And when they came to Nachon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.
Discuss.
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog 
uzzah got worked, son!
I think the firestorm really comes from what the CES manual has to say about Uzzah:
Ouch.
Obviously God would have preferred that Uzzah first bust a little toprock on Nachon’s threshing floor. Getting to the signature move early is poor form.
Come on, haven’t you seen Raiders of the Lost Ark. He should have just kept his eyes closed.
Isn’t the real firestorm verse 8? http://bible.cc/2_samuel/6-8.htm
Then David was angry because the LORD’s wrath had broken out against Uzzah, and to this day that place is called Perez Uzzah.
Was David angry at the Lord for striking Uzzah?
Daniel, I thought the place was called Perez Hilton. No?
(1) – I really think the church needs to change the CES manuals.
Is this really about people who complain that Brandon Davies was suspended from BYU right before the NCAA Tournament?
do we believe this story literally happened?
Daniel, read the commentary in the link you provided.
B. Russ,
Are you trying to steady the ark?
Uzzah got it and the oxen didn’t. That’s cause oxen are dumb.
One can apply this lesson anywhere, from the foundational history of the church to answer the simple, timeless question “why me?” Or explain why the bloggernacle still exists.
What? No. Thats ridiculous.
Martin, get lost.
Strangely, these are also symptoms of abusing the street drug “Charlie Sheen”
Martin is a tireless bloggernark steady-er.
Expelled for silliness. Not my usual egress.
Steve, you have the sinking principle. Or maybe Uzzah did.
WVS,
Sinking refers to water, and Noah’s ark needed no steadying, so you’re mixing metaphors or something.
Now I know who the top men are who were studying the Ark at the end of Raiders. Or is there a proscription on studying the ark?
Big fan of FPR’s take on it. Uzzah Killed for Blind Obedience
So if David was guilty of not following scriptural directions in transporting the ark, and Uzzah is guilty of blindly obeying his leaders in spite of his apparent knowledge of those same scriptures, who does it seem to indicate was guilty of the greater sin, David or Uzzah?
Ben, (19), thanks for that. I was just going to go look for that post, but you saved me the trouble.
Everybody, go read the post from Ben’s link in comment # 19.
Steve,
Thanks Mr. Condescension. I did. It seems to me that David was indeed angry with the Lord. He was also probably angry at himself, for as indicated in the commentaries and in the FPR piece, he later transported the Ark correctly.
Thanks Mr. Reading Comprehension. Maybe next time you’ll see there is clear commentary in the link you provided that says otherwise. As usual you ask questions when you presume to know the answers already. Go away.
great FPR article
Steve,
Maybe you missed that part in your reading from the commentary.
I am a well-known metaphor mixer. A useful technique among the unwashed.
Damn straight. Don’t mess with the oxen. Every time somebody messes with oxen, they end up dead.
Maybe you missed this part of the commentary, bunghole:
Now go away.
The CES manuals were considered bad and out of date when I was young. That they are largely the same manuals is amazing to me.
Phssst. Why would the church ever need to update the manuals when you can find great truths like, ““We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question”.
in 2011.
Steve,
I didn’t miss that part. One person noted his interpretation. Another added his. I didn’t start my comments here with disdain for your post, Steve. I would ask that you treat me equally.
Daniel, not sure why I should treat you equally. I thought my disdain for all of your comments, past, present and future, was clear.
This thread makes me unsure what exactly the “firestorm” in the title is referring to.
One thing the church considered doing to save money is to put temples into the back of semi trailers and then take the temple to the people. These verses have served to make the brethren reconsider. Any people getting struck down would cause liability issues for the church and thus the traveling sanctuary idea couldn’t get past the legal department.
This story is significanly less awesome than Onan. http://lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/38?lang=eng
I’m afraid of incurring Steve’s wrath by making a joke (since he appears to be holding court today), so I’ll temper my forthcoming joke by stating truthfully that BCC is the BEST spot in the Bloggernacle, and thanks Steve for making it happen!
Now the joke about Uzzah: I hate when this happens!
But I did re-read those verses in both KJT and NRSV, and studied some notes on them from the Oxford Study Bible. One explanation is that Uzzah bought the farm not because God reached out to smite him in his wrath, but because he touched the very powerful Ark without being ritually prepared to do so. In other words, it was a natural consequence, an unfortunate one at that, of a well-meaning but impulsive act. We do these things all the time, and sometimes they blow up on us (albeit not to this level).
Ken, knowest thou not the condescension of Steve? No worries.
Though I disagree with your analysis on Uzzah — it wasn’t just a question of preparation. Only the Levites were allowed to carry the Ark, and even then they were not to touch it on pain of death. Uzzah was doubly wrong to steady it. But I loves me some Oxford Study Bible.
Didn’t you guys see Mythbusters? If you touch to steady the Ark you get struck as a natural occurrence. It’s a big giant capacitor with spooky ghosts who eat Nazis.
15 – Speakin’ of : http://dreammasheen.com/quote/id/109 He knew about the Ark, too?
I was under the impression Uzzah was struck down for constantly bellowing “Uzzah in the hizzle!” or “Huzzah to Uzzah, my Hebrews!” every time he walked into a room.
Now that I think of it, that may be in the Apocrypha, rather than in the KJV.
I have been spared the wrath of Steve and one-upped, all in the same post. I am truly humbled. Yes, upon further reflection my Uzzah analysis has swiss cheese holes in it. I knoweth not exactly why he got zapped, save it be written in the Good Book. But I am still pondering who got the worse zapping: Uzzah or Onan?
BTW Steve, I recommend a cool indie movie from a few years ago, called “The Tao of Steve.” Look it up. The guy who plays Steve hails from my fair city of Eugene, Oregon.
Steve,
Because I asked nicely. :)
Ken–you’re in Eugene? Have you known many of the LDS graduate students at Oregon over the past 10 years? My brother spent 5 years or so there.
Duh! Uzzah! At least he was, uh, finished!
Sorry, meant to say that Onan was, uh, finished!
This very scripture came up last Sunday when I tried to explain to a YM counselor that unless they actually go to the trouble of calling parents to be members of the troop committee, that they shouldn’t expect the parents to show up to meetings. He was of the opinion that people needed to just know and show up. I countered with the “if we steady the ark without authority, we get struck down…” argument.
The CES manual. God will strike whomever and whenever, for a reason and not for a reason. Obviously this was done with forethought four thousand years ago so that it could be written about in the CES manual.
How would we know, without this important lesson, that it is OK to burst upon the idiots with different ideas?
(Hay, wait a minute. What about the Mormon Chauvinists who constantly steady the arc? Is is just different ideas that are bad? What kind of steadying should we burst on?)
Oooohhhh. The oxen were not burst on. Thank you Martin #12. Thinking is a trap.
I suspect writing commentary manuals about scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, is a) a massive task and b) a thankless task. Maybe that’s why the same manuals have been around awhile? Just guessing.
Before this awesome thread runs its course, one more thing. I still don’t quite understand the nuances of the Uzzah story, but I think it was in one of the Nag Hamadi document translations where there is a variation that gives some insight. Apparently, Uzzah would continually make an annoyance of himself by walking around using a heavy fake Italian accent and saying boisterously, “Uzzah yo daddy?” He may have worn out his welcome.
I think that the ark was nuclear and without the right uniform, touching it would nuke you.
Nuke-u-ler Lisa, its pronounced nuke-u-ler.
I wish this were facebook and I could like your comment, B.Russ. Nuke-u-ler!
I remember reading somewhere that the the ark, being made of layers of wood and metal foil, would act as an electrical capacitor capable of holding an electrical charge strong enough to electrocute a man, and that touching it directly posed a great danger of receiving such a lethal jolt. The proper way of carrying it was to use wooden (thus insulated) poles slipped through attached rings, and if you were not an authorized priest or levite assigned to carry the ark you would not have received the proper instruction on safely carrying it with the poles, and thus in danger of touching it at the wrong spot and receiveing the lethal jolt.
I see #40 beat me to it!