In a 'positional' frame of reference and in argument against why the 'Presidency' of the Church need not follow patriarchal order, which may in the most part not be related directly to this matter at hand, Joseph Feilding Smith has written and had published the following statement:
Let us dissect this statement into its various parts. First Joseph Feilding makes a solid statement of reasoning in relationship to considering that Joseph of Egypt, firstborn son of Rachel and Jacob; and what would consequently also fall to and be true of Joseph's sons, particularly Ephraim. Did Joseph, and consequently Ephraim, obtain the birthright? As reported by the Jews in 1 Chronicles 5:1-2 it clearly states that "the birthright was Joseph's" (verse 2). And thus we consider Joseph Fielding's first statement, " ... if Joseph received the birthright [and it is so stated and accepted that he did], and thus the first point of logic is true. Joseph received the birthright and in the JST Genesis 48, there is confirmation that Israel, that is Jacob, further sealed the same upon the head of Joseph's son Ephraim. Ephraim and the kingdom thereof being called by the very name 'Israel'.
Now the second point of logic and its premise. '. . . if the birthright and the Presidency of the Church were inseparable . . .'. Now for any logical 'therefore' to follow, all the points of logic pertaining to it must be true also. So we ask, 'is the birthright and Presidency of the Church inseparable?' This point is easily despensed of. Who was appointed the head of the church after the death of Jesus Christ? Was it not Peter, the chief apostle? Yes, it was. And thus there is no inseparable characteristic to be associated with the Presidency of the Church. It does not inseparably belong to the chief birthright son. Peter became the head of the church after the death of Jesus. And Peter was not the heir of Jesus according to the flesh. Thus with the second point already being twarted, the conclusion need not follow.
The third point of 'therefore' conclusion, in this case the 'then' or 'therefore', 'then it should have been through Joseph [of Egypt] that the Messiah should have come'. Because the second point of reasoning is already flawed then this conclusion already need not follow. And it does not follow based upon the 'faulty' premise of the needful link between the presidency of the Church and birthright of the Patriarchal order of the priesthood authority. The 'birthright' is not inseparable from the 'presidency of the church'. And traditional Christianity and certainly the Jews will readily tell you that the Messiah will come of the tribe of Judah, though they do also have a tradition concerning Messiah ben Ephraim/Joseph as well.
Then Joseph Fielding Smith notes from the 1 Chronicles 5:1-2 scripture, that which supports his point which disprovers the conclusion of 'then it should have been through Joseph that the Messiah should have come.' That fourth statement is 'we learn that Judah prevailed above his brethern in this particular', at least from the Jewish produced Old Testament records skewed perspective. And thus yielding the unvoiced 'but' presumed conclusion that Judah was the ancestor of the Messiah.
But even that consideration is actually further disassociated from the logic of arguement in that Joseph did recieve the birthright and Judah did not. And the 'Jewish' claim to the genealogy but was based upon the bloodline of Boaz as so edited and included at the end of the Book of Ruth. Even after the entire community recognized that Obed was indeed the 'son of Naome' and of the house of Elimelech and Mahlon who were Ephrathites. Even the Bible record further confirms that Obed's son, Jesse did also carry the identity of Ephraphite, meaning Ephraimite and of the tribe of Ephraim due to the Law of Moses which made Obed legally and lawfully according to the birthright, the son of Mahlon, the first husband of Ruth. When the Jews 'steal' the ancestry of Obed, Jesse and David; and make of it to be that of Judah, they are disregarding and braking the Law of Moses as was kept by Boaz (Ruth 4:5 & 10; and Deut. 25:5-10). And whereas Boaz performed 'that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brothren, that the name of the dead and his inheritance might remain; it has been the intent and design of Judah to usurp and be implanted in the stead of the birthright ancestory to the forgetting of the lawful ancestry of Obed in the house of Mahlon, and Elimelech, whose wives were Ruth and Naomi.
Now lets repeat the steps of logic but without the second flawed point and replace it with the more particularly pertainant point. First, "Joseph of Egypt did receive the birthright." Second, "The birthright and the receipt of the Everlasting Covenant of Abraham of the rights of the priesthood are inseparable." Third, "In order to fulfill all righteousness the Messiah must have been the heir of the Covanant of Abraham, the birthright son and heir of Joseph and his son Ephraim." And while Judah did 'prevail' in being the remaining tribe of Israel for a while, even Judah was also so destroyed and scattered as had the Ephraimite House and Kingdom of Israel. Judah's perspective of having 'prevailed' is only in that they did retain their identity and return to the land of Jerusalem while the rest of Israel was scattered and 'lost'. Judah DID NOT prevail in having received the covenant birthrith, that was and is Joseph's and the rightful heirs of Joseph and Ephraim (D&C 27:10).
Now it is not in Judah's own self proclamation of having prevailed that the truth of the birthright covenant is to be held. Judah did not suddenly obtain Joseph's birthright just because they were left in Jerusalem. It was and is still Joseph's birthright. The true question of consideration therefore becomes, 'What is the further evidence that Jesus was the rightful hier of Joseph, the hier of the covenant birthright?' And that evidence is that which will be collected and present in this presentation.
Another question may be asked here concerning the statement 'if the birthright and the Presidency of the Church were inseparable, then it should have been through Joseph that the Messiah should have come; ... ". Within the logic of this first part of Joseph Fielding's statement is a logical conclusion that Jesus, who is the living head of the Church, though he may appoint and anoint others to act in that office in his stead, they must also be of a descent from Joseph of Egypt. Is Jesus the 'head' of the church? Yes, of course he is. This is the further the position examined is some depth and detail by this text. Jesus was and is 'head of the church', it is His Church, the Church of Jesus Christ. And he was positioned as such being the heir, not only of the Father but also the earthly heir of the covenant, that covenant son of the Covanant of Abraham.
'But', and there is a 'but', according to Joseph Fielding Smith's statement and from that same scriptural reference: " ... but we learn that Judah prevailed above his brethern in this particular." (1 Chronicles 5:2) Thus on the one hand the Jews recognized Joseph's 'birthright', and thus on this other hand, they state that 'though Joseph's was the birthright, they have 'prevailed' over their brethren [Joseph particularly implied]. And this has been taken by the Jews and so also adopted by 'Traditional Christianity' to imply that Jesus, the Messiah, was to come of the Jews and thus NOT of Joseph and Joseph's covenant birthright of the Covenant of Abraham whose right it was to be the ancestor of the promised Messiah to come. Yet, the real 'key' here is that this is what is 'taught' and we have 'learned' by the presentation of men. It is quite likely that the record of Chronicles was not compiled and prepared from other combined sorces until and during the Babylonian captivity. From a very 'Jewish' perspective then, the House of Israel, that is of Ephraim and Joseph, has been 'lost', captured and carried away in the scattering of Israel. And the Jews have been promised that after '70 years of captivity', they should return to Jerusalem. Thus from their point of view, they would have 'prevailed above all others of their brethern'. But that really does not state anything directly in relationship to Jesus' birth and the birthright, other than the logic that Jesus, the Messiah, was to be born in Bethlehem, Jerusalem. And there is the fact that Jesus was to be born of the House of David, which from the Jewish Bible, it is shown that Jesus was that descendant. And of course, it is the 'Jews' who were in possession of that land at the time of that birth. Thus upon this line of logic, Jesus is a Jew, and in many ways. No one can really dispute that to be the case. But is that the 'WHOLE' story? And is the rest of the story yet to come out?
Thus any true 'scholar' of the Bible understands and knows that 'Jesus was a Jew'. The Old Testament and New Testament, from the Jewish perspective, so proclaims him to be so. And there is no argument there. In many respects Jesus is a Jew. In his cultural, national and religious origins, Jesus was a Jew. In respect to being a 'bloodline' descendant of Boaz, a Jew, Jesus was a 'bloodline' Jew. And this we have all truly 'learned' and understand. So in what other way could Jesus be a 'descendant of Joseph of Egypt'? Is that possible? The Doctrine and Covenants, section 113, makes it clear that one can be both. In two verses, it so speaks of one that is 'a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph' (D&C 113:4 & 6). It is upon just such a likelihood that this text examines the ancestry of Jesus Christ, and presents Him as being both Messiah ben David and Messiah ben Joseph. It is not a contention of this text that Jesus was not a Jew. It is a presentation of this text that Jesus is 'also' to be considered a descendant of Joseph of Egypt.
The 'Stick of Judah', the Jewish perspective of the Bible, clearly states that the 'birthright is Joseph's', and though it also presents the position that Judah 'prevailed' above his brethren', it also presents that Joseph, particularly through Ephraim, does prevail, regardless of all elsef. In fact he does prevail unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills and to the full extent that the blessings of the Fathers would be upon the head of Joseph (Genesis 49:26). This is also consistant with D&C 27:10, which so states that the blessings and promises of the fathers have remained through and in Joseph, Jacob, Isaac and Abraham; that direct ancestral line.
So were is the 'wiggle room' in Joseph Fielding's statement? It is in terms of 'what we have 'learned' as opposed to what has directly been revealed from God. We have learned from the Jewish Bible perspective and the Traditional Christianity stance, so adopted point of view based upon that 'Jewish Bible', that Jesus was and is a Jew. The position of this text is that this 'learned fact' from such Jewish perspective, does not negate the true logic of Joseph Fielding's first statement. That is, if the birthright was Joseph's of Egypt, then Jesus would logically need be a descendant of Joseph. The one IS JUST NOT 'exclusive' of the other.
And now the 'wiggle room' comes in where it has so often come in, in relationship to the 'Mormon Doctrinal' positions and those positions maintained by the Jews and Traditional Christianity. The 'Catch 22' has been that we all have a foundation in that basic 'Traditional Christianity' and Jewish point of view. In the LDS Church we are still to an extent culturally framed in the foundations of 'Traditional Christianity' to a certain extent and we still use the 'Jewish' provided stick of Judah, the King James version of the Bible. And thus we still are continually confronted by those points which have been based upon that record to the extent they have been 'correctly prepared' in comparison to that which may have been or will still so be revealed to us. This has, beginning with the Joseph Smith Inspired translation and will in the future will continue to so differ from it in a more complete perspective, particularly the fuller perspective of Ephraim of Israel and the Fulness of the Gospel, who and which basically falls out of the Jewish Bible throughout and also upon the occassion of the scattering of Israel and the presumed loss of the Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim and his companions, the other tribes of Israel. Yet, as God will proceed to continue to reveal many more great and important things to us concerning the Kingdom of God, particluarly perhaps the Brass Plates of Laban, kept from the perspective of Joseph, as Laban and Lehi were of Joseph; we ought to expect and understand that a number of other such 'Traditional Views' will also be modified and/or fall by the way side. When the Lord first appeared to Joseph Smith, He stated that 'all their Creeds' were an abomination unto Him. They all were not correct. But to a certain extent, as long as our LDS scholars are schooled in the 'theology schools' of such 'Traditional' points of view, we will have continued to have been trained, that is 'learned' according to those traditions, and very possibly NOT according to the further light and knowledge which the Lord has yet to reveal unto us.
But perhaps it is wisdom in the Lord, that as of yet, we have not been given the full extent upon which the fulness of the truth so differs, as already Traditional Christianity maintains that 'We are not Christian', simply because we do not base our doctrine upon one of their more prevailant and basic 'Creeds', the Nicene Creed. And many view us also teach that we are of the 'accult', or of a position of heresy, without any other further doctrinal diferences even considered at this point and time. Joseph Smith himself stated that if he had revealed in his time all that he knew and understood of the Gospel truths, even the very 'elect' of the Church would have found it dificult to continue to believe in him and in the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus to an extent we are still so bound by any number of the the traditional doctrines, though false and corrupt they may be. And this may range from the obvious, in celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25th, when we know his birth to be in the spring on the date of April 6th. But to smooth the transition of converts, that they must not vere too strickingly into the True Doctrine, and first receive of the 'milk' before the'meat', as apart from the traditional concepts they have come to accept; it is likely that the Lord has so left us in such a state of a 'middle ground' of understanding. And the concept of Jesus being legally and rightfully a descendant of Ephraim, even Messiah ben Ephraim, is just too big of a transitional step to enforce to be taken at the present time, though many are begining to speak of that likelihood quite openly. And thus perhaps preparing the way for the day when all may be revealed and all be acceptible to be the truth of the matter. You see, we continue to develop and learn, line upon line, precept upon precept. And there is much yet to learn of the Lord and his ways, which are not found in the false Traditions of men, whither Jewish or those 'Conventionally Christian'.
And now, while Joseph Fielding Smith uses his argument to thwart the concept that the next president and prophet of the true Church had to be a descendant of Joseph or Hyrum Smith, he need not have resorted to such, which tends to confuse this separate issue; which is not the same issue at all before us now. For the New Testament independantly clearly estabished that the Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ, that is its 'Prophet' and 'President' need not follow the Patriarchal Order; for Jesus Christ Himself did place Peter, who was not so related, as far as we know, to the line of the Savior or Ephraim and Joseph.
Thus we have examined that there is substance to what they of tradition say. Yet there is also much evidence that, along with being descendant of Boaz, Jesus was in fact the legal and rightful heir and 'son of Joseph', even Messiah ben Joseph. And there is a doctrinal concept upon which this would fall, and that is there is yet to be more clearly revealed many such things than what has already been well established among us. What I have set forth in this text does not conform to such of the 'traditions' which man has derived, taught and learned as the concept of the ancestry of the Messiah. Traditional Christianity sets forth only one Messiah, the Messiah son of David, which is true as far as it goes. The tradition of the Jews sets forth 'two' Messiahs, one the son of David, the other the son of Joseph through Ephraim, which though traced officially to the 2nd century A.D. would have most assuredly come from such Jewish records and beliefs much further back into ancient history to be so well accepted by the Jewish community. What is set out in this text can be established and supported by selecting out what is considered to be the threads of truth still found in those records and traditions, and what is also in relationship to that which can further be found in support as rooted deep in the soil of modern revelation. Thus I have attempted to talk of Christ and write according to what understanding there is to be found concerning Jesus as not only Messiah ben David, but as Messiah ben Joseph as well. And thus perhaps it is to the difference between the 'truth of God' and the 'learning of man' that this topic is to be resolved, for he has yet to reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
~ Don R. Hender