"Lehi and his family were Rechabites" - Hugh Nibley

[Jeanne]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

Patriarchal blessings allow for the baptism/adoption into the covenanted bloodline.  Why not in the past as well as now?

The problem with intermarriage was imo about marrying nonbelievers.  Once they were part of the covenant, marriage would be acceptable.

Just a question..if two believers in the church..one black ..one white...were to desire marry in 1923..in the Temple..would that have been okay...assuming of course that baptisms were completed.  I am not being condescending...I would just really like to know.

Edited to add:  Of course,I am assuming that the woman is black..and baptized.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Jeanne

[SamIam]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Patriarchal blessings allow for the baptism/adoption into the covenanted bloodline.  Why not in the past as well as now?

The problem with intermarriage was imo about marrying nonbelievers.  Once they were part of the covenant, marriage would be acceptable.

It can be anything we want, however we should find solutions consistent with the established paradigm.  For the House of Israel, intermarriage throughout the Old Testament was forbidden.  There is no instance of of it's advocation at this time of Joseph nor thereafter.  Even in this discussion concerning the Rechabites and their adoption, research validates that they were already of the lineage of Abraham, so that a blood relationship maintains the integrity of the bloodlines involved. As well I would say you are projecting modern morays onto period when practically no one thought in that fashion.  As such it represent a fine opinion, but nonetheless not one upon which we can establish credible reasoning for sustainment. As well, I think you mischaracterize your insight into one aspect of the issue that was absolutely correct.  It is not "IMO" as you characterize it for marrying nonbelievers, that is the absolute truth and a part of a correct assessment of issues that bear on this subject .  You are inserting ambiguity concerning that which is verifiable and correct concerning nonbelievers and projecting a degree of certainty over that in which we should be more cautious in the cause of adoption into the House of Israel. Point is the Lord is protecting this bloodline as a covenantal element of the agreement he has with Abraham to accomplish the blessing of the entire population of his children.  When that process is properly mature then we see authorized and consistent changes such as permissible adoption. 

The very fact that in apocryphal writings this story line exists provides more credence of reality that a modern social overlay ever can.  For greater insight into the issues of the time, perhaps these verses from Ezra will illuminate:

Quote

 

Ezra 10:1-3, 10   NIV

The People’s Confession of Sin

 1 While Ezra was praying and confessing, weeping and throwing himself down before the house of God, a large crowd of Israelites—men, women and children—gathered around him. They too wept bitterly.

2 Then Shekaniah son of Jehiel, one of the descendants of Elam, said to Ezra, “We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us. But in spite of this, there is still hope for Israel.

3 Now let us make a covenant before our God to send away all these women and their children, in accordance with the counsel of my lord and of those who fear the commands of our God. Let it be done according to the Law.

10 Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel’s guilt.

 

Further Jewish resources provide several sustaining considerations.  Please note:

Quote

At Genesis 41.50, Pseudo-Jonathan reads: "To Joseph were born sons in the land of Egypt, Manasseh and Ephraim, whom Asenath, daughter Of Dinah, who had grown up in the house Of Potiphera, chief of Tanis, bore him." (Targum Pseudo Jonathan)

Other considerations of merit are that we even know who Dinah is.  Seldom are female names given much precedence in scripture unless they are critical to the narrative.  Dinah is critical to this narrative. There are other sources of note but in an effort to contain this ideology I am refraining from putting it all out there. 

[Calm]

"intermarriage throughout the Old Testament was forbidden."

With nonbelievers for sure, at times it was allowed for other lineages, such as Moabites (Ruth) if they converted (Moabites were on Ezra's list).

Since lineage is quite important in the Bible, why do you think they gave the name, but not the lineage of Asenath, especially as Dinah would have been well known?  Your own argument states she is critical to the narrative.

Judah married a Canaanite (Shua's daughter) for another example. There is nothing saying he was condemned for this marriage.

PS:  I have no issue with intermarriage with other lineages being forbidden in past times.  I don't care if Asenath was Hebrew or Canaanite or Egyptian or other or if the only reason she was allowed to get married to Joseph was a shared heritage.  I don't require other time periods to live by our rules.  My opinion is based on the lack of info given---if lineage was so important in this marriage, why was it not identified?---as well as other instances of known intermarriage that were not specifically condemned.

I dislike appealing to later apocryphal stories that were likely written after the stricter laws of intermarriage were put in place to make Joseph's descendants acceptable as Israelites.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Just a question..if two believers in the church..one black ..one white...were to desire marry in 1923..in the Temple..would that have been okay...assuming of course that baptisms were completed.  I am not being condescending...I would just really like to know.

Edited to add:  Of course,I am assuming that the woman is black..and baptized.

It was not allowed.

There are eras that allowed for full adoption into the Covenant and others eras that didn't (both in the Bible, see Ruth, and then Ezra, though some claim "foreign women" should be interpreted as nonbelievers and modern times).  One can question if it was men's interpretation of God's law or God's actual law.

[Calm]

SamIam...

I see the need to ensure Asenath was not black as presentism, would this debate be going on here if we didn't have the priesthood restriction and all the apocryphal stuff was pulled out to justify the treatment of intermarriage on our faith?

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It was not allowed.

There are eras that allowed for full adoption into the Covenant and others eras that didn't (both in the Bible, see Ruth, and then Ezra, though some claim "foreign women" should be interpreted as nonbelievers and modern times).  One can question if it was men's interpretation of God's law or God's actual law.

Thank you...I would like to think it is just men's interpretation.

[USU78]

If they were Rechabites, why did they engage in agriculture in the new land?

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Patriarchal blessings allow for the baptism/adoption into the covenanted bloodline.  Why not in the past as well as now?

The problem with intermarriage was imo about marrying nonbelievers.  Once they were part of the covenant, marriage would be acceptable.

I suspect the Lehites began to break from many of the strict requirements.

But there is also the account in Joseph and Asenath about Asenath being "purified" from her beliefs by some odd ritual involving bees stinging the pagan prayers out of her lips. A bit much. Baptism seems a more painless option.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

If they were Rechabites, why did they engage in agriculture in the new land?

I've been grappling with this one too. If there is anything to this hypothesis that the Ishmaelite half of the Lehite Party was Rechabite then we'd have to explain why the Nephites immediately began to build houses and grow crops in the Promised Land.

"Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever: neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers."

I think one explanation is that these difficult Rechabite beliefs were partly responsible for the schism in the party after their arrival. We see this in the mention in Alma that some Lamanites still “lived in the wilderness, and dwelt in tents" and were not as industrious as the Nephites. It seems agriculture and building was more of a Nephite practice. 

I haven't gone through the text yet with this question in mind. But that will be critical to determining if the Ishmaelites came from a Rechabite background. But it does seem that we have at least some groups in the Promised Land carrying on the practice of living in tents in the wilderness.

[Rajah Manchou]

There's also the story in Helaman 5 about Lehi and Nephi being captured by the Lamanites in the Land of Nephi. There are many elements (eg. cloud of darkness, prison, angels mingling, shining faces) that are found in the History of the Rechabites.

The central figure in that account is Aminadab, a Nephite dissenter who joined the Lamanites. According to the Narrative of Zosimus, Aminadab is also the name of the father of the Rechab.

[SamIam]

On 3/4/2018 at 4:13 PM, Calm said:

"intermarriage throughout the Old Testament was forbidden."

With nonbelievers for sure, at times it was allowed for other lineages, such as Moabites (Ruth) if they converted (Moabites were on Ezra's list).

Since lineage is quite important in the Bible, why do you think they gave the name, but not the lineage of Asenath, especially as Dinah would have been well known?  Your own argument states she is critical to the narrative.

Judah married a Canaanite (Shua's daughter) for another example. There is nothing saying he was condemned for this marriage.

PS:  I have no issue with intermarriage with other lineages being forbidden in past times.  I don't care if Asenath was Hebrew or Canaanite or Egyptian or other or if the only reason she was allowed to get married to Joseph was a shared heritage.  I don't require other time periods to live by our rules.  My opinion is based on the lack of info given---if lineage was so important in this marriage, why was it not identified?---as well as other instances of known intermarriage that were not specifically condemned.

I dislike appealing to later apocryphal stories that were likely written after the stricter laws of intermarriage were put in place to make Joseph's descendants acceptable as Israelites.

You are only doing half of your homework.  Who are the Moabites and why would they be permitted?

Why her name and not her lineage? I have long felt and observed that we are not inclined to look deep enough to see all that the Bible and scriptures do tell us.  However, if you look and are believing it will fulfill one aspect of it's intent.  It will build faith and teach you of God and Christ. So far your approach, as has been typical of this particular forum, is biased to proof, intellectual conclusions and conditions for acceptance of information whereas it is not beyond reason to observe that it is a layered narrative opening up over time in ways that defy those conditions.  Who Asenath is  is of no importance to anyone UNLESS you ask one question.  The one I asked.  How is priesthood denied with conditions of sacrifice of the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant if a Canaanite marries into the line of the prophets based on the conditions the Lord himself set forth? And then Joseph marries a Canaanite and all is to be ignored?  If the Bible is really from God - then unequivocally this cannot be. And so the answer for me before I did all of the research is that Asenath is not Canaanite.  She can't be and God be a God of integrity. In my mind you have to answer this question, if it occurs to you, or it trivializes God and makes his declarations of no consequence.  There is one other person who I have noted has asked and answered this question - John Pratt. You may prefer his explanation and how he came to the conclusion as it is surely much more intellectually derived at than I would ever have noted.  However, once he explains it, he makes exceptional sense. Try this link:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2000/puzzle_ans.html

 

[SamIam]

On 3/4/2018 at 4:47 PM, Calm said:

SamIam...

I see the need to ensure Asenath was not black as presentism, would this debate be going on here if we didn't have the priesthood restriction and all the apocryphal stuff was pulled out to justify the treatment of intermarriage on our faith?

 

Absolutely it would be going on relative to the priesthood.  This discussion from my perspective has nothing to do with blacks.  It has to do with the integrity of God.  That you think my motivations have to do with the blacks is the actual presentism as would never be conceived as a mandate in another era of existence.  Your social paradigm can’t see it any other way.  Men are always finding ways to reshape God into our mentality, our priorities.  We diminish his priorities because they do not make sense to us.  I make every effort to read the scriptures and glean from them his mentality.  When he changes his voice in the scriptures or through prophetic utterance then he has clarified a direction change that is consistent with his plan.  I didn't force him to come my way, I went his.  There is absolutely nothing to justify that the Abraham covenant permitted adoption of the nature you describe.  There is no scripture, no stories, that complete the narrative in such a way as to bring the cycle full circle to condoned by God.  For instance you mention that Judah marries a Canaanite.  Okay men are men and sadly the rules can take a back seat to attraction.

So you ask a valid question but you stay at the surface thinking this is meaningful when if you extend your question to the point of answer you’ll find precisely what I would predict trusting the consistency and integrity of God. Let's look at your example of Judah and marrying a Canaanite.  You say there is nothing said against it.  I say the Lord strongly says something but it is the story itself not words.  Judah has three sons from Shuah the Canaanite; Er, Onan, Shelah.  As the sons grow up Judah finds a wife for his oldest, Er.  We have to keep in mind here that we are following the development of the Blood line of the Savior and we might expect some careful management of that blood line. The scriptures tell that Judah has selected a women named Tamar – and that is about all it tells us of Tamar.  We do not know where she is from, who she is, who her blood line is or anything much of personal data at all. We do know her name and that of itself means she is critical to the narrative.

Judah gives her to Er and before they can have children God smites Er and he dies. Then according to custom of the Levirate marriage Judah encourages his next son Onan to perform the right of providing offspring for his older brother. Well, doggone it, the Lord kills Onan as well before he can provide offspring, ostensibly for his wickedness.  Just look up the word onanism and you’ll know what he is famous for.

You’ve got to be seeing that something is going on here. The Lord does not want a half Canaanite, half House of Israel mix brought into what is going to be the blood line of Christ.  Judah, tells Tamar to wait it out and when his youngest son is old enough, he will give him to Tamar to perform the function of the Levirate marriage.  However, when the day comes that his youngest is old enough Judah won’t let Shelah fill the role because he has come to believe Tamar is a death sentence.

You know the story of Tamar and Judah and how she has him fill the role of the Levirate.  Now comes the only clue we have to anything about Tamar. She gets pregnant and Judah not knowing he is the Father goes through the roof.  He being the tribal head then decrees a death sentence for her dalliance.

There are two death sentence possibilities – one is reserved for common folk, or for basic sinful types, Non- House of Israel types - they get a good stoning. 

However, if the person is the son or daughter of a priest of the House of Israel they have reserved for them the very special burning at the stake. This is the one that Judah declares for Tamar.  She is to be burned at the stake. This is the strongest indicator that she is not Canaanite and is most probably of the House of Israel. Is it explicit. Nope.  Is it enough? Absolutely.

Quote

The midrash <https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/glossary/midrash>

  is relatively silent on her life before she married into the family of Judah. One tradition asserts that she was an orphan and was converted in order to marry (BT Sotah <https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/glossary/sotah>  10a), while another claims that she was the daughter of Melchizedek, king of Salem, who was “a priest of God Most High” (Gen. 14:18). Consequently, Judah judged her according to the laws pertaining to the daughter of a priest (which are set forth in Lev. 21:9) and ordered that she be burnt when he thought that she had become pregnant as a result of an illicit tryst (Gen. Rabbah 85:10).

However, the tell-tale thing in my opinion is that it is the offspring of Judah and Tamar, who he allows to live after he finds out he is the father, that becomes the bloodline that continues to be the blood line of Christ.  You will probably claim inadequate evidence to prove anything, but I claim abundant evidence to believe the Lord's earlier distinctions of not marrying a Canaanite.

Now you mention Ruth.  I am not going to spoil your fun but look up the Moabites and find their origins.  Once you do I’m going to guess you still claim inadequate proof.  Then I am going to ask that in light of the several examples we have discussed find me one where it clearly indicates a Canaanite was sanctioned by the Lord in marriage to anyone of the House of Israel. There is one that I wonder about but there is no geneology or origins to condemn the person by, I just can’t find anyway to exonerate the person either as we have done with Tamar. May you will find what I have never observed…we’ll see.  

Edited March 6, 2018 by SamIam

[Calm]

"That you think my motivations have to do with the blacks is the actual presentism as would never be conceived as a mandate in another era of existence."

I am not suggesting your reasoning was based on getting around the priesthood restriction, rather that this explanation became popular in the Church because of it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SamIam said:

Now you mention Ruth.  I am not going to spoil your fun but look up the Moabites and find their origins.  

I am well aware of the origin of the Moabites.  I am merely pointing out the Bible is inconsistent in allowing and forbidding marriage with them (Deu 23:3).  I would say the narrative of Ruth demonstrates the adoption possibility.

And whatever the story of Judah, he is not condemned at the time for marrying a Canaanite as far as we can tell from the scripture.  There is no talk of disavowing his line through his Canaanite wife as there was with Esau even if the birthright line turned out not to include any of his half Canaanite children due to daughter-in-law Tamar pretending to be a prostitute.

"Ostensibly for his wickedness..."

Are we to believe the scripture or not?  If the two sons of Judah were not killed for their wickedness, then the scripture is lying, is it not?  Why not just say they were forbidden from carrying the line?  Why instead have Onan killed because he refuses to sire a child with Tamar (the allegedly unacceptable to the Lord child)? Or move the birthright down a brother again, Reuben and Simeon have already lost their right to the birthright due to sin.  Levi as well though his blood gets the honor of the Levitical priesthood.  Judah sins by taking a Canaanite as a wife and yet gets to keep the birthright, but his sons have to die and he and his daughter in law fornicate in order to keep the bloodline from being tainted?  

"Careful management of the bloodline"...because it is better for the patriarch of the bloodline to commit fornication with his daughter-in-law than it is to have Canaanite blood in the line according to the Lord?  It doesn't seem all that careful management to me to require a woman to debase herself in order to have the 'proper' child.

If God can lift the Priesthood Ban in 1978, why not at other times as he sees fit?

Edited March 6, 2018 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, SamIam said:

find me one where it clearly indicates a Canaanite was sanctioned by the Lord in marriage to anyone of the House of Israel. 

Joseph and Asentah

[SamIam]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"That you think my motivations have to do with the blacks is the actual presentism as would never be conceived as a mandate in another era of existence."

I am not suggesting your reasoning was based on getting around the priesthood restriction, rather that this explanation became popular in the Church because of it.

It is an interesting paradigm that we find in these recent years a strong reversal in the narrative surrounding the restrictions on the priesthood and a stance that seems to deny the precepts that justified such.  As eager as the tendency is to move away from any association with a biased past, what I find even more interesting is that we still teach the doctrine but we step back to the scriptural narrative without assigning a racial profile.  The references to Egyptus the younger and her son Pharaoh denied the priesthood as a penalty for the acts of his Grandfather is the same narrative we have taught for decades.  I have tried to ascertain "who" is the line that derives from that narrative, but I cannot. It simply is not clear , nor can I find the inferences that would help me even move in a direction.  However, even this discussion concerning Rechabites, and adoption and the lineage of 
Abraham  and rights to priesthood indicates the narrative survives scriptural.  However, it drives us further away from the OP if I were to develop why I agree with the Churches direction in this matter and yet still validate the principles of the old narrative...so I will refrain. 

[Rajah Manchou]

10 minutes ago, SamIam said:

However, it drives us further away from the OP if I were to develop why I agree with the Churches direction in this matter and yet still validate the principles of the old narrative...so I will refrain. 

I don't mind deviating from the OP. It will likely die off anyway. 

You seem to have a good grasp on the lineages, something I've only recently taken an interest in. What is your opinion on Nibley's statement that the name Ishmael represents an unmistakable connection to the Hagar line? Could we assume, as Nibley seems to do, that Ishmael and his family were Ishmaelites and that Lehi was closely related to the Rechabite movement?

Edited March 6, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[SamIam]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am well aware of the origin of the Moabites.  I am merely pointing out the Bible is inconsistent in allowing and forbidding marriage with them (Deu 23:3).  I would say the narrative of Ruth demonstrates the adoption possibility.

And whatever the story of Judah, he is not condemned at the time for marrying a Canaanite as far as we can tell from the scripture.  There is no talk of disavowing his line through his Canaanite wife as there was with Esau even if the birthright line turned out not to include any of his half Canaanite children due to daughter-in-law Tamar pretending to be a prostitute.

"Ostensibly for his wickedness..."

Are we to believe the scripture or not?  If the two sons of Judah were not killed for their wickedness, then the scripture is lying, is it not?  Why not just say they were forbidden from carrying the line?  Why instead have Onan killed because he refuses to sire a child with Tamar (the allegedly unacceptable to the Lord child)? Or move the birthright down a brother again, Reuben and Simeon have already lost their right to the birthright due to sin.  Levi as well though his blood gets the honor of the Levitical priesthood.  Judah sins by taking a Canaanite as a wife and yet gets to keep the birthright, but his sons have to die and he and his daughter in law fornicate in order to keep the bloodline from being tainted?  

"Careful management of the bloodline"...because it is better for the patriarch of the bloodline to commit fornication with his daughter-in-law than it is to have Canaanite blood in the line according to the Lord?  It doesn't seem all that careful management to me to require a woman to debase herself in order to have the 'proper' child.

If God can lift the Priesthood Ban in 1978, why not at other times as he sees fit?

No one is denying their wickedness as the cause of their demise, however does that have to be the only reason? Does there not appear to be a hand of direction in this process.  Not everyone  who is wicked is slain by God, why these two is a viable question.  Again I think you are excising seeing possibilities for the preference of explicit undeniable evidences before you can see potentials. As far as your descriptions of Judah and Tamar, you are clearly missing the entire nature of the narrative as Tamar has done an honorable thing and in Jewish culture it is not where near what you are characterizing.  Clearly another overlay of presentism bias for how far the misuderstanding goes.  Normally I would look up the references but it is late for me tonight - perhaps tomorrow. I have a chart I made some years ago where I list the various primary participants in the Old Testament narrative and it is astounding how often the blood line is managed through questionable events.  Why does it go through Bathsheba the illicit wife of David whom he should never have been with?  Still, I am pretty sure I have noted somewhere in your past a understanding of Levirate marriage and so I wonder why you keep pounding fornication when that is simply incorrect when this is understood. 

Again, another fabulous question about lifting the ban.  It is obviously a paired event.  A genealogical line was chosen not long after the fall which was denied the priesthood.  Chiasmatically speaking the priesthood bans lifting is a wonderful counter,  even seemingly aligned.  There are some insightful observations made by general authorities about aspects that I find very compelling however, again not the direction of the OP so we let it slide for now.

 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, SamIam said:

Who Asenath is  is of no importance to anyone UNLESS you ask one question.  The one I asked. 

Looking around I found the question asked in the Ensign a while back. I'm sure you've heard this solution before and the answer may have been debunked since, but I found it to be an interesting angle:

Asenath an Egyptian?

In his article entitled “Joseph, Model of Excellence” (Sept. 1980, p. 9), the author writes that Joseph’s wife, Asenath, “was not only Egyptian, but a daughter of an Egyptian priest,” thus conveying the idea that her two sons, Ephraim and Manessah, were of “half-Egyptian” blood. If that were so, then both of them would have been of a lineage which at that time “could not have the rights of Priesthood” (Abr. 1:27).

Actually, the Pharaoh of Joseph’s time was not Egyptian by blood, but was of the Hyksos, a nomadic people who swept into Egypt from the Arabian peninsula. The Hyksos were a Semitic people, which made them distant relatives of Joseph and his family. Asenath was a descendant of these Semitic Hyksos, not an Egyptian.

Albert S. Paskett
Grantsville, Utah

The language used does permit confusion. Yes, Asenath was of the Semitic Hyksos people who were ruling Egypt in the days of Joseph. However, because they had conquered Egypt and were living there for a number of generations, it is also appropriate to identify them as Egyptians, just as it is possible to identify U.S. citizens of Danish or German or English extraction as Americans. The author was discussing national homeland boundaries, not racial origin or lineage.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[SamIam]

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I don't mind deviating from the OP. It will likely die off anyway. 

You seem to have a good grasp on the lineages, something I've only recently taken an interest in. What is your opinion on Nibley's statement that the name Ishmael represents an unmistakable connection to the Hagar line? Could we assume, as Nibley seems to do, that Ishmael and his family were Ishmaelites and that Lehi was closely related to the Rechabite movement?

As I mentioned in my first post, I believe, I think Nibley is way off.  The other point that comes to bear in this is the observation that Lehi was of Manasseh according to the Book of Mormon and according to, I believe Erastus Snow, that information in the original 116 pages placed Ishmael as a descendant of Ephraim.  Thus we have Joseph's two sons represented as the extension of the fruitful bough that was that would be Joseph's legacy and as Joseph is the heir of this continent when all is said and done it just all seems to come together in a consistent package.   
Yes, thank you, I have spent years studying lineages.  It is fascinating to me the degree of influence and the knowledge that can be gleaned from seeing how this aspect of Scriptural significance is managed. 

[SamIam]

41 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Looking around I found the question asked in the Ensign a while back. The answer was interesting:

Asenath an Egyptian?

In his article entitled “Joseph, Model of Excellence” (Sept. 1980, p. 9), the author writes that Joseph’s wife, Asenath, “was not only Egyptian, but a daughter of an Egyptian priest,” thus conveying the idea that her two sons, Ephraim and Manessah, were of “half-Egyptian” blood. If that were so, then both of them would have been of a lineage which at that time “could not have the rights of Priesthood” (Abr. 1:27).

Actually, the Pharaoh of Joseph’s time was not Egyptian by blood, but was of the Hyksos, a nomadic people who swept into Egypt from the Arabian peninsula. The Hyksos were a Semitic people, which made them distant relatives of Joseph and his family. Asenath was a descendant of these Semitic Hyksos, not an Egyptian.

Albert S. Paskett
Grantsville, Utah

The language used does permit confusion. Yes, Asenath was of the Semitic Hyksos people who were ruling Egypt in the days of Joseph. However, because they had conquered Egypt and were living there for a number of generations, it is also appropriate to identify them as Egyptians, just as it is possible to identify U.S. citizens of Danish or German or English extraction as Americans. The author was discussing national homeland boundaries, not racial origin or lineage.

The Hyksos connection is a very popular one and for some accounts for the place in the narrative where it states that a new Pharoah arose which "knew not Joseph" ostensibly due to the fact they were overthrown as the previous management moved back in who were not around during Joseph's time.  For a long while it was my favored approach until I really dug in and did a couple of years of research and pondering.  Although, if someone is comfortable with the Hyksos narrative it is good in that they are honestly seeking to not ignore the imperative of Asenath not being of a Canaanite origin.  I don't have any trouble with the Hyksos narrative, however, it does not get in the way of the Dinah / Asenath narrative for me other than Asenath is not Hyksos. You might do a read through of John Pratts review of the issue that is in the link I posted above as his is well done and may be compelling from a different perspective.   

What is interesting is that in your excerpt, he is trying to answer the same question - the legitimacy of the priesthood model if Asenath is true Egyptian.  Again the question itself is compelling and should drive pondering and research.  It is of such importance as after a fashion the entire LDS narrative of priesthood authority pivots on this event in history. The Jews also understand the imperative of a pure blood line narrative, hence why they document in multiple ways how Asenath is of Jacob via Dinah. Again your author has found a way to maintain the significant boundary that must exist if LDS theology is correct.  The ancient heir of rights to priesthood authority, Ephraim is directly the beginning of this dispensations claim of rights to restore the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, Brigham Young notes that Joseph was by right the descendant of Ephraim to which the restoration was entrusted.

Edited March 6, 2018 by SamIam

[Rajah Manchou]

17 minutes ago, SamIam said:

As I mentioned in my first post, I believe, I think Nibley is way off.  The other point that comes to bear in this is the observation that Lehi was of Manasseh according to the Book of Mormon and according to, I believe Erastus Snow, that information in the original 116 pages placed Ishmael as a descendant of Ephraim.  Thus we have Joseph's two sons represented as the extension of the fruitful bough that was that would be Joseph's legacy and as Joseph is the heir of this continent when all is said and done it just all seems to come together in a consistent package.   
Yes, thank you, I have spent years studying lineages.  It is fascinating to me the degree of influence and the knowledge that can be gleaned from seeing how this aspect of Scriptural significance is managed. 

It is clear that Lehi was of Manasseh. I'm cautious about speculating what was in the 116 pages. It would seem to me that assumption would be an easy way to equate the Book of Mormon with the Stick of Ephraim. But I don't see how it would fit any evidence we can pull from the text. 

Specifically, I am wondering if there are cases of anyone from the lineage of Jacob receiving the name of Ishmael. It would seem to me identifying half of the Lehite party as Ishmael was an intentional way of identifying half the Lehite party as Ishmaelites.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[SamIam]

3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It is clear that Lehi was of Manasseh. I'm cautious about speculating what was in the 116 pages. It would seem to me that assumption would be an easy way to equate the Book of Mormon with the Stick of Ephraim. But I don't see how it would fit any evidence we can pull from the text. 

Specifically, I am wondering if there are cases of anyone from the lineage of Jacob receiving the name of Ishmael. It would seem to me identifying half of the Lehite part as Ishmael was an intentional way of identifying half the Lehite party as Ishmaelites.

In my previous research and the chart I made there is one Ishmael, a descendant of Nethaniah descended from Elishama a son of King David. He shows up around around 600 B.C.  He kills Gedeliah and I do not have much more off of the top of my head or research.  Perhaps I can look further tomorrow.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SamIam said:

No one is denying their wickedness as the cause of their demise, however does that have to be the only reason? Does there not appear to be a hand of direction in this process.  Not everyone  who is wicked is slain by God, why these two is a viable question.  Again I think you are excising seeing possibilities for the preference of explicit undeniable evidences before you can see potentials. As far as your descriptions of Judah and Tamar, you are clearly missing the entire nature of the narrative as Tamar has done an honorable thing and in Jewish culture it is not where near what you are characterizing.  Clearly another overlay of presentism bias for how far the misuderstanding goes.  Normally I would look up the references but it is late for me tonight - perhaps tomorrow. I have a chart I made some years ago where I list the various primary participants in the Old Testament narrative and it is astounding how often the blood line is managed through questionable events.  Why does it go through Bathsheba the illicit wife of David whom he should never have been with?  Still, I am pretty sure I have noted somewhere in your past a understanding of Levirate marriage and so I wonder why you keep pounding fornication when that is simply incorrect when this is understood. 

Again, another fabulous question about lifting the ban.  It is obviously a paired event.  A genealogical line was chosen not long after the fall which was denied the priesthood.  Chiasmatically speaking the priesthood bans lifting is a wonderful counter,  even seemingly aligned.  There are some insightful observations made by general authorities about aspects that I find very compelling however, again not the direction of the OP so we let it slide for now.

 

 

So what would have happened if Er and Onan hadn't been wicked?

As far asrefusing to see possibilities, to me it looks like you are the one in the rut of thinking**** a certain way, having to find hidden messages in scriptureto justify your view.  Therefore I assume we both are probably both open and closed to ideas other than our own.  

****For example, it appears you started from the position of no Canaanite blood allowed to be mixed in the Davidic/Jesus bloodline and everything must follow from there.  That is not a position that allows all possibilities, only some.  My position started when I noted Ruth, a Moabite who is one of those forbidden to enter the temple, becomes the ancestor of Christ and I asked why.  I didn't care what the answer was, I don't care as it will not impact my life or behaviour as far as I can tell; I am only curious....so my position appears to be openended to me.  You might even convince me, but I have so far seen everything you have put up already and none of it seems definitive to me, speculation based on old noncanonized stories that may have been created to explain away what was distasteful to the later Jews.  Whitewashing or upgrading one's family history has always been around.  Most mythologies have similar treatment.  It amazes me at times that canonized scripture comes through with so many warts still intact.

Tamar may have been honorable in the sense of forcing Judah's hand, but it can hardly have been desirable to deceive and sleep with her father-in-law and he was not being honorable by sleeping with a prostitute.  I am not condemning Tamar for using her culture's expectations to survive decently, childless women being more or less on the fringes of society as opposed to being the first wife of the firstborn son of the royal/leadership birthright...a very prestigious position.  In essence, Tamar had contracted to provide a heir to both Er and the line of Judah and that is what she did. Otoh, Judah was not married to the woman he slept with and he thought she was a prostitute, he was not filling any obligation, but merely satisfying his own lust.  It may have been acceptable for his culture for a man to do so, though Tamar was going to be killed for sleeping with someone she was not married to until Judah realized it was himself and it was his son/heir who would also die, so called a technical.

Do you believe God is okay with intended fornication (Judah did not know he was sleeping with his daughter-in-law) even if the result is a replacement for a valid Levirate marriage?  Reuben had lost his place because he had slept with the wife of his father; Judah did the same thing unknowingly, while he was not therefore accountable, it seems unlikely that it would be considered any more moral except for the mitigating factor she needed a child.  

Do you have any evidence that Tamar was taken as Judah's wife or did she remain known as the wife of Er?  Is there any indication that Judah had relations with her after he knew who she was?  Judah certainly didn't offer to have a child by her prior to her deception, he only offered his third son when old enough.  If it was acceptable to their culture or God, why wouldn't he have solved Tamar's lack by this.  Why did she have to hide her identity?

Levirate marriage is defined as with the brothers; there is nothing that indicates it was considered acceptable for a father-in-law to play the role any more than it was acceptable for a son to take his father's wife to his bed, whether out of lust or to usurp his power as Absalom did (David's concubines not only no longer had relations with David after they were taken by Absalom, but they were even kept in confinement...they were tainted at least in David's eyes by Absalom's action though there is no indication it was anything but rape).

------

According to population dynamics, everyone has Cain as an ancestor by now....and probably has since long before the priesthood ban took place.  Symbolically the lineage Ban might make sense, but not in a literal lineage sense...the kind that requires God to kill someone to prevent their blood from tainting the royal line.

I believe God allowed humans to be humans in Christ's bloodline to demonstrate that the Atonement is infinite and heals all wounds and covers all sins (save the unpardonable sin).  Pretty much every category of sin can be found in the various narratives.  I am well aware of the variety of sinners in the Davidic line and have been since my early teens 35+ years ago when I started to study the Old Testament.  Even had a number of conversations about Christ's bloodline and what it might mean with my mother at that time.  I am also well aware of the various legends that grew up as the Rabbis and others tried to reconcile inconsistencies in the scriptures....not surprisingly, many continue to do so.

Bottomline for me is Ruth was welcomed into the tribe even though Deu 23:3 forbids intermarriage with Moabites.  The only thing we are told is she fully commits to living the life with her mother-in-law.  Loyalty appears to be important enough that identity is changed, a great analogy to how the Atonement can alter the natural man into the man of covenant.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, SamIam said:

In my previous research and the chart I made there is one Ishmael, a descendant of Nethaniah descended from Elishama a son of King David. He shows up around around 600 B.C.  He kills Gedeliah and I do not have much more off of the top of my head or research.  Perhaps I can look further tomorrow.

Nice catch. Here he is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_son_of_Nethaniah

"Ishmael (Hebrew: ישמעאל God shall hear) ben (= 'son of') Nethaniah was a member of the royal household of Judah.

So looks like the lineages of Ishmael and Jacob weren't such bitter enemies around 600 BC. Thanks for finding that.