Who wrote the Book of Mormon and where did it come from?

[ParkerD]

Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to understanding what is being said in Ezekiel 37, in my opinion. We can study Ezekiel 37, especially in the context of whether the sticks are (or represent) the Book of Mormon and the Bible, without thinking about whether the reunification took place. The reunification is the major point, and yet we do not need to know whether it already occurred to discern the chapter.

Why not inform us as to how the two sticks mean the Book of Mormon (Joseph) and the Bible (Judah), and then we can go on from there. I believe I (and Paul) have already stated our views of what the passage is talking about, and that it has nothing to do with scripture, let alone the Bible and Book of Mormon.

ThuriferAcolyte,
I don’t think the passage is intended to mean anything at all to you. I think the passage was talking to the people who would be seeking to understand what Ezekiel was being told by the Lord to write in the prophecy he then wrote. I think it would probably mean nothing important to people who don’t care about its fulfillment. I think the passage would be important to the descendants of the tribe of Ephraim, but only as they care to come to know who they are, and care about becoming united with the descendants of the other tribes of Israel.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
I don’t think the passage is intended to mean anything at all to you. I think the passage was talking to the people who would be seeking to understand what Ezekiel was being told by the Lord to write in the prophecy he then wrote. I think it would probably mean nothing important to people who don’t care about its fulfillment. I think the passage would be important to the descendants of the tribe of Ephraim, but only as they care to come to know who they are, and care about becoming united with the descendants of the other tribes of Israel.

So can you explain what it means to you (I’m assuming you believe that you are adopted into the tribe of Ephraim) and how that relates to the Book of Mormon and the Bible? I mean, I can, and already have, read a few articles on FAIR, MI, and Ensign, and debate with myself, but that’s boring. For me, thinking or not thinking about whether the reunification has already occurred does not hinder my understanding of what others think about the issue, or my own understanding of what the passage is talking about.

What does Ezekiel 37 mean to you, especially in relation to the Book of Mormon and the Bible (the sticks)?

 

[ParkerD]

So can you explain what it means to you (I’m assuming you believe that you are adopted into the tribe of Ephraim) and how that relates to the Book of Mormon and the Bible? I mean, I can, and already have, read a few articles on FAIR, MI, and Ensign, and debate with myself, but that’s boring. For me, thinking or not thinking about whether the reunification has already occurred does not hinder my understanding of what others think about the issue, or my own understanding of what the passage is talking about.

What does Ezekiel 37 mean to you, especially in relation to the Book of Mormon and the Bible (the sticks)?

ThuriferAcolyte,
I believe I have blood lineage that makes me a literal descendant of the tribe of Ephraim, which tribe was scattered into many parts of the world as fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Some of that lineal descent ended up in the Scotch-Irish heritage which I have.

I think Ezekiel 37 is a clarion call prophecy to the descendants of the tribe of Ephraim, who, as I had said before, care to try and understand Biblical prophecy and figure out “who they are.” It is not an isolated prophecy, since the diaspora and the “gathering” and “reunification” are all prophesied many times in the Old Testament, including a role that the descendants of the tribe of Ephraim will play during the “reunification”, which clearly does not take place in “one single day”, but takes place during a period of time when it will be fulfilled.

The house of Judah was to be the “custodian” of the records or writings that would become the “word of the Lord” known to the world through the instrumentality of the Jews. Then, there was to be another set of records or writings that would become important before the fulfillment of the reunification, and it would come about through the instrumentality of the tribe of Ephraim and “his fellows”.

But whether any of that is going to make any sense at all to someone, would depend on whether they have read the Old Testament prophecies about the diaspora and the reunification, and really believe that they are literal prophecies including that they will one day be fulfilled. I doubt that most readers of the Bible care about any of that, except Latter-day Saint students of the Bible, some of whom (such as myself) expect the literal fulfillment of the reunification perhaps during the present century, in direct fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
I believe I have blood lineage that makes me a literal descendant of the tribe of Ephraim, which tribe was scattered into many parts of the world as fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Some of that lineal descent ended up in the Scotch-Irish heritage which I have.

I think Ezekiel 37 is a clarion call prophecy to the descendants of the tribe of Ephraim, who, as I had said before, care to try and understand Biblical prophecy and figure out “who they are.” It is not an isolated prophecy, since the diaspora and the “gathering” and “reunification” are all prophesied many times in the Old Testament, including a role that the descendants of the tribe of Ephraim will play during the “reunification”, which clearly does not take place in “one single day”, but takes place during a period of time when it will be fulfilled.

The house of Judah was to be the “custodian” of the records or writings that would become the “word of the Lord” known to the world through the instrumentality of the Jews. Then, there was to be another set of records or writings that would become important before the fulfillment of the reunification, and it would come about through the instrumentality of the tribe of Ephraim and “his fellows”.

But whether any of that is going to make any sense at all to someone, would depend on whether they have read the Old Testament prophecies about the diaspora and the reunification, and really believe that they are literal prophecies including that they will one day be fulfilled. I doubt that most readers of the Bible care about any of that, except Latter-day Saint students of the Bible, some of whom (such as myself) expect the literal fulfillment of the reunification perhaps during the present century, in direct fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy.

Thanks for explaining.

Now, what is the basis for the belief that the house of Judah would be the custodian for what is known to the world as the “word of the Lord” (the Bible I presume) and that the tribe of Ephraim and “his fellows” would be related to this other set of records (the Book of Mormon I presume), and how does that relate to the sticks of Judah and Joseph in Ezekiel 37? How do the other OT prophecies that you have studied relate (if they do) to the Book of Mormon and the Bible?

 

[PaulDupre]

But the reunification (and a step leading up to it following the diaspora) is the major point of Ezekiel 37. I would think a “student” of Ezekiel 37 would care to figure out whether that reunification has taken place, whether it is about to take place, and whether the step that was to be part of the process before the reunification was to take place (the sticks becoming “one in mine hand”) is a step that has taken place.

Many Jews believe that this prophecy was fulfilled with the establishment, in 1947, of the state of Israel and the return of millions of Jews from all over the world to the Promised Land.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Many Jews believe that this prophecy was fulfilled with the establishment, in 1947, of the state of Israel and the return of millions of Jews from all over the world to the Promised Land.

apparently they are misinterpreting the Hebrew Bible?

 

[PaulDupre]

apparently they are misinterpreting the Hebrew Bible?

Well you know, according to Mormons, the Jews are gentiles. :hypno: So what do they know?

 

[ParkerD]

Thanks for explaining.

Now, what is the basis for the belief that the house of Judah would be the custodian for what is known to the world as the “word of the Lord” (the Bible I presume) and that the tribe of Ephraim and “his fellows” would be related to this other set of records (the Book of Mormon I presume), and how does that relate to the sticks of Judah and Joseph in Ezekiel 37? How do the other OT prophecies that you have studied relate (if they do) to the Book of Mormon and the Bible?

The Bible is the record preserved for the world by the tribe of Judah, yes. Christ was able to study the writings of the prophets so that He became familiar with them and could quote them. Those writings became available to Him and the apostles because they had been recorded and preserved in a way that they could be read.

Jews were responsible for that recording and preserving process, so a set of writings “for Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions” is noted in Ezekiel 37:16 and 20, and whether Ezekiel was foreseeing the entire Bible or was foreseeing part of the set of writings that became compiled as the Bible, he was seeing a set of writings and the tribe of Judah was the original custodian/preserver of those writings.

Joseph, son of Jacob (Israel), had Ephraim and Mannaseh as his sons. The writings involving fulfillment of the “Joseph” and “Ephraim” portions of Ezekiel’s prophecy, that become “one” with the writings of the tribe of Judah, evidently have an important role in the “reunification.” As I had written before, I don’t think the world at large will have any inkling of how such a fulfillment could take place through a set of writings. Nor have I read that the modern nation of Israel has a set of writings that is represented to be the writings involving the houses of Joseph and Ephraim.

Isaiah 29 talks about important sources of “speech” whispering “out of the dust” and of the “words of the book” that the “deaf hear” (Isaiah 29:4,18) that play an important role in fulfilling the day when the “poor among men” “rejoice in the Holy One of Israel” (Isaiah 29:19). But again, I don’t think people just reading the Bible without searching for the fulfillment of the “reunification” such as prophesied in Ezekiel 37 and Ezekiel 34 and 36 and Hosea and Isaiah 11 will have any idea that there are more writings that will be important to that “reunification” than just the Bible.

Nor will they think that Genesis 49:22-26 is to have literal fulfillment. But part of it has literally been fulfilled (the branches running over the wall of the well) and part is literally being fulfilled in our day (v. 25-26).

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The Bible is the record preserved for the world by the tribe of Judah, yes. Christ was able to study the writings of the prophets so that He became familiar with them and could quote them. Those writings became available to Him and the apostles because they had been recorded and preserved in a way that they could be read.

Jews were responsible for that recording and preserving process, so a set of writings “for Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions” is noted in Ezekiel 37:16 and 20, and whether Ezekiel was foreseeing the entire Bible or was foreseeing part of the set of writings that became compiled as the Bible, he was seeing a set of writings and the tribe of Judah was the original custodian/preserver of those writings.

Joseph, son of Jacob (Israel), had Ephraim and Mannaseh as his sons. The writings involving fulfillment of the “Joseph” and “Ephraim” portions of Ezekiel’s prophecy, that become “one” with the writings of the tribe of Judah, evidently have an important role in the “reunification.” As I had written before, I don’t think the world at large will have any inkling of how such a fulfillment could take place through a set of writings. Nor have I read that the modern nation of Israel has a set of writings that is represented to be the writings involving the houses of Joseph and Ephraim.

I think part of the reason why is because no one (except apparently LDS) is seeing how Ezekiel 37 is referring to a “set of writings” pertaining to each “stick”, and that there was something more to be written on the “sticks” besides what God said to write in Ezekiel. How do you interpret this as he was “seeing a set of writings”, and how do we come to the conclusion that writings would be involved in the “reunification”? I agree that the world at large doesn’t have any inkling of this, because we just do not see that as what is being said in Ezekiel 37.

Earlier in Ezekiel 37, verses 1-11, we see bones that symbolize the entire house of Israel, that God will bring new life to them. How is this different from the “sticks”, which symbolize the unification of two parts of Israel? Why is one also talking about writings, and the other (bones) is talking about…what else?

What is the relationship between the Book of Mormon and Ephraim, if there is one? I’m assuming that the relationship to the “stick of Joseph” is because Lehi and his descendants were part of the tribe of Manasseh (correct me if I’m wrong). How does this relate to the entire House of Joseph?

I think the main issue here (related to the OP) is how can it be extrapolated from Ezekiel 37, even if we tie it other parts of the Bible, that the sticks not only symbolize the formation of one nation, but that two sets of scriptures play a role in this. In the beginning of Ezekiel 37, bones symbolize the whole house of Israel. Does it mean anything else? Later, the sticks represent Judah and Joseph, and the two kingdoms come together as one nation. Where does scripture come to play, and how do we go from the simple understanding of the passage to saying that the sticks represent scripture? The passage does not say that anyone else was to write on these sticks, nor do I believe any other passage in the Bible references this. I believe you said that verse 19 was saying that someone else would write, though I do not see that. The House of Joseph is in the hand of Ephraim, which makes sense, because Ephraim was above Manasseh. So I’m not sure how this means that someone else was writing on the stick.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

I’m assuming Jews have never interpreted Ezekiel 37 as involving two sets of scripture, having a role in the “reunification”?

 

[ParkerD]

I think part of the reason why is because no one (except apparently LDS) is seeing how Ezekiel 37 is referring to a “set of writings” pertaining to each “stick”, and that there was something more to be written on the “sticks” besides what God said to write in Ezekiel. How do you interpret this as he was “seeing a set of writings”, and how do we come to the conclusion that writings would be involved in the “reunification”? I agree that the world at large doesn’t have any inkling of this, because we just do not see that as what is being said in Ezekiel 37.

Earlier in Ezekiel 37, verses 1-11, we see bones that symbolize the entire house of Israel, that God will bring new life to them. How is this different from the “sticks”, which symbolize the unification of two parts of Israel? Why is one also talking about writings, and the other (bones) is talking about…what else?

What is the relationship between the Book of Mormon and Ephraim, if there is one? I’m assuming that the relationship to the “stick of Joseph” is because Lehi and his descendants were part of the tribe of Manasseh (correct me if I’m wrong). How does this relate to the entire House of Joseph?

I think the main issue here (related to the OP) is how can it be extrapolated from Ezekiel 37, even if we tie it other parts of the Bible, that the sticks not only symbolize the formation of one nation, but that two sets of scriptures play a role in this. In the beginning of Ezekiel 37, bones symbolize the whole house of Israel. Does it mean anything else? Later, the sticks represent Judah and Joseph, and the two kingdoms come together as one nation. Where does scripture come to play, and how do we go from the simple understanding of the passage to saying that the sticks represent scripture? The passage does not say that anyone else was to write on these sticks, nor do I believe any other passage in the Bible references this. I believe you said that verse 19 was saying that someone else would write, though I do not see that. The House of Joseph is in the hand of Ephraim, which makes sense, because Ephraim was above Manasseh. So I’m not sure how this means that someone else was writing on the stick.

ThuriferAcolyte,
I can see how one might think that only Ezekiel was to “write” upon the “sticks” and then hold them up in front of the children of Israel, such as Moses did with the “rods” that represented the tribes of Israel in Numbers 17, when the rod representing Levi budded and blossomed and brought forth almonds.

But if one reads Jeremiah 36 one finds described a “roll of a book” (v. 2) (written with “ink” (v. 18)) and the “roll” had “leaves” (evidently, parchment or cloth pages that could be rolled up onto a scroll) (see v. 23), and the roll with the pages (leaves) was “cast into the fire” by the king, Jehudi. Later, Jeremiah gives to Baruch the scribe, “another roll” for Baruch to write the same writings that the king had burned, and more writings also prophesying about the coming of the king of Babylon and God’s punishment of the “men of Judah” and the “inhabitants of Jerusalem.”

That description in Jeremiah 36 is one that reflects a set of writings that are prophecies and are described as a “book.” It also reiterates that when God has a covenant people, He has a written record among them that can be read, studied, and passed on to the children of the covenant so they can live by the words that have been written. That is the kind of description that Latter-day Saints believe Ezekiel was prophesying about–the description of a “stick” that had “writings” containing prophecies and teachings for the people to be able to live by the covenants they would make–the everlasting covenant noted in Ezekiel 37:26. The descendants of Ephraim and the “house of Israel his companions” would have the everlasting covenant among them, and the descendants of Judah would have the same everlasting covenant among them, and David would be their “shepherd” (v. 24) and their “prince forever.” (v. 25)

I agree that the bones rising from the graves with “my spirit in you, and you shall live” (v. 14) describes the rising up of the two nations from their scattered and “dried” (no life) and “lost” condition into a condition wherein there is new life meaning that God has made a new covenant with them and they are keeping the covenants they make in this newly-risen condition.

The LDS believe that scattered remnants of the house of Ephraim recognize the call of the shepherd (David) as they read the Book of Mormon and it “rings true” and heralds to them the “everlasting covenant” and the rising up that had been prophesied by Ezekiel and Isaiah and Hosea to take place as a precursor to the reunification of the entire houses (scattered descendants) of Israel and Judah. But just as one sees so often in these threads, other people will not find that “ring of truth” when reading the Book of Mormon and will instead scorn and mock and just find that it makes no sense to them that God might actually fulfill prophecy in that way.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
I can see how one might think that only Ezekiel was to “write” upon the “sticks” and then hold them up in front of the children of Israel, such as Moses did with the “rods” that represented the tribes of Israel in Numbers 17…etc.

Yes, I think that there is a parallel between Ezekiel 37 and Numbers 17, where it doesn’t mean any more than what it actually says, and that there is no “hidden meaning” in these texts that we have to really stretch to get.

How can you compare Ezekiel 37 to Jeremiah 36 (yes, there are similarities)? In looking at both passages, here is what we notice:

In Ezekiel 37, God tells Ezekiel to write on two sticks, and He tells Him what to write, and says what the two sticks symbolize, and what putting the two sticks together in His hand symbolizes. Nothing more, nothing about the two sticks actually having more than what God said to write, or that anyone else would be writing on the two sticks. There is no equivalence with Jeremiah 36, and there is no way to interpret these two passages together as talking about the same thing.

In Jeremiah 36, we notice a clear difference. God tells Jeremiah to get a “roll of a book”, and to write “all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.”. Baruch also writes on a roll of a book as well. Here, we see again who is writing, and what is being written. There is no need to think that something means more than what is said.

So, there is no equivalence between Ezekiel 37 and Jeremiah 36, save for that in both, God speaks to Ezekiel and Jeremiah, and tells them what to write. In Ezekiel, it seems as if Mormons are adding to what is actually happening, when there is nothing given in Ezekiel 37, or elsewhere, to believe that the “sticks” mean something more than what they are said to mean. There is no reason to think that others wrote on these sticks. Jeremiah 36 clearly talks about writing books, however there is no connection between that and the sticks in Ezekiel 37. It does not make sense that God would tell Ezekiel what to write, and what to do with the sticks, and then think that He actually meant that others would be writing on these sticks (especially when I believe you cited verse 19 as proof, when no one else is writing in verse 19), and that these sticks also meant two sets of scripture.

Is the word “stick” ever used in the OT (or the NT, sure) to mean book, roll, or scripture, especially in a context where the passage does not imply such?

If Lehi (and his descendants, correct me if I’m wrong) is of the tribe of Manasseh, what is the relationship to the entire House of Joseph, for which the Book of Mormon can represent the stick of Joseph?

 

[ricko]

Typical Mormon tactic, every new artifact is proof of the “great cities”. Every verse in the bible, after much twisting, becomes “proof” of the Mormon church. Look at the link for what they are doing to scripture:

irr.org/mit/tale-of-two-scrolls.html

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Typical Mormon tactic, every new artifact is proof of the “great cities”. Every verse in the bible, after much twisting, becomes “proof” of the Mormon church. Look at the link for what they are doing to scripture:

irr.org/mit/tale-of-two-scrolls.html

Thank you for that link, it definitely puts certain things in perspective (from our perspective at least). From what I see, there is nothing in the Bible that points to the sticks of Ezekiel being added to, or even that the sticks were more than what they are said to be. That link helps to understand why the Jeremiah 36 story has nothing to do with anything here, and the comparison between Jeremiah 36 and the translation of the Book of Mormon (the lost pages) is also interesting.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, I think that there is a parallel between Ezekiel 37 and Numbers 17, where it doesn’t mean any more than what it actually says, and that there is no “hidden meaning” in these texts that we have to really stretch to get.

How can you compare Ezekiel 37 to Jeremiah 36 (yes, there are similarities)? In looking at both passages, here is what we notice:

In Ezekiel 37, God tells Ezekiel to write on two sticks, and He tells Him what to write, and says what the two sticks symbolize, and what putting the two sticks together in His hand symbolizes. Nothing more, nothing about the two sticks actually having more than what God said to write, or that anyone else would be writing on the two sticks. There is no equivalence with Jeremiah 36, and there is no way to interpret these two passages together as talking about the same thing.

In Jeremiah 36, we notice a clear difference. God tells Jeremiah to get a “roll of a book”, and to write “all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day.”. Baruch also writes on a roll of a book as well. Here, we see again who is writing, and what is being written. There is no need to think that something means more than what is said.

So, there is no equivalence between Ezekiel 37 and Jeremiah 36, save for that in both, God speaks to Ezekiel and Jeremiah, and tells them what to write. In Ezekiel, it seems as if Mormons are adding to what is actually happening, when there is nothing given in Ezekiel 37, or elsewhere, to believe that the “sticks” mean something more than what they are said to mean. There is no reason to think that others wrote on these sticks. Jeremiah 36 clearly talks about writing books, however there is no connection between that and the sticks in Ezekiel 37. It does not make sense that God would tell Ezekiel what to write, and what to do with the sticks, and then think that He actually meant that others would be writing on these sticks (especially when I believe you cited verse 19 as proof, when no one else is writing in verse 19), and that these sticks also meant two sets of scripture.

Is the word “stick” ever used in the OT (or the NT, sure) to mean book, roll, or scripture, especially in a context where the passage does not imply such?

If Lehi (and his descendants, correct me if I’m wrong) is of the tribe of Manasseh, what is the relationship to the entire House of Joseph, for which the Book of Mormon can represent the stick of Joseph?

ThuriferAcolyte,
I don’t find that the word “stick” is used to mean anything but “stick” in those few places that word is used in the Bible. However, one is dealing with a translation in Ezekiel 37, and in Ezekiel 2 and 3 the prophet Ezekiel is told to eat the “roll of a book” (scroll) that is essentially the prophecy of the punishment of the house of Israel by God, which is similar to the expression about the “roll of a book” that Jeremiah talks about in Jeremiah 36, only Jeremiah is not asked to eat the “roll of a book” but rather to show it to the king of Judah. I don’t find it such an obscure “stretch” to visualize a “stick” as being a “scroll.” Ezekiel 37:19 says that the Lord God takes the “sticks” which become “one in mine hand” (not in the hand of Ezekiel, but in the hand of the Lord God of Israel. His is the doing–Ezekiel is but a servant/prophet.)

As to your final question, Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, but Ishmael (whose daughters married the sons of Lehi) was evidently from the tribe of Ephraim, and Joseph Smith was from the tribe of Ephraim, as were most of the early converts to the LDS church, so the “stick of Joseph” being in the “hand of Ephraim” (v. 19) can logically refer to the carrying forth of the Book of Mormon by descendants of Ephraim as a precursor to the “reunification” of the entire scattered remnants of all the tribes of Israel and Judah. Hosea speaks also of this reunification, and makes particular mention of Ephraim and Judah (see as an example, Hosea 14:8, and Hosea 1:10,11)

 

[ParkerD]

Typical Mormon tactic, every new artifact is proof of the “great cities”. Every verse in the bible, after much twisting, becomes “proof” of the Mormon church. Look at the link for what they are doing to scripture:

Rick,
I suppose that it would be well to mention again that I don’t think anyone who is not looking for fulfillment of the prophecies of reunification of Israel, Ephraim, and Judah will ever think anything of the Book of Mormon other than the unstudied and disinterested comments that are so often made. Ephraim will be gathered, and God will do the gathering in His way.

As to the “great cities”, I think Christ was saying in a sense, “here you thought you had such great cities yet how quickly they were buried or burned and destroyed because of the wickedness of their inhabitants.” (See 3 Nephi 9 and 10). Those “great cities” were in reality quite small settlements of perhaps 5,000 - 10,000 inhabitants. It all depends on one’s perspective and frame of reference as to what a “great city” is. But Christ told the survivors, “those (what you thought were great cities) cities are gone.”

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
I don’t find that the word “stick” is used to mean anything but “stick” in those few places that word is used in the Bible. However, one is dealing with a translation in Ezekiel 37, and in Ezekiel 2 and 3 the prophet Ezekiel is told to eat the “roll of a book” (scroll) that is essentially the prophecy of the punishment of the house of Israel by God, which is similar to the expression about the “roll of a book” that Jeremiah talks about in Jeremiah 36, only Jeremiah is not asked to eat the “roll of a book” but rather to show it to the king of Judah. I don’t find it such an obscure “stretch” to visualize a “stick” as being a “scroll.” Ezekiel 37:19 says that the Lord God takes the “sticks” which become “one in mine hand” (not in the hand of Ezekiel, but in the hand of the Lord God of Israel. His is the doing–Ezekiel is but a servant/prophet.)

Yes, of course Ezekiel is not being told to actually eat the roll of a book in Ezekiel 2 and 3. “Eat” means something else in that context.

As far as the translation, from what I have researched, the word translated as “stick”, “aytz”, means “wood”. Therefore, I still do not see how this can mean something other than what it says it means. In all other examples that you have given, the meaning of the passage is clear, whether its Jeremiah 36 or Ezekiel 2 and 3. We know what is being written (even in general terms), and we know what “eat” means. I do not see that as being different from Ezekiel 37, where the passage is saying something different that what it is saying. There is no reason to believe that the sticks refer to actual scrolls or books, let alone the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There is no reason to believe that anyone else wrote on the sticks and that they refer to scriptures. None of the other Bible chapters and verses given so far point towards the sticks being scriptures.

Yes, I understand that the sticks become one in God’s hands. Verse 17 is God telling Ezekiel to make them one in his own hand, and Verse 19 is the explanation of what that means. God will reunite Judah and Joseph into one nation. Again, no implication that someone else is writing on the sticks, since clearly the analogy of the sticks is being explained beginning in verse 19, and we actually read what is meant by the sticks and them being one in God’s hands.

As to your final question, Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, but Ishmael (whose daughters married the sons of Lehi) was evidently from the tribe of Ephraim, and Joseph Smith was from the tribe of Ephraim, as were most of the early converts to the LDS church, so the “stick of Joseph” being in the “hand of Ephraim” (v. 19) can logically refer to the carrying forth of the Book of Mormon by descendants of Ephraim as a precursor to the “reunification” of the entire scattered remnants of all the tribes of Israel and Judah. Hosea speaks also of this reunification, and makes particular mention of Ephraim and Judah (see as an example, Hosea 14:8, and Hosea 1:10,11)

Thanks for explaining. How did Joseph Smith and the early converts know that they were from the tribe of Ephraim? Is this by blood or by adoption into the tribe?

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, of course Ezekiel is not being told to actually eat the roll of a book in Ezekiel 2 and 3. “Eat” means something else in that context.

As far as the translation, from what I have researched, the word translated as “stick”, “aytz”, means “wood”. Therefore, I still do not see how this can mean something other than what it says it means. In all other examples that you have given, the meaning of the passage is clear, whether its Jeremiah 36 or Ezekiel 2 and 3. We know what is being written (even in general terms), and we know what “eat” means. I do not see that as being different from Ezekiel 37, where the passage is saying something different that what it is saying. There is no reason to believe that the sticks refer to actual scrolls or books, let alone the Book of Mormon and the Bible. There is no reason to believe that anyone else wrote on the sticks and that they refer to scriptures. None of the other Bible chapters and verses given so far point towards the sticks being scriptures.

Yes, I understand that the sticks become one in God’s hands. Verse 17 is God telling Ezekiel to make them one in his own hand, and Verse 19 is the explanation of what that means. God will reunite Judah and Joseph into one nation. Again, no implication that someone else is writing on the sticks, since clearly the analogy of the sticks is being explained beginning in verse 19, and we actually read what is meant by the sticks and them being one in God’s hands.

Thanks for explaining. How did Joseph Smith and the early converts know that they were from the tribe of Ephraim? Is this by blood or by adoption into the tribe?

ThuriferAcolyte,
I had been aware of the word that became translated as “stick” being also translatable to the word “wood”, and whether that could mean a “tablet” of wood (rather than stone), or a scroll made of wood, I think the idea of there being writing on the wood in some way is conveyed.

Joseph Smith and the early converts were aware by inspiration from God that they were literal blood lineage descendants of the tribe of Ephraim. This makes sense to me since Ephraim became one of the scattered tribes that completely lost its identity as a separate people, and the conquest of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria and later the takeover of Assyria by the Babylonian empire would have resulted in a great deal of upheaval and splinter groups of the people trying to escape from oppressive rule. Part of this upheaval could logically have resulted in a group of descendants of Ephraim being a part of the peoples of Great Britain. Joseph Smith descended from heritage from England.

I very much doubt that anyone of the descendants from the tribe of Ephraim in our modern day is going to be able to trace and “prove” their lineage back to 600 or 700 BC. But God conveyed through Old Testament prophets that the scattered remnants of Ephraim would be gathered, would one day know who they are, and would become once again a covenant people living by the everlasting covenant with David as their prince and shepherd, and that covenant people of Ephraim and the descendants of the Northern Kingdom would become one with the covenant people of the descendants of Judah. I think this “reunification” will happen during the Millenium. That promise is conveyed in Isaiah 11, which seems clearly to be a Millenial prophecy.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

ThuriferAcolyte,
I had been aware of the word that became translated as “stick” being also translatable to the word “wood”, and whether that could mean a “tablet” of wood (rather than stone), or a scroll made of wood, I think the idea of there being writing on the wood in some way is conveyed.

Yes, I agree that there is writing on the wood. I disagree that there was more writing than what we read about in Ezekiel 37, or that it was a “scroll” (especially when there is a word for scroll), or anything else. Again, there is practically no evidence that the sticks meant anything more (i.e. scripture) than what God tells us they say and represent in Ezekiel 37.

Joseph Smith and the early converts were aware by inspiration from God that they were literal blood lineage descendants of the tribe of Ephraim. This makes sense to me since Ephraim became one of the scattered tribes that completely lost its identity as a separate people, and the conquest of the Northern Kingdom by Assyria and later the takeover of Assyria by the Babylonian empire would have resulted in a great deal of upheaval and splinter groups of the people trying to escape from oppressive rule. Part of this upheaval could logically have resulted in a group of descendants of Ephraim being a part of the peoples of Great Britain. Joseph Smith descended from heritage from England.

I very much doubt that anyone of the descendants from the tribe of Ephraim in our modern day is going to be able to trace and “prove” their lineage back to 600 or 700 BC. But God conveyed through Old Testament prophets that the scattered remnants of Ephraim would be gathered, would one day know who they are, and would become once again a covenant people living by the everlasting covenant with David as their prince and shepherd, and that covenant people of Ephraim and the descendants of the Northern Kingdom would become one with the covenant people of the descendants of Judah. I think this “reunification” will happen during the Millenium. That promise is conveyed in Isaiah 11, which seems clearly to be a Millenial prophecy.

Thanks for explaining.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

ricko;5758663:

Those “great cities” were in reality quite small settlements of perhaps 5,000 - 10,000 inhabitants. It all depends on one’s perspective and frame of reference as to what a “great city” is. But Christ told the survivors, “those (what you thought were great cities) cities are gone.”

They were so small, in fact, that they fit into Joseph Smith’s head.