Stick Of Joseph......?

[Palerider]

Saw this mentioned on another thread. Here's how I see it:

When I began to realize that the foundational stories of the church were not holding up to close scrutiny and that there was a real possibility that the church might not be what it purported to be, one of the first things I did was to go to the Biblical proof texts regarding the Book of Mormon. One of them being Ezekiel 37: 15-22

I thought, “If this scripture isn’t about the B of M, then what does it mean”?

I spent a long time pouring over this scripture, reading and re-reading and pondering its significance. As I studied, a thought occurred to me. It was one of those “Aha” moments one stays thankful for. Here’s the upshot.

So let’s think about the Bible for a minute. Exactly what is it? As I recall from my missionary days, the Bible was generally portrayed as God’s word to his people (Israel or the Jews) in the Old World while the B of M was God’s word to his people in the New World. That sets up the Bible to be the Stick of Judah quite well.

The problem, is, that this is a gross mis-characterization and over-simplification of the Bible.

First, let’s look at the Old Testament. What is it? It is the first testimony and witness of the Messiah and the covenant made with His people, Israel. In what language was it originally written?

Hebrew.

Who was its primary target audience? Israel, and after the loss of the 10 tribes, the Jews specifically. Secondarily, any Gentile proselytes.

So then what is the New Testament? It is the second testimony to and witness of the Messiah and the record of the principle fulfilling of the promised covenant to Israel. And with the rejection by the Jews of their Messiah, it is the news of the covenant of salvation being made available to all the world.

In what language was it originally written? Greek (the language of the gentiles)!

Who is its primary target audience? The Gentiles, who now come under the umbrella of Ephraim, for that is where the blood of Ephraim is to be found.

Who is the secondary target audience? The Jews.

This is important to note because even Paul acknowledged himself to be the apostle to the Gentiles (which come under Ephraim). In First Peter 1:1, Peter specifically denotes his audience as “the strangers (gentiles) scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia…etc.”

James 1:1 declares that his writing is addressed to “the 12 tribes which are scattered abroad”. That’s Ephraim among the gentiles!

So we see that the Old and New Testaments are two very distinct “witnesses” of Christ, pertaining to two different audiences with two different missions.

Now let’s re-examine Ezekiel 37: 15-22.

Verse 16 states the command to write upon the Stick of Judah “for Judah and for the children of Israel his companions”.

“Children” is an interesting term used here. In the English etymology, proto-germanic is kiltham, deriving from kilpei or that which comes from the “womb”. Just keep this in mind for the moment.

Verse 16 continues: “then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions.

Note the use of the term “house” when speaking of Ephraim. In ancient times all members of the household were considered “family”. Even the latin term “familia” (family) is defined as the “household” including relatives and servants.

So the stick of Joseph/Ephraim is written for and to include those who are not considered blood relatives but are still members of the family or companions, that being the Gentiles.

Here’s where it gets quite interesting.

Verse 19 states: “I will take the Stick of Joseph, which is in the Hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the Stick of Judah…”

So we see where the Stick of Joseph is, but where isn’t it? It is not in the hands of Judah! Why? Because Judah does not believe in the New Testament! You won’t find many New Testaments in the synagogues these days…..

The Stick of Joseph is among the gentiles and has already been joined in principle with the Stick of Judah (the Old testament) and is a sign that one day the two tribes will also be joined under the rule of the one Just and True King of Israel.

Placing the template of the New Testament and Old Testament over the “Sticks” prophecy in Ezekiel fits quite well. Very well, actually.

At best (from a Mormon perspective) one may say that two people can interpret these scriptures differently and have an honest disagreement regarding the exegesis.

At worst (from a Mormon perspective) this is a serious fault in one of the underpinning proof texts of the Book of Mormon.

Personally, I also have a spiritual witness that this is the correct understanding of this scripture and I base my belief on that witness (which I know doesn't mean much to some of you).

Old Testament = Stick of Judah

New Testament = Stick of Joseph

When I explained this to my hometeacher, he just looked at me for a moment and then said, almost pleading, "Can't both the B of M and the New Testament be the stick of Joseph.....?"

He's a great guy, I like him alot.

Unfortunately there is no mention of a “third stick” or witness, which kind of leaves the B of M out there twisting in the wind……….

Edited June 16, 2013 by Palerider

[Tacenda]

Saw this mentioned on another thread. Here's how I see it:

When I began to realize that the foundational stories of the church were not holding up to close scrutiny and that there was a real possibility that the church might not be what it purported to be, one of the first things I did was to go to the Biblical proof texts regarding the Book of Mormon. One of them being Ezekiel 37: 15-22

I thought, “If this scripture isn’t about the B of M, then what does it mean”?

I spent a long time pouring over this scripture, reading and re-reading and pondering its significance. As I studied, a thought occurred to me. It was one of those “Aha” moments one stays thankful for. Here’s the upshot.

So let’s think about the Bible for a minute. Exactly what is it? As I recall from my missionary days, the Bible was generally portrayed as God’s word to his people (Israel or the Jews) in the Old World while the B of M was God’s word to his people in the New World. That sets up the Bible to be the Stick of Judah quite well.

The problem, is, that this is a gross mis-characterization and over-simplification of the Bible.

First, let’s look at the Old Testament. What is it? It is the first testimony and witness of the Messiah and the covenant made with His people, Israel. In what language was it originally written?

Hebrew.

Who was its primary target audience? Israel, and after the loss of the 10 tribes, the Jews specifically. Secondarily, any Gentile proselytes.

So then what is the New Testament? It is the second testimony to and witness of the Messiah and the record of the principle fulfilling of the promised covenant to Israel. And with the rejection by the Jews of their Messiah, it is the news of the covenant of salvation being made available to all the world.

In what language was it originally written? Greek (the language of the gentiles)!

Who is its primary target audience? The Gentiles, who now come under the umbrella of Ephraim, for that is where the blood of Ephraim is to be found.

Who is the secondary target audience? The Jews.

This is important to note because even Paul acknowledged himself to be the apostle to the Gentiles (which come under Ephraim). In First Peter 1:1, Peter specifically denotes his audience as “the strangers (gentiles) scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia…etc.”

James 1:1 declares that his writing is addressed to “the 12 tribes which are scattered abroad”. That’s Ephraim among the gentiles!

So we see that the Old and New Testaments are two very distinct “witnesses” of Christ, pertaining to two different audiences with two different missions.

Now let’s re-examine Ezekiel 37: 15-22.

Verse 16 states the command to write upon the Stick of Judah “for Judah and for the children of Israel his companions”.

“Children” is an interesting term used here. In the English etymology, proto-germanic is kiltham, deriving from kilpei or that which comes from the “womb”. Just keep this in mind for the moment.

Verse 16 continues: “then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions.

Note the use of the term “house” when speaking of Ephraim. In ancient times all members of the household were considered “family”. Even the latin term “familia” (family) is defined as the “household” including relatives and servants.

So the stick of Joseph/Ephraim is written for to include those who are not considered blood relatives but are still members of the family or companions, that being the Gentiles.

Here’s where it gets quite interesting.

Verse 19 states: “I will take the Stick of Joseph, which is in the Hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the Stick of Judah…”

So we see where the Stick of Joseph is, but where isn’t it? It is not in the hands of Judah! Why? Because Judah does not believe in the New Testament! You won’t find many New Testaments in the synagogues these days…..

The Stick of Joseph is among the gentiles and has already been joined in principle with the Stick of Judah (the Old testament) and is a sign that one day the two tribes will also be joined under the rule of the one Just and True King of Israel.

Placing the template of the New Testament and Old Testament over the “Sticks” prophecy in Ezekiel fits quite well. Very well, actually.

At best (from a Mormon perspective) one may say that two people can interpret these scriptures differently and have an honest disagreement regarding the exegesis.

At worst (from a Mormon perspective) this is a serious fault in one of the underpinning proof texts of the Book of Mormon.

Personally, I also have a spiritual witness that this is the correct understanding of this scripture and I base my belief on that witness.

Old Testament = Stick of Judah

New Testament = Stick of Joseph

When I explained this to my hometeacher, he just looked at me for a moment and then said, almost pleading, "Can't both the B of M and the New Testament be the stick of Joseph.....?"

He's a great guy, I like him alot.

Unfortunately there is no mention of a “third stick” or witness, which kind of leaves the B of M out there twisting in the wind……….

That's what I heard not too long ago, that it was a people not a book.

[Palerider]

That's what I heard not too long ago, that it was a people not a book.

Actually it is two books, addressed to two audiences. Just not the ones Mormons hoped for........

[why me]

Saw this mentioned on another thread. Here's how I see it:

When I began to realize that the foundational stories of the church were not holding up to close scrutiny and that there was a real possibility that the church might not be what it purported to be, one of the first things I did was to go to the Biblical proof texts regarding the Book of Mormon. One of them being Ezekiel 37: 15-22

What is not holding up in the foundational claims? We have a book. We have 11 witnesses to the book. We also have emma who claims that Joseph could not have written it. We also have Mary Whitmer who also saw the plates. And we have no one denying their experiences with the book of mormon just named.

[Storm Rider]

I think it is great that you have found something to believe in that works for you. I personally don't buy it and I find some of your assumptions are a stretch. For me and my spiritual witness I will serve the Lord as he directs me. More importantly, I know the purpose of the Book of Mormon and I know that it is a true word of God. Have no need of jumping any hoops to having the Spirit guide me in this.

[why me]

Actually it is two books, addressed to two audiences. Just not the ones Mormons hoped for........

The foundational claims to the book of mormon do not rest on those verses. It rests on the testimony of 11 witnesses, plus Emma and mary whitmer.

[Palerider]

I think it interesting that of the pro-mormon responses so far, not one has addressed the issue of where I am wrong regarding the interpretation of Ezekiel's prophecy.

If this is the best you can do I'm very sorry for you...........

[Storm Rider]

My dear friend, why would you make such an assumption. Before I enter a discussion I have to care about the outcome. You have posited your position and then enlightened us with a spiritual witness to its truthfulness. This is personal to you; to me it is anything but true. Why would your spiritual witness have meaning to me that has a different witness? Why should I engage you in a debate where I already know the outcome? Then for you to pompously share your sorrow for our lack of response.....well, let's just say I knew your colors before your current actions demonstrated them. If you want to hang your hat on this scripture; great. Go for it. If it makes you happy and you find joy with it, go for it. Please allow me the same freedom to worship how and what I please without the smarmy comments.

[volgadon]

I have a different interpretation, which doesn't focus so heavily on books.

[Palerider]

My dear friend, why would you make such an assumption. Before I enter a discussion I have to care about the outcome. You have posited your position and then enlightened us with a spiritual witness to its truthfulness. This is personal to you; to me it is anything but true. Why would your spiritual witness have meaning to me that has a different witness? Why should I engage you in a debate where I already know the outcome? Then for you to pompously share your sorrow for our lack of response.....well, let's just say I knew your colors before your current actions demonstrated them. If you want to hang your hat on this scripture; great. Go for it. If it makes you happy and you find joy with it, go for it. Please allow me the same freedom to worship how and what I please without the smarmy comments.

The discussion in a different thread posed the question of whether the church's doctrine contradicted the Bible's. Some there asked for specifics.

I felt my topic didn't allow for the space to address it properly in that thread.

If one chooses to respond, my expectation is that of a well reasoned response to the topic at hand. Not a dodging of the argument by siteing BofM witnesses and hiding behind one's testimony because that is all you have to offer up.

The church has long quoted Ezekiel 37 as one of it's proof texts of the B of M. I'm well aware that there are others the church uses to try to bolster the veracity of the B of M. My reason for writing is to discuss this one.

I was just taken aback by how quickly it was thrown under the bus as being totally unneccesary as one of the proofs of the BofM's validity, since the church has used it so often and relied on it quite heavily in my estimation.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Palerider

[volgadon]

The discussion in a different thread posed the question of whether the church's doctrine contradicted the Bible's. Some there asked for specifics.

I felt my topic didn't allow for the space to address it properly in that thread.

If one chooses to respond, my expectation is that of a well reasoned response to the topic at hand. Not a dodging of the argument by siteing BofM witnesses and hiding behind one's testimony because that is all you have to offer up.

The church has long quoted Ezekiel 37 as one of it's proof texts of the B of M. I'm well aware that there are others the church uses to try to bolster the veracity of the B of M. My reason for writing is to discuss this one.

I was just taken aback by how quickly it was thrown under the bus as being totally unneccesary to the Bof M's validity, since the church has used it so often and relied on it quite heavily in my estimation.

I absolutely agree that the thread should focus on interpreting that passage of scripture. The wtinesses are irrelevant here.

[Garden Girl]

My dear friend, why would you make such an assumption. Before I enter a discussion I have to care about the outcome. You have posited your position and then enlightened us with a spiritual witness to its truthfulness. This is personal to you; to me it is anything but true. Why would your spiritual witness have meaning to me that has a different witness? Why should I engage you in a debate where I already know the outcome? Then for you to pompously share your sorrow for our lack of response.....well, let's just say I knew your colors before your current actions demonstrated them. If you want to hang your hat on this scripture; great. Go for it. If it makes you happy and you find joy with it, go for it. Please allow me the same freedom to worship how and what I please without the smarmy comments.

Volgadon says the witnesses are irrelevant... so, I have to go with my own spiritual witness. When I returned to the Church after 30+ years of inactivity, I started all over at square one. Except... I had the memory of myself as a 17 year old early morning seminary student when our year focused on the BoM... and, how I had taken Moroni's challenge and prayed to know if what I had studied was truth. And the spiritual confirmation I received that was so strong as I knelt in prayer... stronger than any other that I had known, then or since then. Strong enough to stay with me through all the years of being inactive... strong enough to help salvage shreds of my testimony through the years so that I continued to believe deep in my heart and stay close to my TBM parents.

Strong enough so finally at age 55, when I finally heeded the spiritual promptings I had received from time to time through the years, that one Sunday morning watching April Gen Conf on TV, once again that confirmation felt so many years ago filled me so completely that I went out and told my non-LDS husband... I just really feel the need to return to Church.

And so I did... starting all over... that was 18 years ago... and here I am today. Actually stronger than ever. And at peace... and, filled with a spiritual joy and a love of the gospel as I fast approach the day I will leave this earthly trial and embark on a more glorious journey at the side of my dear husband... my eternal companion.

from the beach on a lovely June afternoon... GG

Edited June 16, 2013 by Garden Girl

[volgadon]

They are irrelevant to this thread.

[Robert F. Smith]

That's what I heard not too long ago, that it was a people not a book.

Actually, Tacenda, palerider is merely having some fun with a satire not unlike Hugh Nibley's classic "Bird Island," which got a lot of laughs when he delivered it in person to the BYU religion faculty. See http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_73.pdf .

None of his statements will stand up to close scrutiny, and he knows it.

[Stone holm]

Problem with this argument is the focus on the audience. The audience was never restricted in any of the books, the Divine Author always would have understood that the target audience would continually expand for all of them until it became a universal audience for both. But though the New Testament was written in Greek, all of its human sources either in actuality or by attribution were of Judah. The B of M authors either actual or by attribution were of Joseph. So yes the Stick of Judah and the Stick of Joseph make sense. If you search the proof texts with the idea of disproving them, you will normally achieve your goal. On the other hand, if you search them with the idea of gaining a testimony, you will also normally achieve your goal.

[Palerider]

Actually, Tacenda, palerider is merely having some fun with a satire not unlike Hugh Nibley's classic "Bird Island," which got a lot of laughs when he delivered it in person to the BYU religion faculty. See http://www.dialoguej...V34N0102_73.pdf .

None of his statements will stand up to close scrutiny, and he knows it.

I think you are absolutely correct. None of Nibley's words will stand up to close scrutiny and he knows it now, better than he ever did while among the living.......

And now for your devastating commentary correcting my analysis of Ezekiel???????

Still waiting........

[Palerider]

Problem with this argument is the focus on the audience. The audience was never restricted in any of the books, the Divine Author always would have understood that the target audience would continually expand for all of them until it became a universal audience for both. But though the New Testament was written in Greek, all of its human sources either in actuality or by attribution were of Judah. The B of M authors either actual or by attribution were of Joseph. So yes the Stick of Judah and the Stick of Joseph make sense. If you search the proof texts with the idea of disproving them, you will normally achieve your goal. On the other hand, if you search them with the idea of gaining a testimony, you will also normally achieve your goal.

This is why I indicated "primary" and "secondary" audiences. The "word" was first delivered to the House of Israel because of the covenant promises to them and then the gentiles who were willing to seek out God could access the word through Israel. So in essence it was made available to everyone, but in an order. "The first shall be last and the last shall be first".

Authorship is irrelevant in this case. As Ezekiel states: make this writing "For Judah" and make this writing "For Ephraim". It is the audience that the writings are being created "For" that gives each book it's designation or name.

The New Testament even by virtue of it's language was written to communicate to cover the largest possible number of people at the time who would be able to understand it, greek being one of the common tongues of the day among the gentiles.

Later translations (latin, german, english etc...) would follow suit not being the language of Judah, (which of course is hebrew) in order to reach as many gentiles (ephraim) as possible.

[Stone holm]

This is why I indicated "primary" and "secondary" audiences. The "word" was first delivered to the House of Israel because of the covenant promises to them and then the gentiles who were willing to seek out God could access the word through Israel. So in essence it was made available to everyone, but in an order. "The first shall be last and the last shall be first".

Authorship is irrelevant in this case. As Ezekiel states: make this writing "For Judah" and make this writing "For Ephraim". It is the audience that the writings are being created "For" that gives each book it's designation or name.

The New Testament even by virtue of it's language was written to communicate to cover the largest possible number of people at the time who would be able to understand it, greek being one of the common tongues of the day among the gentiles.

Later translations (latin, german, english etc...) would follow suit not being the language of Judah, (which of course is hebrew) in order to reach as many gentiles (ephraim) as possible.

Not necessarily, when you say "for" it also represents the people. The Ten Tribes will each come back with their records. Your reference is not convincing that the name attaches to the audience.

[tagriffy]

Saw this mentioned on another thread. Here's how I see it:

When I began to realize that the foundational stories of the church were not holding up to close scrutiny and that there was a real possibility that the church might not be what it purported to be, one of the first things I did was to go to the Biblical proof texts regarding the Book of Mormon. One of them being Ezekiel 37: 15-22

I thought, “If this scripture isn’t about the B of M, then what does it mean”?

I spent a long time pouring over this scripture, reading and re-reading and pondering its significance. As I studied, a thought occurred to me. It was one of those “Aha” moments one stays thankful for. Here’s the upshot.

The problem is that your interpretation does not work either. It does not account for the historical and social context in which Ezekiel delivered his oracle. Imagine yourself as a Jewish captive forcibly removed to Babylon after Nebuchanezzar destroyed Jerusalem. Not only have you been through a brutal experience, but you were also forcibly marched away from your homeland. So now you have this prophet telling you that some 700 hundred years in the future, there will be both an Old and New Testaments. I don't know about you, but my response would be something like, "Who gives a flying so-and-so?"

Edited June 17, 2013 by tagriffy

[Palerider]

I absolutely agree that the thread should focus on interpreting that passage of scripture. The wtinesses are irrelevant here.

I may not always agree with you Volgadon, but you always have my sincere respect, whether you value it or not.

[Palerider]

Not necessarily, when you say "for" it also represents the people. The Ten Tribes will each come back with their records. Your reference is not convincing that the name attaches to the audience.

I disagree. If I am writing instructions "for" my daughter about how to bake a cake, that doesn't make me my daughter......or my daughter me either.

Unfortunately your siting of the 10 tribes returning with their records is self-referencing in the sense that from my point of view, it has yet to be proven that there are any records being kept by the tribes that I believe have been scattered among the nations.

That assertion is made by Joseph Smith, the same person who in my mind has mis-interpreted Ezekiel and numerous other biblical scriptures. Why would I suddenly give credence to him as your inferred authority?

Edited June 17, 2013 by Palerider

[mfbukowski]

The curse of literalism strikes again

At best (from a Mormon perspective) one may say that two people can interpret these scriptures differently and have an honest disagreement regarding the exegesis.

Surprise!

There are no facts, only interpretations

[Palerider]

The curse of literalism strikes again

Surprise!

There are no facts, only interpretations

Great statement as long as one realizes that the sword cuts both ways........It's just Joseph's interpretation and nothing more.....

[volgadon]

I may not always agree with you Volgadon, but you always have my sincere respect, whether you value it or not.

I do value it. Thank you.

[Palerider]

The problem is that your interpretation does not work either. It does not account for the historical and social context in which Ezekiel delivered his oracle. Imagine yourself as a Jewish captive forcibly removed to Babylon after Nebuchanezzar destroyed Jerusalem. Not only have you been through a brutal experience, but you were also forcibly marched away from your homeland. So now you have this prophet telling you that some 700 hundred years in the future, there will be both an Old and New Testaments. I don't know about you, but my response would be something like, "Who gives a flying so-and-so?"

You need to read the entire prophecy.

Seen in the true context of being a beaten and downtrodden people I would think that a prophecy proclaiming the day when Israel would eventually come off as conqueror and be re-united as a people and truly inherit the land promised to them and that the two writings were signs and testimonies of that great day.........might be a source of great comfort to those who had ears to hear.

The interpretation works just fine......

Edited June 17, 2013 by Palerider