Viable Nephite colonies (part two)

[notHagoth7]

...

[charity]

And the dueling genealogies in the New Testament suggest that Mary's genealogy was equally important.

Which suggests that maternal lineage was also considered important at least 2,000 years ago.

So feel free to be dismissive of maternal lines - if that suits you.

From where I sit, they suggest an important part of the puzzle.

The genealogy of Mary is important, because she is the ONLY mortal parent. There is no paternal genealogy. That does not mean that to all Jews of that era that maternal lineage was important at all. This was a very special case.

[volgadon]

Cherry picking, however, implies a lack of integrity.

Or poor methodology.

[volgadon]

Let's be honest. You and I are both making assumptions.

To imply that only one of us is making assumptions is disingenuous. Hopefully, that wasn't your intent.

The question is, which assumption is better grounded? And, more importantly, which assumption is correct?

(You can each seek your own answers on those.)

Ok, ui'll be happy to refine that. the assumptions you are making stand on very poor ground.

Hmm. You know full well that if one's father is a Gentile, but one's mother is Jewish, one is considered a Jew through the mother.

But if one's father is Jewish, but one's mother is a Gentile, one is not considered a Jew, but would have to convert.

So it's not always paternal.

You are talking modern Judaism.

Again, even in modern Judaism, familial and tribal descent is paternal, not maternal. Maternal only means that you are a Jew, not neccesarily from Judah even.

And the dueling genealogies in the New Testament suggest that Mary's genealogy was equally important.

Which suggests that maternal lineage was also considered important at least 2,000 years ago.

So feel free to be dismissive of maternal lines - if that suits you.

From where I sit, they suggest an important part of the puzzle.

No indication that it is Mary's.

OTOH, there is a story from the end of the second century AD involving Rabbi Yehuda the Patriarch in which he said that if Rabbi Huna the Exilarch were to arrive in Israel he would give up the patriarchate to him his senior, because Huna paternal line is Judah, whereas Yehudah only has Judah through his maternal line.

[notHagoth7]

Ok, ui'll be happy to refine that. the assumptions you are making stand on very poor ground.

Regarding female lineage?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I have good reason to believe both the paternal and maternal lines are important.

And I don't stand alone on that. If you take issue with it, fine. I disagree with your assertion that Nephites somehow aren't of Ephraim.

In addition, as I said weeks ago in the previous thread, literal descent is much less of an issue than some people prefer to make of it.

The issue of adoption is alive and well.

You are talking modern Judaism.

....OTOH, there is a story from the end of the second century AD involving Rabbi Yehuda the Patriarch in which he said that if Rabbi Huna the Exilarch were to arrive in Israel he would give up the patriarchate to him his senior, because Huna paternal line is Judah, whereas Yehudah only has Judah through his maternal line.

Which takes us back to ancient Judaism. So, no, I'm not just talking modern Judaism.

If you guys are saying Nephites somehow aren't of Ephraim, then, pray tell, what do you make of the stick of Ephraim in Ezekiel 37?

Are you awaiting some other book?

But seriously - if this premise doesn't interest you, fine.

If you don't think this thread will benefit you, fine. March on.

[volgadon]

Regarding female lineage?

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I have good reason to believe both the paternal and maternal lines are important.

And I don't stand alone on that. If you take issue with it, fine. I disagree with your assertion that Nephites somehow aren't of Ephraim.

In addition, as I said weeks ago in the previous thread, literal descent is much less of an issue than some people prefer to make of it.

The issue of adoption is alive and well.

Except that adoption was not what you were talking about.

Which takes us back to ancient Judaism. So, no, I'm not just talking modern Judaism.

Perhaps I need to explain the text again. Rabbi Yehudah's matrilineal line includes Judah, yet he is not considered part of Judah because his patrilineal line is Benjamin, so yes, you are talking modern Judaism.

If you guys are saying Nephites somehow aren't of Ephraim, then, pray tell, what do you make of the stick of Ephraim in Ezekiel 37?

Are you awaiting some other book?

Wasn't it you in a thread recently who stated that Ephraim was often figurative?

But seriously - if this premise doesn't interest you, fine.

If you don't think this thread will benefit you, fine. March on.

Which premise, matrilineal lines? You asked a question, I naively assumed you actually wanted to know rather than just assert a position.

[notHagoth7]

Except that adoption was not what you were talking about.

Actually, if you review the OP, I wasn't talking about any of this.

Instead, if memory serves, this whole tangent is in response to Charity's question/concern. Would you prefer that I ignore her concern?

Or, in the spirit of cooperation, do you have better ways of helping her resolve that concern - in light of Ezekiel 37?

At the moment, it would appear that you are not interested in exploring options of how Nephites and their record can fulfill Ezekiel 37. Which leads me to ask: Why is that?

Matrilineal descent isn't the only alternative - but I have reason to believe it's a viable alternative worth considering - if one truly wants to retain an appreciation for the Book of Mormon in the context of Ezekiel 37. If one doesn't, well, that quickly becomes a separate matter.

...so yes, you are talking modern Judaism.

Is this also where you start to tell me what it is that I believe? *

For the record, I know full well what I was talking about. And it encompassed more than modern Judaism.

If you disagree, I'm A-OK with that.

Wasn't it you in a thread recently who stated that Ephraim was often figurative?

* I'm listening.

You asked a question, I naively assumed you actually wanted to know rather than just assert a position.

Actually, Charity raised the concern/question. And it also traces to the standard LDS interpretation of Ezekiel 37.

And I assumed, in good faith, that she and others might be interested in exploring potential ways to resolve those two together.

You have limited options:

1) You have literal paternal descent - which, per 1 Nephi 5 and Alma 10 doesn't appear to be the Nephite situation.

2) And you have maternal descent - which, per the 116 pages, might be the Nephite situation.

3) You have adoption.

4) And I'm all ears to hearing/exploring other options.

If you have better means to help her, by all means, have at it.

(For the record, at times, my questions are rhetorical/Socratic. The question you're referring to was precisely that.)

[notHagoth7]

The Stick of Joseph/Ephraim

In this thread, there seems to be a surprising willingness among some LDS faithful to discard the interpretation of the Book of Mormon as the Stick of Joseph/Ephraim. Or at least a willingness to toss that interpretation under the bus.

(Am I misinterpreting what's happening in this thread?)

Having not encountered this tendency before, I have to ask - is this a new LDS development?

And how widespread is it?

If some LDS are no longer viewing the Book of Mormon as the Stick of Ephraim, how do they approach Ezekiel's prophecy?

Are they looking forward to some other record that would be representative of Joseph/Ephraim?

How do they interpret D&C 27, which dates to 1830?

Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;

And how do they interpret scores of similar LDS statements since then?

Ezekiel 37 (two sticks) and John 10 (other sheep) are companion passages that illuminate one another.

They go hand in hand.

I would have preferred to have moved on to other topics by now, but this is no trifling matter. It's important enough that I want to make sure it doesn't get swept under the carpet. I'd rather air things out and arrive at resolution (if possible) before moving forward.

The two records coming together, as two corroborating testimonies of Christ's visits to his various sheep, were to help heal the rift between God's people. Preparatory to the millennial reign of peace.

Or at least that's how I've understood the two passages. Apparently, others view things differently. Did I miss the memo or something?

In LDS thought, is Ezekiel 37 somehow no longer relevant to "Another Testament of Jesus Christ?"

[volgadon]

(Am I misinterpreting what's happening in this thread?)

Yes.

[notHagoth7]

In this thread, there seems to be a surprising willingness among some LDS faithful to discard the interpretation of the Book of Mormon as the Stick of Joseph/Ephraim...

(Am I misinterpreting what's happening in this thread?)

Yes.

Then, by all means, step up to the plate and demonstrate your meaning.

And/or offer a solution to Charity's concern.

[notHagoth7]

Lehi was of the tribe of Mannasseh. Most of the European Saints have patriarchal blessings which say their are of Ephraim.

Charity,

To respond directly:

1) Are you implying that one couldn't have both ancestries? (Is there a reason for the dichotomy?)

2) And are you also implying that a pure Nephite descendant (if one existed) somehow couldn't be of Ephraim?

3) Would you believe the same to be true of descendants of Laman? Or Lemuel?

4) And out of curiosity, do you believe the Book of Mormon is the stick of Joseph/Ephraim?

(If you guys don't want to concur with the OP, I'm OK w/that. I simply don't (yet) follow the reasoning in some of the objections.)

[volgadon]

Then, by all means, step up to the plate and demonstrate your meaning.

Just as the stick of Judah is more than just the tribe of Judah, so to the stick of Ephraim. Again, you yourself stated that Ephraim can be figurative.

And/or offer a solution to Charity's concern.

seeing as I share in her concern when it comes to your model, you won't like the solution.

[notHagoth7]

Just as the stick of Judah is more than just the tribe of Judah, so to the stick of Ephraim.

Good stuff.

Again, you yourself stated that Ephraim can be figurative.

No actually. I haven't stated that. Although you have claimed that twice.

I did refer to adoption several times - but I believe that is quite as real and binding as anything else.

Our neighborhood has a good number of adopted children. And their family ties aren't figurative by any stretch of the imagination.

Is it adoption that you're referring to?

seeing as I share in her concern when it comes to your model, you won't like the solution.

I'm actually beginning to wonder if her concern actually exists. See this post in the previous thread. Charity?

But as to your solution, if you think it's relevant to the discussion, please share it.

[charity]

Charity,

To respond directly:

1) Are you implying that one couldn't have both ancestries? (Is there a reason for the dichotomy?)

2) And are you also implying that a pure Nephite descendant (if one existed) somehow couldn't be of Ephraim?

3) Would you believe the same to be true of descendants of Laman? Or Lemuel?

4) And out of curiosity, do you believe the Book of Mormon is the stick of Joseph/Ephraim?

(If you guys don't want to concur with the OP, I'm OK w/that. I simply don't (yet) follow the reasoning in some of the objections.)

1. Yes, a person could have both. Intermarriage and all that.

2. A "pure Nephite" could have Ephraim lineage, even if his/her principal (in the sense of most important, not quantity of DNA) were Mannasseh.

3. Yes.

4. Yes. Because Joseph had a double portion, and Ephraim is the elder, and Mannasseh would be second to him.

[USU78]

Why can't the "Stick of Ephraim" be that which was produced by and/or through the only "pure Ephraimite" of which we're aware, JSJr, which would consist of the BoM + D&C + PoGP?

Just a thought.

[notHagoth7]

Why can't the "Stick of Ephraim" be that which was produced by...JSJr, which would consist of the BoM + D&C + PoGP?

Works for me.

Just a thought.

And a helpful one at that.

...the only "pure Ephraimite" of which we're aware...

??

This premise is new to me.

Is it stated somewhere that Joseph was of pure Ephraimite lineage?

The reasons I ask are threefold:

1) In most cases, I tend to think that references to purity relate to intent and to one's heart

2) I don't see the need for any genealogical "purity" for any servant of God. Am I missing something?

3) 2 Ne 3 suggests that Joseph [also??] descended through Lehi's son Joseph. Which, if that is an accurate reading, would also make Joseph partly of Manasseh.

[notHagoth7]

1. Yes, a person could have both. Intermarriage and all that.

2. A "pure Nephite" could have Ephraim lineage, even if his/her principal (in the sense of most important, not quantity of DNA) were Mannasseh.

3. Yes.

4. Yes. Because Joseph had a double portion, and Ephraim is the elder, and Mannasseh would be second to him.

That being the case, the genealogical concerns suggested in your previous posts would seem to be resolved (or mere figments of my imagination).

Is that accurate?

[USU78]

This premise is new to me.

Is it stated somewhere that Joseph was of pure Ephraimite lineage?

The reasons I ask are threefold:

1) In most cases, I tend to think that references to purity relate to intent and to one's heart

2) I don't see the need for any genealogical "purity" for any servant of God. Am I missing something?

3) 2 Ne 3 suggests that Joseph [also??] descended through Lehi's son Joseph. Which, if that is an accurate reading, would also make Joseph partly of Manasseh.

His patriarchal blessing under the hands of his father, JSSr. See: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b27e66ce3a47b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

[USU78]

That being the case, the genealogical concerns suggested in your previous posts would seem to be resolved (or mere figments of my imagination).

Is that accurate?

Ephraim was the younger. Remember that Jacob crossed his hands when blessing the two boys. Manassah was at Jacob's right hand and Ephraim at his left. Joseph wasn't pleased, apparently.

[LeSellers]

Ephraim was the younger. Remember that Jacob crossed his hands when blessing the two boys. Manassah was at Jacob's right hand and Ephraim at his left. Joseph wasn't pleased, apparently.

Or merely confused. That's simply not "the way 'twas done" in those days.

Lehi

[notHagoth7]

His patriarchal blessing under the hands of his father, JSSr. See: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b27e66ce3a47b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Hmmm.

The article you've cited qualifies the statement this way:

Although President Young identified Joseph Smith as a

[notHagoth7]

See: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b27e66ce3a47b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

I also enjoyed President Kimball's statement in that link:

[charity]

That being the case, the genealogical concerns suggested in your previous posts would seem to be resolved (or mere figments of my imagination).

Is that accurate?

If I remember correctly, my "concern" was in the very beginning, that I thought you had said that the Nephite saga went from mid-east to Europe to meso-America. When you said that wasn't it, then I was fine.

I don't have any big genealogical concerns. I think I have a pretty good grip on population genetics, so there isn't any worry here.

And I think USU78 is right about the position of Ephraim and Mannasseh. But Ephraim has always had precedence over Mannasseh. Just as Judah has precedence over the other tribes. Judah and Ephraim seemed to have earned those positions.

Micah 4: 2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

This has been interpreted as meaning that Zion, of Ephraim, is the New Jerusalem in Missouri, and Jeruslem, the old Jerusalem, of Judah, in the Holy Land.

Of the Israelites led out into the wildnerness only two of the former residents of Egypt were allowed to enter the Promised Land. One was Joshua,of Ephraim, and Caleb of the tribe of Judah.

[notHagoth7]

Cicero and Tiro

A year or two back, I read an excellent book about Cicero by Anthony Everitt...which I highly recommend.

Followed up by an audio book (Imperium) on the same topic. I also recommend that.

Over the holidays, I've borrowed a couple of my brother's former textbooks. (He was a political science/pre-law major).

And I'm re-reading a FARMS publication from Nibley - The Ancient State.

They all speak to the freedoms we and our forefathers have enjoyed - many of which trace back to Cicero's writings.

Basically, Cicero was deeply involved in the political life of his people until ca. 58 BC - when he retreated from Rome.

(That same year Caesar's legions advanced into northern Europe.) So they were both Hagoth's contemporaries.

The following year, Cicero returned to Rome.

He spent most of the remaining fourteen years of his life in a flurry of public writings - mostly focused on political and philosophical topics.

Those writings have rippled through western civilization, transforming previous views of just government, freedom, ethics, and the rights of the governed. Several of the Founding Fathers considered him their greatest influence. For example, John Adams even attempted to pattern his own life after Cicero.

What's notable is that other than political speeches, he published very little of his thoughts until 55 BC. At that juncture, he apparently began shifting his thoughts. He apparently realized that while his previous oratory had impacted the Forum, his writings could ripple through time and space to a broader audience, for a much longer period of time, with much greater effect.

He wasn't able to thwart the overthrow of the Republic, and gave his life as a martyr defending it, but he thereby planted the seeds of the U.S. (and other) democratic republics.

Here's an overview of some of Cicero's writing activity:

• (55 BC) De Oratore ad Quintum fratrem libri tres (On the Orator, three books for his brother Quintus)
  
• (54 BC) De Partitionibus Oratoriae (About the subdivisions of oratory)
  
• (52 BC) De Optimo Genere Oratorum (About the Best Kind of Orators)
  
• (51 BC) De Re Publica (On the Republic)
  [49 BC - 45 BC - production largely disrupted by Roman Civil War]
  
• (46 BC) Paradoxa Stoicorum (Stoic Paradoxes)
  
• (46 BC) Brutus (For Brutus, a short history of Roman rhetoric and orators dedicated to Marcus Junius Brutus)
  
• (46 BC) Orator ad M. Brutum (About the Orator, also dedicated to Brutus)
  
• (45 BC) De Fato (On Fate)
  
• (45 BC) Hortensius (Hortensius)
  
• (45 BC) Lucullus or Academica Priora, liber II (book 2 of the Prior Academics)
  
• (45 BC) Academica Posteriora (The Later Academics)
  
• (45 BC) Consolatio (Consolation) How to console oneself at the death of a loved person (see Consolatio Literary Genre)
  
• (45 BC) De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum (About the Ends of Goods and Evils) - a book on ethics.[8] Source of Lorem ipsum
  
• (45 BC) Tusculanae Quaestiones (Questions debated at Tusculum)
  
• (45 BC) De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods)
  
• (45 BC) De Divinatione (On Divination)
  
• (44 BC) Cato Maior de Senectute (Cato the Elder On Old Age)
  
• (44 BC) Laelius de Amicitia (Laelius On Friendship)
  
• (44 BC) De Officiis (On duties)
  
• (44 BC) Topica (Topics of argumentation)
  
• (?? BC) De Legibus (On the Laws)
  
• (?? BC) De Consulatu Suo (On his ((Cicero's)) consulship - epic poem, only parts survive)
  
• (?? BC) De temporibus suis (His Life and Times- epic poem, entirely lost)
  

In his Twelve Greeks and Romans Who Changed the World, Carl Richard said Cicero was "perhaps the most influential figure of classical civilization..." Also: "His eloquent speeches and writings on behalf of popular sovereignty, natural law, and mixed government [separate branches with checks and balances] enshrined those crucial theories at the center of Western Civilization."

Of him, the founding father John Adams said, "All ages of the world have not produced a greater statesman and philosopher combined."

Yet, at the epicenter of his brilliance, behind the scenes, was the nondescript Tiro.

In Cicero's accomplishments, Tiro played four key roles:

1) Tiro deftly managed Cicero's financial affairs - freeing Cicero to focus on his extensive writings.

2) Tiro was a speedwriter. Adept at shorthand. Able to quickly pull together a first draft - which is often the hardest part of writing.

3) Per Cicero's own testimony, Tiro was Cicero's muse. Cicero admitted publicly that he couldn't make headway with his writings when Tiro was away. (The fact that Cicero's amazing burst of writing didn't occur until about the time Tiro surfaced also attests to that connection.)

4) And after Cicero's death, it was Tiro who helped gather and publish many of Cicero's writings and personal correspondences - to make sure they were preserved for generations to come. We and our forefathers have reaped where Tiro sowed.

Quite notably, in the frequent brainstorming exchange between Cicero and his chief steward Tiro, political and philosophical concepts emerged for which, as some may sit up and take notice, the Latin language didn't even have the words to express. Cicero literally had to expand the Latin vocabulary with various new loan words before he could effectively express his rapidly expanding political and philosophical paradigms.

For example, he had to import the Greek word aequalitas into Latin in order to introduce and discuss the concept of the right to equal legal rights.

There is no question that Cicero was a profoundly gifted man.

But we can't understand him fully without asking the question: who was Tiro? Who was the man behind Cicero's curtain?

I'll expand on this later with a few citations from (and perhaps about) Cicero.

In the meantime....thoughts?

[notHagoth7]

If I remember correctly, my "concern" was in the very beginning, that I thought you had said that the Nephite saga went from mid-east to Europe to meso-America. When you said that wasn't it, then I was fine.

Super.