authority. Is the acceptance or at least suspension of disbelilef of it’s claim similar to overcoming an obstacle like breaking a seal? Or perhaps in this case a person isn’t breaking the seal so much as opening it, i.e. giving it a chance to be authentic?
Jenny-
Your thought that sealing also has to do with a willingness to not divulge what you know is really interesting. It brings in all sort of possibilities of covenants sealing the person to God as long as the person doesn’t break the seal by revealing it or disrespecting it. This makes a connection between seals and covenants that you mentioned last week but I hadn’t seen the possible linguistic/verbal connection before. Does that make Joseph himself something of a seal on the book because he protects it from those without authority?