"Lehi and his family were Rechabites" - Hugh Nibley

[SamIam]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

The story line does not really convey specifics of what the issue really was in the case of Onan.  However, it is can be extrapolated.  We don't know, as we do with Er, of a full blown declaration of wickedness for Onan.  What we do know is that he treated lightly a very significant and important service to keep his brothers name alive through the generations and rendered what is an approved act according to law of performing the levirate duties and he made it an act of incest by cavorting with his sister in law. Again please consider:

Quote

Among the incestuous unions forbidden in Leviticus 18 and 20 is the prohibition against a sexual relationship between a man and his brother’s wife. This prohibition is understood by ancient commentators to apply even if the woman in question becomes a divorcée or a widow. (http://perspectives.ajsnet.org/the-marriage-issue-spring-2013/between-the-living-and-the-dead-making-levirate-marriage-work/

To perform the duty of Fathering the issue of a departed brother was the only exception.  Onan illustrating that he had no intention of fathering a child because he insured no child by onanism, thus committed a horrific violation of the moral code by engaging in incestuous behavior.  Relative to why kill the two?  The law deals with duty and obligation of a brother to lift up his deceased brother by providing him offspring.  It does not have any caveat for wicked brothers or whatever. If he is alive he can do the do...can't if he is dead though...      

Is that the correct answer to your question. I don't know.  It is a reasonable answer based on the nature of the law that was in play at the moment.  If either of these men had been wicked and lived they were still required to perform the obligations that fell to them and their
Father Judah would have required it of them. Dead?  Not such a priority. 

My rut of thinking: You indicate that you started with no bias and were free as a bird to formulate correct understandings.  In the ways of men that is a correct and laudable process.  However, there is a place where it is precisely the wrong thing to do. You are correct that the way I explained my process it is precisely that of first formulating a conclusion and then finding a means of supporting the conclusion.  However, I don't do that all the time.  I only do that when it involves believing the Lord and his servants.  Men never. The 10,000 dollar question asked of the brother of Jared just before he stepped into the presence of the Lord was, "believest thou the words that I shall speak?  Shall speak?  You mean I don't get to think upon it and then apply my superior logic and rational to consider if what you say is the right thing for me.  You mean I have to have a forgone conclusion, a preconceived notion if you will, that whatever you are going to say is going to be right? Absolutely!!  Either you know the Lord and trust or you do not and any form of alternative response negates the right of his presence. I have decided that to the best of my limited capacity, I will always believe the Lord, in hopes that my limits will fall away as I choose this option.  In the case of the Abrahamic covenant and how it applies to our discussion the Lord very clearly stated his piece.  Knowing what he said should be far easier for me to sustain than waiting for a moment when he challenges me with not knowing what he will say but still requiring complete sustainment. I do spend great stretches of time making sure I do understand his heart and mind. I need to know how he thinks and that takes much work on my part.  However, that is how I know I can trust him implicitly.  

Now I understand the reasoning of men, of intellects that, precisely condemn this type of process.  It is the antithesis of an unbiased approach to finding academic truths. However, as the Lord states my thoughts are not your thoughts.  In light of this clear declaration, why we have as LDS intellectuals established codes of conduct that mean we have to behave a certain way or cease to be relevant to the expectations of various disciplines of men is beyond me as it intersects with theological expectations. It simply means we will be wrong. We will be wrong.  I'm sure that as you read my thoughts on the Brother of Jared interaction you can see, if you choose to, the wisdom of my thoughts.  They are different than what is expected by men - but they are also correct ...if you want to be like the Brother of Jared. 

Levirate marriage and the Father in Law.  Again, I think this a subject that is best understood by going beyond the Biblical record.  In the case of the enforcement of Biblical law the Jews had an extremely well developed legal code, with the various nuances defined that were only hinted at in scripture.  In the Case of the Levirate marriage the following applications apply as stated by Nachmanides, one of the most respected Jewish Scholars and Sephardic Rabbis: 

Quote

Nachmanides points out that before the giving of the Torah, Levirate Marriage could be carried out by any male member of the family. Judah as well as his sons had therefore been a valid candidate to perform the Yibum from the beginning. The Law of Moses later restricted Yibum to brothers only (Deuteronomy 25:5). http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/levirate.html

This kind of distinction places us again in the responsible position of understanding customs of the Jews and in this case how they developed and changed according to further light and knowledge.  As for your continued pounding of fornication etc I think you are resisting the possibility of realizing that a biased judgement is most likely not an accurate one.  The text is very clear in describing various laws that Judah did not break in his tryst.  His wife had died.  The days of mourning had passed. He was horrified when he found out it was his daughter in law and it makes it clear that he would never have entertained this as possibility had he known.  For though in dire circumstances Judah could father a child in behalf of his son the law did not allow dalliance or behaviors of pleasure with ones daughter in law. He could not for instance marry her ongoing and he does not the record makes clear.  In other words the record seems to try to play down an action that is deplorable of seeking out a harlot but it is a much better transgression if you will than sleeping with your sons wife. And as I have stated this was the desire of the Lord in terms of producing an appropriate heir to the bloodline.

As well you toss in complaints of Rueban and Bilhah.  This is not a tossed salad of grievances that all have equal standing.  Each of these acts had laws that governed them.  Rueban has absolutely no mitigation under the law and we should treat each of these cases on its own merits instead of collectively under the banner of our disgust at the wanton behaviors that seem manifest.  

I have skipped over a couple of your last paragraphs as I think you can see from my earlier responses in this post where I think you might have mistaken this or that for not really knowing the things of the Jews. I do believe that these things do help to add meaning to our understandings in accuracy.

[Calm]

"You indicate that you started with no bias and were free as a bird to formulate correct understandings.  In the ways of men that is a correct and laudable process."

No, we all have biases that influence how we interpret what we hear and see (and touch and taste and smell).  I am just saying I am missing the one you think I had.  I don't need to have the priesthood ban at whatever time in the scriptures not be from God nor do I need it to be from God.  

I think you are missing my points in the narrative of Judah and his Canaanite wife and children as you are defending against stuff I am not saying...such as demonstrating Onan's refusal to stand in for his brother while still seeking pleasure with his brother's widow is wicked; I have never suggested otherwise.  I am not sure how else I can describe my point, which is Judah and his Canaanite wife's marriage is never condemned at the time nor are the sons pointed out as unworthy to be part of the birthright because of their blood, but solely because of their wickedness.  It seems best we simply draw the conversation to a close as I feel I am just repeating my own position while saying in essence "this is irrelevant" or "I don't disagree", etc. to several of your comments.  I will respond this last time as polite because you put in effort, but do not plan to respond again, so feel free to not respond if you so wish...or respond if you want.

What God said about the covenant and what men interpreted him to say is what the issue is for me,  For you to keep declaring 'I believe what God says' does nothing to persuade me unless you can demonstrate in some matter that God had to have said what was written in the scripture.  When I see inconsistencies, I tend to allow for insertions or removals by men.  LDS are not required to view scripture as inerrant or prophets.

Quote

Nachmanides points out that before the giving of the Torah, Levirate Marriage could be carried out by any male member of the family. Judah as well as his sons had therefore been a valid candidate to perform the Yibum from the beginning. The Law of Moses later restricted Yibum to brothers only (Deuteronomy 25:5). http://hebrewnations.com/articles/bible/levirate.html

Good information I was unaware of.  This allows for the Tamar conclusion to be acceptable to their culture and not just Judah making an exception because he felt guilty or wanted to protect his heir/son.

Otoh, it still puts Judah into fornicating because he intentionally sought out a prostitute and in his mind was having sex with one while performing the act.  If God does not change, than that was sinful then in contrast to if he had knowingly sought out his daughter-in-law to give her a child by Levirate law as that would have been a worthy act because he was living by the law he knew.  

Culturally a man could have sex outside of marriage for pleasure and get away with it even though it was against the stated law of God...unless you have evidence you can show the Israelites did not view fornication as a sin, what Judah did was a sin.

I do find it problematic that you see this sinful act as part of God's plan to keep the bloodline pure as if somehow being born with the 'wrong' kind of blood would be viewed as a greater transgression than willfully violating the Law of Chastity as defined at that time by Judah's culture by intending to have sex for purely pleasure with someone one is not married to by the laws of one's culture (even if the intent did not match the result of the relationship).

But my argument is based on no condemnation at the time of either Judah's marriage or his children for being Canaanite instead of wicked.  And we have full and even celebrated acceptance of a Moabite marriage in the scriptures, where Moabite marriages were prohibited and they were barred from the temple.  You have to add to the canonized scripture to make the Tamar narrative about Canaanite blood, inflating it to a never to be made an exception law, but we have scriptural evidence that exceptions are made with forbidden blood relations in the Ruth narrative.

I just don't see it as consistent to insist the blood requirement can never be modified by God's Law when there is clear evidence it was in Ruth's case.  It would be like arguing exceptions were never made for the modern Priesthood ban while ignoring the existence of the priesthood of Elijah Able and his sons.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Calm

[SamIam]

22 hours 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 party as Ishmael was an intentional way of identifying half the Lehite party as Ishmaelites.

Speculation is a bit of a strong term in this instance.  We have those who were contemporaries of Joseph's that speak to the things that Joseph mentioned to them concerning the contents of the 116 pages.  Please consider:

Quote

the Prophet Joseph informed us that the record of Lehi, was contained on the 116 pages that were first translated and subsequently stolen, and of which an abridgement is given us in the first Book of Nephi, which is the record of Nephi individually, he himself being of the lineage of Manasseh; but that Ishmael was of the lineage of Ephraim, and that his sons married into Lehi’s family, and Lehi’s sons married Ishmael’s daughters, thus fulfilling the words of Jacob upon Ephraim and Manasseh in the 48th chapter of Genesis, which says: “And let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the land.” (Erastus Snow, JD 23:184)

From the position of information this just seems kind of a funky factoid that we can all tell and retell over and over as if we know something.  However, considered from the vantage point of a Jew and how they measure tribal affiliation, considered from the promises of Jacob to Joseph that he would be a fruitful bough, considering that the chosen heir to the priesthood was Ephraim this is a profound clarification that I wonder if Joseph could have known at the time.  The Jews measure lineage from the line of the mother.  Thus Nephi, of Manasseh, having married a daughter of Ephraim, effectively retains his parentage as of Joseph but his children are now Ephraim.  Thus the Nephites being the holders of the high priesthood in his day is a perfect match to the expectations of lineage.  The daughters of Lehi that marry the Sons of Ishmael maintain Manasseh status. We don't know much about these people and that fits as well.  Manasseh was not the heir.  Of course Laman and Lemuel marry into Ephraim as well but their wickedness precludes the blessings of the priesthood.

As well, Joseph's role as the heir of Ephraim makes him the perfect choice, required choice to restore the Gospel. Please consider:

Quote

"On Dec. 9, 1834, Joseph Smith Sr. pronounced a patriarchal blessing on Joseph Smith Jr. wherein he declared that the Prophet was a lineal descendant and birthright heir to the patriarchal fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but more particularly Joseph of Egypt. Furthermore, Brigham Young declared that Joseph Smith was a descendant of Joseph through Ephraim (Journal of Discourses 2:269)

So if it is to be considered speculation then for me it is darn good speculation that fits perfectly in so many ways.

[SamIam]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

"You indicate that you started with no bias and were free as a bird to formulate correct understandings.  In the ways of men that is a correct and laudable process."

No, we all have biases that influence how we interpret what we hear and see (and touch and taste and smell).  I am just saying I am missing the one you think I had.

Perhaps.  The way you worded your observations of me having to find "hidden messages" seemed a bit more specific (and insinuative) in what you were trying to communicate: Please review your comments:

Quote

"As far as refusing 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 scripture to justify your view.  Therefore I assume we both are probably both open and closed to ideas other than our own. " 

As far as being open and closed...I am very open, but not to opinions or misunderstandings of the facts.  If someone is to persuade they have to have done their homework. I know I have and it is difficult to defer to those who want to persuade with only partial understandings. I'm not saying this to be rude but so far your efforts have not been to persuade but only to rehearse some stuff that came together for you but seems only partially grasped and full of judgmental preference instead of treating the participants with eclectic understandings of their time.   

I have on a couple of occasions cited John Pratt's development of the Joseph and Asenath union and her being of the House of Israel.  John has done a brilliant job of deep analysis and careful and insightful pondering and found a way to sustain the Abrahamic Covenant and in the process the declarations of the Lord. Most people will not do that kind of research but when we do, or I find someone who can, that is very compelling to me.  

Edited March 7, 2018 by SamIam

[SamIam]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

 You have to add to the canonized scripture to make the Tamar narrative about Canaanite blood, inflating it to a never to be made an exception, but we have scriptural evidence that exceptions are made with forbidden blood relations in the Ruth narrative.

I just don't see it as consistent to insist the blood requirement can never be broken by God's Law when there is clear evidence it was in Ruth's case.

I think you completely missed the narrative on Ruth as the law was different than what you have reiterated above.

I knew you would be timing out soon but I do appreciate that you took the time you did to engage in an interesting topic...at least for me.

[Rajah Manchou]

50 minutes ago, SamIam said:

Speculation is a bit of a strong term in this instance.  We have those who were contemporaries of Joseph's that speak to the things that Joseph mentioned to them concerning the contents of the 116 pages.  Please consider:

From the position of information this just seems kind of a funky factoid that we can all tell and retell over and over as if we know something.  However, considered from the vantage point of a Jew and how they measure tribal affiliation, considered from the promises of Jacob to Joseph that he would be a fruitful bough, considering that the chosen heir to the priesthood was Ephraim this is a profound clarification that I wonder if Joseph could have known at the time.  The Jews measure lineage from the line of the mother.  Thus Nephi, of Manasseh, having married a daughter of Ephraim, effectively retains his parentage as of Joseph but his children are now Ephraim.  Thus the Nephites being the holders of the high priesthood in his day is a perfect match to the expectations of lineage.  The daughters of Lehi that marry the Sons of Ishmael maintain Manasseh status. We don't know much about these people and that fits as well.  Manasseh was not the heir.  Of course Laman and Lemuel marry into Ephraim as well but their wickedness precludes the blessings of the priesthood.

As well, Joseph's role as the heir of Ephraim makes him the perfect choice, required choice to restore the Gospel. Please consider:

So if it is to be considered speculation then for me it is darn good speculation that fits perfectly in so many ways.

This is what has confused me, and is why I suppose much of this is speculation. There are too many unknowns to know. 

For example, as you say, Jews measured lineage from the line of the mother. So even we are told that Ishmael was of Ephraim, we don't know which line his wife (or maybe wives) came from. Too many unknowns. Do we even know what lineage Sariah was from, or we just assume it was also Manasseh? Not knowing the lineage of Sariah and her daughters and the lineage of Mrs. Ishmael and her daughters muddies the waters. Wouldn't it mean we don't know the lineage of any of the Lehite/Ishmaelite 2nd Generation and on down?

Of course the purpose of speculation is to give order to things we don't know, and sometimes speculation does fit perfectly. But it is still speculation. Nibley's speculation that the Lehite party was Rechabite connects a lot of dots for me, it fits perfectly. But I must accept we don't know for certain.

Edited March 7, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[SamIam]

2 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This is what has confused me, and is why I suppose much of this is speculation. There are too many unknowns to know. 

For example, as you say, Jews measured lineage from the line of the mother. So even we are told that Ishmael was of Ephraim, we don't know which line his wife (or maybe wives) came from. Too many unknowns. Do we even know what lineage Sariah was from, or we just assume it was also Manasseh? Not knowing the lineage of Sariah and her daughters and the lineage of Mrs. Ishmael and her daughters muddies the waters.

Of course the purpose of speculation is to make give order to things we don't know, and sometimes speculation does fit perfectly. But it is still speculation. Nibley's speculation that the Lehite party was Rechabite connects a lot of dots for me, it fits perfectly. But I must accept we don't know for certain.

That is actually a good point about Ismael that I tragically have never made allowance for, however the deep tribal affiliations should tend to commonalities in unions but that could be speculation....oh well.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, SamIam said:

That is actually a good point about Ismael that I tragically have never made allowance for, however the deep tribal affiliations should tend to commonalities in unions but that could be speculation....oh well.

Since we are left to speculation, would it be reasonable to assume that Ishmael's wife/wives and daughters could have been Ishmaelite and/or Rechabite? Not saying it has to be so, but it would connect a lot of dots for me. Is there any tribal custom or law of lineage that would rule it out or make it implausible?

Edited March 7, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[SamIam]

20 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Since we are left to speculation, would it be reasonable to assume that Ishmael's wife/wives and daughters could have been Ishmaelite and/or Rechabite? Not saying it has to be so, but it would connect a lot of dots for me. Is there any tribal custom or law of lineage that would rule it out or make it implausible?

From a direct lineage perspective, I can't make it work.  Of course they both share Abraham as their Father. The land laws are the only thing that favored marriage within the family but there was a reasonable amount of intermarriage between the tribes of Israel.  If we are just looking for association as Nibley may be suggesting then perhaps anything is possible, but I am cautious to recommend such.