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

[StLawrenceFan]

…so, as we’ve found…the “book of mormon” came from Joe’s Myth and whomever he could waive a couple of bucks in front of to try to either make stuff-up or plagiarize the Holy Bible for his own dastardly uses. Joe had his bogus “seeeeeer stone” and could ask for some bucks for his bogus translations.

The entire re-workings have had nearly 4,000 changes. Ooooops.

The Word of God needs no changes.

But Joe Smith was a hoot!

The bOm is a bogus work of fiction; as the Great Mark Twain said - **“it is chloroform in print”. **
Unfit for a doorstop. (poor door having to bump against rubbish).

**Obviously. **

 

[ParkerD]

Not surprizing. You seem to know very little of Mormon history.

Judge Adams was a “worshipful master” of freemasonry, helped introduce Joseph Smith to freemasonry, and was one of the first 10 men chosen by Joseph to receive the endowment, and was a friend and confidant of Joseph Smith until his death.

Oliver B. Huntington was a close friend and secretary to Joseph Smith, appointed teacher of Joseph’s son, and his journal was quoted by Brigham Young in sermons.

Rudger Clawson was President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles from 1921 until his death in 1943. Hardly a man who wouldn’t know what he was hearing or who did not understand LDS doctrine. He was also the first polygamist to serve jail time for bigamy following passage of the Edmunds Act outlawing plural marraige,

Why would you think that? Perhaps you don’t know that, until very recently, your leaders taught that Jesus was polygamously married and had children. This being the case, why would those leaders not also assume that Jesus’ descendants would be drawn to his true church and become its leaders?

Paul,
I had indeed read about a person named James Adams who was a Judge and was thus referred to as “Judge Adams”, but he was not an apostle. Joseph Smith spoke at his funeral.

I don’t know nor feel it has anything to do with what I should care about as to whether Christ was married or not, nor whether He had children although I personally doubt that He would have had children even if He were married because He knew He was going to be killed at a young age. I just don’t care about the speculations of early LDS Church individuals, even if they had prominent positions. I think to myself, “so what–they could think what they wanted to think, and say what they wanted to say, and that doesn’t impact me in the slightest.” My relationship as to salvation is with Christ, and as to learning truths important to my salvation, with Christ and the Holy Spirit, with an acknowledgement that following the living prophet is sanctioned by the Holy Spirit–and I am comfortable with those relationships.

 

[ParkerD]

lds folks, why did the angel translate the plates into old english, instead of the more modern english tongue of the time. It would certainly have made it more easily understand. The hyroglyfics examined by smithsonion scholars,that smith drew examples of were gibberish according to them. The new testament writers didnt write in old english,like that found in the kjv, however given the background of smiths early life and attachment to the masonic lodge, I doubt if he knew that Jesus spoke aramaic, or hebrew. .... It is also strange that when smith wanted to include masonic ritual in his rituals he had only to say that the masons had corrupted something from the time of Solomon, and he had"restored" it to its original state. That might work, but the masons cannot be traced back farther than the 17 to 1800s. Proving that a ritual existed before even the original folks existed that lay claim to it has got to be a compelling problem. I think if you value your immortal soul, you had better get yourselves out of the most outlandish cult any thinking man has ever looked into and come home to the Catholic Church. He who adds to the sayings of this book add to their torment, and he who takes away, takes away from his joy. I think the book of mormon and d&c, pearl of great price, and all other additions to the original book certainly fits this warning. If you and smith are right then Jesus lied. Thats not possible. blessings. Garland

Garland,
I will give you my personal feeling about the use of English similar to the KJV usage styles, for the translation of the Book of Mormon. Language is important–it is a gift from God for us to communicate through language. One of the themes of the Book of Mormon is that language can become changed over time, and the loss of a stabilizing influence within language of a group of people and their descendants (such as a formal written record and attention to that record by the people) can lead to the language becoming changed in a “corrupt” meaning “loss of purity” way. If you go to England and speak American slang English, the English who hear such talk will probably have the feeling that they are hearing something less pure than their own “mother tongue.” I think the KJV Bible established a very good standard, a beautiful and wonderful and naturally poetic standard, for the language of scripture, and I am grateful for the lives of those such as Willim Tyndale who brought that “standard” to the world and left the world a wonderful legacy of language.

As to Masonry, I think the “tracing” you have referred to has to do with the modern known organization called “Grand Lodge of England”, but that organization was not developed out of thin air.

I assure you that I don’t think Jesus ever lied. I think far more has been “added” or “taken away” to/from the declared pure doctrines of the Bible by the church that was supposedly attempting to preserve the original, pure doctrines than by the fact that other scriptures now exist to teach and preserve the original, pure doctrines taught by Christ and His apostles and prophets.

 

[ParkerD]

Callirhoe,
Following are responses, respectfully offered (thanks for your questions):

God wants us to trust Him completely to keep His promises. But the only place He appears to promise direct, private revelation to all who pray sincerely is in the Book of Mormon (If you have other quotes for that I’d be glad to see them).

Some people read or hear the word “revelation” and think of something grandiose or peculiar. When I have used the term “revelation” I am talking about communication from God in direct answer to direct and specific questions, asked in prayer. I am hoping that you surely believe God answers prayers, and does it through two-way communication. I could give many examples from the Bible that show He does, but I’m hoping you’re already familiar with them, such as James 1:5-6.

To use that burning in the bosom as a sure sign of truth, one must first accept the divinity of the Book of Mormon. It’s a logical flaw to use a “promise” in the Book of Mormon to prove the Book of Mormon. I could “trust” God to give me the right lottery numbers too. While He could if he wanted to, asking sincerely for them must not be a good way to get them, or the lottery would be won every week. We can trust God to give us what we need, but we don’t need a burning in the bosom to show us whether or not the Book of Mormon is true.

What one “must first accept” is that God really does answer sincere prayers. If one struggles or has doubts about accepting that basic premise (that God answers sincere prayers), then one will not really pray sincerely anyway so it would be pointless to pray about the Book of Mormon. God certainly will not force you to attempt that kind of prayer, nor is the kind of understanding communicated by God a kind that will be acceptable to one who is thinking about “lottery numbers” as to getting what they want for themselves versus what God may want for them in their life to progress toward more lofty goals than worldly riches.

Satan wanted Christ to jump off the cliff and trust God to save Him, but He wouldn’t do it.

Indeed, true. Christ’s response showed that He acknowledged that Satan would try and use scripture (from what eventually became compiled as the Bible) in order to deceive people. (Matthew 4:6,7)

No more should we abandon the Rock of the Church Christ founded

The Rock of the Church Christ founded is Christ Himself. Please see 1 Peter 2:6-8.

and ask God to show us the truth of what we abandoned it for.

I think you would be insincere under those circumstances, so I agree with you.

We can compare the Church Christ established 2000 years ago (but we have to look at the real Church, not straw men of it) with the Mormon Church and its origins, and use reason and love (and yes, of course, much prayer) to find the truth.

I hope if you sincerely do that, you will use the Bible itself to do it, without pre-conceived ideas.

As a Mormon you can believe that anyone who doesn’t agree with you just didn’t pray sincerely enough or didn’t really want to know the truth.

I wrote previously about wanting to “live by truth.” I was not talking about the kind of “the truth” that you seem to be referring to here. I was talking about truths about how to live life happily and providently and lovingly toward others, with peace and forgiveness and gratitude as primary aspects of such a person’s heart. This becomes a mode of behavior, not a “weapon” or a feeling that “I have something someone else doesn’t have if they aren’t like me.” A person can pray sincerely and keep whatever truths in their life they desire to follow, and will be blessed to the extent they live by those truths in how they live their life.

I will go ahead and say that if a person is sincere about following God and Christ, will be a student of the Bible in a very meaningful, studious way that allows them to have their mind taught by the Holy Spirit as they read and study. This means they will learn new things, because the Bible offers more than just surface study. I find that many people haven’t really studied the Bible (Old and New Testaments) very much in their life, so why would God consider that their prayers are very sincere if they ask for knowledge and wisdom yet haven’t read the Bible and studied it and thought about what they were reading?

In looking to convert, aspirants are surrounded by people who think if they can’t believe, they’re lacking in sincerity or desire for truth. If you say the Catholic Church uses coercion, I can say the Mormons use peer pressure.

Aspirants are not “surrounded” by anyone. You could also say God uses peer pressure, but I don’t buy that philosophy. God has promised to answer sincere prayers, period.

 

[ParkerD]

Callirhoe,
Continuation of response to your recent (first) comment:

Now I do agree that God wants two-way communication with us, but He’s not the only one trying to speak to us. If the adversary hadn’t deceived quite a number of people, we wouldn’t have so many branches stemming from the Book of Mormon, because not only are Catholicism and Mormonism mutually exclusive, so are Mormonism and the Reorganized Church, and they hold to that same promise to show them what’s true.

I don’t know anything about what the “Reorganized Church” (not called that now) teaches or does. I would fully expect that some people are going to leave a church and break off and form different churches or “their own version” of a set of beliefs. That is part of what has happened throughout history among religions.

If I get to heaven I’ll be awfully surprised if certain members aren’t there–people who should have been able to discern the truth by sincerity and love if sincerity and love are the true method. (To my fellow Catholics, I hope these individuals were saved through the “baptism of desire,” since the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize their baptisms.)

Baptism is a necessary ordinance for those old enough to figure out what they believe and make a decision about making a covenant with Jesus Christ.

It’s not always easy to discern God’s will as opposed to one’s own desires. When God spoke to prophets He made it pretty clear who was doing the talking. Moses had the burning bush, Gideon asked two miracles to make sure, and Samuel’s call was confirmed by a priest. They didn’t just satisfy themselves that it was God because it felt good.

I think you may want to read the Bible more thoroughly. A “burning in the bosom” is not just “feeling good”. (There were a couple of good sermons about that subject yesterday at the morning opening session of the LDS General Conference.) One could read those talks, or listen to them, but also consider reading the Bible and looking for all the ways God has communicated to prophets and people generally. They didn’t always have external evidence that God was doing the communicating, but they knew the difference between when they were receiving communication from God, and when they were not.

Now don’t think that I consider it wrong to pray for the truth, or bad to pray about whether or not the Book of Mormon is true. When I prayed for many years for God to show me the truth, I was gently and lovingly led away from the Book of Mormon and into the Catholic Church

If I have understood you correctly, you became a Catholic but were never LDS, but even if you had been LDS I would answer that God will never override a person’s free will and that free will is tied to each person’s own desires. If the Catholic Church, after your complete and thorough and heart-felt study of the Old and New Testament, fulfilled every single desire of your heart and matched up with every single aspect of what you have studied in the Bible, then I suppose you have exactly what you want within your chosen beliefs.

 

[ParkerD]

Rev. 13:8 “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” The saints may have been overcome, but they would not worship him. He had power over all kindreds, tongues, and nations, but not the Church.

Yes, I am aware that the Joseph Smith Translation says Satan’s reason for leaving God was that he wanted to force all men to be saved, while taking the glory for himself. This, however, is just the Mormon view. The Catholic Church guesses (it’s not a doctrinal position) that he might have been jealous of God’s plan for humanity, and of course does not put Satan in any similar relationship to God the Father as Christ, who is begotten and not created. So I don’t actually agree that free will is God’s main mode of action and interference with free will the ultimate evil. God did give us free will, but he also gave us reason and good signposts to choose Him because He wants us to love Him and be with Him.

As my husband just pointed out on reading this, if Christ’s true Church was really in the wilderness and not available to be found, then people did not have the truth available for them to choose during that time. Those alive while the Church was in the wilderness were free to choose everything but the truth? That doesn’t fit with God’s loving provision of choices. The authority of the Church shows us the truth; it can’t force us to obey the truth (or we’d all be saints!). We are all, of course, supposed to be saints, a belief the Latter Day Saints seem to share…

You may be familiar with the LDS belief that Christ really did visit the spirit world and really has established a teaching process there for people to be able to make covenants and receive forgiveness for sins committed in this life and receive the Holy Spirit and make progress in their learning, within the spirit world. People could still be good people without all the full truths of the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. They could choose to love, to serve and help others, to be a real blessing to those around them by how they lived their lives, and to pray for divine help. I would say that if one completely follows the logic offered by your husband, the LDS beliefs are more complete including belief in the Book of Mormon which shows that people other than those near Jerusalem at the time of Christ, had the benefit of knowledge about Him and His saving grace and atonement.

Do you or do you not recognize the authority of your scriptures and church?

The scriptures provide the standard, and are vitally important. I do recognize the authority of the LDS Church, yes.

If something you felt to be true conflicted with the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Doctrine and Covenants, would you believe yourself or your scriptures?

That would never happen. I am familiar enough with the scriptures to absolutely know that I am comfortable with what they teach and it will never conflict with “what I feel to be true”. It perchance I started down a path that seemed to conflict, I would need to figure out where I had gone wrong and move back to studying the scriptures with sincere intent and desires. But I am prayerfully seeking with all of my heart to stay steadily involved in studying and understanding the word of God in the scriptures, and am comfortable with how God communicates to humankind and love Him for how He does that and how marvelous are His ways.

Do you have to decide for yourself whether murder is evil, or are you “off the hook” because it’s in the Ten Commandments?

Of course the Ten Commandments should be lived completely, and no one need ask God whether they should be adhered to.

Yes, it is a great relief for me to have a wealth of tradition and knowledge on which to rely for the answers to most moral questions, rather than trusting my own conscience and hoping I’m interpreting Scripture correctly and praying sincerely enough to get the right answers directly from God. When I’m following God to the best of my ability and in communion with Him through my church, I do trust that the Holy Spirit is with me, even if something in this world interferes with my ability to feel His presence. As Joan of Arc said, I hope that I am in a state of grace, and pray that if I am not He will have mercy on me and bring me there.

I trust my conscience. It does not conflict with Biblical teachings.

 

[ParkerD]

Callirhoe,
Continuation from your second post:

As far as asserting the authority I have chosen to follow is the authority you must follow . . . if you want to get to Heaven, it’s a good idea to find the true authority because it came from God.

I am just not in any way fearful of the consequences of not believing in the “authority” you assert is legitimate. I just see too many differences between how that “authority” is and has been administered in the world than to have the slightest belief that it could possibly (even the remotest possibility) be legitimate. But choose as you wish.

I have authority over my children because I’m their mother and I love them. If I see them doing something that will hurt themselves or others, I’m not going to just watch and say, “That’s his choice.” If my child is hurting his brother, I will make it clear that the behavior is unacceptable.

OK. Parents should certainly teach their children. God has given them that clear responsibility.

With what language should a church speak of sin? If by threats you mean, “If you do that you’ll go to hell unless you repent,” is that any more a threat than “If you jump from the bed you could break your arm”? Even the Book of Mormon says, “The Shepherd will protect his flock.” Yes, each person has a choice how much truth and goodness and love he will accept, but the Church has a responsibility to make sure the good choice is clear.

To repent means to change behavior, ask forgiveness from God, and covenant with God to have a change of heart. Christ offers the plan of mercy for repentance to have full effect in this life and in eternity. That is not a function of a church. It is a function of what Christ has done for all humankind (every single person who has ever lived.)

The church does not have a responsibility to threaten people (nor even to make them feel threatened) to try and obtain believers. Damnation is a condition that is caused when people stop repenting (changing and making covenants of change) because we are all imperfect and need to repent and change. Repentance is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[chris2009]

Also, how is “Judah” associated with the entire Bible?

Interestingly, God explains after he talks about the two sticks what He actually meant. God prepares Ezekiel to answer the children of the people who would ask what is meant by the two sticks and joining them in his hand, by saying that He will take the children of Israel and bring them into their own land, and He will make them one nation, and they won’t be two nations any longer, or divided into two kingdoms. (verses 21-22).

So again, I don’t see how this is the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

ThuriferAcolyte,

I’m surprised you ask how “Judah” is associated with the entire Bible. As you know, Moses briefly brings us up to speed from the creation to the exodus by writing the first 5 books of the Bible. Moses was of the tribe of Levi, however, right away we are taken to King David – a direct descendant of Judah. From then on the Bible is written almost entirely and from the perspective of Jews – or descendants of Judah. From King David, then to his son King Solomon, then to his son King Rehoboam we see Judah take the lead. Then the Kingdom of Israel split – the 10 tribes on the north and Judah and Benjamin in the south. The 10 tribes led by Joseph (Ephraim) were captured about 721 BC and taken captive by the Assyrians. All that was left in Israel was primarily Judah. The rest of the entire Old Testiment was written by Jewish prophets and led by the Kings of Judah. The teachings of the true gospel are corrupted. Jesus Christ (a direct descendant of Judah through the line of David) then comes and restores the true and everlasting gospel. With rare exception, the entire New Testiment was written by descendants of Judah. John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, James, John, Paul and most all leaders of the church with rare exception were all Jews. The Bible is truely the book of Judah and his descendants.

So what happened to the tribes of Isreal led by Joseph on the north? I believe many of them eventually were scattered throughout Europe. The Anglos and Saxons that came to England may have been scattered descendants of these lost tribes. Interestingly, many of their cultures resemble that of ancient Israel. For example, Anglo-Saxon paganism sacraficial sites, feast days, Kings, high priests and tribes all resemble the ancient tribes of Israel. It was because of Israel’s pagan sacrafices and idol worship that the Lord allowed them to be scattered. I believe that today many with roots in these European countries are descendants of these lost 10 tribes. The blood of Israel is alive and well on the earth today – and Ephraim is called upon to take the lead in gathering Israel in the last days. I believe it is both the literal blood descendants of Ephraim as well as spiritual Ephraim that has this responsibilty. Many are adopted into the house of Israel.

 

[chris2009]

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.

Please read this article. It answers all your above questions regarding the stick of Judah and the stick of Joseph.

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=0c7167700817b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

The article says the word “stick” or “'ets” in Ezekiel 37 means “wood”.

“The discovery in 1953 of these writing boards from biblical Calah in Mesopotamia altered the thinking of scholars about how Middle Eastern cultures made records. Wooden tablets filled with wax represent the “earliest known form of ancient book” and help us understand an important prophecy of Ezekiel foretelling the uniting of the Bible and Book of Mormon.”

“Ezekiel’s inscriptions identified Judah and Joseph as the owners of each of the two boards. The Hebrew preposition le [to/for] in front of the names Judah and Joseph shows to whom each of these boards belonged. Thus, we might better translate the inscriptions to show this possession by putting the words “(belonging) to” before each name: “(Belonging) to Judah, and (belonging) to the children of Israel his companions,” and “(Belonging) to Joseph, the [board] of Ephraim, and (belonging) to all the house of Israel his companions.” (Ezek. 37:16.)”

“If the King James translators had known that Ezekiel lived among scribes who wrote on wood, they might have translated the “stick” passage differently. Here is how one modern translation, the New English Bible, translates Ezekiel 37:15–19: [Ezek. 37:15–19]”

“These were the words of the Lord to me: Man, take one leaf of a wooden tablet and write on it, ‘Judah and his associates of Israel.’ Then take another leaf and write on it, ‘Joseph, the leaf of Ephraim and all of his associates of Israel.’ Now bring the two together to form one tablet; then they will be a folding tablet in your hand.” At this point, Ezekiel emphasizes the ownership of the two tablets: “These are the words of the Lord God: I am taking the leaf of Joseph, which belongs to Ephraim and his associate tribes of Israel, and joining it to the leaf of Judah. Thus I shall make them one tablet.”

“Ezekiel’s writing boards were labeled “(Belonging) to Judah,” that is, “Judah’s,” and “(Belonging) to Joseph,” that is, “Joseph’s.” His hearers, of course, knew that one tablet for Judah was much too short to contain all of Judah’s records, which spanned hundreds of years. Rather, Ezekiel’s one board with Judah’s name on it symbolized Judah’s records, as the one board with Joseph’s name on it symbolized all of Joseph’s records.”

"Thus, Ezekiel’s symbolism consisted of identifying two writing boards with Judah’s and Joseph’s records, which, in the context of the gathering of Israel, are joined together. He could hardly have found a simpler, more vivid symbol of the gathering of Israel than unification of separate tribal records.

His message indicates that in the day of gathering (the last days), Judah and Joseph would each have a record and that their records would be joined as one. In these last days, do Judah and Joseph have such records? No one, of course, asks the Jews—the “People of the Book”—if Judah has records. And Latter-day Saints readily identify the Book of Mormon as representative of Joseph’s record in Ephraim’s hands. Judah’s and Joseph’s records do exist."

 

[MormonAddict]

Jeffrey R. Holland just gave a powerful talk about the truth of the Book of Mormon in the Sunday afternoon General Conference session. I can only image that most of the Catholics here would be dumbfounded and speechless after watching that. There is no way to not feel the truth of it watching his testimony. Check it out.

It should be posted here at some point…

youtube.com/user/jeraboo29

 

[ricko]

So what happened to the tribes of Isreal led by Joseph on the north? I believe many of them eventually were scattered throughout Europe. The Anglos and Saxons that came to England may have been scattered descendants of these lost tribes. Interestingly, many of their cultures resemble that of ancient Israel. For example, Anglo-Saxon paganism sacraficial sites, feast days, Kings, high priests and tribes all resemble the ancient tribes of Israel. It was because of Israel’s pagan sacrafices and idol worship that the Lord allowed them to be scattered. I believe that today many with roots in these European countries are descendants of these lost 10 tribes. The blood of Israel is alive and well on the earth today – and Ephraim is called upon to take the lead in gathering Israel in the last days. I believe it is both the literal blood descendants of Ephraim as well as spiritual Ephraim that has this responsibilty. Many are adopted into the house of Israel.

And what historians accept this belief? You can always find similarities between cultures, this does not mean that one is descended from the other. This theory that the lost tribes settled in Europe came from Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the self-proclaimed “Worldwide Church of God.” He wrote “The United States and Britain in Prophecy”, which advocated the view and of course no history to back it up either.

Anglo saxon - peoples member of Germanic people: a member of a West Germanic people who settled in Britain from the 5th century ad and were dominant until 1066.
They included the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.

Anglo saxons are from Germany, not from the Near East.

 

[chris2009]

Since the Book of Mormon makes clear that Lehi was a descendant of Manasseh, brother of Ephraim (Alma 10:3), it is less than straight forward to identify it as the “stick of Ephraim”. Nevertheless some LDS general authorities have made such an attempt. Orson Pratt claimed another ancestor of the Book of Mormon peoples, Ishmael, was an Ephraimite in 1850. The late reminiscences of Franklin D. Richards and Erastus Snow attributed this teaching to Joseph Smith and the missing 116 pages. Joseph Fielding Smith additionally emphasized that Joseph Smith was a descendant of Ephraim and noted that this fits well with the alternative phrasing found in v. 19 of “the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim.”

In context, this portion of Ezekiel’s record is a prophecy of the restoration and reunification of the divided house of Israel. Ezekiel sees a vision of a valley of dry bones that are miraculously reassembled with flesh, and the breath of life returns to them (37:1–10). The Lord promises Ezekiel that he will raise the people of Israel from the dead and give them rest in their own land (11–14). The Lord then gives the prophecy of the sticks (15–20). He explains the sticks represent the restoration of Israel to their homeland and reunification of the formerly separated nations of Judah and Israel (Ephraim) (21–22). They will live God’s law, be purified from unrighteousness, and be ruled over by the heir of house of David (23–28).

So what does the Book of Mormon have to do with the reunification of Israel and how does Lehi, descendant of Manasseh, fit into a prophecy of a “stick of Ephraim”?

For Latter-day Saints this is an example of “likening the scriptures unto ourselves,” as Nephi suggested (1 Nephi 19:23). The Book of Mormon is the restoration scripture for modern-day Ephraim—the people of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—and a message that they take to the world so that Israel may be gathered a final time in preparation for the second coming of the Lord

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_as_the_stick_of_Ephraim

This is the explanation that is given.

why me,

With all due respect, I agree with most everything you said above, but feel I need to make a correction. The Doctrine and Covenants clearly states that the Book of Mormon is the stick of Ephraim.

D&C 27:5 “Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;”

So there should be no need to feel that is speculation.

I find it interesting that the people of the Book of Mormon came from several tribes. The Nephites include Lehi from Manasseh, Ishmael from Ephraim and possibly Zoram from another tribe. The Mulekites (of whom little is known) include Mulek (son of King Zedekiah) from Judah and Mulek’s friends who came with him who could be from other tribes.

However the lead tribes were Judah and Joseph. There is an interesting scripture found in Isaiah 11. Isaiah speaks of the stem of Jesse. We know this is Jesus Christ. However, then Isaiah speaks of a “rod” that comes out of the stem of Jesse and also the “root” of Jesse who will stand for an ensign and gather the Gentiles in the last days. Who is this man?

D&C 113 answers these questions:
“1 Who is the Stem of Jesse spoken of in the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, and 5th verses of the 11th chapter of Isaiah?
2 Verily thus saith the Lord: It is Christ.
3 What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse?
4 Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power.
5 What is the root of Jesse spoken of in the 10th verse of the 11th chapter?
6 Behold, thus saith the Lord, it is a descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdom, for an ensign, and for the gathering of my people in the last days.”

This “rod” and “root” of Jesse is the prophet Joseph Smith.

 

[why_me]

why me,

With all due respect, I agree with most everything you said above, but feel I need to make a correction. The Doctrine and Covenants clearly states that the Book of Mormon is the stick of Ephraim.

You may be right but the FAIR organization has left it open for some reason. You may want to take it up with them or head over to the mormonapologetic site for more details about the FAIR take on it. Also, I have discovered that at times mistakes are made since we are all human. But it would be interesting to take your opinion over there to the MAD board. It would be interesting to see just what they say.

 

[chris2009]

Jeffrey R. Holland just gave a powerful talk about the truth of the Book of Mormon in the Sunday afternoon General Conference session. I can only image that most of the Catholics here would be dumbfounded and speechless after watching that. There is no way to not feel the truth of it watching his testimony. Check it out.

It should be posted here at some point…

youtube.com/user/jeraboo29

I agree. That was a powerful testimony. Everyone should hear it. The Lord has already provided sufficient evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Now we all need to exercise sufficient faith to follow its teachings and know that this is the restored everlasting gospel in the last days. The keys of the Kingdom of God are held by the apostles and prophets of this church. The Lord has foreseen this and has prepared his servants for the last time in this wicked world we live in. Anyone who takes the time to deeply investigate this work will see that it is of God.

 

[why_me]

I agree. That was a powerful testimony. Everyone should hear it. The Lord has already provided sufficient evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Now we all need to exercise sufficient faith to follow its teachings and know that this is the restored everlasting gospel in the last days. The keys of the Kingdom of God are held by the apostles and prophets of this church. The Lord has foreseen this and has prepared his servants for the last time in this wicked world we live in. Anyone who takes the time to deeply investigate this work will see that it is of God.

He also took the critics head on with passion by mentioning Ethan Smith and View of the Hebrews and Solomon Spaulding. I think that the internet has made an impact with its critic theories about the book of mormon. But he was right. The testimony of the book is with the death of Joseph and his brother Hyrum right before they bore their testimony to the guards about the truthfulness of the book and with the 11 witnesses who never denied the book and what they saw.

That being said, the catholic church also is a great church with wonderful and dedicated members who believe in god. I admire the catholic church and its saints. And I attend Mass and work with nuns and priests for a better world. I tend to take the good from both churches.

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

Jeffrey R. Holland just gave a powerful talk about the truth of the Book of Mormon in the Sunday afternoon General Conference session. I can only image that most of the Catholics here would be dumbfounded and speechless after watching that. There is no way to not feel the truth of it watching his testimony. Check it out.

It should be posted here at some point…

youtube.com/user/jeraboo29

I listened to it. It was a very strong appeal to emotion. Sorry, I was not “dumbfounded and speechless”. I know that you believe in it, but others do not. Similarly, others believe in the divine origins of the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Vedas, etc. It’s interesting that he claims that no other book has been examined and scrutinized as much as the Book of Mormon. What about…the Bible . Atheists have “proven” that it is a false book, and yet here we are. Same goes with the books listed above.

 

[ThurifAcolyte]

He also took the critics head on with passion by mentioning Ethan Smith and View of the Hebrews and Solomon Spaulding. I think that the internet has made an impact with its critic theories about the book of mormon. But he was right. The testimony of the book is with the death of Joseph and his brother Hyrum right before they bore their testimony to the guards about the truthfulness of the book and with the 11 witnesses who never denied the book and what they saw.
.

Agreed, just like how the 8 witnesses of the divine origin of the Holy, Sacred, and Divine Roll and Book of the Shakers (delivered by an angel) never denied their testimonies.

Just like how Christians (including Mormons) do not listen to the theories of the atheists that claim that the Bible is fiction, and Christian apologists poke holes in the theories of the atheists, I do not expect all Mormons to listen to the theories of Mormon critics, and I expect that Mormon apologists will continue to poke holes in such theories, as every religion pokes holes in all theories against the claims of that religion.

 

[chris2009]

And what historians accept this belief? You can always find similarities between cultures, this does not mean that one is descended from the other. This theory that the lost tribes settled in Europe came from Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the self-proclaimed “Worldwide Church of God.” He wrote “The United States and Britain in Prophecy”, which advocated the view and of course no history to back it up either.

Anglo saxon - peoples member of Germanic people: a member of a West Germanic people who settled in Britain from the 5th century ad and were dominant until 1066.
They included the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.

Anglo saxons are from Germany, not from the Near East.

And where were these people before they came to Germany? Nobody knows for certain, neither you nor I. But there is much evidence that they are descendants of the tribes of Israel. Their banners and symbols all match up. You also have to ask yourself, where did an entire nation of Northern Isreal with 10 tribes go? They were taken captive to Assyria and then left to a land in the north. They were not heard of again. Where did they go?

In addition there is much evidence that Joseph of Arimathea, Mary and others Judean refugees came to England. The symbol of England shows a lion and a unicorn. The lion is a symbol of Judah and the unicorn is a symbol of Ephraim.

 

[ricko]

There is no evidence they settled in Germany or anywhere in Europe.

When the House of Israel was conquered, most people belonging to the ten Northern tribes were deported and settled elsewhere in the Assyrian kingdom, including places near Nineveh, Haran, and on what is now the Iran-Iraq border. They were replaced by settlers from locations in or near Babylon and Syria.

These settlers intermarried, together with the remaining Israelites, and became the Samaritans mentioned in the New Testament (a few hundred of whom still survive today). The Israelites who had been deported also intermarried with the peoples of the places where they had been resettled. They eventually lost their distinct identity, disappeared, and their culture was lost to history. Some refer to them as “the lost tribes of Israel.”

 

[chris2009]

There is no evidence they settled in Germany or anywhere in Europe.

When the House of Israel was conquered, most people belonging to the ten Northern tribes were deported and settled elsewhere in the Assyrian kingdom, including places near Nineveh, Haran, and on what is now the Iran-Iraq border. They were replaced by settlers from locations in or near Babylon and Syria.

These settlers intermarried, together with the remaining Israelites, and became the Samaritans mentioned in the New Testament (a few hundred of whom still survive today). The Israelites who had been deported also intermarried with the peoples of the places where they had been resettled. They eventually lost their distinct identity, disappeared, and their culture was lost to history. Some refer to them as “the lost tribes of Israel.”

From the Apocrypha, 2 Esdras 13:40-47:

"Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land.

But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt,

That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land.

And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river.

For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over.

For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth.

Then dwelt they there until the latter time; and now when they shall begin to come,

The Highest shall stay the springs of the stream again, that they may go through: therefore sawest thou the multitude with peace."

This sounds much different than what you said. The 10 tribes vowed to “go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt”. And what is even more interesting is that it says they shall stay there “until the latter time”. Then they shall return in a remarkable way by the power of God.

I believe the 10 tribes went north as a group and some scattered throughout Europe. I believe BOTH. I also believe the 10 tribes will return in the “latter” days, the days that we live in. The New Jerusalem will be built upon the American continent and the 10 tribes will come to this place after a world-wide earthquake. This will all be following the cleansing of the wicked in America when God’s judgements are poured out. I believe this is not far off from now.