Declaration Of Lineage

[swfarnsworth]

The concept of declarations of lineage have been on my mind for several minutes now, and I thought I would bring it up for public discussion. My understanding is that the declaration is literal (i.e., that I am literally descended from the Tribe of Ephraim), and that the Tribe of Ephraim is the tribe primarily responsible for bringing about the Restoration and gathering of the other tribes. The question, then, is as to whether or not there is any particular meaning to being adopted into another tribe beyond simply being a literal descendant of Abraham through said tribe. Gen. 49 suggests that the other tribes have responsibilities as well, though I have not found anything nearly as specific as what has been said elsewhere about Ephraim.

As an observation, there is a woman in my ward who was born in Laos, but her family moved to the US when she was nine. She was not given a declaration of lineage, but was told that she had been adopted into the House of Israel at large, and the same was the case in the blessings of both of her parents. Her patriarch later told her that none of the Lao people were descended from any tribe, but that another ethnic group in Laos (called the Mongs) were all descendants of Gad. Has anyone else made similar observations?

I always assumed as a kid that I would end up in one of the obscure tribes like Asher or Dan because I was, frankly, an obscure kid. Even so, I wasn't all that surprised to find that I was in fact of Ephraim because that is true of both of my parents and (as far as I know) both of my LDS grandparents.

[bluebell]

I remember hearing or reading somewhere that the lineage you are given is the line most represented in your blood (ie. those everyone is a mixture of most tribes, it's the bloodline that is most represented in you). I don't remember enough about that declaration to know whether or not it holds any doctrinal water.

I do know that I had a friend who's entire family was ephraim, except one daughter was of the house of Judah. I always thought that was very interesting.

[Cobalt-70]

I think Joseph Smith's original idea was that people Mormons, like the Indians, were literally descendants of the tribes of Israel. That idea had some currency at the time. Smith's father may have had some association with a dowsing cult in Vermont that called themselves the New Israelites. So when Smith ordained his father as the Presiding Patriarch, it was presumably with the expectation that his father would declare lineage in a very literal sense.

Nowadays, of course, literal descent from the tribes of Israel doesn't make much sense from a biological perspective. There was no "race of Ephriam," or "race of Manassah." They all shared the same pool of genes, and that pool is shared by the rest of the world. There is no such thing as a gene that represents any particular tribe of Israel, except perhaps on the Y chromosome, from which you can identify members of a subset of the tribe of Lehi, the Kohans. But that's only because Jews, for millennia, have kept mostly to themselves.

So the best understanding of descent today is a metaphorical descent. We are given the descent that our patriarch feels is most consonant with our character. Or, if the patriarch has some crazy idea about descent and actual race like the patriarch described in the OP, then we get that descent. If the patriarch is a racist and you are black, you might get get pegged with the descent of Cain or Canaan. It's up to the patriarch and his inspiration, or sometimes lack thereof.

Race baiting=thread ban

[volgadon]

But that's only because Jews, for millennia, have kept mostly to themselves.

Umm, suuure...

How come Zohar Argov looks like non-Jewish Yemenites, and Y. L. Peretz looks Ukrainian?

[swfarnsworth]

Nowadays, of course, literal descent from the tribes of Israel doesn't make much sense from a biological perspective. There was no "race of Ephriam," or "race of Manassah." They all shared the same pool of genes, and that pool is shared by the rest of the world. There is no such thing as a gene that represents any particular tribe of Israel, except perhaps on the Y chromosome, from which you can identify members of a subset of the tribe of Lehi, the Kohans. But that's only because Jews, for millennia, have kept mostly to themselves.

So the best understanding of descent today is a metaphorical descent. We are given the descent that our patriarch feels is most consonant with our character. Or, if the patriarch has some crazy idea about descent and actual race like the patriarch described in the OP, then we get that descent. If the patriarch is a racist and you are black, you might get get pegged with the descent of Cain or Canaan. It's up to the patriarch and his inspiration, or sometimes lack thereof.

There doesn't need to be a "race of Ephraim" or any identifiable genetic signature associated therewith to be descended from Ephraim.

What is so crazy about the idea of literal descent? Is it so far fetched that 700 years ago, a descendant of Gad traveled to Laos and integrated himself into the Mongs, and that he is now a common ancestor among all members of that particular group?

[canard78]

There doesn't need to be a "race of Ephraim" or any identifiable genetic signature associated therewith to be descended from Ephraim.

What is so crazy about the idea of literal descent? Is it so far fetched that 700 years ago, a descendant of Gad traveled to Laos and integrated himself into the Mongs, and that he is now a common ancestor among all members of that particular group?

If Ephraim has one proven living descendent then it's likely that every living person can call him a common ancestor. When you count the generations from 'me' back to Ephraim (or anyone from that era) I have have billions of great, great (etc) grandparents (4+8+16+32+64+128 etc etc). So we can count ourselves as descendants of all 12 brothers (and the two grandsons), and any other person of their generation that has a proven living descendant. No DNA link required.

It's the same reason all Indians could descend from Lehi and not carry his DNA (assuming the continent was not exclusively populated by Lehi).

Google Common Ancestor and Charlemagne for a good explanation. This is a good one by a statistical modeller: http://humphrysfamilytree.com/ca.html

[thesometimesaint]

While it is entirely possible we're all related in some way to Abraham and at least one of his sons. I've always understood the Patriarchal Blessing to be one of a line of Blessings and not a literal genetic one.

[theplains]

Her patriarch later told her that none of the Lao people were descended from any tribe, but that another ethnic group in Laos (called the Mongs) were all descendants of Gad.

Maybe they are descendants of Ishmael, Esau, or a host of other nationalities in Asia. Don't automatically

assume a member of the church descended through one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Regards,

Jim

Edited January 6, 2013 by theplains

[swfarnsworth]

Maybe they are descendants of Ishmael, Esau, or a host of other nationalities in Asia. Don't automatically

assume a member of the church descended through one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Regards,

Jim

Did you see the part where I said that the Lao woman isn't descended from any tribe?

[Calm]

Did you see the part where I said that the Lao woman isn't descended from any tribe?

The other sons of Abraham and Isaac aren't named in the the 12 that are used in patriarchal blessings, so isn't it possible that they could be of an Abrahamic tribe but not one of the sons of Israel, the typical Twelve?

[webbles]

had a missionary companion from Brazil that received his patriarchal blessing on the mission while we were companions. It stated that his lineage was of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob but didn't specify a tribe.

[cinepro]

It's not that complicated:

Declaration of Lineage

A patriarchal blessing includes a declaration of lineage, stating that the person is of the house of Israel—a descendant of Abraham, belonging to a specific tribe of Jacob. Many Latter-day Saints are of the tribe of Ephraim, the tribe given the primary responsibility to lead the latter-day work of the Lord.

Because each of us has many bloodlines running in us, two members of the same family may be declared as being of different tribes in Israel.

It does not matter if a person's lineage in the house of Israel is through bloodlines or by adoption. Church members are counted as a descendant of Abraham and an heir to all the promises and blessings contained in the Abrahamic covenant (see Abrahamic Covenant).

It is a matter of belief, not math or genetics.

The patriarch in the OP was obviously ignorant of these principles, and I suspect if this woman were to get another blessing from a different patriarch (entirely possible), her membership in a specific tribe of Israel would be clearly and simply stated. Probably Ephraim.

Edited January 7, 2013 by cinepro

[Storm Rider]

I am not aware of any commitment to a literal descendant versus being adopted into a tribe; the blessings are remain identical. I was not aware of any Patriarch that was free to not declare a specific tribe; the sole purpose of the PB is specifically the naming of the tribe. The associated blessing is actually unnecessary and is not required. The naming of a tribe is required; that is what makes the above story a bit strange. In the early church a tribe was often not identified; members were identified as simply being members of the House of Israel. This open-ended declaration is now a rare exception. In talking with many, many patriarchs I have learned many things and there are some wonderful stories out there. For example, several of them have indicated that all the tribes are present in the Church today. Good topic.

[smordecai]

When I joined the Church I did not know of my Jewish ancestry. When I received my Blessing I was surprised that I wasn't of Ephraim, as that was what I was told to expect. My last name is very Jewish so Judah would have been a good "guess" but the Blessing declared I "came through the loins of Levi". That was almost 50 years ago. I've done considerable family history and found that I do in fact descend from Cohen/Levi ancestors. So the Blessing can be literal but as with an adopted child sealed in the Temple they become as if born in the covenant- no difference.

[pogi]

I had a friend on my mission who told me that his patriarch told him that he was a direct descendent of the tribe Judah. Both of his parents were from Ephraim. That alone was weird to me, how could he be a direct descendant while both of his parents were from Ephraim. He was concerned about the millennium in that the tribe of Judah would be in the old Jerusalem and the tribe of Ephraim in the new, and so he would not be with his family. I didn't know what to tell him at the time.

[Calm]

If you are a descendant of anyone, you are a "direct descendant". I have never figured out what the difference is supposed to be.

add-on: wiki to the rescue, apparently it is acceptable to talk about descendants that aren't really descendants as descendants, they are "collateral descendant" which "is a legal term for a relative descended from a brother or sister of an ancestor, and thus a niece, nephew, or cousin."

http://en.wikipedia....neal_descendant

Edited January 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

Ephraimites rule and Mannassehites drool.

There......I said what we are all thinking.

Either that or I can touch off a tribal board war which would be even more fun. Any Zebulonites want to pick a fight?

[cinepro]

When I joined the Church I did not know of my Jewish ancestry. When I received my Blessing I was surprised that I wasn't of Ephraim, as that was what I was told to expect. My last name is very Jewish so Judah would have been a good "guess" but the Blessing declared I "came through the loins of Levi". That was almost 50 years ago. I've done considerable family history and found that I do in fact descend from Cohen/Levi ancestors. So the Blessing can be literal but as with an adopted child sealed in the Temple they become as if born in the covenant- no difference.

So have you ever served as a Bishop with no counselors?

[blackstrap]

I wonder what would happen if an LDS man from the tribe of Levi went to his Stake President and said ," The next time there is an opening in my ward for Bishop ,I apply for the position,no councilors needed. " ?

BTW ,I have an uncle in that situation tribe -wise. He was quite content to let others be Bishop.

[cdowis]

As an observation, there is a woman in my ward who was born in Laos, but her family moved to the US when she was nine. She was not given a declaration of lineage, but was told that she had been adopted into the House of Israel at large, and the same was the case in the blessings of both of her parents.

I would have another blessing, specific to the declaration of lineage. If there is no direct blood line, then she would be adopted into a specific tribe. The patriarch should get some assistance or instruction in this case.

Just my opinion and understanding on how this works.

Edited January 8, 2013 by cdowis

[Mansquatch]

Looking at lineage visualized this way -> https://createfan.com/ makes it very easy to see how at least one person millennia ago could have been from the scattered groups of the northern kingdom.

[The Nehor]

So have you ever served as a Bishop with no counselors?

Being a Levite does not mean you are a descendant of Aaron. I can say that if I was a descendant of Aaron and was offered the Presiding Bishopric I would take counselors anyways. I am not though. I am one of those Ephraimites busy vexing my Judahish cousins.

[smordecai]

Cohen is Hebrew for Priest, thus those with that designation, usually middle or last name , would be of Aaron. Those with the middle or last name Levi would be general levites. Whenever I reveal my Levite liniage I get that response "Oh, you can be a Bishop without ..." No! Even with the Cohen/Levi names among my ancestors (3rd great grandmother) the "direct descendant of Aaron" would have to be revealed. Some took the name for the prestige. Also, as I understand it, a direct descendant would have to come through the male rather than female. as in my case/ So I'm "off the hook".

[volgadon]

Also, as I understand it, a direct descendant would have to come through the male rather than female. as in my case/ So I'm "off the hook".

Not in this case, as tribal descent, particulary Cohen (and related surnames), is through the patrilineal line.

[The Nehor]

I think we can all agree that we do not like those shifty Gadites.