Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering

CV75 · May 22, 2024

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't know where that came from but ok.

I don't know what encourages you conclude it was a joke.

If there is nothing to differentiate one class of people from another then there is nothing describable to separate the groups.

It sounds like very simple logic to me,

You have group A who claims that they are members of Organization X.

You have another group B who claim they are also members of Organization X, and there is no discernable reason for believing they are not, other than claims from group A that says they are not the same.

Sounds something like racial discrimination or sexism excuses to me.

The church's present position is that men and women are in fact different. I agree with that. No joke.

"Just talk", to me does not define a "joke". What else IS it? A philosophical paper? A statement under oath? A fictional passage in a book?

A serious and important question?

Nope, it's just talk. Not a joke, not a serious problem. Discussion about an alleged logical error, that's all.

I was making a joke with the post I made. Obviously not a very good one! You or your post were not the targets of my joke. The joke, in my mind, was meant to support your comment. I could explain why I was making the joke, what it was about, why I thought it was funny, etc.

Edited May 22, 2024 by CV75

theplains · May 27, 2024

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

The future re-allotment of land in Ezekiel 47 and 48 (and the double portion given to Joseph) pertains to the land inheritance around the land of Israel, and the context of the quote you provided from me (in my post from 2/26/2024) was to prove that Joseph still has the birthright promises in the future (and not simply to his “immediate family” as you had claimed). The other promises that God gave to the tribes (including Joseph) aren’t included in that context.

Do you believe any birthright promises, related to the priesthood, were exercised by Ephraim or
his tribe in the Old Testament or New Testament before the dawn of Joseph Smith? If yes, how
were they manifested?

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

See my post on February 25 and March 3, we already discussed this. See also my post on January 11.

I checked your posts on those dates but don’t see my questions about identifying the land in my
May 14 post addressed therein.

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

You are repeating yourself again, we have already discussed this. I already explained how your belief that Jesus started the gathering during his mortal ministry does not fit the timing of the arrival of the “root of Jesse” that shows up for the Gentiles to seek with the gathering of Israel beginning immediately after those events (as described in Isaiah 11:10-16), since it directly contradicts what Jesus said would happen to all of Israel after his departure and the timing of the actual gathering (Luke 21:24, they “shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”) There were several of my prior posts responding to you on this topic, but see my post on January 27 for the complete summary as to why your interpretation is biblically impossible.

I read your January 27 post.

You said, "So as you can see, when Christ came he didn't "start" the gathering, rather he foretold
that after his departure the scattering would be even greater than it was before (i.e. those at
Judaea, "shall be led away captive into all nations"), because the two remaining tribes would also
be scattered (not just the northern ten tribes) as part of the "days of vengeance" that must be
fulfilled. Furthermore, Jesus says in these verses that they will remain in this scattered state
"until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled". Therefore, it is impossible that Christ, during
his mortal ministry, would be the one that would "start" the gathering."

What do you mean by "gathering"? A spiritual gathering into Christ's church or a physical
gathering back into the lands of inheritance?

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

So again, you aren’t answering the question. You have never explained how your belief that the gathering of Israel as described in Isaiah 11:10-16 began during the earthly ministry of Christ fits with the timeline I provided in my post on January 27, and avoids contradicting Jesus in Luke 21:24.

By gathering of Israel I mean some, not all, of the Israelites joining Christ's church in his
ministry and afterwards through the saints. The gathering of Gentiles into the church began
later. The Lord was adding newly saved members to the church (Acts 2:47, 5:14; 11:24). Despite
Gospel Principles (1997) saying the church of Christ was destroyed, Jesus has been building his
church for millennia.

Luke 21:20-33 refers to events which deal with the Second Coming of Christ. Luke 21:24 could be
a dual prophecy (a time around 70 A.D. and the future too). A similar theme is found in Matthew 24.

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

So we are back to the same question. Since Jesus said (during his mortal ministry) that Israel would be "led away captive into all nations... until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24), and since you and I both agree that the gathering of Israel has already begun, how is it possible for Isaiah 11 to be referring to Christ where it says (in verse 10) that the “root of Jesse” shows up and an ensign is raised, and the Gentiles shall seek it and, "in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people” (verse 11)?

It depends on what type of gathering you are referring to. I asked the question previously.

The Israelites were led captive into various parts of the Roman Empire. Christ was still gathering
Israelites and other Gentiles (slaves and non-slaves) into his church by the preaching of the
gospel.

On a side note, the Israelites who survived in various parts of the world after their forefathers
were led captive into many nations are not captive right now. So the captivity of Luke 21:24 could
be viewed as a future captivity, the captivity after 70 A.D. or both.

What was the first time the remnant of his people were gathered and to where? Is the second time
of a different nature?

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

It seems you have been trying to make this birthright blessing to Joseph about the priesthood from the beginning (you have been fishing for this the entire time). I have never brought that up. Since you keep bringing it up, please just say whatever it is that you wanted to say about it.

Chapter 24 of the Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual says, "It is essential
in this dispensation that Ephraim stand in his place at the head, exercising the birthright in
Israel which was given to him by direct revelation. Therefore, Ephraim must be gathered first to
prepare the way, through the gospel and the priesthood, for the rest of the tribes of Israel when
the time comes for them to be gathered to Zion."

Do you believe Ephraim received the priesthood as some form of birthright blessing and to begin
the gathering? Or is the right of the firstborn totally disconnected from holding the priesthood?

Item B3 of the same manual says:

The raising of an ensign to the nations is the signal for Israel to be gathered
home in the latter days (see Isaiah 5:26; 11:12).

What ensign was raised for Israel to be gathered home? And where is home?

Item B6 says:

Of the twelve tribes, the tribes of Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, will be gathered first
and then direct the other tribes in their gathering (see JST, Genesis 48:5–11; Deuteronomy
33:16–17; D&C 133:30–39).

Why are those three references used for the gathering when I already showed back in my May 14 post
that they have nothing to do with gathering in the last days?

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

It is in Ephraim that the gathering begins (Deuteronomy 33:16–17), and that’s why Ephraim was the first to hold the priesthood in the latter days (beginning with Joseph Smith). It’s their “right” because of being the seed of Abraham (Abraham 2:9-11).

The idea of Joseph Smith being a pure Ephraimite is taught in the January 1991 Ensign.

"It is the house of Israel we are after, and we care not whether they come from the east, the west,
the north, or the south; from China, Russia, England, California, North or South America, or some
other locality. … The Book of Mormon came to Ephraim, for Joseph Smith was a pure Ephraimite, and
the Book of Mormon was revealed to him." (Journal of Discourses 2:268–69.)

Although President Young identified Joseph Smith as a "pure Ephraimite" in the above quotation,
so far as the Prophet's family or blood lines were concerned, Brigham Young and others have
recognized that (1) Joseph Smith was from a Gentile nation and (2) some of Joseph Smith's progenitors
may have come from bloodlines other than that of Ephraim. (See Journal of Discourses, 2:268.)

Is this why it's so important for Joseph Smith not to be in the bloodline of Lehi's son Joseph?

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

I’ve already addressed your claims above, and I discussed how the gift of prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit, and not specifically an office of the priesthood or an indication of holding the priesthood (see my post on July 4, 2023, and July 18, 2023). Don’t confuse the gifts of the Spirit with holding the priesthood.

You are just repeating the things you said before that have already been addressed. And you still haven’t found a single reference in the Bible to indicate that women held the priesthood. So how can you claim that Exodus 19:5-6 extends to women?

A woman who is a prophet is an officer of the priesthood, a holder of a priesthood office. The
women who prophesy are also considered prophets. I provided examples in my May 14 2024 post.

Additionally, we have women serving in other priesthood roles/positions:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of
the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-12).

As I mentioned before, women do not serve in the New Testament like Levitical priests in the Old
Testament.

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

They all have a land inheritance (“the earth”), and the tribes of Israel are not excluded from that inheritance (“the earth"). Thus the Bible shows us that the tribes of Israel are not limited to the land assignment near the land of Israel.

1 Nephi 13:15 says, "And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they
did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and
exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain".

What is this land of inheritance for the Gentiles?

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

The problem with your interpretation is revealed in what you say above: “To be ‘raised up somewhere by people who already existed in this land’”. 2 Nephi 3:23-24 doesn’t say the “one might among them” is raised up by them, it says he rises up “among them”, which means that he was raised up in the land where the seed of Lehi’s son dwelt, so that he could “write” the words from Lehi and his family (the Book of Mormon) that should go forth unto the seed of Lehi’s son. So the verses do not say that Joseph Smith is a descendant of Lehi in any way shape or form.

The reason I say that Joseph Smith is a descendant of Lehi is based on what the church teaches
about him being the one mighty in that chapter.

I equate the group "among them" (in verse 24) as denoting "from the seed of Lehi's younger son
Joseph" – for just before he said that Joseph would be blessed in that his seed would not be
destroyed. Why? Because of what would happen. What? One mighty among them [the seed of Lehi's
son Joseph] would rise up to perform certain things.

23 Wherefore, because of this covenant thou art blessed; for thy seed shall not be destroyed, for
they shall hearken unto the words of the book.

24 And there shall rise up one mighty among them, who shall do much good, both in word and in deed,
being an instrument in the hands of God, with exceeding faith, to work mighty wonders, and do that
thing which is great in the sight of God, unto the bringing to pass much restoration unto the
house of Israel, and unto the seed of thy brethren.

Your equation of "among them" to "raised in the land where Lehi's son dealt" does not make logical
sense for "them" is a reference to people and "raised in the land" is a reference to an object.

It cannot even be shown that Lehi's son lived in New York State or anywhere in America.

But getting back to your earlier objection, can you explain why you believe Joseph Smith needs to
be either a pure Ephraimite or not have anything to do with Lehi's bloodline?

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

As for the men in Exodus 19:3-6 and 10, they clearly functioned as high priests (and therefore they were high priests) given the fact that later on only high priests could enter into the Holy of Holies where God’s presence appeared. In Exodus 19 and 24 these priests of Israel were sanctified and prepared to go up to the presence of God with Moses, which they did in Exodus 24:9-11. So yes, they were high priests in that regard.

The men that you refer to are called priests. The Holy of Holies (the tent of the tabernacle) is
not mentioned in Exodus 19 and 24. Initially Moses and Aaron went up the mountain, being
instructed to leave the priests behind (Exodus 19:23-24). Then Moses went up alone in the
subsequent ascent (Exodus 24:1-2).

Women functioned as prophets, as shown earlier but you don't consider them as priests.

The nation of Israel (both men and women as the firstborn) has its earliest revelation in Exodus
4:22 ("And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn").

Then they leave Egypt and are referred to as a holy nation, a kingdom of priests.

Exodus 91:3-6 says, "And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain,
saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen
what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar
treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom
of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of
Israel".

These words were from God to all the people, both men and women.

Exodus 19:10 says, "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day
and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes".

Both men and women were asked to sanctify themselves.

You mentioned earlier "these men were sanctified …" thus equating them as priests but you don't
apply the same standard to the women.

If they obeyed, all men and women (regardless of tribe) would be a kingdom of priests. Initially,
they did not want to deal with God directly but wanted Moses to intercede for them (Exodus 20:18-21)
and then they broke covenant by worshipping the golden calf. It is at this moment that I believe
God changes the original design and then only males of one particular tribe were allotted the
priesthood.

What was lost in the Old Covenant has been restored in the New. Women are now able to be included
as members of a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5,9). The royal priesthood is available to all
faithful non-Israelites too.

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

Just because there was only one active high priest at a time in the sacrificial system that was developed later doesn’t mean Jesus must be the one and only high priest today. That kind of reasoning is ignoring the big picture. The later system was limited because of the broken covenant (it became more limited as time went on). And clearly there was more than one high priest at various times in the Old Testament as I previously showed, and especially prior to the time that Israel broke their covenant. And Peter’s recall of Exodus 19:6 in 1 Peter 2:9 is an indication that he was teaching us that Jesus allows us to go back to the covenant relationship that God was trying to establish with Israel prior to them breaking their covenant, where there can be many high priests (because there were many high priests prior to them breaking their covenant).

Yes, but you fail to realize that God was calling all Israelite men and women into that covenant
relationship prior to them braking the covenant. This has been restored in the New Covenant and
extended to Gentiles. But I would not use the term "high priests". That term is not used in
Doctrine and Covenants 76, 1 Peter 2, or Revelation 1:6.

I also noticed that the term "priest" is only used for identifying members of the Church of the
Firstborn; those who are taught to be exalted beings.

On 5/19/2024 at 12:55 AM, InCognitus said:

Furthermore, offering up “spiritual sacrifices” isn’t a function of the priesthood alone (it has a much broader application, see Romans 12:1-2 and Psalms 51:16-17). And you still haven’t found a single biblical reference demonstrating that women were priests or held the priesthood in Bible times.

Do LDS prophets only hold the Melchizedek priesthood or is it also the Aaronic?

theplains · May 27, 2024

On 5/21/2024 at 4:32 PM, mfbukowski said:

I don't see the connection- to me that is like asking how people with authority can serve anyone who doesn't have authority. How do police serve those who are not police?

It's a different question entirely.

What is the difference between how Jesus as High Priest serves as our mediator and the way LDS
male high priests serve non-priesthood holders in the world?

mfbukowski · May 27, 2024

2 hours ago, theplains said:

What is the difference between how Jesus as High Priest serves as our mediator and the way LDS
male high priests serve non-priesthood holders in the world?

To be a "mediator" there must be three separate entities - the mediator and someone in some kind of "higher position" with whom the mediator negotiates.

Think of how workers may form a "union" which mediates with the company owners, let's say, to change the status of the workers.

So you have 1- the workers-2- the union/mediator and 3- "The Boss", perhaps the CEO and board of directors of the company.

Since the Father and Son are ONE- I do not see Christ as a mediator- he is also "The Boss". We know from the bible and the

We don't need a mediator- we are praying to "The Boss" directly.

I do not believe in the Trinity- I am a subjective monotheist. "God" is a Family of three which I see as one Entity. We know that Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament, AND the Creator - "The Word" who created "all things".

I pray to God and receive answers from God as one Entity. But notice I said I am a "SUBJECTIVE" monotheist. That means that there COULD be other "Gods", but for me, in the way I receive revelation, there is only ONE GOD who I see as my Father, and only one God who is Father of MY spirit.

I don't need a mediator to speak to my Father, I can go to Him anytime I need or want to.

My job as a priesthood holder is to help non-priesthood holders to see my truth- until they can make it also "their" truth through the same way I received mine- from Father, personally.

I don't believe in following the "philosophies of men", even if they are found in the Bible or Book of Mormon etc.- all that matters to ME is what God has taught ME!

In other words, a wise person quoted another wise person, who said:

"It isn’t a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (Boyd K. Packer, 1977, Follow the Rule, speeches.byu.edu).

Edited May 27, 2024 by mfbukowski

theplains · June 4, 2024

On 5/27/2024 at 1:11 PM, mfbukowski said:

Since the Father and Son are ONE- I do not see Christ as a mediator- he is also "The Boss". We know from the bible and the

We don't need a mediator- we are praying to "The Boss" directly.

What do you think about these church teachings? I'll quote a few sections.

https://uk.churchofjesuschrist.org/the-mission-of-the-mediator

The Lord knows perfectly well the challenges of this mortal life. He knows our weaknesses and
our strengths, He knows that in this process of choices we will make mistakes and that is why
he has provided a mediator.

“For there is [only] (...) one mediator between God and men“ (1 Timothy 2:5). This mediator is
Jesus Christ, he is the mediator of our covenants with the Father. It is through him that we
come to our Heavenly Father.

Christ “is the mediator of a better covenant“ (Hebrews 8:6). This covenant allows the demands
of justice and the demands of mercy to be met.

mfbukowski · June 5, 2024

12 hours ago, theplains said:

What do you think about these church teachings? I'll quote a few sections.

https://uk.churchofjesuschrist.org/the-missi

12 hours ago, theplains said:

What do you think about these church teachings? I'll quote a few sections.

https://uk.churchofjesuschrist.org/the-mission-of-the-mediator

The Lord knows perfectly well the challenges of this mortal life. He knows our weaknesses and
our strengths, He knows that in this process of choices we will make mistakes and that is why
he has provided a mediator.

“For there is [only] (...) one mediator between God and men“ (1 Timothy 2:5). This mediator is
Jesus Christ, he is the mediator of our covenants with the Father. It is through him that we
come to our Heavenly Father.

Christ “is the mediator of a better covenant“ (Hebrews 8:6). This covenant allows the demands
of justice and the demands of mercy to be met.

This is not at all difficult or mysterious to figure out.

It is semantics.

We all in life, play many roles. We can be a dentist and a father and an uncle, a driver, a mediator, a traveller, a tourist and on it goes.

I was once a financial advisor before I retired. I also worked on setting up real estate loans. I was a mediator, the salesman, if you will, but I was also "the boss" making the decisions and saying "yes" and writing the checks for the loans.

When I was a bishop, I was a "mediator" in approving temple recommends.

It is our belief that the Being called "Jehovah" in his pre-mortal life. After his incarnation, he was called "Jesus" and also called "The Son", which he legitimately was RELATIVE to being his Father. His immanence limited his abilities, primarily because he was now mortal, and would die, yet he was still the SAME BEING

So even if he was still "The Father", it was correct to CALL HIM a "Father Jr" or "Son" even as the same being who now came down a "peg" or a "generation" as the same person, yet now a lower level being. which he made the sacrifice of lowering his immortal status

So:

Quote

He knows that in this process of choices we will make mistakes and that is why
he has provided a mediator.

Same idea, but with different words, one might substitute the sentence "He knows that in this process of choices we will make mistakes and that is why
he has taken on the role of mediator, so that he might better understand what it is like to be an incarnated human who make mistakes

The other quotes may likewise be UNDERSTOOD and stated in different ways without using the word "mediator".

Remember that when Jesus speaks to his "Father" he is speaking to himself as "Jehovah".

In being limited to a human body and brain, I envision him "pondering" or "talking to himself" as it were through his limited abilities as an mortal human. The "mediator" I think is a result of being now a "lower level" version of himself, impaired, in a sense, by his incarnated human body was no longer the GLORIFIED personage Jehovah.

These are my personal interpretations. This perhaps explains how Jehovah IS Jesus who is yet UNDERSTOOD as the second PERSON of the Godhead. As sons become fathers, in this case the father becomes understood AS the Son.

Common sense of course teaches that one person cannot be two persons, but can be UNDERSTOOD to take on two different roles, one of which can be CALLED a "mediator" of the other, similarly to the way one can be both a father and son in their own lives.

theplains · June 7, 2024

On 6/5/2024 at 2:21 AM, mfbukowski said:

It is our belief that the Being called "Jehovah" in his pre-mortal life. After his incarnation, he was called "Jesus" and also called "The Son", which he legitimately was RELATIVE to being his Father. His immanence limited his abilities, primarily because he was now mortal, and would die, yet he was still the SAME BEING

A study of God on the church website has this:

"When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All
mankind are His children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is
usually identified in the Old Testament as Lord (in small capitals), is the Son, known as
Jesus Christ, and who is also a God. Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in
complete harmony with Him. All mankind are His brethren and sisters, He being the eldest of
the spirit children of Elohim. Many of the things that the scripture says were done by God
were actually done by the Lord (Jesus). Thus the scripture says that “God created the heaven
and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), but we know that it was actually the Lord (Jesus) who was the
creator (John 1:3, 10), or as Paul said, God created all things by Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:9).
The Holy Ghost is also a God and is variously called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit
of God, etc".

Do you believe Elohim, Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit are the SAME BEING or 3 individual
Gods like Joseph Smith taught?

mfbukowski · June 8, 2024

11 hours ago, theplains said:

Do you believe Elohim, Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit are the SAME BEING or 3 individual
Gods like Joseph Smith taught?

I don't think that that matters and is irrelevant to our experience as humans on our level.

I KNOW there is a PERSON "out there" who loves me and who gives me comfort and love when I need it, and the ability to speak with he/she/it

I KNOW that because I have experienced it. AND much more. MUCH more.

That's all that matters to me.

We can argue the other points until we are blue in the face, but all that is irrelevant to ME is what I have written. I have presented one theory of how my views are coherent with LDS theology.

If they are not, then they are not. I stand with what I KNOW.

mfbukowski · June 8, 2024

On 6/7/2024 at 6:53 AM, theplains said:

A study of God on the church website has this:

"When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All
mankind are His children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is
usually identified in the Old Testament as Lord (in small capitals), is the Son, known as
Jesus Christ, and who is also a God. Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in
complete harmony with Him. All mankind are His brethren and sisters, He being the eldest of
the spirit children of Elohim. Many of the things that the scripture says were done by God
were actually done by the Lord (Jesus). Thus the scripture says that “God created the heaven
and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), but we know that it was actually the Lord (Jesus) who was the
creator (John 1:3, 10), or as Paul said, God created all things by Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:9).
The Holy Ghost is also a God and is variously called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit
of God, etc".

Do you believe Elohim, Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit are the SAME BEING or 3 individual
Gods like Joseph Smith taught?

Yes to both,

As I said earlier it is a matter of semantics and defining words. You seem to be a trinitarian, I am not. Three in one only make sense as a collective noun like "congress" - congress is 400 people united as one to run the country. A family is one or several people dedicated to each other's welfare.

God is a family. Yes they are individuals. Yes there is one God.

The Dodgers are also one unity of many people dedicated to one goal- winning.

"I will take this case to the Supreme Court!" Similar semantically to "The Supreme Being(s)" One court, several beings.

The "Supreme Court" can be seen as a collective noun

"God" can be seen as a collective noun. Yet the most comforting way to see Him/them, especially during prayer, is "Heavenly Father".

A perfect human father is what we feel we are with when we utter those words.

So pick your own semantics! It's not a question of either-or!

Edited June 8, 2024 by mfbukowski

InCognitus · June 9, 2024

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

Do you believe any birthright promises, related to the priesthood, were exercised by Ephraim or
his tribe in the Old Testament or New Testament before the dawn of Joseph Smith? If yes, how
were they manifested?

I don’t have any set beliefs pertaining to what you say above.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

On 5/18/2024 at 10:55 PM, InCognitus said:

See my post on February 25 and March 3, we already discussed this. See also my post on January 11.

I checked your posts on those dates but don’t see my questions about identifying the land in my
May 14 post addressed therein.

Specifically from my post on March 3:

On 3/3/2024 at 4:36 PM, InCognitus said:

On 2/29/2024 at 7:38 AM, theplains said:

In the Book of Mormon, can you identify the land of inheritance mentioned in 2 Nephi 1:5?

That’s the land that Lehi and his descendants will inherit in the New World, which also goes with Lehi’s land of inheritance in the Old World.

Same answer goes for verse 8 as it does for verse 5.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

I read your January 27 post.

You said, "So as you can see, when Christ came he didn't "start" the gathering, rather he foretold
that after his departure the scattering would be even greater than it was before (i.e. those at
Judaea, "shall be led away captive into all nations"), because the two remaining tribes would also
be scattered (not just the northern ten tribes) as part of the "days of vengeance" that must be
fulfilled. Furthermore, Jesus says in these verses that they will remain in this scattered state
"until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled". Therefore, it is impossible that Christ, during
his mortal ministry, would be the one that would "start" the gathering."

What do you mean by "gathering"? A spiritual gathering into Christ's church or a physical
gathering back into the lands of inheritance?

We already discussed what we both mean by “gathering” at length already (although you seem to be changing what you said before as we go along).

The type of “gathering” I’m referring to above has to do with what is described in Isaiah 10:11-16, when the “root of Jesse” shows up and an ensign is raised, and the Gentiles shall seek it and that kicks off the gathering: "in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people”.

I’ll explain how this plays out below when I answer the question about how Israel was gathered the first time.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

By gathering of Israel I mean some, not all, of the Israelites joining Christ's church in his
ministry and afterwards through the saints. The gathering of Gentiles into the church began
later.

You say that the “gathering of the Gentiles into the church began later”, and I agree. So this cannot possibly explain what’s going on in Isaiah 11:10-16 in coordination with what Jesus says in Luke 21:24, because Jesus said Israel would be “led away captive into all the nations… until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

So how is it possible for Isaiah 11:10 to be referring to Christ during his mortal ministry when the “times of the Gentiles” came much later?

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

The Lord was adding newly saved members to the church (Acts 2:47, 5:14; 11:24). Despite
Gospel Principles (1997) saying the church of Christ was destroyed, Jesus has been building his
church for millennia.

Luke 21:20-33 refers to events which deal with the Second Coming of Christ. Luke 21:24 could be
a dual prophecy (a time around 70 A.D. and the future too). A similar theme is found in Matthew 24.

While both Matthew 24 and Luke 21 describe some events that could have a dual fulfillment, the scattering described in Luke 21:24 only seems to fit the time at around 70 AD, because at the second coming of Christ Israel will be “gathered”, not scattered (i.e. they will not be “led away captive into all nations” at that time). And at the second coming Jerusalem will not be “trodden down by the Gentiles”. Furthermore, the “times of the Gentiles” was far from being “fulfilled” at 70 AD, so it’s impossible for Isaiah 11:10 to be referring to Christ during his mortal ministry.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

It depends on what type of gathering you are referring to. I asked the question previously.

The Israelites were led captive into various parts of the Roman Empire. Christ was still gathering
Israelites and other Gentiles (slaves and non-slaves) into his church by the preaching of the
gospel.

On a side note, the Israelites who survived in various parts of the world after their forefathers
were led captive into many nations are not captive right now. So the captivity of Luke 21:24 could
be viewed as a future captivity, the captivity after 70 A.D. or both.

Even though some Israelites joined Christ’s church during Christ’s mortal ministry that did not fulfill the Lord setting “his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people” resulting in them returning to their own lands as described in Isaiah 11:10-16.

As for their being led “captive” into all nations, the word “captive” (or captivity) is a prophetic indicator of the scattering of Israel, and it does not necessarily constitute literal captivity. The word is included in the prophesies about the convent curse that results from Israel being disobedient leading to their scattering (Deut 28:15-68), and the concept of captivity or bondage is often used to describe a form of spiritual bondage or apostasy (like that described in Isaiah 5:9 or Isaiah 52:2-5).

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

What was the first time the remnant of his people were gathered and to where? Is the second time
of a different nature?

The first time was when the Lord gathered his people out of Egypt through Moses. They were taken out of Egyptian bondage (their captivity) and the Lord first gathered and assembled them to be brought, as the Lord put it, “unto myself” at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:4-6) where they were sanctified and entered into a covenant with God and were made the people of God, a holy people. And from there they went on to possess the lands that were promised to them through the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The lands of their inheritance are a symbol of that covenant and are only fully received when they are in that covenant relationship with God.

Today the ten “lost tribes” of the house of Israel are not lost in the sense that they don’t know where they are geographically, they are “lost” only in the sense that they don’t know their identity in the covenant family of Israel or honor the covenants given to their fathers, and they haven’t received the new covenant that is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. For them to be “gathered” they must first come unto Christ and come to recognize their lineage.

So the Lord setting his hand again the “second time to recover the remnant of his people” follows the exact same pattern as the first: Those who are of the tribes of Israel must first come unto Christ and enter into a covenant with him, by being baptized and making covenants in the temple, and in doing so they come out of their spiritual captivity and recognize who they are and are “gathered” and “assembled” as God’s people. This is the same pattern as when Moses gathered Israel to Mount Sinai, which was the first temple of God. Once they enter again into the covenant with God they are then eligible for the covenant promises given to their fathers, as symbolized by them being able to return to the lands of their inheritance.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

Chapter 24 of the Religion 430-431 Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual says, "It is essential
in this dispensation that Ephraim stand in his place at the head, exercising the birthright in
Israel which was given to him by direct revelation. Therefore, Ephraim must be gathered first to
prepare the way, through the gospel and the priesthood, for the rest of the tribes of Israel when
the time comes for them to be gathered to Zion."

Do you believe Ephraim received the priesthood as some form of birthright blessing and to begin
the gathering? Or is the right of the firstborn totally disconnected from holding the priesthood?

Both Ephraim and Manasseh received the blessing through Joseph, which was that they would begin the gathering in the last days (Deut 33:17). They were the first to begin the gathering, so they were the first to receive the restored priesthood, and they had the “right” to the priesthood given they are of the seed of Abraham. It was the natural order things given their numerous posterity and their location in preparation for the restoration of the gospel.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

Item B3 of the same manual says:

The raising of an ensign to the nations is the signal for Israel to be gathered
home in the latter days (see Isaiah 5:26; 11:12).

What ensign was raised for Israel to be gathered home? And where is home?

The ensign represents Jesus Christ and his restored gospel and his words issuing forth again unto the world signaling the call to return to the covenant path. Their “home” is Zion.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

Item B6 says:

Of the twelve tribes, the tribes of Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, will be gathered first
and then direct the other tribes in their gathering (see JST, Genesis 48:5–11; Deuteronomy
33:16–17; D&C 133:30–39).

Why are those three references used for the gathering when I already showed back in my May 14 post
that they have nothing to do with gathering in the last days?

Your May 14 post doesn’t “show” any such thing. You referenced those passages and simply dismissed them without really dealing with their content.

In our discussion I have constantly referred to Deuteronomy 33:17 (even earlier in this post) as referring to Ephraim and Manasseh’s role in the gathering in the last days.

In your post on May 14, the only passage you elaborated on was the JST verses, where you said:

On 5/14/2024 at 7:25 AM, theplains said:

Regarding B6, I read the JST version of Genesis 48:5-11. This has nothing to do with a first
future gathering of Ephraim and Manasseh. Rather, it's about how Jacob's family and others
were preserved through the famine by Joseph's wisdom, which he received from God.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/jst-gen/48?lang=eng

As for Deuteronomy 33:16–17 and D&C 133:30-39, they also do not talk about a first future
gathering of Ephraim and Manasseh.

But you didn’t go far enough. The fact that “Jacob’s family and others were preserved through famine by Joseph’s wisdom, which he received from God” is part of the point, since this is a type of how the tribe of Joseph will preserve (or save) others by recovering the house of Israel in the last days, but you didn’t read the last two verses (10-11):

“For thou hast prevailed, and thy father’s house hath bowed down unto thee, even as it was shown unto thee, before thou wast sold into Egypt by the hands of thy brethren; wherefore thy brethren shall bow down unto thee, from generation to generation, unto the fruit of thy loins forever; For thou shalt be a light unto my people, to deliver them in the days of their captivity, from bondage; and to bring salvation unto them, when they are altogether bowed down under sin.” (JST, Genesis 48:10-11)

How could you possibly have missed that? I’ll let you re-read the other two passages and figure them out.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

The idea of Joseph Smith being a pure Ephraimite is taught in the January 1991 Ensign.

"It is the house of Israel we are after, and we care not whether they come from the east, the west,
the north, or the south; from China, Russia, England, California, North or South America, or some
other locality. … The Book of Mormon came to Ephraim, for Joseph Smith was a pure Ephraimite, and
the Book of Mormon was revealed to him." (Journal of Discourses 2:268–69.)

Although President Young identified Joseph Smith as a "pure Ephraimite" in the above quotation,
so far as the Prophet's family or blood lines were concerned, Brigham Young and others have
recognized that (1) Joseph Smith was from a Gentile nation and (2) some of Joseph Smith's progenitors
may have come from bloodlines other than that of Ephraim. (See Journal of Discourses, 2:268.)

Is this why it's so important for Joseph Smith not to be in the bloodline of Lehi's son Joseph?

It’s not really “important” except that you are completely misconstruing the meaning of 2 Nephi 3:23-24 (see more below). It simply does not say what you are claiming it to mean.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

A woman who is a prophet is an officer of the priesthood, a holder of a priesthood office. The
women who prophesy are also considered prophets. I provided examples in my May 14 2024 post.

Additionally, we have women serving in other priesthood roles/positions:

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of
the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-12).

As I mentioned before, women do not serve in the New Testament like Levitical priests in the Old
Testament.

Can you show me any biblical scripture where it says a woman who is a prophet is an officer of the priesthood and this is not simply one of the gifts of the spirit? (I don’t think you can, or you would have done that already instead of making these assertions without any proof.)

And Ephesians 4:11-12 says nothing about women in any of those leadership roles, but it says those offices are given to the church for the “perfecting of the saints”. In other words, all who are in the church (the saints of God) benefit from the God appointed priesthood leadership.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

The reason I say that Joseph Smith is a descendant of Lehi is based on what the church teaches
about him being the one mighty in that chapter.

Joseph Smith is the “one mighty” in that chapter, but the verses simply do not say that the “one mighty” is a descendant of Lehi. Lehi quotes the prophecy of Joseph (the Joseph sold into Egypt, 2 Nephi 3:6-15) and that prophecy says the “choice seer” is a descendant of that Joseph (the Joseph sold into Egypt) and he will be given the power to bring forth the words of the Lord to Lehi’s seed (who are also of the seed of the Joseph sold into Egypt). It is because of this prophecy that Lehi says he is “sure” that his seed (and the seed of his son Joseph) will be preserved.

As Lehi says: “And now, behold, my son Joseph, after this manner did my father of old prophesy. Wherefore, because of this covenant thou art blessed; for thy seed shall not be destroyed, for they shall hearken unto the words of the book.” (The book, which is the word of the Lord brought forth by the “choice seer”, the Book of Mormon).

Nowhere in this chapter is it stated or even implied that the “choice seer” or the “one mighty” is a descendant of Lehi.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

I equate the group "among them" (in verse 24) as denoting "from the seed of Lehi's younger son
Joseph" – for just before he said that Joseph would be blessed in that his seed would not be
destroyed. Why? Because of what would happen. What? One mighty among them [the seed of Lehi's
son Joseph] would rise up to perform certain things.

This shows how you are misinterpreting the verses. See my explanation about the context above. And as stated before, the fact that Joseph Smith rose up “among them” does not mean that he was one of their descendants. It simply means he would be the “choice seer” that would be raised up to bring forth the Book of Mormon in the land where Lehi’s seed would be preserved. To make that say he is also one of their descendants is like saying the character Mowgli, in Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book, must be a wolf because he was raised among wolves.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

The men that you refer to are called priests. The Holy of Holies (the tent of the tabernacle) is
not mentioned in Exodus 19 and 24. Initially Moses and Aaron went up the mountain, being
instructed to leave the priests behind (Exodus 19:23-24). Then Moses went up alone in the
subsequent ascent (Exodus 24:1-2).

Don’t stop there. Keep reading. And then, the seventy elders went up with Moses “and they saw the God of Israel” (Exodus 24:9-11). They were in the presence of God (which is the role of the high priests).

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

Women functioned as prophets, as shown earlier but you don't consider them as priests.

Right, I don’t consider them as priests because that’s a category mistake, and nowhere in scripture does it ever say that those with the spirit of prophecy need to function in priesthood offices or need to be priests, or that women are priests.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

The nation of Israel (both men and women as the firstborn) has its earliest revelation in Exodus
4:22 ("And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn").

Then they leave Egypt and are referred to as a holy nation, a kingdom of priests.

Exodus 91:3-6 says, "And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain,
saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen
what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar
treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom
of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of
Israel".

These words were from God to all the people, both men and women.

We’ve already discussed all this, over and over and over again. To say that Israel will be a “kingdom of priests” is true, because the men that held the priesthood were (originally, prior to them breaking their covenant on Mount Sinai) all through the nation, and not limited to the men of the tribe of Levi (as it was later on). But the problem is that you cannot find any passage in all of scripture that demonstrates that any women actually held the priesthood. It’s not there, and your assertions to the contrary aren’t sufficient to prove it.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

Exodus 19:10 says, "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day
and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes".

Both men and women were asked to sanctify themselves.

You mentioned earlier "these men were sanctified …" thus equating them as priests but you don't
apply the same standard to the women.

Sanctification applies to all, but if you would read the rest of the chapter (and chapter 24), the people could not go up to the mountain, and only the men (the priests) offered the sacrifices (Exodus 24:5) and it was Moses and the seventy elders that went up to see God (Exodus 24:9-11).

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

If they obeyed, all men and women (regardless of tribe) would be a kingdom of priests. Initially,
they did not want to deal with God directly but wanted Moses to intercede for them (Exodus 20:18-21)
and then they broke covenant by worshipping the golden calf. It is at this moment that I believe
God changes the original design and then only males of one particular tribe were allotted the
priesthood.

Except you can’t show any verses that definitively say women held the priesthood either before or after Israel broke their covenant with God.

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

What was lost in the Old Covenant has been restored in the New. Women are now able to be included
as members of a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5,9)

This is what you say, but scripture does not show this anywhere. Can't you demonstrate your position from scripture?

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

The royal priesthood is available to all
faithful non-Israelites too.

In a sense that is true today, except that all non-Israelites who accept the gospel and enter into a covenant with God become Israelites (or the children of Abraham - Galatians 3:29).

On 5/27/2024 at 8:49 AM, theplains said:

Do LDS prophets only hold the Melchizedek priesthood or is it also the Aaronic?

I don’t see how this is relevant to our discussion.

theplains · June 11, 2024

On 6/8/2024 at 2:42 PM, mfbukowski said:

As I said earlier it is a matter of semantics and defining words. You seem to be a trinitarian, I am not.

How do you understand the term "trinitarian"?

Pyreaux · June 12, 2024

On 5/27/2024 at 9:49 AM, theplains said:

Do you believe any birthright promises, related to the priesthood, were exercised by Ephraim or
his tribe in the Old Testament or New Testament before the dawn of Joseph Smith? If yes, how
were they manifested?....

Do you believe Ephraim received the priesthood as some form of birthright blessing and to begin
the gathering? Or is the right of the firstborn totally disconnected from holding the priesthood?

On 5/27/2024 at 9:49 AM, theplains said:

Exodus 91:3-6 says, "And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain,
saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen
what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar
treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom
of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of
Israel".

These words were from God to all the people, both men and women.

Exodus 19:10 says, "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day
and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes".

Both men and women were asked to sanctify themselves.

You mentioned earlier "these men were sanctified …" thus equating them as priests but you don't
apply the same standard to the women.

If they obeyed, all men and women (regardless of tribe) would be a kingdom of priests. Initially,
they did not want to deal with God directly but wanted Moses to intercede for them (Exodus 20:18-21)
and then they broke covenant by worshipping the golden calf. It is at this moment that I believe
God changes the original design and then only males of one particular tribe were allotted the
priesthood.

What was lost in the Old Covenant has been restored in the New. Women are now able to be included
as members of a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:5,9). The royal priesthood is available to all
faithful non-Israelites too.

Yes, but you fail to realize that God was calling all Israelite men and women into that covenant
relationship prior to them braking the covenant. This has been restored in the New Covenant and
extended to Gentiles. But I would not use the term "high priests". That term is not used in
Doctrine and Covenants 76, 1 Peter 2, or Revelation 1:6.

I also noticed that the term "priest" is only used for identifying members of the Church of the
Firstborn; those who are taught to be exalted beings.

Do LDS prophets only hold the Melchizedek priesthood or is it also the Aaronic?

I just saw the thread for the first time and saw interesting questions. I do believe there were other particular members of non-Levi tribes that held the priesthood. The Tribe of Ephraim includes the prophet Joshua (Joshua 19:50); the Temple Priest Samuel (1 Samuel 1:1); and the King Priest Jeroboam I, the first king of the divided kingdom in the north (1 Kings 12:25). Ephriam is barred from the Levitical Priesthood but not the Melchizedek Priesthood that allows non-Levites like David and Jesus to be royal priests, and the King's wives to be anointed with the priest only oil and enter the temple areas for priests only. Christian women's baptism, anointing (with the Holy Ghost) and endowment is a priestly washing and vestment, otherwise they'd be barred from the Levitical priesthood. LDS women are certainly akin to Early Church "Deaconesses" in assisting and administering to other women. The LDS call temple marriage the highest order of the priesthood. So, any married LDS woman has obtained the priesthood, but seem to lack office, which is a distinction. King Saul was a priest-king, but not just any priest has the right to usurp the duties of Samuel the Ephraimite as the officiating high priest. LDS "Aaronic" priesthood is mostly a namesake for the "Lesser" ranks of the Melchizedek priesthood. The ordination to the priesthood seems to transmute a person into a descendant of Aaron. And for many LDS Gentile, we are adopted into Israel, transmuted into a tribe, many into Ephriam (Ephriam himself was adopted into Israel).

Was I helpful at all?

Edited June 12, 2024 by Pyreaux

theplains · June 18, 2024

I think you mentioned about 2 Nephi 1:5 being the land that Lehi and his descendants will inherit
in the New World, which also goes with Lehi's land of inheritance in the Old World.

What is Lehi's land of inheritance in the Old World?

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

The type of “gathering” I’m referring to above has to do with what is described in Isaiah 10:11-16, when the “root of Jesse” shows up and an ensign is raised, and the Gentiles shall seek it and that kicks off the gathering: "in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people”.

Yes. I understand from LDS church teachings that the root of Jesse which shows up is Joseph Smith.

On what basis does the church believe Joseph Smith could be the root of Jesse when he is not a
descendant of Jesse but is rather taught to be a pure Ephraimite?

Isaiah 11 is a Messianic prophecy, referring to Christ. Paul taught this too in Romans 15:12
(And again Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles;
in him will the Gentiles hope"). Paul is not referring to Jesus in his first part and then
switching to another person, Joseph Smith, in the next.

But, let's proceed with your view. How and when do you believe an ensign is raised and the
gathering of Gentiles is kicked off?

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

You say that the “gathering of the Gentiles into the church began later”, and I agree. So this cannot possibly explain what’s going on in Isaiah 11:10-16 in coordination with what Jesus says in Luke 21:24, because Jesus said Israel would be “led away captive into all the nations… until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

A similar phrase is found in Romans 11:25 ("A partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the
fullness of the Gentiles has come in" - ESV).

Maybe "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" coincides with "until the fulness of the
Gentiles has come in".

What do you believe is the time of the fulfillment of Luke 21:24, when the times of the Gentiles
is fulfilled? I see the events of Luke 21:20-33 as yet future, at the Second Coming. I don't
see it as Israel capturing East Jerusalem back in 1967 to have complete control of Jerusalem.

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

So how is it possible for Isaiah 11:10 to be referring to Christ during his mortal ministry when the “times of the Gentiles” came much later?

I don't recall specifically saying that Christ began gathering the Gentiles as a whole during his
ministry in Israel (i.e. that Isaiah 11:10 specifically is during a three year period). But I
suppose there were some Gentiles who heard him preach in Israel; unless there were absolutely no
Gentiles living throughout the entire land.

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

Even though some Israelites joined Christ’s church during Christ’s mortal ministry that did not fulfill the Lord setting “his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people” resulting in them returning to their own lands as described in Isaiah 11:10-16.

It sounds like you believe that passage is a physical re-gathering back to a physical location.

What lands will the people of Ephraim and Manasseh, who were scattered all over the world, return
back to? Will those scattered to China return to Russia, back to China, or somewhere else? But
before you answer that, where do you see non-Israelite lands as the destination in Isaiah 11:10-16?

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

As for their being led “captive” into all nations, the word “captive” (or captivity) is a prophetic indicator of the scattering of Israel, and it does not necessarily constitute literal captivity.

I never heard of it explained that way.

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

So the Lord setting his hand again the “second time to recover the remnant of his people” follows the exact same pattern as the first: Those who are of the tribes of Israel must first come unto Christ and enter into a covenant with him, by being baptized and making covenants in the temple, and in doing so they come out of their spiritual captivity and recognize who they are and are “gathered” and “assembled” as God’s people. This is the same pattern as when Moses gathered Israel to Mount Sinai, which was the first temple of God. Once they enter again into the covenant with God they are then eligible for the covenant promises given to their fathers, as symbolized by them being able to return to the lands of their inheritance.

And those lands of their inheritance you believe are lands spread all over the world?

1 Nephi 13:14-15 says, "And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon
the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and
they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten. And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord,
that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance;
and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before
they were slain".

Which of the tribes of Israel will share this land of promise with the Gentiles (who are taught
will assist the remnant of Jacob in building the city of New Jerusalem) in 3 Nephi 21:22-24)?

I don't know how you or the Book of Mormon identifies this "land of promise".

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

Both Ephraim and Manasseh received the blessing through Joseph, which was that they would begin the gathering in the last days (Deut 33:17). They were the first to begin the gathering, so they were the first to receive the restored priesthood,

I see. I mentioned this in a previous post, referencing the Religion 430-431 Student Manual.

B6. Of the twelve tribes, the tribes of Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, will be gathered
first and then direct the other tribes in their gathering (see JST, Genesis 48:5–11; Deuteronomy
33:16–17; D&C 133:30–39).

Deuteronomy 33:16-17 says, "And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for
the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and
upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren. His glory is like the firstling
of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people
together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the
thousands of Manasseh".

I see Ephraim and Manasseh mentioned but where do you see a gathering of first the two tribes and
then afterwards a gathering of the other ten tribes? Do you believe all of Ephraim and Manasseh
has already been gathered first?

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

and they had the “right” to the priesthood given they are of the seed of Abraham. It was the natural order things given their numerous posterity and their location in preparation for the restoration of the gospel.

Did both Ephraim and Manasseh have the birthright from Jacob through Joseph and the right to the
priesthood was one of the blessings of the birthright that they obtained?

Why does the Religion 430-431 Student Manual exclude Manasseh and teach ""It is Ephraim, today,
who holds the priesthood. It is with Ephraim that the Lord has made covenant and has revealed the
fulness of the everlasting gospel. It is Ephraim who is building temples and performing the
ordinances in them for both the living and for the dead"?

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

The ensign represents Jesus Christ and his restored gospel and his words issuing forth again unto the world signaling the call to return to the covenant path. Their “home” is Zion.

I asked you before in the post what the ensign was and I see you answered it here.

Do you believe Isaiah 5:26 and 11:12 is only referring to literal Israelites or does it also
include Gentiles who would be called to return to the covenant path?

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

But you didn’t go far enough. The fact that “Jacob’s family and others were preserved through famine by Joseph’s wisdom, which he received from God” is part of the point, since this is a type of how the tribe of Joseph will preserve (or save) others by recovering the house of Israel in the last days, but you didn’t read the last two verses (10-11):

“For thou hast prevailed, and thy father’s house hath bowed down unto thee, even as it was shown unto thee, before thou wast sold into Egypt by the hands of thy brethren; wherefore thy brethren shall bow down unto thee, from generation to generation, unto the fruit of thy loins forever; For thou shalt be a light unto my people, to deliver them in the days of their captivity, from bondage; and to bring salvation unto them, when they are altogether bowed down under sin.” (JST, Genesis 48:10-11)

How could you possibly have missed that? I’ll let you re-read the other two passages and figure them out.

Yes, I saw that. This is something Joseph Smith added that is not in the Hebrew manuscripts.

But let's proceed with your line of reasoning and look at JST, Genesis 48:10.

For thou hast prevailed, and thy father's house hath bowed down unto thee, even as it was shown
unto thee, before thou wast sold into Egypt by the hands of thy brethren; wherefore thy brethren
shall bow down unto thee, from generation to generation, unto the fruit of thy loins forever;

Joseph had prevailed in his being sold into slavery, then becoming prominent in Egypt, and saving
many by his wisdom through the famine. But how did all the remaining 11 sons bow down to Joseph
from generation to generation and forever after that?

Regarding JST Genesis 48:11 ("For thou shalt be a light unto my people, to deliver them in the
days of their captivity, from bondage; and to bring salvation unto them, when they are altogether
bowed down under sin").

How did Ephraim and Manasseh deliver those Israelites from captivity under the rule of Babylon,
the Medes and Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans?

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

It’s not really “important” except that you are completely misconstruing the meaning of 2 Nephi 3:23-24 (see more below). It simply does not say what you are claiming it to mean.

I figured some more rationale of what I wrote was that, with the exception of the book of Ether,
I think all the writings in the Book of Mormon come from those who supposedly descended from
Manasseh. So it would be fitting that the "one among them" would be descriptive of a descendant
of Manasseh.

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

Can you show me any biblical scripture where it says a woman who is a prophet is an officer of the priesthood and this is not simply one of the gifts of the spirit? (I don’t think you can, or you would have done that already instead of making these assertions without any proof.)

Women in the church that I attend do not serve like Levitical priests of the Old Testament.
Likewise, Aaronic priests in the LDS Church do not serve like the priests did in the Old Testament.
The priesthood is referred to as the royal priesthood. It is described in 1 Peter 2:5,9

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye
should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Women, like the men, offer up spiritual sacrifices. Women, like the men, are a peculiar people,
shewing forth His praises.

Women, like the men, have been called out of darkness. A similar thing is found in Colossians 1:13
("Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his
dear Son").

Men and women who are in the first resurrection will be priests and kings and reign with Christ
(Revelation 5:10; Revelation 20:6).

If you exclude women from Revelation 20:6, then you would believe they will be harmed by the
second death. If you exclude women from being priests and kings, then they are not in the Church
of the Firstborn, as described in Doctrine and Covenants 76:50-54.

Jesus is our only High Priest. No other person who became a Christian in the New Testament is
ever referred to as a high priest.

I read in Gospel Principles that the offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood are elder, high priest,
patriarch, Seventy, and Apostle.

On the flip side, 1 Corinthians 12:28 says, "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles,
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps,
governments, diversities of tongues".

We know from scripture that some women were prophets and others prophesied (also making them
prophets).

In the future, we'll see a larger fulfillment of what Joel 2:28 wrote ("And it shall come to pass
afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions").

I think this is why the LDS Church does not consider "prophet" as an office of the Melchizedek
Priesthood.

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

And Ephesians 4:11-12 says nothing about women in any of those leadership roles, but it says those offices are given to the church for the “perfecting of the saints”. In other words, all who are in the church (the saints of God) benefit from the God appointed priesthood leadership.

I know that women in leadership roles for the New Testament is frowned upon in most churches.
Most likely this came from Paul's teaching of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 ("Let the woman learn in silence
with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but
to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman
being deceived was in the transgression").

Probably this means an exclusion for holding the office of pastor. But I know that churches,
even LDS ones, have women serving as teachers and evangelists. Female prophets (mentioned in the
New Testament church) is not something applicable to the LDS Church however.

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

Joseph Smith is the “one mighty” in that chapter, but the verses simply do not say that the “one mighty” is a descendant of Lehi. Lehi quotes the prophecy of Joseph (the Joseph sold into Egypt, 2 Nephi 3:6-15) and that prophecy says the “choice seer” is a descendant of that Joseph (the Joseph sold into Egypt) and he will be given the power to bring forth the words of the Lord to Lehi’s seed (who are also of the seed of the Joseph sold into Egypt). It is because of this prophecy that Lehi says he is “sure” that his seed (and the seed of his son Joseph) will be preserved.

As Lehi says: “And now, behold, my son Joseph, after this manner did my father of old prophesy. Wherefore, because of this covenant thou art blessed; for thy seed shall not be destroyed, for they shall hearken unto the words of the book.” (The book, which is the word of the Lord brought forth by the “choice seer”, the Book of Mormon).

Nowhere in this chapter is it stated or even implied that the “choice seer” or the “one mighty” is a descendant of Lehi.

That might explain how some interpret the teaching of Journal of Discourse 2:268–69.

Would any LDS theology break if Joseph Smith was not a pure Ephraimite?

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

Don’t stop there. Keep reading. And then, the seventy elders went up with Moses “and they saw the God of Israel” (Exodus 24:9-11). They were in the presence of God (which is the role of the high priests).

Thank you. I had not read further so I missed that.

Let's proceed with your line of reasoning – being in the presence of God means someone has the
role of high priest.

A] Adam and Eve were in the presence of God (both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ visited them
and talked to them in the Garden of Eden according to a study manual called Old Testament Stories
2022 – Adam and Eve). That would put them both in the role of high priest.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-stories-2022/adam-and-eve?lang=eng

B] All female spirit children were supposedly in the presence of God before coming to earth in
mortal bodies. This would mean they had the role of high priest.

C] Colossians 1:12-13 says, "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us [both men and women]
meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us [both men and
women] from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son".

Women are in the presence of God, meaning they have the role of high priest.

D] Women are also taught to be in the presence of God in so many other places (Doctrine and Covenants
76:50-54; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 20:6, etc). Unless you believe women are not members of the
Church of the Firstborn.

Are there equivalents of the 70 male elders of the Old Testament in the LDS Church who saw the
Lord? No.

Then I look at the Book of Mormon itself. "High priests" are never mentioned after the time of
3 Nephi 6.

On 6/9/2024 at 2:56 PM, InCognitus said:

In a sense that is true today, except that all non-Israelites who accept the gospel and enter into a covenant with God become Israelites (or the children of Abraham - Galatians 3:29).

Yes. And what do the members of the royal priesthood do? They offer up spirit sacrifices.

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye
should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous
light".

Men and women are built up by God into a spiritual house, the royal priesthood. This is not the
priesthood of the Latter-day Saints. The bride of Christ includes saved men and women.

Let's draw a distinction between the literal seed of Abraham (by bloodline) and Abraham's spiritual
seed (by adoption) for a moment.

Abraham 2:9-11 says

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name
great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their
hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations;

And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after
thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father;

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in
thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that
this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed,
or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings
of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.

The key phrase is "literal seed".

Verse 11 says the right of the Priesthood would continue in Abraham and his literal seed. But
Abraham did not hold a priesthood. And all of Abraham's literal seed (through Ishmael and Isaac)
did not bear the Priesthood unto all nations.

Doctrine and Covenants 68:15-20 again focuses on the qualification of being a literal descendant
(a literal seed).

Doctrine and Covenants 107:40-41 also stresses the importance of being a literal descendant ("The
order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs
to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made. This order was
instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in the following manner").

theplains · June 18, 2024

On 6/12/2024 at 1:42 PM, Pyreaux said:

I just saw the thread for the first time and saw interesting questions. I do believe there were other particular members of non-Levi tribes that held the priesthood. The Tribe of Ephraim includes the prophet Joshua (Joshua 19:50); the Temple Priest Samuel (1 Samuel 1:1); and the King Priest Jeroboam I, the first king of the divided kingdom in the north (1 Kings 12:25). Ephriam is barred from the Levitical Priesthood but not the Melchizedek Priesthood that allows non-Levites like David and Jesus to be royal priests, and the King's wives to be anointed with the priest only oil and enter the temple areas for priests only. Christian women's baptism, anointing (with the Holy Ghost) and endowment is a priestly washing and vestment, otherwise they'd be barred from the Levitical priesthood. LDS women are certainly akin to Early Church "Deaconesses" in assisting and administering to other women. The LDS call temple marriage the highest order of the priesthood. So, any married LDS woman has obtained the priesthood, but seem to lack office, which is a distinction. King Saul was a priest-king, but not just any priest has the right to usurp the duties of Samuel the Ephraimite as the officiating high priest. LDS "Aaronic" priesthood is mostly a namesake for the "Lesser" ranks of the Melchizedek priesthood. The ordination to the priesthood seems to transmute a person into a descendant of Aaron. And for many LDS Gentile, we are adopted into Israel, transmuted into a tribe, many into Ephriam (Ephriam himself was adopted into Israel).

Was I helpful at all?

Yes. Thank you.

What priesthood role did Ephraim or Manasseh have in the Bible or Book of Mormon?

ZealouslyStriving · June 18, 2024

4 hours ago, theplains said:

Yes. Thank you.

What priesthood role did Ephraim or Manasseh have in the Bible or Book of Mormon?

The Manassehite/Ephraimite admixture had a special dispensation of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

I personally believe there were likely some Levites that came with Mulek's people.

Pyreaux · June 19, 2024

On 6/18/2024 at 10:09 AM, theplains said:

Yes. Thank you.

What priesthood role did Ephraim or Manasseh have in the Bible or Book of Mormon?

As princes, in their royal positions, they likely had the royal Patriarchal Priesthood, that system gets interrupted once Moses splits the priesthood. The royal Melchizedek priesthood comes by adoption by the Lord, which creates a new qualifying lineage for the priest. Such a person is legally a "son of God", so even though not a Levite, many like Gideon of the tribe of Manasseh was able to be shanghaied into priestly service (Judg 6:26). Lehi checks many boxes as a noble (rich land owner), a prophet (their calling often is priestly), and because he became a prophet before he discovered he was an Israelite (Manasseh was a nomadic tribe frequently in contact with Arabs who favor their decent through Ishmael). The Levitical priestly reforms which existed under King Zedekiah wouldn't be as strictly enforced upon non-Israelite prophets like Lehi thought he was (There are legit foreign prophets like Balaam the Moabite prophet).

Edited June 19, 2024 by Pyreaux

theplains · June 28, 2024

On 6/19/2024 at 3:33 PM, Pyreaux said:

Lehi checks many boxes as a noble (rich land owner), a prophet (their calling often is priestly),

Why doesn't the LDS Church consider prophet as an office in the Melchizedek priesthood?

How do you consider Lehi as a rich land owner?

theplains · June 28, 2024

On 6/18/2024 at 3:20 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

The Manassehite/Ephraimite admixture had a special dispensation of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

How do you believe they exercised that in the Old Testament?

On 6/18/2024 at 3:20 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I personally believe there were likely some Levites that came with Mulek's people.

Do you believe some of the other non-Judah tribes also came with Mulek's people?

ZealouslyStriving · June 28, 2024

57 minutes ago, theplains said:

How do you believe they exercised that in the Old Testament?

Do you believe some of the other non-Judah tribes also came with Mulek's people?

I do. I believe a contingent of Benjaminites came also as kind of a royal guard for young Mulek.

Edited June 28, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

ZealouslyStriving · June 28, 2024

1 hour ago, theplains said:

How do you believe they exercised that in the Old Testament

As the Melchizedek priesthood has the power to officiate in lower offices, I believe they fulfilled necessary Mosaic offices and roles. Sacrifices, declaring uncleanness and cleaness, etc...

Edited June 28, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

Pyreaux · June 28, 2024

15 hours ago, theplains said:

Why doesn't the LDS Church consider prophet as an office in the Melchizedek priesthood?

How do you consider Lehi as a rich land owner?

It says Lehi left behind many "precious things" which Laban stole and an inherited land of their forefathers. He had luxury to have his youngest son tutored to read and write in other languages. He was a noble or sheik. And Patriarch of his family which is a sort of regal position within a household, those with birthright status fits God's usual Mode of Operations In selecting who'll be prophet and a royal high priest, the initiation of a priest is kin to the induction of prophets, initiations enables humans to endure the presence of God, facing theophanies often require a form of theosis, transfiguration, after such the after transformation renders them a priest, as much as any priestly initiation. Most all Bible authors were Temple Priests. I assume choosing those with noble clout is very handy to decree revelation as it were the Law. A patriarch's word is law in his house.

Prophet or President of the Church is an office. In addition to the ordained priesthood offices, administrative positions in the priesthood, such as the presidency of a quorum, are sometimes referred to as offices. In this sense, the members of the First Presidency, who preside over the entire Church, are sometimes spoken of as presiding high priests. Individuals are installed in these offices by setting apart rather than by ordination to a new office. Such a setting apart bestows upon the individual the rights pertaining to the leadership of that quorum.

Edited June 29, 2024 by Pyreaux

theplains · July 3, 2024

On 6/28/2024 at 10:33 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I do. I believe a contingent of Benjaminites came also as kind of a royal guard for young Mulek.

No royal guard from Judah's tribe?

ZealouslyStriving · July 3, 2024

1 hour ago, theplains said:

No royal guard from Judah's tribe?

The Benjaminites were known as fierce fighters and were loyal the the kings of Judah. Also, it seems Jeremiah had an affinity for the the tribe of Benjamin and may have procured their help in some way.

"1 O ye children of Benjamin, gather yourselves to flee out of the midst of Jerusalem, and blow the trumpet in Tekoa, and set up a sign of fire in Beth-haccerem: for evil appeareth out of the north, and great destruction." (Jeremiah 6)

I believe Jeremiah at some point rendezvoued with the Benjaminites that heeded his warning. I believe they then traveled towards the west, eventually landing in Ireland where one of Zedekiah's daughters married a local tribal chief. I believe Mulek was then spirited further west eventually landing in the promised land and his entourage eventually became the people of Zarahemla.

Edited July 3, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

theplains · July 3, 2024

On 6/28/2024 at 3:55 PM, Pyreaux said:

It says Lehi left behind many "precious things" which Laban stole and an inherited land of their forefathers.

Yes. Thank you. I see that in 1 Nephi 2:11. It is recorded that he was commanded by God to
leave those riches behind. He was not rich when he left Jerusalem (1 Nephi 3:16). His wealth
would not have been stolen if Nephi had followed God's direction to his father. Nephi is never
told by the Lord to return to Jerusalem to retrieve the family's wealth to barter for the
plates.

On 6/28/2024 at 3:55 PM, Pyreaux said:

He had luxury to have his youngest son tutored to read and write in other languages.

There is no indication that his sons were tutored.

On 6/28/2024 at 3:55 PM, Pyreaux said:

Prophet or President of the Church is an office.

According to Gospel Principles (in chapter 14), "The offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood
are elder, high priest, patriarch, Seventy, and Apostle".

If prophet is an office, then all female prophets of the Old and New Testaments are
Melchizedek priests.

ZealouslyStriving · July 3, 2024

8 minutes ago, theplains said:

There is no indication that his sons were tutored.

"1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father...

2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." (1 Nephi 1)

Sign In

Ephraim, the birthright, and the gathering

Recommended Posts

CV75

theplains

theplains

mfbukowski

theplains

mfbukowski

theplains

mfbukowski

mfbukowski

InCognitus

theplains

Pyreaux

theplains

theplains

ZealouslyStriving

Pyreaux

theplains

theplains

ZealouslyStriving

ZealouslyStriving

Pyreaux

theplains

ZealouslyStriving

theplains

ZealouslyStriving

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse