Where are the Lost Ten Tribes?

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Religion and the church more specifically should focus it's credibility capital on the areas that matter.

a) what people think matters is all over the map, b) we can't really separate what matters from what doesn't like that. They are bound together, and can't really be compartmentalized, I think. c) Trying to do so leads to a weak faith that doesn't really do anything. 

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

As has already been discussed a bit here, I don't think "what really matters is just encouraging faith in Jesus" really helps. The same logic that gets us to that point also demolishes His divinity. What good does having faith in Him do, then? 

If we take Joseph Smith completely out of the picture for all of the unscientific claims he made, then nothing he said about Jesus is worth anything. Then there is literally no reason for the Restoration, Mormonism, etc. We could literally just believe in Jesus with our local Methodists. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

You're making the case that because dogma can drive people to greater action, it is in itself better than inspiration, even if the dogma isn't actually 100% legitimately, perfectly true  

The BoM has some great lessons and wisdom. I think that is enough for it to have value.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes- there is a vast difference in placing faith in a being that saves 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. 

How can He save us, though, if there wasn't a virgin birth (so, not the Only Begotten), He never really did any miracles (so, not God), and He never was resurrected (let's be honest --- if we jettison the virgin birth and miracles, there's no way we keep resurrection or atonement)? That's every bit as much a pipe dream as believing in the "non-essential" like Eden, lost tribes, Book of Mormon peoples, etc. Just as fictitious, so what good does it do to "trust" Him, then?

There is literally no difference in "trusting" or "believing" in a Jesus neutered by skepticism, other than it might make someone feel better. 

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But is it though?

I agree.  I don't think there is anything more scientifically impossible than Christ.

But maybe HJW is talking about the difference in the outcome of belief/disbelief and not the difference in their scientific possibility?  The importance of a belief in Kolob is very different than the importance in the belief in Christ.  

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're making the case that because dogma can drive people to greater action, it is in itself better than inspiration, even if the dogma isn't actually 100% legitimately, perfectly true  

The BoM has some great lessons and wisdom. I think that is enough for it to have value.

Like what? I'm not putting you on the spot, it's more rhetorical than anything. 

I would be interested in seeing lists from people who don't believe the Book of Mormon about the great lessons and wisdom they find in it. I think the list and how they describe the items would be telling. 

[Ahab]

On 1/28/2021 at 9:57 AM, rongo said:

This is one of those "it doesn't really matter, and our salvation doesn't depend on it" topics, but it sure is interesting and fun to discuss and think about.  

My choice is #4. I believe that they are separated as a body, and will be gathered (gathering in process to a degree, but not largely) as per D&C 133. I don't think they are under the ice caps, and I think they are on the earth. 

I think that the default belief of most Church leaders (and I'm guessing, most member at large) is the "safe" and "least weird" option #1: that they are scattered among the known peoples of the earth and are being gathered by missionary work and patriarchal blessings. This was strongly taught by Bruce R. McConkie and B. H. Roberts, and is one areas that I differ with Elder Roberts on, much as I respect his thinking and analytical abilities. 

I think that D&C 133 is literal, and would be interested to hear how people who don't interpret it literally explain it to themselves and others. I also notice that Jeremiah repeats several times variations of the expression, "The day will come when it will no longer be said, the God who led the children of Israel out of Egypt, but the God who brought back the tribes from the north;" i.e., that this even will make more of an impression than even the Exodus did. And that is D&C 133 in spades. 

The largest difficulty with my belief is science: where could whole peoples be undetected on the earth in 2020? This is a faith thing for me; in the scheme of God's miracles and abilities, I think that there are harder things to believe, but I admit that Occam's Razor isn't the strong suit for that one.  

What do you think? 

 

If we knew where they were they wouldn't be lost now, would they.

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

a) what people think matters is all over the map, b) we can't really separate what matters from what doesn't like that. They are bound together, and can't really be compartmentalized, I think. c) Trying to do so leads to a weak faith that doesn't really do anything. 

As has already been discussed a bit here, I don't think "what really matters is just encouraging faith in Jesus" really helps. The same logic that gets us to that point also demolishes His divinity. What good does having faith in Him do, then? 

If we take Joseph Smith completely out of the picture for all of the unscientific claims he made, then nothing he said about Jesus is worth anything. Then there is literally no reason for the Restoration, Mormonism, etc. We could literally just believe in Jesus with our local Methodists. 

Maybe not perfectly but it can be done to a large degree. The way I see it there is one very basic goal and purpose of religion; knowing God's will and endeavoring to do it. That leads us to heaven, exaltation, happiness etc. which is better than not achieving those things.

How do we get there? Knowing God by knowing Jesus

How do we know Jesus? By developing faith in Him 

How do we develop faith in Jesus Christ? via Scriptures, commandments, prophets, 

How do we know if scriptures, commandments and prophets are a good source leading to Jesus? We test their words

How do we test their words? We study them and then try to live them

etc. etc.

 

Every step down the path requires an additional level of abstract faith in trying to get to the basic of knowing God and doing his will. The further we get down that line, the less important things are. Eventually we find that Kolob and 10 tribes and a global flood and the location of the garden of Eden, or the personal worthiness of men who happen to be prophets doesn't really matter much, unless we allow them to be stumbling blocks leading us away from the primary purpose.

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by HappyJackWagon

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

How can He save us, though, if there wasn't a virgin birth (so, not the Only Begotten), He never really did any miracles (so, not God), and He never was resurrected (let's be honest --- if we jettison the virgin birth and miracles, there's no way we keep resurrection or atonement)? That's every bit as much a pipe dream as believing in the "non-essential" like Eden, lost tribes, Book of Mormon peoples, etc. Just as fictitious, so what good does it do to "trust" Him, then?

There is literally no difference in "trusting" or "believing" in a Jesus neutered by skepticism, other than it might make someone feel better. 

That only way salvation ever happens is because God wills it. He can will it even if there wasn't a literal virgin birth or literal miracles, can't he?

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Like what? I'm not putting you on the spot, it's more rhetorical than anything. 

I would be interested in seeing lists from people who don't believe the Book of Mormon about the great lessons and wisdom they find in it. I think the list and how they describe the items would be telling. 

I'm not going to give you lists but I'll just share one of my favorite scriptures.

Quote

And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another. (Mosiah 18:21)

I find that poetic, beautiful, inspirational, aspirational. That has value in my life even if Joseph Smith didn't find literal gold place or literally translate them.

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Religion have a poor track record when going up against science.

Also , previous science has a poor record against current science. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That only way salvation ever happens is because God wills it. He can will it even if there wasn't a literal virgin birth or literal miracles, can't he?

I don't think He can. Because I believe that God's power is His honor, as He has said in the scriptures, and because I believe that the atonement only works if the intelligences accept it, I don't believe that He can just save anyone He wants, however He wants, whenever He wants. I believe that there is a reason why there had to be a savior, and He had to be God (part of which is the virgin birth), or it wouldn't have worked. The miracles were because, as God, the intelligences honor and obey Him with exactness. Without the miracles (and the biggest ones of atonement and resurrection), the atonement is null and void (that's a little circular, including the atonement twice). 

I'm fascinated that you keep leaving off resurrection from the trio of virgin birth and miracles. Not picking on you, but I wonder if that means you believe in His literal resurrection and you will also be literally resurrected. I hope you still do! If you don't believe these things, then what difference does it make if you do or don't believe in Him? I don't see how this "don't believe in the crazy stuff, just believe in Jesus" is any better than believing in the crazy stuff. All of the things that matter with Jesus are the crazy stuff.  

[HappyJackWagon]

48 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think He can. Because I believe that God's power is His honor, as He has said in the scriptures, and because I believe that the atonement only works if the intelligences accept it, I don't believe that He can just save anyone He wants, however He wants, whenever He wants. I believe that there is a reason why there had to be a savior, and He had to be God (part of which is the virgin birth), or it wouldn't have worked. The miracles were because, as God, the intelligences honor and obey Him with exactness. Without the miracles (and the biggest ones of atonement and resurrection), the atonement is null and void (that's a little circular, including the atonement twice). 

I'm fascinated that you keep leaving off resurrection from the trio of virgin birth and miracles. Not picking on you, but I wonder if that means you believe in His literal resurrection and you will also be literally resurrected. I hope you still do! If you don't believe these things, then what difference does it make if you do or don't believe in Him? I don't see how this "don't believe in the crazy stuff, just believe in Jesus" is any better than believing in the crazy stuff. All of the things that matter with Jesus are the crazy stuff.  

I think most LDS would agree with you. But I find it problematic to view God as limited in power. In my view, God chose the plan of using a Savior but could he have chosen a different plan? I don't know. We talk about it as if there were only 2 possibilities (Jesus or Satan's Plan) but was it impossible for God to have another way?

Regarding resurrection- I did include it in one of my other posts. There's no real reason I omitted it in some, other than it felt like I was making a long list. But again, could God have found another way? Maybe. But I view Jesus as a very important step in the path toward knowing God and God's will. Do I believe that every element in the Bible about Jesus' life and miracles and death and resurrection must be 100% literal? Not necessarily. But Jesus is close enough on the ladder to knowing God that I'm much more hesitant to discount that than I would details about a lost tribe.

[HappyJackWagon]

57 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Also , previous science has a poor record against current science. 

I agree. And once previous science is disproven, we should move on from it.  I have no delusions that current science is perfectly accurate or complete but I think it is generally stronger than science from 100 years ago so I think we should be happy about increased knowledge and shed any incorrect notions we had from outdated science.

[Mark Beesley]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think most LDS would agree with you. But I find it problematic to view God as limited in power. In my view, God chose the plan of using a Savior but could he have chosen a different plan? I don't know. We talk about it as if there were only 2 possibilities (Jesus or Satan's Plan) but was it impossible for God to have another way?

I have given this question a fair amount of attention. Could God have chosen a different path to exalt His children? The answer to this question lies in a firm understanding of the atonement. It also relies on the assumption that God is God because of His mastery of, and obedience to, all laws which are as eternal as He. The atonement is the underlying mechanism by which God’s children escape the consequences of sin. Sin is understood to be any act which separates us from God. The atoning sacrifice had to be wholly voluntary on the part of both the Father and the Son. We can probably not even begin to fathom the depth of sacrifice made by the Gods in order to bring salvation to us. Imagine, if you can, the council of gods assembled, and the discussion of an atoning sacrifice, and the Father and Son rising in unison, heavy with the burden of knowledge that this was the end to which the Son had been raised. 

Had there been a different path available which would have spared the Father and the Son the terrible anguish of the atonement, most certainly they would have elected to take that path. We are following the only path that leads to exaltation with the gods. Any other path will lead to an unknown, and perhaps unknowable, outcome.

[strappinglad]

56 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

could he have chosen a different plan?

I know Satan is the great Deceiver, but he did suggest in the garden an alternate approach to the Fall. 

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

I have given this question a fair amount of attention. Could God have chosen a different path to exalt His children? The answer to this question lies in a firm understanding of the atonement. It also relies on the assumption that God is God because of His mastery of, and obedience to, all laws which are as eternal as He. The atonement is the underlying mechanism by which God’s children escape the consequences of sin. Sin is understood to be any act which separates us from God. The atoning sacrifice had to be wholly voluntary on the part of both the Father and the Son. We can probably not even begin to fathom the depth of sacrifice made by the Gods in order to bring salvation to us. Imagine, if you can, the council of gods assembled, and the discussion of an atoning sacrifice, and the Father and Son rising in unison, heavy with the burden of knowledge that this was the end to which the Son had been raised. 

Had there been a different path available which would have spared the Father and the Son the terrible anguish of the atonement, most certainly they would have elected to take that path. We are following the only path that leads to exaltation with the gods. Any other path will lead to an unknown, and perhaps unknowable, outcome.

I like to try to understand the path he chose by breaking it down into segments that I can understand, such as:

What did God actually choose to do?  My best answer: Send his son Jesus to show us the way to become like our/his Father in heaven.  I don't believe our Father killed Jesus, he just knew others of his children would want to kill him and that because Jesus would need to be mortal it would then be possible for Jesus to die, that is, for his spirit to separate from his mortal body.

But why did Jesus choose to come down here as a mortal instead of as a spirit, the form in which he would have remained as a spirit if Jesus had never become mortal?  My best answer:  Because Jesus needed to provide a way for a mortal to be resurrected, since a mortal was in a more advanced form than only a spirit.  And our Father's plan was to help us become like he is, a resurrected body of flesh combined with a spirit essence.

Anyway, that's just some of the kind of thinking that helps me to understand what our Father did, and what Jesus did, and why he did it.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

I have given this question a fair amount of attention. Could God have chosen a different path to exalt His children? The answer to this question lies in a firm understanding of the atonement. It also relies on the assumption that God is God because of His mastery of, and obedience to, all laws which are as eternal as He. The atonement is the underlying mechanism by which God’s children escape the consequences of sin. Sin is understood to be any act which separates us from God. The atoning sacrifice had to be wholly voluntary on the part of both the Father and the Son. We can probably not even begin to fathom the depth of sacrifice made by the Gods in order to bring salvation to us. Imagine, if you can, the council of gods assembled, and the discussion of an atoning sacrifice, and the Father and Son rising in unison, heavy with the burden of knowledge that this was the end to which the Son had been raised. 

Had there been a different path available which would have spared the Father and the Son the terrible anguish of the atonement, most certainly they would have elected to take that path. We are following the only path that leads to exaltation with the gods. Any other path will lead to an unknown, and perhaps unknowable, outcome.

Maybe. But we don't know. That's based on assumptions. Maybe there was another way that was even more difficult. Who knows? But claiming God is God because he follows the one path set before him doesn't make him all that great. Some might argue it makes him a prisoner walking the line.

The point is. We don't know for sure but I lean toward God being omnipotent.

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

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

It sent chills down the spine of President Ezra Taft Benson’s, as it does mine. Socialism is, in reality, primarily an economic system because once it takes full control politics go out the window, as politics are meaningless in a one party socialistic state being run by dictators. As a Latter-Day Saint, I believe you would be better and more accurately served to say the city of Enoch was based on the United Order and the law of consecration rather try to identify its heavenly success with socialism. 

Edited January 29, 2021 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

49 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It sent chills down the spine of President Ezra Taft Benson’s, as it does mine. Socialism is, in reality, primarily an economic system because once it takes full control politics go out the window, as politics are meaningless in a one party socialistic state being run by dictators. As a Latter-Day Saint, I believe you would be better and more accurately served to say the city of Enoch was based on the United Order and the law of consecration rather try to identify its heavenly success with socialism. 

Socialism is technically defined as: 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.  I think of "we the people"...

Many people think of Socialism as a bad thing because they think that means Government would be deciding everything, but Government is WE THE PEOPLE so I don't see that as a problem, necessarily.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe. But we don't know. That's based on assumptions. Maybe there was another way that was even more difficult. Who knows? But claiming God is God because he follows the one path set before him doesn't make him all that great. Some might argue it makes him a prisoner walking the line.

The point is. We don't know for sure but I lean toward God being omnipotent.

When everything you do has to be perfect because it would not be good for you to make any mistakes or even 2nd rate choices, and you do have the power/ability to do everything perfectly if you will just do it, then you are either perfect or you are not perfect and if you are not perfect and perfectly good then you do not get to be called God.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, rongo said:

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

Why not if his wife was Ephraim or he himself has recessive Zebulon genes, whatever those might be?

[rodheadlee]

I was taught that the Assyrians gave them the choice to stay or move north through the Caucasus Mts. Which they did and took up the name Caucasians and Scythians. it's been years since I studied this but it was prior to my introduction the the Church.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why not if his wife was Ephraim or he himself has recessive Zebulon genes, whatever those might be?

Patriarchs are told to be **very** sure if they feel inspired to name a tribe other than Ephraim or Manasseh (and stake presidents do patriarch audits of blessings in their stakes, part of the purpose of which is to make sure that there isn't a ratio of lineages that seem excessive or "off the norm"). The vast, vast majority of Church members have been Ephraim/Manasseh up to this point. So, the deck appears to be stacked very heavily in favor of Ephraim and Manasseh, for now (I'm not saying there's anything bad about that. That's the Deuteronomy 33/Genesis 49 mission of Ephraim/Manasseh). If it were a matter of dominant/recessive genetics (or if that were even really some sort of factor), we would be seeing a lot more "Zebuluns" cropping up, here and there, than we do. 

Edited January 30, 2021 by rongo

[Mark Beesley]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

It sent chills down the spine of President Ezra Taft Benson’s, as it does mine. Socialism is, in reality, primarily an economic system because once it takes full control politics go out the window, as politics are meaningless in a one party socialistic state being run by dictators. As a Latter-Day Saint, I believe you would be better and more accurately served to say the city of Enoch was based on the United Order and the law of consecration rather try to identify its heavenly success with socialism. 

It would only serve me if my purpose was to convince closed-minded people of the truth of a principle. The principle is that love is superior to money as a motivator for those striving to follow Jesus, and they are less concerned with the political means of achieving Zion, whether authoritarian or democratic, so long as love is the motivator. (The Kingdom of Heaven might provide some clue as to whether the politics in Heaven are democratic or authoritarian.) Those who cannot get past their polemic characterizations of words are not within the scope of my persuasive abilities.

[rongo]

As an aside, I taught a FHE lesson a few years ago where we charted the blessings and promises for each tribe. For some reason, Simeon draws the short straw.  Seriously --- it's really hard to find a silver lining. 

Dan, for some reason, is absent from the 144,000. 

No idea why for either of these, just interesting. We emphasized that we are almost certain to be Ephraim/Manasseh (and why this is), but that exceptions do exist.