EZEKIEL, DR. SPERRY, AND THE STICK OF EPHRAIM

Abstract

Jon Gunn, a senior in electronics at Weber College in Ogden, Utah, who is not a Mormon, reports that his interest in Old Testament studies arose from his interest in Mormon history and theology, which came <(almost inevitably from living in Utah and having a generalized interest in people and their opinionsIn writing a comment of this sort, one runs the risk of having it construed as a boorish intrusion into a private argument among gentlemen; and the only excuse I can offer is that a "Roundtable" has (or should have) no fixed number of sides.If it is construed as an attack on Mormonism, I have a much better answer: of all the proof-texts the Mormon missionaries are wont to cite, there is none more far-fetched or less convincing than the identification of Ezekiel's sticks with two bodies of scripture.1If that proof is some day de-emphasized or abandoned, the case for Mormonism will actually be streamlined.In the "Roundtable" section of the Spring issue of Dialogue ,2 both Dr. Snell and Dr. Sperry complained of insufficient space in which to elaborate upon their respective theses.Each scholar contented himself with outlines and conclusions, merely indicating where an interested reader could find the missing data.This abbreviated reasoning seems justified in both cases.As Dr. Sperry implied, the exegesis of Ezekiel is a complex subject, which cannot be adequately treated in a page or two.Similarly, Dr. Snell, who advocates the historical approach to biblical interpretation generally, could hardly have prefaced his discussion with detailed proof for all the conclusions of modern historical scholarship.1Ezekiel 37:15-23.Hugh Nibley observes that however firmly Mormons may believe this interpretation, the connection between "sticks" and "books" must be established before the passage can be counted as a proof.An Approach to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: 1964), p. 257.Whatever the merits of Dr. Nibley's substantiation (which is far from airtight), it is much too complex to be incorporated into the usual missionary lessons.2Vol.2, no. 1 (Spring 1967), pp.55-90.In this "Roundtable," the value and correct use of proof-texts were central points of disagreement.