Stick Of Joseph......?

[Stone holm]

OK an excellent point.

I forget that not everyone is coming back, as it were, from atheism, when all such questions were regarded as as important as debating whether or not multiple angels could occupy the same space.

Since I have been a member I have never understood why such trivialities in translation in thousand-year old texts copied by monks for eons and originally written by people like you and me who could receive inspiration for themselves and could actually read and write well enough to write the texts down, were so important for some, when there is a MUCH larger philosophical question of why we should even regard these writings as spiritual guides for us today.

So forgetting this, I seem to stick to issues which I see as important- the big-picture stuff- while forgetting that the difference between "to" and "for" written thousands of years ago, is actually imporant.

For me, there is no such thing as a "truth text" even in science- all is subject to interpretation and changes constantly. I'ts just the best idea that works for a purpose.

And I want to raise that issue because we lose members over such trivialities- and I am sure that line will end up on the other boards- but so be it.

For me, these are beyond non-issues and want others to understand the big issues better so that they see it as I do.

But you are right. We do lose members over this stuff even though I cannot fathom why. I am just trying to help, I suppose as always I need to be more circumspect, but I also feel it is important to get the big-picture message out.

The church is not dependent on any of these trivialities.

I will try to do better even if I am not sure what describes the appropriate behavior for me to assume.

I agree we lose members over trivialities, but we also lose members when people duck giving answers -- and we duck giving answers a whole lot more than we discuss trivialities. My wife, however, would agree with you wholeheartedly. My feeling, however, is that if people become accustomed to discussing and disagreeing on some points of teaching that they are less likely to fall away, than if they are constantly shielded from discussion and disagreements and are led to believe that all of Mormondom believes in every word that tumbles from the lips of a GA -- and then one day outside their weekly feeding of spiritual pablum in Sunday School they are confronted with something that is highly contradictory or suggests that the GAs are not mental clones of each other and they have a "false epiphany" and they go inactive. It is just a theory of mine, but have watched in sorrow as wonderful people exit the Church because they had just figured out that life in the Church may be a bed of roses but the stems occasionally have doctrinal thorns, or they take a heavy dose of someone from the fundamentalist segment and wonder what part of the Southern Baptist we hail from, etc. etc. I believe the Church is true in spite of its occasional blemishes and in spite of GAs sometimes going off the rails.

[mfbukowski]

Who is a prophet?

How can WE know who is a true prophet if we are not one ourselves?

Revelation 19:

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

[why me]

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

What is the context? I see no contradictions. We have a book and we have 11 witnesses who never denied their experiences nor doubted their experience. And some confirmed it on their deathbeds. No interpretation necessary about this.

[Stone holm]

Who is a prophet?

How can WE know who is a true prophet if we are not one ourselves?

Revelation 19:

Guess it depends on whether you have schtick.

[Thinking]

There is no reason for us to attempt a reconciliation. The Book of Mormon is as much the stick of Ephraim as it is of Manasseh, because both Ephraim and Manasseh were the sons of Joseph. The record of Joseph is now in the hand of Ephraim. So far as the fulfilment of the prophecy is concerned, it becomes the record of Ephraim, for the Latter-day Saints are, in the main, of Ephraim."

(Answers to Gospel Questions)

That's like saying my history is the same as my brother's history because we both have the same father.

[Mark Beesley]

I have found, in reading the scriptures, that it is unwise to try and assign a single, literal and exclusive meaning to some passages. This is because many, many passages of scripture have a dual meaning depending on the time of transmission and reception. A scripture in Ezekiel might have a very different meaning for Ezekiel's contemporaries than it has for 21st Century Latter-day Saints, and both meanings can have truth and merit. Thus, a prophecy that a stick of Judah and a stick of Joseph might refer to the Old and New Testament, as well as to the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and even literal gathering places for tribes of Israel, does not lose its usefulness. Indeed, the duality of meanings gives prophecy renewed life and vigor in each era where people receive it in humility and submissiveness to God's will.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have found, in reading the scriptures, that it is unwise to try and assign a single, literal and exclusive meaning to some passages. This is because many, many passages of scripture have a dual meaning depending on the time of transmission and reception. A scripture in Ezekiel might have a very different meaning for Ezekiel's contemporaries than it has for 21st Century Latter-day Saints, and both meanings can have truth and merit. Thus, a prophecy that a stick of Judah and a stick of Joseph might refer to the Old and New Testament, as well as to the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and even literal gathering places for tribes of Israel, does not lose its usefulness. Indeed, the duality of meanings gives prophecy renewed life and vigor in each era where people receive it in humility and submissiveness to God's will.

I concur entirely with this. Edited June 17, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Palerider]

Perhaps a little bit of background would help here.

When I was on my mission in the early seventies I took with me my father’s bible, in which he had written in the notes section the phrase “To show that Mormon doctrine is in complete harmony with the Bible…” and then he had written some biblical scriptures as proof texts.

I knew him well enough to know that he hadn’t come up with these scriptures on his own. He had been taught this concept in a priesthood or gospel doctrine class. But that was the teaching and doctrine of the LDS faith during the fifties and sixties. I remember it well. When the General authorities used a Biblical passage as a proof text you were expected to take that to the bank. It was coin of the realm. To bite the coin to see if it was real would have been an insult likened to blasphemy.

I still view the church in much that way.

I distinctly remember being taught in Primary that Joseph Smith was a man beyond reproach and that he was persecuted for his goodness. There were even evil men who had accused him of being a gold digger or money digger and that it was a complete and utter lie told by people who hated him for no good reason.

While in the mission field, Ezekiel 37 was one of our proof texts of the Book of Mormon and we used it without question as to whether it might have multiple meanings or interpretations. To suggest such a thing would be tantamount to heresy and one could be subject to reprimand.

After all that was a part of the calling, authority and purpose of having God’s representative here on earth: to set forth the correct understanding and indisputable (for believers) interpretation of the scriptures.

Culturally the church has changed significantly since those days. I strongly believe that if Bushman had written Rough Stone Rolling in the fifties, at a minimum he would have been disavowed and disciplined if not outrightly excommunicated.

Some might say the church has grown since those days and become more broad. I would disagree.

I think that with the faith promoting tactic of whitewashing Joseph’s true history, becoming more common knowledge and being irrefutable, the church has had to shift it’s posture and the results are people like Bukowski, who although well intentioned and sincere and probably a great guy by all accounts, give credence to the critic’s statement about the church, that trying to establish Mormon doctrine is like trying to nail jello to the wall. “One day Ezekiel was a proof text……today,… not so much….”

Either Ezekiel is a proof text of the BofM or it isn’t.

The fact that the text carries both a message of hope to the people it was being delivered to at the time and also represents two writings as witnesses of the messiah and the covenants for the future tribes involved, doesn’t alter that fact.

I began this thread with the intent of showing a very plausible alternative interpretation concluding, that the New Testament could very well be the Stick of Ephraim. Anyone reading the New Testament and thinking it is being written primarily to the Jews is simply unfamiliar with the text and unable to see its impact among the Gentiles, who are considered the offspring of Ephraim by virtue of Abraham’s blessing to him.

Genesis 48:19 states:

He (Manasseh) also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother (Ephraim) shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations."

The word “nations” used here is the word “Goyim” in Hebrew and in nearly all references in the Old Testament is translated as “gentiles”.

One makes a mistake to equate the actual preaching by Christ of His Gospel to the Jews as the same thing as the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John remembering and writing his words.

Christ is actually the last Old Testament “prophet” fulfilling the law, promised to Israel and as His actual words, works and station were rejected by the Jews, the later writings are primarily sent to the world or the gentiles (who come under Ephraim) being first and the Jews being last.

Of course one may disagree with my interpretation. That is to be expected. But I have heard some here on this site say that no other person, church, etc. has been able to give a reasonable understanding to Ezekiel 37 that makes sense and with that proposition I certainly disagree.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Palerider

[Thinking]

I have found, in reading the scriptures, that it is unwise to try and assign a single, literal and exclusive meaning to some passages. This is because many, many passages of scripture have a dual meaning depending on the time of transmission and reception. A scripture in Ezekiel might have a very different meaning for Ezekiel's contemporaries than it has for 21st Century Latter-day Saints, and both meanings can have truth and merit. Thus, a prophecy that a stick of Judah and a stick of Joseph might refer to the Old and New Testament, as well as to the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and even literal gathering places for tribes of Israel, does not lose its usefulness. Indeed, the duality of meanings gives prophecy renewed life and vigor in each era where people receive it in humility and submissiveness to God's will.

If it is unwise to try and assign a single, literal and exclusive meaning to some passages, then it must be wise to try and assign a single, literal and exclusive meaning to the other passages. How will I know which passages are some and which are the other?

[Stone holm]

That's like saying my history is the same as my brother's history because we both have the same father.

No it isn't. Joseph refers to both Ephraim and Manasseh what's so difficult to understand about that?

[Thinking]

No it isn't. Joseph refers to both Ephraim and Manasseh what's so difficult to understand about that?

Re-quote

The Book of Mormon is as much the stick of Ephraim as it is of Manasseh, because both Ephraim and Manasseh were the sons of Joseph.

Although Ephraim and Manasseh have the same father, they do not have the same descendants. The stick as it is interpreted in an LDS context is a record of the descendants.

[Thinking]

No it isn't. Joseph refers to both Ephraim and Manasseh what's so difficult to understand about that?

Ezekiel 37:16-19 "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 companion. And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, 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, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand."

[Mark Beesley]

If it is unwise to try and assign a single, literal and exclusive meaning to some passages, then it must be wise to try and assign a single, literal and exclusive meaning to the other passages. How will I know which passages are some and which are the other?

That is what the Spirit is for.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Mark Beesley

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................

I distinctly remember being taught in Primary that Joseph Smith was a man beyond reproach and that he was persecuted for his goodness. There were even evil men who had accused him of being a gold digger or money digger and that it was a complete and utter lie told by people who hated him for no good reason.

......................................

I'm sure glad that I wasn't saddled with that kind of "fairy" faith, and I feel for you, Palerider. Yes, I do. Deed I do.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Not at all, especially since you seem to have forced Palerider to get a mite serious.

If I thought he was truly serious, I'd engage him myself.

[volgadon]

Ezekiel 37:16-19 "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 companion. And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, 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, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand."

Look at the italicised portions.

[Thinking]

Look at the italicised portions.

For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim. The descendants of Ephraim are not the descendants of Manasseh. Lehi (according to the Book of Mormon) was a descendant of Manasseh, so the Book of Mormon cannot be the stick of Ephraim.

[Questing Beast]

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...........

Try this then: your "spiritual witness" is valid for you. Mine is for me. The same holds true for everyone, individually. Churches and their established dogmas are for masses, not individuals. We are in this world always separate from every living thing but "God". We only touch with our senses, and that does not include metaphysically, which is how "God" touches us continually. Your HT is right, both interpretations are valid. This is simply because no OT prophet was looking at anything more than Israel. There was no "Bible" for Nephi to go on about, because the word bible is simply a collection into one source of various books. The RCC have their longer one, the Protestants have their increasing number of "new" editions, altered for a plethora of reasons/excuses. Ezekiel was seeing the movement of peoples and their scriptures, or he was high on something, or he was addressing a contemporary audience within a paradigm that we no longer understand or even see. To appeal to the OT Hebrew prophets to justify an exclusive paradigm thousands of years later is surely hubris....

[Stone holm]

I'm sure glad that I wasn't saddled with that kind of "fairy" faith, and I feel for you, Palerider. Yes, I do. Deed I do.

You don't have faith in fairys -- does that indicate a loss of innocence?

[volgadon]

For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim. The descendants of Ephraim are not the descendants of Manasseh. Lehi (according to the Book of Mormon) was a descendant of Manasseh, so the Book of Mormon cannot be the stick of Ephraim.

Look at the italicised portions. "And for all the house of Israel his companion." "And the tribes of Israel his fellows." The scripture is talking about more than just Ephraim when it says Ephraim.

[Thinking]

Look at the italicised portions. "And for all the house of Israel his companion." "And the tribes of Israel his fellows." The scripture is talking about more than just Ephraim when it says Ephraim.

It says the stick of Ephraim is for all the house of Israel. It doesn't say that all the house of Israel is the stick of Ephraim.

[Hamilton Porter]

Look at the italicised portions. "And for all the house of Israel his companion." "And the tribes of Israel his fellows." The scripture is talking about more than just Ephraim when it says Ephraim.

This. Ephraim in some cases just means Northern Kingdom.

[Hamilton Porter]

This makes no sense at all regarding Ezekiel.........care to try again?

Mind if I try? Dem der Mormon folk gotsa duh duh duh different Jebus.

[Palerider]

I'm sure glad that I wasn't saddled with that kind of "fairy" faith, and I feel for you, Palerider. Yes, I do. Deed I do.

I just took the Mormons (My teacher's) word for it that she was telling me the truth. Why would she tell a child otherwise than what she truly believed?

[Palerider]

Not at all, especially since you seem to have forced Palerider to get a mite serious.

If I thought he was truly serious, I'd engage him myself.

I'm afraid you've already lost all credibility with me so don't go out of your way to act like you're in earnest now.......