Where are the Lost Ten Tribes?

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Mark Beesley said:

The people of the City of Enoch were translated and removed from Earth due to their exceeding righteousness.  (They were Christian socialists.)  The lost tribes of Israel were defeated and scattered by the Assyrians because of their exceeding wickedness.  In what realm of thought do these wicked tribes enjoy anything approaching the blessings of Enoch? This is an area of mystery that is ripe for speculation and short on common sense.

They were not “Christian socialists.” Socialism is an idolatrous system of earthly government that sets itself up as God (many of the victimized former inhabitants of socialist countries will tell you this is true) that uses compulsion to force the subjects of the ruling socialist oligarchy to do as they’re told or suffer severe deprivation, harsh imprisonment or death (the 100 million plus murdered victims of socialism attest convincingly to the widespread use of latter form of punishment).

And don’t try to say communism and socialism are different because Marxist doctrine asserts that so-called communism (a utopian pipe dream) only arises after generations are compelled to live under the “DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat.” Meanwhile, in an authentic Zion society zero compulsory force is needed to have the citizens willingly live by the golden rule because everyone is freely fully converted to the Lord and fully sanctified by the Spirit. Socialism erroneously attempts to save men in their fallen state and sins, a foolhardy endeavor that will never work.

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The way that genetics work, the bold doesn't prove that it's not literal descent.  Siblings often have very different genetic makeups because of the way genes are inherited from each parent (which is 50/50 of course but not in the way we think of it).

Yeah, but not to the extent of having a Zebulun man have only Ephraim descendants. 

I do believe that there is some physical descent aspect to it, but clearly the spiritual aspect is the more important one. 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

They were not “Christian socialists.” Socialism is an idolatrous system of earthly government that sets itself up as God (many of the victimized former inhabitants of socialist countries will tell you this is true) that uses compulsion to force the subjects of the ruling socialist oligarchy to do as they’re told or suffer severe deprivation, harsh imprisonment or death (the 100 million plus murdered victims of socialism attest convincingly to the widespread use of latter form of punishment).

And don’t try to say communism and socialism are different because Marxist doctrine asserts that so-called communism (a utopian pipe dream) only arises after generations are compelled to live under the “DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat.” Meanwhile, in an authentic Zion society zero compulsory force is needed to have the citizens willingly live by the golden rule because everyone is freely fully converted to the Lord and fully sanctified by the Spirit. Socialism erroneously attempts to save men in their fallen state and sins, a foolhardy endeavor that will never work.

Is describing it as "Christian Socialism" enough to make the same distinction you make that "in an authentic Zion society zero compulsory force is needed to have the citizens willingly live by the golden rule because everyone is freely fully converted to the Lord"?

I agree with you completely about the agency difference and the spiritual basis.  But functionally isn't it still a form of "socialism"?

• noun
  a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Scriptures are full of fanciful claims of universal floods, giants, a man living inside a fish, talking donkeys, the entire human family descending from 2 people 6,000 years ago, lost tribes and yes even of an entire city being lifted into heaven.  While we can certainly find important lessons from these stories, it stretches incredulity to take these fictional stories literally. Just my take

I think that's a you problem. 

I don't have any issue taking the basic elements of these stories literally.  I do think there's a bit more to them than the poetic version in scripture, but I consider them literal events.
Like Adam and Eve.  I believe that to be historical fact, but I also agree with Brigham that certain elements - the talking snake, the rib, the fruit, etc - are all symbolic of the actual events.

[HappyJackWagon]

I believe the gathering is simply a metaphor for uniting the peoples of the earth under Christ at the 2nd coming. That is all.

Yet we have the 10th article of faith...

Quote

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. A tribe is a big family of people.

I don't think there is anything literal about the gathering of Israel beyond gathering people together in the body of Christ.

Talk of hidden peoples on Themyscyra or with Adama on the Kobol, or the city of enoch (the entire city) that will return like Sokovia from the Age of Ultron, or hiding under the polar ice caps is all pretty out there for me. It's fun to talk about but the literal belief in such things sounds a bit more to me like secret Jewish space lasers than anything faith promoting.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I believe the gathering is simply a metaphor for uniting the peoples of the earth under Christ at the 2nd coming. That is all.

Yet we have the 10th article of faith...

I don't think there is anything literal about the gathering of Israel beyond gathering people together in the body of Christ.

A lot of members feel that way about a lot of gospel elements these days.  I've said before that many of the things taught for decades in the Church as literal are now considered some kind of "spiritual" thing by a lot of members.
We could debate who is right or wrong, but I'm more curious what has led to the increase in disbelief in the literal.

It's like the entire gospel has moved internal in the member's estimation.  I personally think God has more influence on the physical and temporal than we are giving him credit.

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A lot of members feel that way about a lot of gospel elements these days.  I've said before that many of the things taught for decades in the Church as literal are now considered some kind of "spiritual" thing by a lot of members.
We could debate who is right or wrong, but I'm more curious what has led to the increase in disbelief in the literal.

It's like the entire gospel has moved internal in the member's estimation.  I personally think God has more influence on the physical and temporal than we are giving him credit.

I really think that is the crux of it for this, and for a lot of things. Belief in the literal reality (historicity) of things, past and future, is waning. I personally think that for a lot of people, it's because of embarrassment at how such things are seen by the world. They don't want to be thought of as a backwater, superstitious rube. 

I've shared this before, but my wife brought up once in a lesson when she was RS president the miracle of the sun standing still in the battle at Aijalon. Several sisters thought that was crazy talk, and were actually unfamiliar with the story (I think general scripture illiteracy also plays a role here). She asked what they thought of the sundial shadow with Hezekiah (also hadn't heard of that), and likewise thought that was a baby story. These are women we respect (one is a nurse who served as RS president when I was made bishop a few months after this lesson), but we were amazed at the apparent lack of belief (and scripture story knowledge) among active members. In the ensuing discussion, it became apparent that a) these people didn't really believe in miracles in general, when pressed --- especially when it involved apparent unexplainable or contradictory issues with science, and b) they don't really experience physical miracles in their lives. 

Win, lose, or draw, our family and our children have experienced physical miracles (miracles of time and matter manipulation, healings that far outstrip placebo or "power of positive thinking" effect, etc.). I think there is a growing chasm between members of the Church who look for and expect and experience miracles, and those who don't. And this affects many other things (including potentially the trajectory of the Church over time). Unfortunately, for this reason, I can see a growing number of Church members embracing the "non-literal, but still inspiring somehow" stance for the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Pearl of Great Price stance in coming years. It's what most Catholics and Protestants have done with the Bible, to accommodate skeptical humanistic society. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by rongo

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A lot of members feel that way about a lot of gospel elements these days.  I've said before that many of the things taught for decades in the Church as literal are now considered some kind of "spiritual" thing by a lot of members.
We could debate who is right or wrong, but I'm more curious what has led to the increase in disbelief in the literal.

It's like the entire gospel has moved internal in the member's estimation.  I personally think God has more influence on the physical and temporal than we are giving him credit.

I think science is a big part of it. When science can't back up 6000 literal age of the earth and therefore humans only existing during that time, or global floods, etc people see a general disconnect between religious claims of things being literal versus allegorical. When religion requires literal belief it causes distrust and destroys confidence. People reasonably ask "IF these things aren't literal, then what else isn't literal?"  Virgin birth? Resurrection? Lost tribes of Israel? Honestly, I feel like the more weird stuff thrown out there (on topics that don't really matter), like tribes under polar icecaps, diminishes trust in the topics that should matter.

In general, religion has a credibility issue and threads like this illustrate why.

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yeah, but not to the extent of having a Zebulun man have only Ephraim descendants. 

I do believe that there is some physical descent aspect to it, but clearly the spiritual aspect is the more important one. 

Why not? 

If someone with an Italian mother can end up with a daughter that is less than 1% Italian, why can't someone who is Zebulun end up with kids that carry a higher percentage of Ephraim than he had?

(not arguing against the spiritual aspect, just speaking as far as what is possible with genetics).

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think science is a big part of it. When science can't back up 6000 literal age of the earth and therefore humans only existing during that time, or global floods, etc people see a general disconnect between religious claims of things being literal versus allegorical. When religion requires literal belief it causes distrust and destroys confidence. People reasonably ask "IF these things aren't literal, then what else isn't literal?"  Virgin birth? Resurrection? Lost tribes of Israel? Honestly, I feel like the more weird stuff thrown out there (on topics that don't really matter), like tribes under polar icecaps, diminishes trust in the topics that should matter.

In general, religion has a credibility issue and threads like this illustrate why.

Maybe I've just read/watched too much sci-fi and fantasy in my time.  I'm far more willing to accept the less mundane elements of the gospel.
I blame "reality" television for removing our ability to accept the fantastical.

I mean, if we question the virgin birth, why not the resurrection.
If we question Adam and Eve, why not Adam-Ondi-Ahman.
If we question the Book of Mormon historicity why not Moroni bringing the plates.
Eventually we'll unweave the entire tapestry of the gospel.  I for one refuse to walk down the long and winding path towards non-denominational Christian ethereal ideas.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe I've just read/watched too much sci-fi and fantasy in my time.  I'm far more willing to accept the less mundane elements of the gospel.
I blame "reality" television for removing our ability to accept the fantastical.

I mean, if we question the virgin birth, why not the resurrection.
If we question Adam and Eve, why not Adam-Ondi-Ahman.
If we question the Book of Mormon historicity why not Moroni bringing the plates.
Eventually we'll unweave the entire tapestry of the gospel.  I for one refuse to walk down the long and winding path towards non-denominational Christian ethereal ideas.

 

Yes- that is exactly right. A credibility problem in 1 area quickly spreads to others and then everything.

I love sci-fi/fantasy. It has its place. But when we teach and expect people to literally believe sci-fi as religion then we are asking people to put their faith in something that isn't real and therefore not faith promoting. You get Scientology V. flat-earthers and they both end up looking ridiculous.

You've gotta admit. The Science Fiction elements of Religion have a poor track record when going up against science.

[T-Shirt]

The are in Agartha.😀

https://medium.com/the-weird-closet/the-strange-hollow-earth-case-of-admiral-richard-byrd-7469a62264fc

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes- that is exactly right. A credibility problem in 1 area quickly spreads to others and then everything.

I love sci-fi/fantasy. It has its place. But when we teach and expect people to literally believe sci-fi as religion then we are asking people to put their faith in something that isn't real and therefore not faith promoting. You get Scientology V. flat-earthers and they both end up looking ridiculous.

You've gotta admit. The Science Fiction elements of Religion have a poor track record when going up against science.

I'm not going to disagree.
But I will say that these elements are a key part of Mormonism and any attempt to remove them is foolhardy.
From Kolob to the New Jerusalem, from translated beings to seer stones.  I am more inclined to accept them on faith than to remove them because someone thinks they're silly.
I mean we're talking religion here.  You can't remove the non-scientific things and expect to have anything left.  We might as well dump Christ all together.

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

When faith is gone, you are correct. Seems as though there are quite the few here who still have faith in miracles, the restoration, etc. There are still questions among those about the how and why of things, but for that we must await more light and knowledge.

There is a place for faith and I fully support faith but faith must be built on a foundation of reality and truth.  Take for example the resurrection.  All of the scientific evidence would have us believe that when your dead your dead.  Can we have faith in the resurrection?  yes I believe we can and once each of us is dead...if there is then life beyond the grave then I guess we'll know. But as to the items I listed above, we can pretty much lay those items aside and know that they never took place or happened at least not in the real world.

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I think that's a you problem. 

I don't have any issue taking the basic elements of these stories literally.  I do think there's a bit more to them than the poetic version in scripture, but I consider them literal events.
Like Adam and Eve.  I believe that to be historical fact, but I also agree with Brigham that certain elements - the talking snake, the rib, the fruit, etc - are all symbolic of the actual events.

And I have no problem with you holding to these beliefs.  Not that you need or want my approval mind you.

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I believe the gathering is simply a metaphor for uniting the peoples of the earth under Christ at the 2nd coming. That is all.

Yet we have the 10th article of faith...

I don't think there is anything literal about the gathering of Israel beyond gathering people together in the body of Christ.

Talk of hidden peoples on Themyscyra or with Adama on the Kobol, or the city of enoch (the entire city) that will return like Sokovia from the Age of Ultron, or hiding under the polar ice caps is all pretty out there for me. It's fun to talk about but the literal belief in such things sounds a bit more to me like secret Jewish space lasers than anything faith promoting.

Yeah I guess I'm in trouble then cuz I don't believe in a literal gathering of a people who have been melted into the populations of the middle east, most likely the so called lost tribes most closely related descendants being found in modern day Iran today.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not going to disagree.
But I will say that these elements are a key part of Mormonism and any attempt to remove them is foolhardy.
From Kolob to the New Jerusalem, from translated beings to seer stones.  I am more inclined to accept them on faith than to remove them because someone thinks they're silly.
I mean we're talking religion here.  You can't remove the non-scientific things and expect to have anything left.  We might as well dump Christ all together.

I think for some (and just some, not all), the issue is they don't want to look stupid or believe in anything that someone could make fun of them for.  They want to keep their place at the 'rational' table, especially because our current society values that table so much right now. 

Opening oneself up to ridicule by the kids at the cool table is no easy thing and some of us struggle with it more than others.

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe I've just read/watched too much sci-fi and fantasy in my time.  I'm far more willing to accept the less mundane elements of the gospel.
I blame "reality" television for removing our ability to accept the fantastical.

I mean, if we question the virgin birth, why not the resurrection.
If we question Adam and Eve, why not Adam-Ondi-Ahman.
If we question the Book of Mormon historicity why not Moroni bringing the plates.
Eventually we'll unweave the entire tapestry of the gospel.  I for one refuse to walk down the long and winding path towards non-denominational Christian ethereal ideas.

 

Yup its a slippery Slope.  I used to be most closely aligned with the McConkie/Smith branch of Mormonism.  Then I started to scratch away at those claims and found them very unsupportable..  Once my literal belief in a 6,000 year old Adam and Eve fell apart...so did the need for a savior. If there was no Fall then why would there be need to be saved?

Edited January 29, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[rongo]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why not? 

If someone with an Italian mother can end up with a daughter that is less than 1% Italian, why can't someone who is Zebulun end up with kids that carry a higher percentage of Ephraim than he had?

(not arguing against the spiritual aspect, just speaking as far as what is possible with genetics).

Oh, I see. Yes, you're right about that. That even has an important bearing on Book of Mormon historicity (i.e., if Lehi and his party existed, then they are physical or "principal" ancestors, even if it's really not detectable).

I agree with this. I think genetics is in its infancy as far as what it can actually definitively tell us, but the developments are exciting and important. 

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not going to disagree.
But I will say that these elements are a key part of Mormonism and any attempt to remove them is foolhardy.
From Kolob to the New Jerusalem, from translated beings to seer stones.  I am more inclined to accept them on faith than to remove them because someone thinks they're silly.
I mean we're talking religion here.  You can't remove the non-scientific things and expect to have anything left.  We might as well dump Christ all together.

This is the temptation and many do end up dumping Christ altogether. But belief in Christ as an element of faith is far different than Kolob or lost tribes. IMO religious shouldn't toss things just because the thing looks silly. But it it should reconsider hard core teachings of literal truth that can be proven false. 6 day creation? No. And in the church it has moved away from that literal 6 days to 6 periods of time, but make no mistake, that was a shift from the literal. 6000 year old earth? We know that isn't true and hearing religion trying to explain away dinosaur bones or human remains that are 40,000 years old is as silly as fighting against gravity or advocating a flat earth.

Religion and the church more specifically should focus it's credibility capital on the areas that matter. If the lost tribes don't really matter to eternal salvation let it go and use whatever credibility you have to encourage faith in Jesus. Seriously, does it matter in any way whether the garden of Eden was in Missouri or in Africa? Nah. But people cling to that and defend it because they feel like letting it go would be to admit being wrong. Maybe they were. Big deal. Maybe they are right. Big deal. But they throw their credibility at that issue to protect their credibility, when it really doesn't make any other sense or provide greater value.

Religion should require faith where necessary and not require faith where it doesn't matter or has been proven false.

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think for some (and just some, not all), the issue is they don't want to look stupid or believe in anything that someone could make fun of them for.  They want to keep their place at the 'rational' table, especially because our current society values that table so much right now. 

Opening oneself up to ridicule by the kids at the cool table is no easy thing and some of us struggle with it more than others.

Fortunately I've never been cool a day in my life.  

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is the temptation and many do end up dumping Christ altogether. But belief in Christ as an element of faith is far different than Kolob or lost tribes.

But is it though?
I don't see anything more wild about believing in lost tribes or the planet Kolob than in believing in a Jewish carpenter who was God's literal son, took upon him the entire culpability for all the wrong in the world, brought the dead back to life, and came back to life after three days in the tomb.  All scientifically impossible.

I don't see any reason to disbelieve in Kolob or Seer Stones or Lost Tribes than there is to disbelieve Christ.

[Mark Beesley]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

They were not “Christian socialists.” Socialism is an idolatrous system of earthly government that sets itself up as God (many of the victimized former inhabitants of socialist countries will tell you this is true) that uses compulsion to force the subjects of the ruling socialist oligarchy to do as they’re told or suffer severe deprivation, harsh imprisonment or death (the 100 million plus murdered victims of socialism attest convincingly to the widespread use of latter form of punishment).

And don’t try to say communism and socialism are different because Marxist doctrine asserts that so-called communism (a utopian pipe dream) only arises after generations are compelled to live under the “DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat.” Meanwhile, in an authentic Zion society zero compulsory force is needed to have the citizens willingly live by the golden rule because everyone is freely fully converted to the Lord and fully sanctified by the Spirit. Socialism erroneously attempts to save men in their fallen state and sins, a foolhardy endeavor that will never work.

My comment was economical, not political. The word socialism does not send chills down my spine.

[rongo]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You've gotta admit. The Science Fiction elements of Religion have a poor track record when going up against science.

Assuming the whole book has been written. And only when it's framed a certain way. When I and my family have had physical miracles happen in our lives, the "poor track record of religion going up against science" doesn't faze us. 

I'm sure there will be some disagreement on this, but I also think that the vitality of belief in the literal is superior in many ways over "belief in the inspirational," for lack of a better term. What I mean by that are the people who are embarrassed by literal belief, but still have felt things, and want to still believe in religion. I have a hard time seeing people who believe that the Book of Mormon is completely fictional, but still inspiring somehow, colonizing the Southwest, serving prison terms for the Edmunds-Tucker act, etc. I have a hard time seeing their belief in the inspirational being the same kind of active faith that belief in the literal is. 

Serious question (not directed at anyone in particular): what do people find "inspiring" in the Book of Mormon if it's completely fictional? Or Joseph Smith being sincere but completely wrong about angels (or worse: knowing that there weren't angels, but saying that there were)? I just don't see people seeing stories with good morals and teachings in a book that claims to be real but isn't being powerful enough to spur people do that things that literal belief did. 

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But is it though?
I don't see anything more wild about believing in lost tribes or the planet Kolob than in believing in a Jewish carpenter who was God's literal son, took upon him the entire culpability for all the wrong in the world, brought the dead back to life, and came back to life after three days in the tomb.  All scientifically impossible.

I don't see any reason to disbelieve in Kolob or Seer Stones or Lost Tribes than there is to disbelieve Christ.

Yes- there is a vast difference in placing faith in a being that Save you, versus tidbits of trivia once taught by a fallible person. Trusting Jesus is foundational.

If I choose not to trust in Jesus, there is an eternal consequence if I'm wrong. If I choose not to trust teachings about Kolob or 10 tribes then I might be wrong. That's it. But I will also concede that at a more basic level, trusting Jesus doesn't necessarily require absolute literal belief in a virgin birth or miracles.

In my opinion, if a person encounters a stumbling block they should kick it aside and remove it from their path. Forget the 10 tribes if it's a problem. They don't matter as much as building faith in Jesus and God.