Where are the 12 Tribes?


Poseidon
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, laronius said:

Has anyone proposed that Santa hired the lost tribes to build his toys? Clearly the part about them being elves is only a myth though. 

Tolkienian elves are seven feet tall...and Joseph did talk about the Urim and Thummim's breastplate appearing to be made for a much larger man than himself...

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vort said:

Tolkienian elves are seven feet tall...and Joseph did talk about the Urim and Thummim's breastplate appearing to be made for a much larger man than himself...

Well there you have it. So many gospel questions answered. Just had to connect the dots.

The lost tribes are no longer lost... well sort of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2022 at 8:03 AM, romans8 said:

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

I kind of want to avoid the phrase "nation" here, because it can be kind of a loaded term. But, by "Israel" I generally mean the blessings that a group of people inherit from a single individual.  

Quote

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). 

Agreed.

Quote

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)

The verses you cite need to be read in context. Following Solomon's death, the northern tribes petitioned Solomon's son Rehoboam for tax relief.  Rehoboam denied their petition and promised further oppressions, so the northern ten tribes broke away from Rehoboam/Judaic rule and set up a rival royal house under the auspices of Jeroboam, an Ephraimite.  For the next few centuries, "Ephraim" became a shorthand way of saying "The northern kingdom of Israel", just as today the BBC may refer to "Washington" when it is talking about policies adopted by the United States of America. 

Isaiah and Hosea were residents of the southern kingdom, Judah, that remained loyal to the Davidic house; and their references to "Ephraim" are primarily political in nature.  Yes, there are references to the falls of Ephraim and Israel (and Judah, for that matter) being imminent because they have wandered into sin; but none of the references you cite come out and state that Ephraim's patriarchal birthright is forfeited--the parade of horribles pronounced upon Ephraim by Hosea are in line with those he foretells against Israel generally, and even his own nation of Judah (see, e.g., Hosea 5:5; 6:4, 12-14; 8:14; 12:2).  Hosea himself suggests that Ephraim will eventually be brought to repentance, forsake its idols, and return to doing Jehovah's work (Hosea 10:11, 11:8, 14:8).

And the passage you cite from Jeremiah 31 is particularly significant because Jeremiah is prophesying after Isaiah and Hosea.  Jeremiah has seen firsthand the destruction of (political) Ephraim/Israel as prophesied by those earlier prophets, and he reaffirms Ephraim's status as firstborn, the "dear son" and "pleasant child", in the context of a prophecy about the re-gathering of all of Israel (including Judah as well as the ten tribes).

Quote

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
".

Again, context.  This is Davidic propaganda justifying his own political rule.  He strategically omits the fact that the Lord chose the Benjaminite Saul before choosing David; and he leaves out (as you have mentioned earlier) that the Levites continued to officiate in the priestly offices.  Whatever David is talking about here, it's not "birthright" as the patriarchs understood it. 

Quote

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.

Agree, 100%.  Indeed, we LDS often like to take Ezekiel 37:16-20 as a prophesy of the Book of Mormon; but in all likelihood Ezekiel was specifically contemplating a future reconciliation between Judah and Ephraim (and the rest of the House of Israel).  

Quote

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?

I don't think the Bible talks about it all that much in practice.  The Old Testament hardly gives any information at all regarding Israelite ecclesiastical practices between the death of Joseph and the ministry of Moses; and as I've already mentioned upthread, the Melchizedek order of priesthood that included the patriarchal order under which the Abrahamic birthright passed was largely put in abeyance from the ministry of Moses until the Atonement of Christ.  The New Testament church, for its part, seems to have operated under a paradigm where the Gospel went first to Judah, then to the "half-breed" Israelites (ie, Samaria), and then to the gentiles at large (Acts 1:8); and any discussion about inherited blessings/responsibilities was subordinated to the good news that the salvation of Jehovah was now available to everyone, regardless of ancestry.

As for the Book of Mormon:  In theory, Jacob's/Israel's benediction to Joseph at Genesis 49:22-26 is considered the basis for the Josephite/Ephraimite birthright; and LDS authors have seen parallels in the way that the Lehites (as descendants of Joseph) overran the boundaries of the old world to settle upon the shores of the new (or whose "branches run over the wall", as Israel put it).  The Lehite Book of Mormon authors generally complied with Mosaic forms (2 Nephi 25:24) even though LDS authorities have maintained that they (at least mostly) did hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.  The Book of Mormon expressly says that Lehi himself was of Manassehite descent; and multiple early Latter-day Saints maintained that Joseph Smith had taught that the family of Ishmael (with whom the Lehites intermarried) were of Ephraimite lineage--this may have even been in the "lost 116 pages" of the Book of Mormon manuscript. 

At any rate, the Book of Mormon authors took their descendancy from Joseph very seriously (see, e.g., 1 Nephi 5:14-16;  2 Nephi 3-4; 2 Nephi 25:21-22; Alma 46:24-27; 3 Nephi 5:20-26; 3 Nephi 10:17; 3 Nephi 15:12); and seem to have generally associated it with a responsibility to bear witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ both in their preaching and in their writing.  

Quote

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Thanks; and to you and yours as well!

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/24/2022 at 10:40 PM, Vort said:

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

When I read those scriptures I quoted earlier, I don't see a reference to only
one individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2022 at 11:55 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Indeed, we LDS often like to take Ezekiel 37:16-20 as a prophesy of the Book of Mormon; but in all likelihood Ezekiel was specifically contemplating a future reconciliation between Judah and Ephraim (and the rest of the House of Israel).

I take the later position; as Ezekiel identifies the two sticks as two nations.
 

On 12/27/2022 at 11:55 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Hosea himself suggests that Ephraim will eventually be brought to repentance, forsake its idols, and return to doing Jehovah's work (Hosea 10:11, 11:8, 14:8).

What was Ephraim's work in the Book of Mormon, Old Testament, and New Testament in
regards to the priesthood?  

Christ came from a tribe of which nothing was said of the priesthood (Hebrews 7:14).
Personally, I do not believe any specific tribe had any special role in the New Testament;
whereas the tribe of Levi was the designated one in the Old Testament to serve the nation
in a spiritual role.
 

On 12/27/2022 at 11:55 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

The Book of Mormon expressly says that Lehi himself was of Manassehite descent; and multiple early Latter-day Saints maintained that Joseph Smith had taught that the family of Ishmael (with whom the Lehites intermarried) were of Ephraimite lineage--this may have even been in the "lost 116 pages" of the Book of Mormon manuscript. 

I think the LDS church cannot validate Ishmael's lineage from those missing 116 pages.
Speculation on any part of that manuscript begets even more speculation.
 

On 12/27/2022 at 11:55 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

At any rate, the Book of Mormon authors took their descendancy from Joseph very seriously (see, e.g., 1 Nephi 5:14-16;  2 Nephi 3-4; 2 Nephi 25:21-22; Alma 46:24-27; 3 Nephi 5:20-26; 3 Nephi 10:17; 3 Nephi 15:12); and seem to have generally associated it with a responsibility to bear witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ both in their preaching and in their writing. 

I do not find any role of Ephraim in the Book of Mormon and the Old and New Testaments
for preaching and writing.

Regarding Joseph Smith, how do you believe he inherited the birthright?

Edited by romans8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/27/2022 at 11:55 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

The Lehite Book of Mormon authors generally complied with Mosaic forms (2 Nephi 25:24) even though LDS authorities have maintained that they (at least mostly) did hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Do you have a reference(s) to what Book of Mormon characters held the Melchizedek Priesthood
as taught by some LDS authorities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, romans8 said:

I take the later position; as Ezekiel identifies the two sticks as two nations.

Yes, I figured you would.  ;) 

Quote

What was Ephraim's work in the Book of Mormon, Old Testament, and New Testament in
regards to the priesthood?  

You seem to be developing a penchant for re-asking questions that I've already answered:

I don't think the Bible talks about it all that much in practice.  The Old Testament hardly gives any information at all regarding Israelite ecclesiastical practices between the death of Joseph and the ministry of Moses; and as I've already mentioned upthread, the Melchizedek order of priesthood that included the patriarchal order under which the Abrahamic birthright passed was largely put in abeyance from the ministry of Moses until the Atonement of Christ.  The New Testament church, for its part, seems to have operated under a paradigm where the Gospel went first to Judah, then to the "half-breed" Israelites (ie, Samaria), and then to the gentiles at large (Acts 1:8); and any discussion about inherited blessings/responsibilities was subordinated to the good news that the salvation of Jehovah was now available to everyone, regardless of ancestry.

As for the Book of Mormon:  In theory, Jacob's/Israel's benediction to Joseph at Genesis 49:22-26 is considered the basis for the Josephite/Ephraimite birthright; and LDS authors have seen parallels in the way that the Lehites (as descendants of Joseph) overran the boundaries of the old world to settle upon the shores of the new (or whose "branches run over the wall", as Israel put it).  The Lehite Book of Mormon authors generally complied with Mosaic forms (2 Nephi 25:24) even though LDS authorities have maintained that they (at least mostly) did hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.  The Book of Mormon expressly says that Lehi himself was of Manassehite descent; and multiple early Latter-day Saints maintained that Joseph Smith had taught that the family of Ishmael (with whom the Lehites intermarried) were of Ephraimite lineage--this may have even been in the "lost 116 pages" of the Book of Mormon manuscript. 

At any rate, the Book of Mormon authors took their descendancy from Joseph very seriously (see, e.g., 1 Nephi 5:14-16;  2 Nephi 3-4; 2 Nephi 25:21-22; Alma 46:24-27; 3 Nephi 5:20-26; 3 Nephi 10:17; 3 Nephi 15:12); and seem to have generally associated it with a responsibility to bear witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ both in their preaching and in their writing.  

Quote

Christ came from a tribe of which nothing was said of the priesthood (Hebrews 7:14).

But then, as the author of Hebrews points out in the selfsame chapter, Christ didn't derive His priestly authority from the Mosaic/Aaronic line.  The author of Hebrews describes Christ as a priest after the order of Melchizedek.  

Quote

Personally, I do not believe any specific tribe had any special role in the New Testament;
whereas the tribe of Levi was the designated one in the Old Testament to serve the nation
in a spiritual role.

The above suggests that you either didn't read much of what I've written above, or you are deliberately clinging to an inappropriately facile reading of the Old Testament.  Levi's designation came in Mosaic times, four centuries after Jacob/Israel conveyed his patriarchal birthright to Ephraim; and the former did not completely or eternally nullify the latter.  

Quote

I think the LDS church cannot validate Ishmael's lineage from those missing 116 pages.
Speculation on any part of that manuscript begets even more speculation.

We actually know a surprising amount about what was on the lost 116 pages, because Joseph Smith made passing comments to a number of associates about their contents.  Don Bradley (who left Mormonism, but then came back) actually wrote a book about it.  

As pertaining to Ishmael's Ephraimite lineage--this is one of those things that several early Latter-day Saints heard Joseph Smith discuss.  Erastus Snow is one contemporary of Smith who is frequently cited for this proposition; and I'm sure the relevant quotation is available online if you'd care to Google it.  

Quote

I do not find any role of Ephraim in the Book of Mormon and the Old and New Testaments
for preaching and writing.

I haven't asserted any such role as pertaining to the Old/New Testaments generally.  As for the Book of Mormon:  That's because in the text of the Book of Mormon the authors primarily refer to themselves as Josephites, not Ephraimites. 

Quote

Regarding Joseph Smith, how do you believe he inherited the birthright?

I want to be careful here, because your phrase "he inherited the birthright" suggests that Joseph Smith has some sort of exclusive claim to inherited priesthood/divine authority.  He didn’t; Smith inherited the same birthright blessings as every other lineal descendant of Ephraim.  And it seems appropriate to close by quoting myself yet again to reiterate that:

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. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, romans8 said:

Do you have a reference(s) to what Book of Mormon characters held the Melchizedek Priesthood
as taught by some LDS authorities?

"Answer to the question, Was the Priesthood of Melchizedek taken away when Moses died? All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it. That portion which brought Moses to speak with God face to face was taken away; but that which brought the ministry of angels remained. All the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God himself.”

--Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 180-181, emphasis added.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, romans8 said:
On 12/24/2022 at 7:40 PM, Vort said:

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

When I read those scriptures I quoted earlier, I don't see a reference to only
one individual.

There is a thing called contextual reading that helps make such matters clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2023 at 2:06 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

As for the Book of Mormon:  That's because in the text of the Book of Mormon the authors primarily refer to themselves as Josephites, not Ephraimites. 

Since Lehi was from Manasseh, I would assume all the authors were Manassehites.
 

On 1/7/2023 at 2:06 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Smith inherited the same birthright blessings as every other lineal descendant of Ephraim. 

I understand what you said before about Ephraim inheriting the right of the firstborn in a
symbolic way for all of Israel. After Ephraim, I see that the nation of Israel is later called the
firstborn of God (Exodus 4:22 - "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel
is my son, even my firstborn
").  I assume this means initially the literal descendants of Israel
and later (maybe?) the "spiritual Israel" (made up of Christians post resurrection).

After Ephraim and the nation of Israel are referred to as the firstborn, the label falls on David.
Speaking of him (verses 20), Psalm 89:27 says, "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than 
the kings of the earth
."  Unless Jesus is the focus here.

I found a reference in the January 1991 Ensign magazine which said the following:

"Although President Young identified Joseph Smith as a “pure Ephraimite” in the above quotation,
so far as the Prophet’s family or blood lines were concerned, Brigham Young and others have
recognized that (1) Joseph Smith was from a Gentile nation and (2) some of Joseph Smith’s
progenitors may have come from bloodlines other than that of Ephraim. (See Journal of
Discourses, 2:268
.)

Based on what 2 Nephi 3:23-34 says, I interpret that as saying a Joseph (assumed to be Joseph
Smith) would come from the lineage of Lehi's youngest son Joseph. The blessing was that the
seed of Lehi's youngest son would not be destroyed.  It was hard to see how he could be "pure
Ephraimite" when he had "Manasseh" in the blood line.

You said "In theory, Jacob's/Israel's benediction to Joseph at Genesis 49:22-26 is considered 
the basis for the Josephite/Ephraimite birthright
".

I agree with that "in theory" part.

Even though Jacob gave a blessing to Ephraim above Manasseh, I do not see anything about the right 
of the first born being transferred to Ephraim. Regarding the birthright, I believe that the right 
of the first born fell on every first born male or female to a father and it had no connection with 
the priesthood. 

Even though God's covenant was with Isaac, the birthright (or right of the first born) still belonged 
to Ishmael (Deuteronomy 21:15-17).  

The Levites were later chosen instead of the firstborn and given the priesthood.

I do not see any association with a male or female being the first born (having the birthright) to 
holding the priesthood in a family (at the expense of brothers and sisters born to their parents
afterwards).  The birthright, the right of the first born of a father, does not pass onto all lineal 
descendants, only to the first.  In turn, each of the first born of his lineal descendants passes 
this birthright to their respective first born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2023 at 2:14 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

All the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God himself.”

--Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 180-181, emphasis added.

A church manual says

"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".

I assume this is a quote from the early 1830s.  With the small exception of those from Manasseh,
when did members of the other tribes get the privilege to be regarded as coming into the church,
building temples, and performing ordinances?

Did all of Ephraim's descendants throughout history (whether they are first born or not) hold the
birthright?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, romans8 said:

.....

Did all of Ephraim's descendants throughout history (whether they are first born or not) hold the
birthright?

This question shows that you do not understand the ancient Biblical (and other) meaning of "first born" or "birthright".  In all cases when two brothers contended for the birthright it was maintained by the younger of the two - not even once to the oldest.  Anciently first born was the most nobel or best - kind of like first class travel.  When Isaiah was talking with King Ahaz - Isaiah stressed that loyality to G-d was required of those that serves G-d - not just be be apointed but also to maintain one position before G-d.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 8:36 AM, romans8 said:

Since Lehi was from Manasseh, I would assume all the authors were Manassehites.
 

Not necessarily but I will defer to others who might know more. First of all, Lehi's sons married Ishmael's daughters who were of Ephraim, but I don't know if the father's tribe always dictated tribal lineage. Also there are instances now days where a person's tribal designation is different than both parents, presumably because somewhere back in time there where other tribes present in that person's ancestry. It's possible the same could be true with Lehi's family. Then of course there is the argument that tribal designation could be assigned based on one's responsibilities in life rather than inherited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2023 at 8:36 AM, romans8 said:

Since Lehi was from Manasseh, I would assume all the authors were Manassehites.

After the first generation (ie Nephi, Laman, Lemuel, Sam), they would have been both Ephraimite and Manassehite.  

Quote

I understand what you said before about Ephraim inheriting the right of the firstborn in a
symbolic way for all of Israel. After Ephraim, I see that the nation of Israel is later called the
firstborn of God (Exodus 4:22 - "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel
is my son, even my firstborn
").  I assume this means initially the literal descendants of Israel
and later (maybe?) the "spiritual Israel" (made up of Christians post resurrection).

In that sense, sure.  But remember, God/Moses is talking to Pharoah, who is magnificently ignorant of Yahwist covenants in general and Israel's benediction to his children in particular.  The fundamental point of Exodus 4:22 isn't a doctrinal exegesis on who was or was not the temporal or spiritual heir of Jacob/Israel; it was "Hey, Pharoah, these are My people and you'd better not mess with them".  

Quote

After Ephraim and the nation of Israel are referred to as the firstborn, the label falls on David.
Speaking of him (verses 20), Psalm 89:27 says, "Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than 
the kings of the earth
."  Unless Jesus is the focus here.

Again, you're trying to subject a Melchizedek priesthood construct of spiritual birthright, to the post-Mosaic Aaronic (lesser) priesthood construct of political power.  And again, there's a fair amount of pro-Davidic/Judahite propagandizing in the Psalms and other post-exilic Old Testament books.  

Quote

I found a reference in the January 1991 Ensign magazine which said the following:

"Although President Young identified Joseph Smith as a “pure Ephraimite” in the above quotation, so far as the Prophet’s family or blood lines were concerned, Brigham Young and others have recognized that (1) Joseph Smith was from a Gentile nation and (2) some of Joseph Smith’s progenitors may have come from bloodlines other than that of Ephraim. (See Journal of Discourses, 2:268.)

Based on what 2 Nephi 3:23-34 says, I interpret that as saying a Joseph (assumed to be Joseph Smith) would come from the lineage of Lehi's youngest son Joseph. The blessing was that the seed of Lehi's youngest son would not be destroyed.  It was hard to see how he could be "pure Ephraimite" when he had "Manasseh" in the blood line.

As the quotation you just cited affirms, Brigham Young himself acknowledged that Joseph Smith probably had some non-Ephraimite ancestry mixed into his Ephraimite lineage.  So the "pure blood of Ephraim" thing is really a nonstarter; likely a result of Young's penchant for rhetorical hyperbole.  

I would, however, push back a bit about your suggestion that 2 Nephi 3:23-24 requires Joseph Smith to be a descendant of Joseph-bin-Lehi.  It simply states that the "choice seer" (who, yes, we presume to be Smith) will be among the seed of Joseph-bin-Lehi.  The word "among" is ambiguous--linguistically, Smith can be "among" the descendants of Joseph-bin-Lehi because he, too, is a descendant of that same ancestor; or he can be "among" them in the sense of his (or his teachings') being in relatively near physical proximity to those descendants and playing a role in their ultimate salvation.  Latter-day Saint authorities from 1830 on have universally used the latter interpretation, never the former.  

And even if there were a scriptural requirement that Joseph Smith be among the descendants of Joseph-bin-Lehi--such an ancestry doesn't' preclude Ephraimite linage because from the third generation onwards, Lehi's descendants were both Manassehite and Ephraimite.  

Quote

You said "In theory, Jacob's/Israel's benediction to Joseph at Genesis 49:22-26 is considered the basis for the Josephite/Ephraimite birthright".

I agree with that "in theory" part.

Even though Jacob gave a blessing to Ephraim above Manasseh, I do not see anything about the right  of the first born being transferred to Ephraim. 

Did you read Chapter 48?  If Jacob isn't conveying a birthright, then why does Joseph care which of Jacob's hands is on which of Joseph's sons?  

Quote

Regarding the birthright, I believe that the right of the first born fell on every first born male or female to a father and it had no connection with  the priesthood. 

Yes, you've made your position quite clear.

Quote

Even though God's covenant was with Isaac, the birthright (or right of the first born) still belonged to Ishmael (Deuteronomy 21:15-17).  

I think the Bible disagrees with you.  Genesis 25:6 says Abraham gave all he had to Isaac, save for gifts he gave to the sons of Abraham's concubines before sending them away. 

And as I suspect you know, Deuteronomy 21 says nothing about Ishmael himself and was in fact decreed five hundred years after Abraham's and Ishmaels' lifetimes.  The Mosaic law didn't govern the way Abraham had to treat his sons.  

Quote

The Levites were later chosen instead of the firstborn and given the priesthood.

The lesser order of priesthood, yes.  None of that abrogates the prophecies and blessings that Jacob/Israel pronounced upon Ephraim's descendants by virtue of Jacob's higher, or Melchizedek, order of priesthood.  

And all throughout the Mosaic period, God designates non-Levite prophets with (as I have previously established, per LDS teaching) the Melchizedek order of priesthood to correct errors being committed or perpetuated by Israel and its lesser Levite priests.  Notable among these are Isaiah and Daniel.  

Quote

I do not see any association with a male or female being the first born (having the birthright) to holding the priesthood in a family (at the expense of brothers and sisters born to their parents afterwards).  

No, you wouldn't see that after Moses, because they were operating under a whole different order of priesthood than the patriarchs were.  

On 1/14/2023 at 8:56 AM, romans8 said:

A church manual says

"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".

I assume this is a quote from the early 1830s. . . . 

This quote is from Joseph Fielding Smith; he was the great-nephew of the Joseph Smith who restored the Church of Jesus Christ.  Joseph Fielding Smith died in the early 1970s (1972, I think), when LDS church membership was barely 1/5 of what it is now and ethnically, was primarily of European ancestry.

Quote

With the small exception of those from Manasseh, when did members of the other tribes get the privilege to be regarded as coming into the church, building temples, and performing ordinances?

Whenever they wanted it*.  See my statement from November 19 which I reiterated in part on December 3

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.

*Unless we are talking about people judged to have been descended from Cain, in which the answer to your question would be June 8, 1978.  

Quote

Did all of Ephraim's descendants throughout history (whether they are first born or not) hold the birthright?

As I've repeatedly said, "birthright" under the patriarchal/Melchizedek order of priesthood functions differently than the Mosaic order of priesthood.  And between the death of the Apostles in the first century and 1829, there was no form of priesthood on the earth at all. 

So:  Unless an individual Ephraimite between Moses and A.D. 1829 was specifically ordained to a prophetic role, then I would surmise that the scope of the "birthright" enjoyed by Ephraimites during that period was the knowledge that when the fulness of the Gospel was restored and Israel re-gathered in the last days, their descendants would play a leading role in that activity.  

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2023 at 6:10 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

So:  Unless an individual Ephraimite between Moses and A.D. 1829 was specifically ordained to a prophetic role, then I would surmise that the scope of the "birthright" enjoyed by Ephraimites during that period was the knowledge that when the fulness of the Gospel was restored and Israel re-gathered in the last days, their descendants would play a leading role in that activity. 

From what I searched for and found below, let me know of my bullet points sound right.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/firstborn?lang=eng

The faithful saints were made members of the Church of the Firstborn in eternity, 
since they receive through Jesus Christ the inheritance of the firstborn (D&C 93:21–22). 
Joseph, though not the firstborn of Jacob, received the inheritance as though he were 
the firstborn (1 Chr. 5:1–2), as also did Ephraim (Gen. 48; Jer. 31:9).


https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/birthright?lang=eng

Under the patriarchal order, the right or inheritance of the firstborn is known as 
birthright.

- All worthy male Latter-day Saints, regardless of tribal lineage, inherit the 
birthright (or right of the firstborn) enabling them to be Melchizedek Priesthood 
holders.  The order of birth (whether first, second, or third) is irrelevant.

- All worthy male Latter-day Saints, regardless of tribal lineage, have the
patriarchal order.

Numbers 26:35 lists 3 sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, Becher, and Tahan.

Which of them inherited the right of the firstborn?  What priesthood did each have?

Do you believe Jeremiah chapter 31 and the verses I quoted before in 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) is about the
single tribe of Ephraim or the ten northern tribes as a whole?

From my reading of Doctrine and Covenants 68 and 107, it seems the Aaronic priesthood
is more firmly dependent on being a literal lineal descendant whereas the Melchizedek 
priesthood is not tied to any specific tribal lineage.

Is that a fair statement?

Edited by romans8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, romans8 said:

From what I searched for and found below, let me know of my bullet points sound right.

. . . . 

- All worthy male Latter-day Saints, regardless of tribal lineage, inherit the 
birthright (or right of the firstborn) enabling them to be Melchizedek Priesthood 
holders.  The order of birth (whether first, second, or third) is irrelevant.

Hmm.  I think you're mostly right here, but in the church we don't usually talk about ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood as something that one "inherits" by "birthright".  I suppose one could call such an ordination an "inheritance" that Christ offers to us through His grace; and in that sense, yes--it comes directly from Christ Himself, and one's lineal ancestry and one's sequence of birth within one's own family are generally irrelevant to whether one is eligible to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.  

Quote

- All worthy male Latter-day Saints, regardless of tribal lineage, have the
patriarchal order.

Conceptually:  yes, one can be a member of the patriarchal order regardless of which tribe of Israel one is descended from.  But I have perhaps been a bit careless upthread in the way I define "patriarchal order", and I should probably clarify that the patriarchal order can also involve people who have not been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  Specifically:

--When a man and woman are sealed in the temple, only the husband has previously been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  But they are both participants in the patriarchal order even though the wife has no priesthood ordination at all. 

--Any children born to parents who have been sealed in the temple are also considered participants in the patriarchal order, in that they can be heirs to the covenants made by their parents.  

But this is, perhaps, overly pedantic for the purposes of our discussion.  Again, fundamentally:  you are right, the patriarchal order/holding the Melchizedek priesthood is not tied to one's Israelite lineage.  

Quote

Numbers 26:35 lists 3 sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, Becher, and Tahan.

Which of them inherited the right of the firstborn?  What priesthood did each have?

I don't believe we know the answer to that.  I think I mentioned upthread that for the roughly 400 years between the death of Joseph and the ministry of Moses, the scriptures don't give us a lot of information about how the priesthood functioned. 

Joshua 24:15 suggests that the Israelites, while in Egypt, fell into the worship of the Egyptian gods.  One might speculate that when the Hebrews fell out of favor among the Egyptian pharaohs, Joseph's progeny would have been sorely tempted to downplay their descendance from him and instead emphasize their descent from his wife Asenath, the daughter of an Egyptian priest.  And we are told, in the Church, that Moses received his priesthood ordination under the hand of his father-in-law Jethro (D&C 84:6), who was of Abrahamic descent but not an Israelite and not entitled to any Abrahamic birthright (D&C 84 specifically says that Jethro's priesthood came from an alternate line).  This might suggest that at some point in Egypt, the Israelites fell into such a profound state of apostasy that the priesthood wasn't functioning among them at all--until Moses brought (a portion of) it back.   

Quote

Do you believe Jeremiah chapter 31 and the verses I quoted before in 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) is about the
single tribe of Ephraim or the ten northern tribes as a whole?

With the caveat that this is what I think, and not formal LDS teaching, I would surmise:    

  • Jeremiah 31:  I think it's both.  There are references to Ephraim being the firstborn, but I think the main thrust of the passage is about the reunification/gathering of Israel as the rebellious return to their God and old animosities are healed.
  • Hosea 4:17:  Given its connection with backsliding Israel in the prior verse, and the distinction between Judah and Israel in verse 15, I suspect that "Ephraim" here is primarily a metonym for the leadership of the kingdom of Israel.  
  • Hosea 5:3-4:  Ditto; and notice how Israel and Ephraim are lumped together but distinguished from (the kingdom of) Judah in verse 5.
  • Hosea 6:10:  Ditto; and again, notice how the whoredom of Ephraim and defiling of Israel are lumped together in one breath, and then Judah is spoken of distinctly in the next verse.  
  • Hosea 7:  I'm inclined to read this as a broader indictment of the tribe of Ephraim, though its role in polluting the larger kingdom of Israel and preventing that kingdom's repentance (v 1) gives this some political connotations as well.
  • Hosea 8:11-13:  I suspect here, Ephraim is again a metonym for the northern kingdom (see v 14, and also consider that vv 12-13 are likely an allusion to the high place at Dan that was constructed by the Ephraimite king of Israel, Jeroboam).
  • Hosea 9:3, 11-17:  Ditto; and note the conjunction between Ephraim in v 11 and Israel in the preceding verse 10.  
  • Hosea 10:6:  Ditto; again, note the conjunction between Ephraim and Israel and Samaria.  
  • Hosea 12: Ditto.  Note v 1, where Ephraim is accused of entering political intrigues with Assyria--that was done by the Ephraimite kings on behalf of the entire northern kingdom.  It wasn't just the tribe of Ephraim.
  • Hosea 13:1:  The KJV is a little opaque here, but other translations clarify that "when Ephraim spoke, there was terror".  In other words, it's talking about Ephraim wielding secular/political power; so I read this as referring to Ephraim as a metonym for the northern kingdom. Later on in the chapter, the curses on Ephraim are broadened to include "Samaria" (ie, northern Israel).  
  • Hosea 14:8:  Nothing in the surrounding verses directly ties Ephraim to the broader northern kingdom; this may be tribe-specific.  
Quote

From my reading of Doctrine and Covenants 68 and 107, it seems the Aaronic priesthood
is more firmly dependent on being a literal lineal descendant whereas the Melchizedek 
priesthood is not tied to any specific tribal lineage.

Is that a fair statement?

Yes, I think that's fair. 

But again, in modern times, no particular lineage is a prerequisite to ordination in the Aaronic priesthood--lineage only comes into play when we are talking about serving in the office of "bishop", and even then, it's contingent on worthiness and subject to the authority of other church officials who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my scripture reading this morning:

3rd Nephi 21: 26 And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even awhen this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of bthis people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people, yea, even the tribes which have been clost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem.

 

Wherever the lost tribes are, the work of the Father has commenced among them. With the latter-day work today being led and carried out by God’s living prophets and apostles, It would be unusual if they were not closely involved in this work with the lost tribes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2023 at 8:46 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

But again, in modern times, no particular lineage is a prerequisite to ordination in the Aaronic priesthood--lineage only comes into play when we are talking about serving in the office of "bishop", and even then, it's contingent on worthiness and subject to the authority of other church officials who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.  

What priesthood do you believe 1 Peter 2:5,9 is a reference to and are women included
or excluded from it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2023 at 8:46 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Jeremiah 31:  I think it's both.  There are references to Ephraim being the firstborn, but I think the main thrust of the passage is about the reunification/gathering of Israel as the rebellious return to their God and old animosities are healed.

When I combine both chapters 30 and 31, I see it as a restoration of the northern
kingdom and the southern kingdom, where they are generally referred to as Ephraim
and Judah.   The particular blessing of the future reconciliation of Ephraim (as the
northern kingdom) is talked about in verses 18-20. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

 -- 1 Peter 2:6

Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

 -- Isa 28:16

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 -- Matt 16:18

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

 -- Eph 2:20

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, romans8 said:

What priesthood do you believe 1 Peter 2:5,9 is a reference to and are women included
or excluded from it?

I (not necessarily the LDS Church, but *I*) think that Paul is riffing off of various phrases from Hebrew scripture, including Exodus 19:6. I doubt that he means “priesthood” in the sense of having been ordained to a formal order of God’s priesthood (ie Aaronic or Melchizedek); but rather primarily as a literary metaphor for a group of people who are called out for a sacred purpose from among a broader, “profane” population.  In that sense I think he means the entire church, male and female.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I (not necessarily the LDS Church, but *I*) think that Paul is riffing off of various phrases from Hebrew scripture, including Exodus 19:6. I doubt that he means “priesthood” in the sense of having been ordained to a formal order of God’s priesthood (ie Aaronic or Melchizedek); but rather primarily as a literary metaphor for a group of people who are called out for a sacred purpose from among a broader, “profane” population.  In that sense I think he means the entire church, male and female.

When we speak of "the brotherhood of man", that implicitly includes the sisterhood of women. Both "man" and, to a lesser extent, "brotherhood" generalize to cover all people*. I have assumed that Peter's use of the term "priesthood" is thus a reference to the body of Christ in general that enjoys Priesthood protection and blessings, and that constitutes the purpose of Priesthood, rather than the individual men ordained to hold that Priesthood. (So basically what you said, only wordier.) I think it's also relevant to point out that women, who of course do not "hold" the Priesthood in the sense that men do, nevertheless are the other necessary half to the couple that enters into the ancient order of the Priesthood that we call the new and everlasting covenant, an order that endures throughout eternity and that is the very foundation of Priesthood power.

*The meaning of the English word "man" was originally "human" or "person", as opposed to a beast or a tree or a rock or something. A male human, especially a husband, was in Old English called a werman, meaning literally "male person", just as a woman was called a wifman, literally "female person", and whence we derive the terms wife and woman. We use the wer- prefix today only very rarely, such as in werewolf "man-wolf" (with man used in the modern sense of "male human"; I guess women can't be werewolves—sorry, ladies).

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