Pure Ephraimite, AmIRight?

Brigham Young famously described Joseph Smith as "a pure Ephraimite." Likewise it is emphasized in the Book of Mormon itself that Joseph Smith is from Joseph of old (coming through Ephraim, as must needs be every president of the Church). This is a critical piece to the Ezekiel 37 prophecy, which describes a stick of Judah (Bible) and stick of Ephraim (Book of Mormon) coming together as scripture. 

There's just one problem. 

Joseph Smith Jr. was most likely not Jewish. Instead he was assuredly Irish. Northwest Irish to be exact.

But that's okay, because Ephraim wasn't always considered Jewish either. He was born of an Egyptian mother (Asenath) and he, along with his brother, Manasseh, had to be adopted into the 12 Tribes by their grandfather, Israel. His life among the patriarchs would be marked by excellence, as well as intense jealousy towards his uncle, Judah. 

To me, it would be poetic if God chose a gentile like Joseph Smith to restore a church for the ultimate gathering of Israel as a modern Ephraim, by blessing (not breeding) him into the fold of the chosen people he had long envied and tried to imitate. --Even through seer stones.

Let's talk about 3 different types of seer stones. Because this is not just about interesting genealogy (or lack thereof). I want to get to claims of power, authority, seership, and presidency today, and with bloodline out of the picture that leaves us looking elsewhere. 

David A. Baird/
Historical Arts and Castings

The first type of seer stone is the spectacle-like device attached to the gold plates. This was meant to help Joseph Smith visualize and interpret the words engraved upon them by ancient hands. Because these spectacles are attached to a breastplate like temple priests of old, they are later referred to as an urim and thummim.  Traditionally, the urim and thummim would help priests perform cleromancy, i.e. determining God's will in a black and white, binary way. I imagine it would provide feedback as to whether man's interpretation was correct or not. At some point Joseph Smith decides he doesn't want to work only in this rigid way; he produces his own seer stone. The one that looks like a chocolate egg.

By Welden C. Andersen and Richard E. Turley Jr.

The chocolate-colored seer stone was something Joseph Smith had from when he was a young boy and fancied himself as having the powers of ancient Hebrew seers. There's a name for this kind of behavior, it's called Anglo Israelism. In other words, those who are from Northern European descent will believe --against all evidence to the contrary-- that they are literal heirs to the same blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This includes claims to priesthood power, land possession, and succession. 

The amazing thing is that the chocolate seer stone seemed to work. Joseph Smith produced The Book of Mormon with it. Later, when he comes across Egyptian papyrus, Joseph Smith uses another stone (a white one) to produce The Book of Abraham. We are starting to understand now that the chocolate-colored and white stones were likely not used for historical translations, but rather inspiration to produce scripture that deepens our knowledge of God.  

I have a testimony of The Book of Abraham. By extension, I believe those seer stones worked, not because Joseph Smith has the blood of Ephraim pumping through him, but because God blessed him to use those stones for enlightenment as He did with the Brother of Jared. This ability to act as seer further established Joseph Smith's authority as head of the restored Church. 

And then he was murdered without a succession plan.

It seems unthinkable that after all that effort to restore the Church of Jesus Christ, a framework for how it should continue was not solidified. And yet there it was, a succession crisis lasting 6 months! Thankfully the doctrine of having an established presidency with keys was already in place, but who should combine those keys and take on the mantel of president, prophet, and seer was up for serious debate and produced several factions in that time. 

Ultimately Brigham Young took the reins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but not since his predecessor do we see presidents of the Church using seer stones to establish doctrine and scripture. And yet we know the Church held on to the seer stone(s) because it was able to produce this item recently for exhibition. 

This is because, I believe, those stones serve as a type of "budded rod." Please allow me to explain.

The "budded rod" is described in the Old Testament as proof that Aaron and his sons should lead the Israelites. The parallel to the latter-day succession crisis is astounding. In both cases each of "The Twelve" believe they are next in line for power and authority. In Numbers 16 we learn that God commands the 12 to lay out their staffs (AKA rods) and return in the morning. The next day Aaron's staff has bloomed and has produced literal fruit (almonds). That secures his place as leader, and the rod's place in the Ark of the Covenant, next to the gold pot of manna, and the 10 Commandments. What was Brigham Young's "budded rod"? I surmise that it was the seer stone, which had produced the fruit of The Book of Mormon and was handed over to him by Oliver Cowdery. 

Brigham Young and his successors would likely deny it. He wanted it known that his authority lie in in his proximity to Joseph Smith AND being a literal descendant of Israel, like so many past presidents of the Church purported to be since. But a few things point against lineage being the actual, literal reason. First, we have modern hindsight to inform us that LDS presidents were mostly Northern European by DNA. Second, Brigham Young held on to the stone despite never using it --to our knowledge-- to produce scripture. Third, this could be coincidental, the box the stone was kept in was adorned with a rose blooming from its bud.

I need to take you a bit deeper into this symbolism if we're going to discuss applications for today. If we think the seer stone is a type of budded rod, then I imagine gold pot of manna is represented in our time by the new and everlasting covenants revealed to us, and the tablets are the scriptures by which we'll be judged. Just like in the days of old, the Ark of the Covenant is the outward representation of a people united and led by God. It also cements the authority of our doctrine. 

The imagery of the gold plates providing mana to our souls today is very beautiful. Let us not forget the plates were not the only things given to Joseph Smith by the angel, Moroni. He also presented the Sword of Laban and the Liahona. I think we tend to take that in as a neat factoid, and evidence that the events recorded in the Book of Mormon really did happen. While they certainly served that purpose, I have come to believe they were emblems of the Church Head and Body. Of Judgement and Mercy. Even of Joseph and Emma. If we combine these elements, it creates a figurative Mercy Seat atop of the Ark. I also interpret them as a warning: Lose your way and you will lose your life. 

Woman as the compass or Liahona is not an original thought I have. The scriptures and temple are teeming with this connection. And while I am more drawn to symbolism than early Church history, I do know that when Joseph Smith introduced polygamy Emma Smith became withdrawn, Joseph was murdered, and Emma --who had been charged to discern truth from error-- ceased to journey with Brigham Young. Since that time it seems the modern Ark of the Covenant went West, separating itself from the Mercy Seat, leaving a space filled with enmity between the men leading this Church and the outspoken women who ask them to redirect. 

Enmity might seem like a strong word, but I don't know how else to describe the response Brigham Young and his successors had after Emma stayed put. The words of the temple were changed so that women no longer received blessing unto God, but their husbands instead. The Relief Society became an auxiliary organization, instead of part of the "kingdom of priests." Further light about Heavenly Mother was stunted or blocked. And much more in the era of Correlation. This is life without a Mercy Seat, if you ask me. 

I wish to emphasize two things here. First, if you've read this far, thank you. Second, the new figurative Ark established Brigham Young as the one who should succeed Joseph Smith, and that authority lives on through our current structure utilizing the laying on of hands. I still can (and do) sustain current Church leaders in their roles because they are legitimately assigned to them. The only insight I have carved out for myself is that this legitimacy isn't rooted in Ephraimite blood, but rather a stone. This view further underscores my interpretation of Church leaders as the "wild branches" in Jacob 5 who are keeping this Gospel alive despite simultaneously bringing it to its knees (e.g. here, here). 

As Church authority lives on hand to head, remember too that Emma has a "lineage" of placing her hands on heads that are keeping up the work of discernment. And it is work. It would be much easier to simply take everything said over the pulpit as God's truth spoken by his Ephraimite messenger, and not challenge the messengers to produce tokens to validate. As Revelation puts it, straddling verses 11:19 & 12:1-2:

19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ^aark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great ^bhail.

1 ^aAnd there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a ^bwoman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

2 And she being with ^achild cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Pained in delivering this ark, this Church and its proclamations in the latter-days. I don't know about you, but I feel that.  

Working as Designed?

I'm staying up to write this late at night because I know a lot of people are stunned and confused about what the reversal on The Policy means for them as members of the Church. They want to know how to navigate this space where the ones chosen to lead them are capable of making mistakes. Big mistakes at that.

First let's talk about this notion of "the prophet will never lead you astray." That makes it sound like presidents of the Church are capable of perfection. Surprise: They're not. All we're promised is that he knows the way to salvation and exaltation: From Point A to Point Z, the ordinances in between, and should warn us of dangers along the way. We are not to expect hand-holding for the entire journey, nor blindly accept each and every direction given to us (see also).

But I get it, having The Policy rescinded is on the one hand a huge relief; on the other hand it casts a lot of doubt on the trustworthiness of what's coming from the pulpit. I too was feeling the weight of this today. I said a little prayer asking to understand this conundrum and shortly after that my phone rang.

There's a problem with the computer interface my colleague and I designed. He called to tell me what the tech support staff had to say about that.

"They said it was 'working as designed.'"

Ah, the ol' "working as designed." This is a common refrain from people who build computer programs and subsequently get feedback saying their products are broken in some way. It's a nice way of saying, "I did everything right, it was YOUR instructions that were flawed." So my buddy and I checked our work, looked at how that translated to the computer program, and we found that the error was actually on their end. It was a problem with the build.

I felt like my prayer for understanding had been answered.

Working as Designed and Working as Built is an age-old problem that best represents modern revelation. God is perfect. He is the master architect. The Church Christ established and restored was designed by Him to bring imperfect people back to their heavenly home. When that master design is built up and run by error-prone mortals we get things like The Policy.

There will be many who tell you that this is it, they can't go on being a member of the Church because The Policy and its reversal is a "sign" that our religion isn't "true." I'd say that this is a sign we need to trust God before men, and remain steadfast about waiting for true messages from the appropriate messengers.

I hope and pray that as General Conference is upon us we seek for understanding, patience, hope, and most especially the gift of discernment.

See One, Do One, Teach One

Seems legit.

In the medical education system you start out as a medical student with no real power to execute orders, to a resident physician with the ability to make decisions, order tests, and prescribe medications ... so long as your full-fledged attending physician signs off on them. Finally, after board certification and completion of residency you're the real deal. You fly solo, all power and liability is on you.

In medicine we also have a "See one, do one, teach one" motto. When you're a medical student your job is to mostly observe what the doctors do. You might interview patients and write notes, but those things don't really count in the medical record. When you're a resident you have a bit of a safety net under you and this is when you start doing real things under supervision. By the time you're an attending physician the idea, in an academic setting, is to mostly teach the residents and medical students.

So why am I giving you the inside scoop on how the medical field works? It's because I suspect President Nelson, a physician surgeon, applied these academic principles to Church policy creation and that's how we got The Policy (re: gays and their children) and its reversal. Here's why:

In 2015 President Thomas S. Monson had severe dementia. The Church was being run (as is its policy in such cases) by the combination of presidency keys. We see Boyd K. Packer die in July 2015 and The Policy go into effect November 2015. What happened in the interim? Russel M. Nelson became Quorum (of the Apostles) President (QP). For context, everyone at this time knows Nelson is next in line to become prophet and Dallin H Oaks is positioned to become the next QP or higher (as would become the case).

If we view this in terms of:

apostle = med student

QP = resident

Prophet = attending physician

It would be no surprise then if Russell M. Nelson as QP jumped at the opportunity to use executive power for something that he could say was the will of the Lord, but policy only (i.e. not offical doctrine). This would be practice for the big role for which he was slated. And we know he moves quickly, wasting no time. The Policy would be his "do one."

When the Chief strikes down your order.

But what one man wants and what the Lord wants are often not the same thing.

What was supposed to happen is President Eyring and President Uchtdorf with new QP Nelson, along with the sustaining and authoritative power of the remaining apostles, were to turn their keys in confirmation of what was taught to them by the Spirit.

What I think happened is a couple of things. I think Eyring and Uchtdorf, having worked for some time now without a functional President of the Church, slipped into the mode of "I sustain our [future] prophet." They wanted him to get practice as QP and succeed. Also, let's be honest, they knew they were a geriatric heartbeat away from answering to President Nelson for the remainder of their ministry. I'm guessing that factored in.

I suspect something went wrong right away. For starters, why focus on "the gay issue"? Especially right out of the gates? It seems like Nelson saw an obvious problem between homosexuality and Mormon Latter-day doctrine and wanted to fix it. I don't doubt he sought the will of the Lord, but it appears he landed on the side of legalism. And just who persuaded him to choose justice? Who likely pleaded for mercy instead (but ultimately relented)? I'll let you decide.*

*Worth a thousand words

In the end there needed to be apostolic consensus, but my guess is at least one presidency member drew near to The Policy with his lips for the sake of unity, but his heart (and key) were turned away from it. In contrast, I can see Nelson receiving guidance from someone who was close enough and practically there in terms of having presidential keys such that his input was valued more than it was worth. We see this happen from time to time in medicine, too. Senior resident and 4th year medical student start a surgical case without the attending surgeon and the patient bleeds out.

The patient in this case is everyone affected by The Policy. We can never say for sure how many LGBTQ members died by suicide as a result, but my gut and reasoning tells me the blood of this generation cries out.

The Silver Lining to a Large Black Cloud

I think three big things have/will come out of this: 1) We have learned how to discern right from wrong, 2) We now know which members will accept/reject false doctrine, and 3) More women will be brought into policy-making decisions at higher levels in more official ways.

1) I've said it before and I'll say it again, we must look for the tokens and signs Father promised to send us. When the leaders of the Church teach us a principle we should pray on it, consider it, and feel within us a confirmation that it's true. Then, when we act upon it, we should see good fruit. There was never any good fruit from The Policy. Only bad, heartbreaking, rotten products. Moreover, when it comes to church-wide policy, ALL presidential keys need to turn in agreement. This is tricky because The Policy was touted as coming from a unanimous voice, but I recall discussions at its onset about how this just didn't seem like something a certain key-holding apostle would support, at least not in his heart.

So let's say we were early saints and Peter, James, and Thaddeus approached us with new policy... Stop right there. That's not right. Perhaps the next time it came from the original First Presidency (Peter, James, and John), but they had no tokens and (good) signs to give... Thanks, but no thanks.

We need both: The actual presidency and the correct tokens and signs.


2) I remember after The Policy each and every woman I knew had a hard time with it. Even the most "totally believing Mormon" (TBM) types felt sick in the stomach thinking about babies being turned away. But within the same day of its announcement, these women and their male counterparts posted and preached about how, "if you look at it this way," The Policy is actually about love!

These members were wrong. They are dangerous. They need to learn from this and change.

3) I've looked back at my journal of impressions and the letter I gave my bishopric pleading for an end of at least one aspect of The Policy. My feeling is that this episode has made it clear that women need to be involved in policies that affect the family of God. And since that touches everything, I do expect an announcement this weekend during General Conference.


Closing Thoughts

Going back to that image I've painted of the confident resident and eager med student, I know and I hope you know they had no intent to harm. We also know the outcome was catastrophic. As "ancillary staff" did you take orders and facilitate a wrongful practice or did you run things up the chain to a higher authority?

Next time --because humanity assures us there will be a next time-- let's not accept a broken protocol nor leave the operating room; let's do all that we can. Together. Because now, as President of the Church, Russel M. Nelson is teaching us that we can learn from our mistakes and become better. Much better.

An Open Letter Regarding "The Policy"

To whom it may concern,

I am submitting this letter of appeal as a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a mother, and a child of God. No doubt you have received countless other messages from concerned Latter-day Saints and members of the community since the announcement of new policies regarding the children of same-gender unions. I imagine not all of them are kind and supportive. It is my prayer, however, that this one will leave a good impression because it comes from the heart and it is filled with hope.

To paraphrase Nephi, I know God loves his children, but I don’t know the meaning of all things (1Nephi 11:17). Such were my thoughts on November 5^th 2015, when I learned of changes to the Church Handbook of Instructions that would bar certain children from receiving a name and a blessing, and prevent them receiving the ordinances of salvation without additional approval. My heart ached for those children. The image of an innocent baby being turned away from a circle of love brought tears to my eyes. Since then I have pondered much and wrestled with the Spirit. I also did my research. My mind now understands, or at least supposes, that these changes came about as a response to the recent expansion of legal marriage to same-gender couples in the United States of America, with the goal to prevent official recognition of gay unions on record, and to make clear our stance that marriage between man and woman is God’s unchanging standard. The timing and method used to reach those goals, I don’t expect to understand, nor is that important to me at this moment.

What is critical, and the reason I felt compelled to write this letter, is to address an unintended offense created in the new policies. Namely, the turning away of babies from the naming and blessing ordinance. As I have just stated that I understand the likely purpose of the new changes to the Handbook, perhaps my returning to this issue is puzzling at this point. To clarify, I should start by explaining that this is the one restriction I know is unnecessary for your purpose, especially as it is not an ordinance of salvation and does not demand the prior existence of the parents’ membership. In fact, by clearly stating those in same-gender relationships are apostate –thereby valid membership is removed–  this would mean that their child would require parental consent prior to the giving of a name and blessing in the Church, thus negating the concern that following up on this child of record would be awkward or cause tension in the family as it has already been addressed.

With all that in mind, I can proceed to discuss something that is most sacred to me. As a daughter of God, I have taken to heart the knowledge that I came to earth with gifts not found in common with men, even pre-mortal endowments. I have returned to the temple regularly to lift the veil of my remembrance of these experiences and have had many profound moments, but none as sobering as when a pre-mortal token was violated. I regret to inform you that this is what I experienced when I envisioned the child being turned away from the blessing circle.  Though not intended, such imagery mocks divine motherhood, which centers on cloistering the children of men. And I know I’m not alone in that sentiment. Each woman I’ve spoken to, when first learning how the aforementioned policies affect the children, has described a heaviness in her heart. Even those not of our faith can feel it, and I believe that is explained by our shared instruction prior to this existence. We know, at least inherently, that turning away the newborn child is contrary to the emblem of the hen gathering the chicks beneath her wings. To expand that description further would be to go beyond the limits of this medium. But I can tell you that to uphold the barring of babies from a blessing in the Church, whatever their life circumstances may be, would put me at odds with holy covenants I made as a woman prior to coming to this earth. I simply cannot bear to be in this position. Please reconsider this aspect of the new policies so as to free me and my sisters from this predicament.

I add that, moving forward, proclamations and declarations regarding the family unit on earth would gather more strength and power if brought to light through the unity of both men and women. I am by no means vying for ordination of the sisters in the church, but rather a cooperative paradigm at moments like this, which echoes the truth that it is not good for man to act alone (Gen 2:18). The Church is edified and Satan rebuked when the daughters of Eve and the sons of Adam proceed together in the world. In the future, could not the brethren making these expansive changes consult with righteous women for the greatest outcome? (If I’m mistaken in concluding that this decision-making was without female input, then please forgive me.)

Finally, I leave you my testimony that I know this Church is true, it is led by a living prophet, and was restored in these days to bless the earth and bring His children unto Christ. It is because I care that I have expounded these things in appeal, as a wife does for her husband (and vice versa), in love and with concern. Please consider the things I have shared. Pray and ponder them for yourself, knowing that I have written this in charity.

Yours in Christ,

Sister Monique _____