Stick Of Joseph......?

[Palerider]

Verse 16: "Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:"

If we accept that this stick is a book, or a record, it would be the book or record of Ephraim.

Alma 2:3 "And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren."

If Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, how can the Book of Mormon be the stick of Ephraim?

Excellent point. I think the Mormons would say that somewhere there were enough other migrations to make up the Ephraim decent, just as they say there were some Jews who made it over to the new land as well.

As I tried to make clear in the intro and in later comments, the stick is being written "For Joseph" not by Joseph (or Ephraim), just as it states "write upon it "for Judah"

Regarding the second part of your question, maybe they (the mormons) could go in this direction; If I understand Christian and Mormon theology correctly, All tribes (Including Manasseh) with the exception of Judah, come under the umbrella of Ephraim because Ephraim is where the birthright lays. That is one of the reasons there is enmity between the two. They both thought they ought to be in charge so to speak....

Let's see did I just help the LDS make their case there.........

Regarding Lehi's ancestry, that is a non-issue for me since he is a fictional character.......apologies everyone......

[Palerider]

On the 2nd of Tebeth, the eighth and last day of Hannukah, the Torah portion (parashat hashavua) for that week is Va-Yigash, (Genesis 44:18-47:27). This is the climax of Joseph in Egypt's story, when he reveals his identity and is reconciled with his brothers.

The haftarah (additional scriptural portion) for all Jewish communities is Ezekiel 37:15-28.

That is, the eighth day of the celebrations occasioned by Judah Maccabee's rededication of the Jerusalem temple. There is usual a logic to the choice of the haftaroth, and they can prove very helpful in deciphering the context and concers of both sets of texts.

Genesis 44:18-47:27 relates a family drama, at the end of which the principal actors become one family again, and prosper. The central characters here are the brothers Joseph and Judah. Thanks to their respective acts of leadership, the family becomes one, is saved from a terrible famine, and becomes greater than ever before.

In Ezekiel 37:15-28, God promises to reunite the divided house of Israel (symbolized by Judah and Joseph), making them one; give them their own ruler; restore the temple; and renew his covenant of peace (or friendship) with them for ever. In other words, the children of Israel will be as one- a near-divine status- and will be able to

As Genesis 47 marks the beginning of the exile in Egypt, Ezekiel 37 prophesies of exile's end.

In other words, what happened to the brothers in Egypt is a type of things to come. Tagriffy is correct in noting that the prophecy must relate to the concerns of its contemporary audience. In my mind, LDS interpretations of the scripture as the Bible and the Book of Mormon are a tad simplistic. It is not so much about books. It is about the restoration of covenants and the kingdom of God. The Book of Mormon represents one phase of that process of restoring Israel to its proper position.

Interesting. I see this very much the same way, except that I don't see the Book of Mormon playing a part here. My readings of Old Testament prophecy regarding the "gathering" seem to point to it's occurance only after the second advent. I see very little that would indicate the pre-gathering preparation of a distinct people (another doctrine the lds church once promoted and now seems to have neglected).

[tagriffy]

I just have to comment on this again.

So Ezekial made it all up to make his people feel better- is that what you are saying?

I don't think that helps your case.....

Since I'm the one who originally said the passage needs to be placed in the context of a defeated and downtrodden people, I probably should answer this as well. The answer to whether Ezekiel made it up to make his people feel better is both yes and no. Keep in mind Ezekiel had spent several years predicting the fall of Jerusalem and the exile of its people. Now that the disaster had in fact happened, it was time to regroup and rebuild. The shift from doom to comfort was a part of that process. Note Jeremiah more or less does the same thing, at least in its redacted form.

[Palerider]

Some people never get off a high horse, but whatever gets people through the day. The reality of scripture is that there is seldom, if ever, a single interpretation or application. I can easily appreciate Vol's comments and they make sense to me. LDS teachers and members have long used this set of scripture to support the melding together of the two people's relationship with God through books of scripture and that interpretation still works for me, but it is only a single application of the verse. Why would any disciple of Christ limit scripture to a single perspective when we each so often find diverse application for scripture. As far as being "out there", my poor friend, I have been out there for more years than you will ever know. You judge us all from your ignorant perspective of most of us. It is not helpful to paint with such broad brush strokes. I have been a student of truth for decades. I can appreciate your desire to seek and find truth, but I do not appreciate your smug attitude, but who does like that characteristic in ourselves or others. I appreciate that you have abandoned any faith in the teachings of the Church; I get it. Conversely, I don't understand why you want to so blithely condemn those who retain faith in the LDS Church's teachings. Do you really think your snide condemnations build your argument or gain you more respect from any of us? The vast majority of us here have struggled with the trials and tribulations of faith. I spend time with those that seek and ask without already making a final judgment. Your glass is full and there is no need for discussion or response. Your interpretation is just that; if it works for you, great. I find it narrow and based on several assumptions that I don't make. After saying that what else is there to talk about? I don't get much enjoyment out of proclaiming that those who have already passed from this life have a lot to learn or have found out the truth and regretting their days on earth. I have an exercise from which you may find profit; there is a short prayer that enlightens one when repeated a thousand times a day, "Oh my Father and my God, have mercy on me a sinner. I pray in the name of thy Son Jesus. Amen." I have learned a lot from practicing this prayerful discipline.

Thank you for that. I've seen a number here that needed it but if it had come from me they might have taken it badly,so I try not to preach. It's especially disheartening because usually these types of statements are directed only at critics or those who have a differing viewpoint.

Thanks again.

[tagriffy]

Verse 16: "Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:"

If we accept that this stick is a book, or a record, it would be the book or record of Ephraim.

Alma 2:3 "And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren."

If Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, how can the Book of Mormon be the stick of Ephraim?

Ezekiel 37:19 calls it the "stick of Joseph." All that really needs to be done is to get a little more technical.

[tagriffy]

He's playing us, Tim. He knows very well that his dog won't hunt.

I hope you won't begrude me a bit of fun of my own then.

[Avatar4321]

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

Then clearly it can't be the Old and New Testament. Because 1) they are made up of 66 books. Not 2. and 2) The Old and New Testament aren't separate books, but one book.

[Palerider]

But Ezekiel wen on to say exactly what he meant by the sticks, and they have nothing to do with books. "I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms" (37:21-22). That would have been a message of hope. That someday there would be two books would be meaningless, even laughable to the newly exiled community.

I have to apologize Tagriffy. I didn't thoroughly understand your first post.

I see what you mean by the joining of the two sticks before the people and that it appears as if the meaning of that "joining" is explained to them contemporaneously.

My thought or question is, why does the scripture indicate that the writings will be "For Judah" and his companions, and "For Ephraim" and his companions, rather than saying "Take one stick and write upon it, Judah, and take another stick and write upon it, Joseph, and join them one to another into one stick..."

It seems to me there is more to these sticks than would meet the eye. The writings appear to be intended for use rather than just titles of the sticks themselves.

If what you are saying did prove to be true and the sticks have no more than a contemporary meaning to those who would be present, then the argument the church has made all these years regarding these scriptures is even more diminished than I previously thought.

Is that really where you want to go?

Edited June 17, 2013 by Palerider

[why me]

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...........

You need to notice what you just wrote. You wrote an interpretation in your OP. We all can make interpretations. But interpretations are just that...interpretations. Again, this has nothing to do with foundational claims which you stated created your problem with the church.

[Avatar4321]

They are irrelevant to this thread.

If the Holy Ghost is irrelevant to the thread, there is no way we could reach the actual interpretation of the verses.

[why me]

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

This is true. And this is why we have had problems in christianity. Everyone's church has an interpretation. Likewise for many people. And joseph had his interpretations. One can agree or disagree with those interpretations. But in the end, they are just interpretations. But what does this have to do with the foundational claims of the lds church that you have a problem with?

Edited June 17, 2013 by why me

[Palerider]

Then clearly it can't be the Old and New Testament. Because 1) they are made up of 66 books. Not 2. and 2) The Old and New Testament aren't separate books, but one book.

A contrived technicallity, and weak at best.

When looked upon as to what their mission or purpose is the two great divisions serve quite separate purposes.

Nice try.

[Palerider]

You need to notice what you just wrote. You wrote an interpretation in your OP. We all can make interpretations. But interpretations are just that...interpretations. Again, this has nothing to do with foundational claims which you stated created your problem with the church.

The statement regarding foundational claims was to give context, nothing more.

[Avatar4321]

Verse 16: "Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:"

If we accept that this stick is a book, or a record, it would be the book or record of Ephraim.

Alma 2:3 "And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren."

If Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, how can the Book of Mormon be the stick of Ephraim?

Write for Joseph (which Manasseh is).

Ephraim is the one presenting the stick.

[Palerider]

If the Holy Ghost is irrelevant to the thread, there is no way we could reach the actual interpretation of the verses.

He wasn't speaking of the Holy Ghost, only the 11 witnesses to the BofM.

[Avatar4321]

But Ezekiel went on to say exactly what he meant by the sticks, and they have nothing to do with books. "I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms" (37:21-22). That would have been a message of hope. That someday there would be two books would be meaningless, even laughable to the newly exiled community.

It's when the books are brought to the people that the people would be united.

[Palerider]

This is true. And this is why we have had problems in christianity. Everyone church has an interpretation. Likewise for many people. And joseph had his interpretations. One can agree or disagree with those interpretations. But in the end, they are just interpretations. But what does this have to do with the foundational claims of the lds church that you have a problem with?

If you continue to read the entire thread I believe it will come to you. If not, ask me again.

[Avatar4321]

A contrived technicallity, and weak at best.

When looked upon as to what their mission or purpose is the two great divisions serve quite separate purposes.

Nice try.

Oh so because it doesn't work with your contrived interpretation, you just dismiss it without actually addressing anything.

That's fine. You can believe whatever interpretation you want. But if you don't want discuss it, then what's the point of starting a thread on it?

[Palerider]

Write for Joseph (which Manasseh is).

Ephraim is the one presenting the stick.

Partially correct. Ephraim is not the one presenting the stick, it is Ezekiel .

[Palerider]

It's when the books are brought to the people that the people would be united.

Actually when the sticks are presented the Lord says (through his prophet), " I will take the chidren......I will make them one nation" indicating a future date.

[Palerider]

Oh so because it doesn't work with your contrived interpretation, you just dismiss it without actually addressing anything.

That's fine. You can believe whatever interpretation you want. But if you don't want discuss it, then what's the point of starting a thread on it?

I think I did address it quite well, but you disregarded the answer.

Shall we apply your question to the BofM? How could it possibly be the Stick of Ephraim when it has 15 books in it?

Hmmmmmm..........

[Stone holm]

I think I did address it quite well, but you disregarded the answer.

Shall we apply your question to the BofM? How could it possibly be the Stick of Ephraim when it has 15 books in it?

Hmmmmmm..........

Are not the Old Testament prophets peering into the future as to how the records would be viewed?

[tagriffy]

I have to apologize Tagriffy. I didn't thoroughly understand your first post.

I see what you mean by the joining of the two sticks before the people and that it appears as if the meaning of that "joining" is explained to them contemporaneously.

My thought or question is, why does the scripture indicate that the writings will be "For Judah" and his companions, and "For Ephraim" and his companions, rather than saying "Take one stick and write upon it, Judah, and take another stick and write upon it, Joseph, and join them one to another into one stick..."

It seems to me there is more to these sticks than would meet the eye. The writings appear to be intended for use rather than just titles of the sticks themselves.

Ezekiel had a tendency to be excessively wordy. Compare 1:28, "This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord" (NRSV). Nevertheless, I don't see any reason to see any more here than symbolic allegory. Ezekiel fully explained what he meant.

If what you are saying did prove to be true and the sticks have no more than a contemporary meaning to those who would be present, then the argument the church has made all these years regarding these scriptures is even more diminished than I previously thought.

Is that really where you want to go?

Yes and no. I consider the Mormon reading a bit of midrash. The early Church often tried to find ways to understand what has happening and naturally turned to the Bible. They were likening the Scriptures unto themselves (1 Nephi 19:23). Early Christians did the same basic thing with passages like Isaiah 7:14. As long as more-than-literal readings like this are not confused for the meaning of Scripture, there is no reason why Mormons, or anyone else for that matter, shouldn't continue to read the text at multiple levels.

[tagriffy]

It's when the books are brought to the people that the people would be united.

That is not a requirement in Ezekiel's prophecy, although it could be considered a sensus plenior reading.

[mfbukowski]

Just remember the "devil is in the details"..........

Only for fundamentalists who don't see the forest for the trees.