Where are the 12 Tribes?


Poseidon
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 11/10/2022 at 9:39 AM, Poseidon said:

Where does it say whether the words of the lost tribes will be had before, during, or after the gathering? 

OK, here is my long treatise on the topic.  This is my personal opinion based on a lot of study and a bunch of pondering "what the heck does this all mean? 

I doubt many people will actually read this all the way through. It is a bit of a convoluted mess.  I don't know if I can really explain the proper segues between each part.  But it all comes together in my head somehow.  Just forgive me if it doesn't make sense to you.

I'm afraid it doesn't fully answer your question.  But it should give you a good background to get most of the way there.  And @mirkwood gave some really good quotes that fill in the blanks that I did not.

PART 1. The part that you're probably familiar with.

We read in Ezekiel 37 that the "Stick of Judah" and the the stick of Joseph/Ephraim  will become on stick in the hand of the prophet.

Quote

...take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions.

And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

...I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim... and will put them... with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

  -- Eze 37:16-17 & 19

The entire Christian world believes that these sticks are representative of the two kingdoms being reunited in the modern day.  They (we) are not wrong. (see Eze 37:11-14 & Eze 36).

We take this to refer to a prophecy about the Bible and Book of Mormon.  We're not wrong. (2 Ne 29)

The underlined part is a dual reference.  The nation of Israel was divided into the Northern and Southern Kingdoms (Ephraim and Judah respectively) prior to the diaspora.  But they were not solely Judah and Ephraim.  There were other tribes in both kingdoms which were counted with these two kingdoms.

This is a type and shadow of today where we see Judah largely gathered in Israel with a few members of all of Israel numbered among them, and the Church of Jesus Christ which largely gathers Ephraim along with a few members of all of Israel among us.

The bold emphasis is to indicate that the tribes will be gathered together under ONE prophet.  We know the sticks are books.  But if you think they are only the Bible and the BoM, you're missing a lot.

 

PART 2: The rest of the chapter is what we tend to ignore.  But it is very important.

Quote

And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

Eze 37:2022

The sticks shall be one before THEIR eyes gathered from every side.  No more strangers and foreigners.  But they will have their own land.

They are currently scattered with no place that they can call their own.  They are not "gathered."  They don't have synagogues or churches that they can gather and say that they worship in a unity of faith.  So far only Judah and Ephraim do that.

2Ne says that we will eventually have the words of the Lost Tribes.  And they shall have our words.

PART 3: There is more to the sticks.

Num 17:1-7 (too long to quote.  Just open your scriptures).

First, I need to indicate that there is a difference between a rod and a stick.

  • ROD: (מַטֶּה) matte' means rod, branch, or tribe. The same Hebrew word is used for all three of these words in English.  Thus we see a hidden meaning in writing the names of tribesmen on a rod.  And to have those rods budding was just blatant symbolism.
  • STICK: (עֵץ) ates (pronounced "8s") means "piece of wood", which is often translated as "stick".  But since it is the Hebrew word for "wood" (singular) it could just as correctly be translated as "board" or "plank".  And such boards were used for writing in Babylonian and Persian times.

While these are related, there is a difference which is often overlooked in the cultural Christian (and Jewish) theology.  There is no doubt that there is a connection between the two regarding the writing names on a piece of wood - be it a branch or a board.  But the fact that they do use a different word indicates that there is more to it.

We have one major advantage.  We know what the temple is about.  They do not.  So, when Moses took these names of tribesmen into the temple, that says something to us that it does not say to anyone else.  We're talking about a genealogical record.  But it isn't strictly what we think of as "temple records" per se.

When Nephi perused the Brass Plates, he saw that they contained a genealogy of their families.  These were scriptures with genealogy.  

(It was a practice just a few generations ago in America to keep genealogy records written in the Family Bible.  I believe my grandparents did so.  But my parents did not.  They knew about it and told me about it.  But I never saw the practice.)

PART 4: What is a book?

I hope you understand how the meanings of what these scriptures describe are multi-layered.  There is a concept of a "societal book."  Often times, it is a real book.  In the US, only a few generations ago, it was the Bible and the Declaration.  Today, we don't have one, and we're falling apart. Britain had the works of Shakespeare.  They no longer do.  And they're falling apart.

  • Judaism has the Torah (and the rest of the Old Testament).
  • Islam has the Q'uran.
  • Christianty has the Bible.
  • We have our Standard Works.

Religion will endure when nations and societies crumble.

How important is a book?  Ezekiel tells us that the bringing of the two books together is what will unite Israel.  Can books really do that?  Of course.

I've heard several Jewish converts say that the Book of Mormon converted them because they read passages in the Book of Mormon that were "so Jewish" that a 19th century farm-boy could not have known about "such and such." But there it was.  Plain as day.  (See this for a few examples).  It wasn't just language. There were also cultural markers that Christians simply don't know about.

Yes, books can convert.  They can bring people together in both secular and spiritual ways.  The Books of Ezra & Nehemiah show us how the records of Israel brought back a religion from obscurity and darkness -- for the house of Judah.

The Bible kept a candle of Christianity alive.  But it was darkened.

The Book of Mormon brought the true and everlasting gospel out of obscurity and out of darkness -- for Ephraim.

The Books of the the lost tribes will bring the gospel to the lost tribes.

PART 5: What about the temple?

We take genealogical records to the temple.  We also go there for learning and for worship.  I've had the most wonderful insights when I take a few minutes in the Celestial room to study the scriptures.  But we also go there to make covenants.  We make an offering of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Offering:

Quote

Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

 -- D&C 13

There is a lot of debate about this referring to the offering of blood sacrifice again.  I'm not going to get into that because I really don't know the answer at this point.

But I will point this out: Joseph Smith wrote about the record keeping of temple ordinances in D&C 128:24

Quote

... and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.

This certainly seems to allude to blood sacrifice.  But then he goes on to say...

Quote

Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation.

All this coming together of books, tribes, etc. is about all of us coming together to complete temple work.  This is about...

  • Redeeming the Dead
  • Perfecting the Saints
  • Preaching the Gospel
  • Gathering of Israel

When we understand that the "rods" were records for each tribe of both genealogy as well as their spiritual record, we will understand that the gathering is what allows us to share our records with each other.  And we will be under one prophet.  And we will be servants to ONE God.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

I've done some looking and have narrowed it down to just 5 continents,

Are you sure about that?

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

som of which are getting smaller every day, thanks to rising sea levels

Who says they're not in Atlantis, huh?  HUH???  Didn't think about THAT!  Did ya, hot shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2022 at 9:43 AM, Carborendum said:

Are you sure about that?

Who says they're not in Atlantis, huh?  HUH???  Didn't think about THAT!  Did ya, hot shot?

:D !!! I was just reading in Amos 9:

3 And though they ahide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2022 at 12:13 AM, Carborendum said:

Are you sure about that?

Who says they're not in Atlantis, huh?  HUH???  Didn't think about THAT!  Did ya, hot shot?

When I went and had a look, there was a sign at the entrance saying "If you're looking for the 12 tribes we're no longer here." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2022 at 10:21 AM, Carborendum said:

Most Saints should be from Ephraim.  I don't know if anyone has taken a census.  But I'd bet that of all those receiving a patriarchal blessing worldwide, over 90% would be from Ephraim.

@Poseidon

I found this aspect of "majority" mentioned in "Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual"

Page 66 - "It is essential in this dispensation that Ephraim stand in his place at the head, 
exercising the birthright in Israel which was given to him by direct revelation. Therefore, 
Ephraim must be gathered first to prepare the way, through the gospel and the priesthood, 
for the rest of the tribes of Israel when the time comes for them to be gathered to Zion. 
The great majority of those who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception 
to find one of any other tribe, unless it is of Manasseh
".

"It is Ephraim, today, who holds the priesthood. It is with Ephraim that the Lord has made 
covenant and has revealed the fulness of the everlasting gospel. It is Ephraim who is building 
temples and performing the ordinances in them for both the living and for the dead".

What does "exercising the birthright" mean?

Why are no other tribes mentioned as members of the LDS Church who are building temples or
with whom the Lord has made covenant?

Searching online, I see that D&C 68:15-21 ; 86:8; 107:16,40,69-70,76 ; and 113:8 puts emphasis 
on the right of priesthood for a true literal descendant. 

Does that mean most or all Latter-day Saints who hold the Aaronic priesthood are true literal 
descendants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, romans8 said:

@Poseidon

I found this aspect of "majority" mentioned in "Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual"

Page 66 - "It is essential in this dispensation that Ephraim stand in his place at the head, 
exercising the birthright in Israel which was given to him by direct revelation. Therefore, 
Ephraim must be gathered first to prepare the way, through the gospel and the priesthood, 
for the rest of the tribes of Israel when the time comes for them to be gathered to Zion. 
The great majority of those who have come into the Church are Ephraimites. It is the exception 
to find one of any other tribe, unless it is of Manasseh
".

"It is Ephraim, today, who holds the priesthood. It is with Ephraim that the Lord has made 
covenant and has revealed the fulness of the everlasting gospel. It is Ephraim who is building 
temples and performing the ordinances in them for both the living and for the dead".

What does "exercising the birthright" mean?

Why are no other tribes mentioned as members of the LDS Church who are building temples or
with whom the Lord has made covenant?

Searching online, I see that D&C 68:15-21 ; 86:8; 107:16,40,69-70,76 ; and 113:8 puts emphasis 
on the right of priesthood for a true literal descendant. 

Does that mean most or all Latter-day Saints who hold the Aaronic priesthood are true literal 
descendants?

In general terms, “exercising the birthright” meant the same thing it meant in ancient times:  one was shouldered with the primary responsibility to care for the temporal and spiritual welfare of the rest of the family; and one was granted the material resources necessary to do that work.

Non-Ephraimites who convert and join the Church join in the covenant blessings and responsibilities of Ephraim by virtue of the covenants they make through baptism, priesthood ordination, and temple rites.  That’s a huge part of the “gathering” process President Nelson is so fond of talking about.  We’re all fundamentally doing the same work; though (and this is something I recently learned, and with contours that I’m still exploring) we may have differing tribal legacies that lead us to go about that work in subtly different ways. 

Regarding right of priesthood as outlined in the various sections of the D&C:  no, a holder of the Aaronic priesthood is not necessarily a literal descendant or Aaron or a Levite.

Now, there is an ideal that priesthood should be passed from father to son; and some of the scriptures you cite reiterate that idea.  And a literal descendant of Aaron following the firstborn lineage could (subject to worthiness and the Lord’s will—see, eg, D&C 121:34-46) claim the right of head of the Aaronic Priesthood (ie, presiding bishop of the LDS Church), just as could be done anciently.  Arguably they could also claim the priesthood office [as distinct from the ecclesiastical office] of bishop as well.  But, the Aaronic Priesthood is always subject to the “higher” Melchizedek Priesthood (if you want to get super pedantic, all priesthood is technically Melchizedek; but the Aaronic Priesthood is a sort of subset of the Melchizedek Priesthood that concerns itself primarily with temporal matters and the lesser spiritual rituals).  Someone holding the office of a high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood acting under direction of the proper “keyholders” has all the priesthood prerogative and authority that someone holding the office of a bishop in the Aaronic priesthood has; that’s the point that 68:19 makes—one can be ordained to the priesthood and ecclesiastical offices of “bishop” without being a lineal descendant of Aaron (ie, a Levite) so long as one is also ordained as a high priest.  D&C 107:76 suggests that a Levite who finds himself serving in the ecclesiastical office of a bishop could do so without the assistance of counselors, although—as someone once pointed out to me—it’s hard to imagine any bishop wanting to do that.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

bishop could do so without the assistance of counselors, although—as someone once pointed out to me—it’s hard to imagine any bishop wanting to do that.  

I’ve wondered about that before. What happens if the ward is just starting and there aren’t enough worthy priesthood holders for a bishop to call multiple counselors? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’ve wondered about that before. What happens if the ward is just starting and there aren’t enough worthy priesthood holders for a bishop to call multiple counselors? 

It probably wouldn’t have become a “ward” in the first place.  I believe there are certain benchmarks for the number of worthy priesthood holders in an area in order to get authorization to upgrade a “group” into a “branch”, or a “branch” into a “ward”, or to split a ward.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It probably wouldn’t have become a “ward” in the first place.  I believe there are certain benchmarks for the number of worthy priesthood holders in an area in order to get authorization to upgrade a “group” into a “branch”, or a “branch” into a “ward”, or to split a ward.

Oh okay. Thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I’ve wondered about that before. What happens if the ward is just starting and there aren’t enough worthy priesthood holders for a bishop to call multiple counselors? 

Things like that occasionally happen out here in the mission field. We've sometimes gone months with a bishop working with just one counsellor. The most extreme case I can recall is about 20 year ago when the ward I was in had a first counsellor who acted as bishop for almost 8 months. The new bishop who was eventually called did not even live within the ward. Members of that stake sometimes told themselve that they were part of a mi-stake because all sorts of shenanigans went on to cook the books and make it seem as if we had enough members to upgrade from being a District to a Stake.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the way local units are set up is greatly changed I doubt we would see a descendant of Aaron called as bishop who only holds the Aaronic Priesthood. There is to my knowledge no restriction on ordaining them to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but I could be wrong on that.

If that were the case, them only holding the Aaronic Priesthood, the office of Stake President would have to assume much greater responsibility in a stake. That, or the office of Elder's quorum president would have to take over most higher priesthood responsibilities in a ward. But that would seem to relegate the office of bishop to a much lesser role in a ward, which is hard to fathom compared to how things are now. But it is interesting to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2022 at 3:35 PM, laronius said:

Unless the way local units are set up is greatly changed I doubt we would see a descendant of Aaron called as bishop who only holds the Aaronic Priesthood. [...] If that were the case, them only holding the Aaronic Priesthood, the office of Stake President would have to assume much greater responsibility in a stake.

 This is not possible in the way the Church is organized today. A bishop is also the presiding high priest of his ward. In order to be a presiding high priest, one must be, well, a high priest. In any case, this appears to pertain to the office of the presiding bishop, as I believe JAG pointed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2022 at 11:04 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

D&C 107:76 suggests that a Levite who finds himself serving in the ecclesiastical office of a bishop could do so without the assistance of counselors, although—as someone once pointed out to me—it’s hard to imagine any bishop wanting to do that.  

I don't know anyone that actually wants to be a Bishop in the first place. If they do...then they have no idea what a Bishop really does and how much time they have to sacrifice. Hardest calling in the church if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/19/2022 at 1:04 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

In general terms, “exercising the birthright” meant the same thing it meant in ancient times:  one was shouldered with the primary responsibility to care for the temporal and spiritual welfare of the rest of the family; and one was granted the material resources necessary to do that work.

Non-Ephraimites who convert and join the Church join in the covenant blessings and responsibilities of Ephraim by virtue of the covenants they make through baptism, priesthood ordination, and temple rites.  That’s a huge part of the “gathering” process President Nelson is so fond of talking about.

What are the covenant blessings and responsibilities of those who exercise the right of the firstborn
in the other 11 tribes?

I understand your point about the temporal care of a family, but I only see that the Levites were tasked
with the spiritual welfare of the family or nation of Israel.  In all the blessings bestowed upon Joseph by
Jacob before he died or mentioned by Moses in Deuteronomy 33 (Levi - verses 8-11; Joseph - verses
13-17), the  right of the firstborn did not deal with priestly ordinances or the spiritual welfare of the
family.

Edited by romans8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, romans8 said:

What are the covenant blessings and responsibilities of those who exercise the right of the firstborn
in the other 11 tribes?

I understand your point about the temporal care of a family, but I only see that the Levites were tasked
with the spiritual welfare of the family or nation of Israel.  In all the blessings bestowed upon Joseph by
Jacob before he died or mentioned by Moses in Deuteronomy 33 (Levi - verses 8-11; Joseph - verses
13-17), the  right of the firstborn did not deal with priestly ordinances or the spiritual welfare of the
family.

I'll address your second point first: 

You are generally correct, post-Moses, when the "lesser law" was implemented (including the designation of the Levites as the priestly class of Israel).  But Moses's implementation of the Aaronic priesthood (and the rest of the Mosaic law) didn't represent the Lord's vision of the patriarchal ideal; it was simply the best that the Lord knew ancient Israel was capable of doing at that particular point in history.  But generally speaking, when we talk about modern priesthood functions, we are generally talking about the patriarchal order of priesthood.

This order, formally known as "the holy priesthood after the order of the Son of God" and to which we generally refer as the "Melchizedek" priesthood, preceded Moses and the levitical order of priesthood that he instituted.  It was the order under which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob offered sacrifice and otherwise functioned in a priestly role on behalf of their families (and under which they designated their successors via birthright), and is the order under which the modern Church is led today.  

As for your first question:  I don't know what else I can say other than what I said before:

Non-Ephraimites who convert and join the Church join in the covenant blessings and responsibilities of Ephraim by virtue of the covenants they make through baptism, priesthood ordination, and temple rites.  That’s a huge part of the “gathering” process President Nelson is so fond of talking about.  We’re all fundamentally doing the same work; though (and this is something I recently learned, and with contours that I’m still exploring) we may have differing tribal legacies that lead us to go about that work in subtly different ways. 

It is awkward, per LDS terminology, to speak of a non-Ephraimite Latter-day Saint exercising "right of the firstborn"*; because non-Ephraimites are not technically members of the birthright tribe.  But again, as I wrote (twice, now!) above, "[w]e’re all fundamentally doing the same work; though . . . we may have differing tribal legacies that lead us to go about that work in subtly different ways."

 

 

*Of coursee, if non-Ephraimite Latter-day Saints are true and faithful to their covenants, they (like all Church members) become members of what the scriptures call the "Church of the Firstborn", but in that usage "firstborn" refers back to Christ Himself and not to any particular Abrahamic lineage.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/3/2022 at 2:41 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

It is awkward, per LDS terminology, to speak of a non-Ephraimite Latter-day Saint exercising "right of the firstborn"*; because non-Ephraimites are not technically members of the birthright tribe.  But again, as I wrote (twice, now!) above, "[w]e’re all fundamentally doing the same work; though . . . we may have differing tribal legacies that lead us to go about that work in subtly different ways."

*Of coursee, if non-Ephraimite Latter-day Saints are true and faithful to their covenants, they (like all Church members) become members of what the scriptures call the "Church of the Firstborn", but in that usage "firstborn" refers back to Christ Himself and not to any particular Abrahamic lineage.

From my understanding of the Old Testament, the Levites are taken by God instead of the firstborn
(Numbers 3:12,41,45; 6:23-27; 8:16-19) to officiate for the spiritual welfare of the nation as a whole.

But Levi's first child and Levi's first grandchild would be holders of the birthright even though they may
have each had multiple children. Extending this to other tribes, even Judah's and Asher's first child 
and grandchild, and all the subsequent first born children in the lineage would hold the birthright. 
Technically there is no such thing as a "birthright tribe" since all the first born of any tribe in all
subsequent centuries would be birthright holders.
 
Thousands of years later, I too am the first born son of my parents, holding the birthright.  I have two 
other brothers.  But this birthright does not give me any right to a priesthood anymore than my two other
brothers would be denied being a priest because they are second and third born to my parents.

From what I read in the D&C 76, only gods are members of the "Church of the Firstborn".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, romans8 said:

From my understanding of the Old Testament, the Levites are taken by God instead of the firstborn
(Numbers 3:12,41,45; 6:23-27; 8:16-19) to officiate for the spiritual welfare of the nation as a whole.

But Levi's first child and Levi's first grandchild would be holders of the birthright even though they may
have each had multiple children. Extending this to other tribes, even Judah's and Asher's first child 
and grandchild, and all the subsequent first born children in the lineage would hold the birthright. 
Technically there is no such thing as a "birthright tribe" since all the first born of any tribe in all
subsequent centuries would be birthright holders.
 
Thousands of years later, I too am the first born son of my parents, holding the birthright.  I have two 
other brothers.  But this birthright does not give me any right to a priesthood anymore than my two other
brothers would be denied being a priest because they are second and third born to my parents.

From what I read in the D&C 76, only gods are members of the "Church of the Firstborn".

On your first paragraph:  The passages you cite in Numbers don’t really square with the pre-Mosaic/ Melchizedek patriarchal order; they have to be read in the context of the Lord’s having decreed in Exodus 13, in the wake of the first Passover, that every firstborn Israelite belonged to him.  That is the context for firstborn Israelites having to be redeemed at birth by a special sacrifice and the Lord accepting the service of the Levites as a whole in their place.

On your second and third paragraphs:  I assume here that you’re trying to clarify what you were getting at in the first question in your December 3 post - ie, what responsibilities would a firstborn child in a family of (say) Simeonites, have towards his younger siblings in this day and age.  I think the answer to that is primarily cultural.  But as far as Israel’s priesthood/covenant birthright went—the heirship went to Ephraim and his descendants; and from them it is shared with as many as are willing to be gathered with the children of Israel in the last days.

Re your fourth paragraph—you’ve got your causality backwards, thought I suppose that’s tangential to the larger issue here.  The larger issue is that in D&C 76 “Firstborn” is always capitalized; because in that context “Firstborn” denotes Jesus Christ and not some Abrahamic birthright holder.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2022 at 4:31 PM, mordorbund said:

Mine’s pretty great! I will “fulfill many prophecies spoken of concerning the last days”. Not to brag or anything, but being “of Magog” must come with some pretty nice perks.

Have you researched were Magog is?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2022 at 11:36 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

But as far as Israel’s priesthood/covenant birthright went—the heirship went to Ephraim and his descendants; and from them it is shared with as many as are willing to be gathered with the children of Israel in the last days.

By Israel, I see you mean the nation and not the individual.

Initially the birthright went to Reuben as the first born; which he subsequently lost and it went to 
both the sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim (1 Chronicles 5:1).  Jacob then gave a blessing
where Ephraim would be greater than Manasseh (Genesis 48:19). 

I read that Ephraim is regarded as the firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9) but I also see that he apparently
lost this status by his apostasy, which eventually led to the captivity of the northern kingdom by
the Assyrians (Isaiah 7:8; Hosea 4:17; 5:3-4; 6:10; 7:1-16; 8:11-13, 9:3, 9:11-17, 10:6, 12:1-2,14,
13:1-3,12-15, 14:8)

Psalm 78:67-68 gives a good picture of this.

"Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: But 
chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved
".

Eventually Judah and Ephraim will come to some semblance of peace.

"The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim
shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim
" (Isaiah 11:13)

That is how I interpret the scripture.

Regarding your earlier point - how do you believe Ephraim's role in the priesthood/covenant 
birthright was shown to be exercised in Bible and Book of Mormon times?

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Edited by romans8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, romans8 said:

By Israel, I see you mean the nation and not the individual.

Initially the birthright went to Reuben as the first born; which he subsequently lost and it went to 
both the sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim (1 Chronicles 5:1).  Jacob then gave a blessing
where Ephraim would be greater than Manasseh (Genesis 48:19). 

I read that Ephraim is regarded as the firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9) but I also see that he apparently
lost this status by his apostasy, which eventually led to the captivity of the northern kingdom by
the Assyrians (Isaiah 7:8; Hosea 4:17; 5:3-4; 6:10; 7:1-16; 8:11-13, 9:3, 9:11-17, 10:6, 12:1-2,14,
13:1-3,12-15, 14:8)

Psalm 78:67-68 gives a good picture of this.

"Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: But 
chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved
".

Eventually Judah and Ephraim will come to some semblance of peace.

"The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim
shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim
" (Isaiah 11:13)

That is how I interpret the scripture.

Regarding your earlier point - how do you believe Ephraim's role in the priesthood/covenant 
birthright was shown to be exercised in Bible and Book of Mormon times?

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

According to the blessings of Jacob’s sons – Joseph is blessed in Genesis 49: 22-26.  We believe that descendants of Joseph (Lehi and his family) would be separated from Israel (brought to the Americas) as a part of the prophesy (with more to follow).  Note in verse 26 a reference to the upmost bound of the everlasting hills.  There is perhaps multiple parallel thoughts concerning what is the upmost bound of the everlasting hills that pertains or extends into our day.  The rocky mountain chain is part of a continual tectonic chain with out end and stretches to the north into the artic ocean and into South American through Chili towards the Antarctic.

Another interesting thought to ponder comes from Joseph’s sons.  In every scripture account where two brothers contend for the birthright – it has always (without a single exception) been given to the “younger” of the two as the “firstborn”.  Anciently firstborn meant the most noble, which was often thought to be the oldest.  I have pondered a great deal about the symbolism – why when brothers contend that the birthright always went to the younger.

 

Have a cool yule all and even though this is not likely the season when Christ was born - Enjoy the celebration anyway.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, romans8 said:

I read that Ephraim is regarded as the firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9) but I also see that he apparently
lost this status by his apostasy, which eventually led to the captivity of the northern kingdom by
the Assyrians (Isaiah 7:8; Hosea 4:17; 5:3-4; 6:10; 7:1-16; 8:11-13, 9:3, 9:11-17, 10:6, 12:1-2,14,
13:1-3,12-15, 14:8)

You are confusing Ephraim the man, son of Joseph, with Ephraim the tribe, made up of his posterity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share