A Biblical hint that Pharaoh's daughter was of the House of Joseph is her knowledge of the Hebrew language. From the LDS scriptures, footnote 'b' of verse 10 chapter 2 of Exodus states that Moses in Egyptian means 'to beget a child' but in Hebrew it means 'to draw out of.' And as the rest of verse 10 states, Pharaoh's daughter said she called him Moses 'Because I drew him out of the water' not 'because I begat him.' Thus Pharaoh's daughter knew the Hebrew language and used the Hebrew definition in naming her Hebrew son Moses. This hints of her being Hebrew herself. And it would explain how the House of Pharaoh might have so easily taken in a Hebrew child as their own, being related and of the House of Joseph themselves. For a further discussion and consideration of the Pharaoh of this period being a descendant of Joseph see Appendix 6.

The other alternative is that only the king's daughter was of the House of Joseph and the rest of Pharaoh's house was not. There is only one way for this to be the case. So perhaps only the daughter, being a daughter-in-law was of Joseph's house, as she herself was barren and had no children to her husband except Moses by adoption. This speculation ignores the male lines and is therefore less likely the case but could be one thought upon in the matter at hand.

Now with the understanding that Moses was considered as being of the House of Joseph by Pharaoh's daughter's adoption, lets turn to the other item of the referencing of the Messiah by exception. In doing so, lets also remember that the Classical Jewish intrepreation of Joseph's blessing under the hand of Jacob holds that Joseph of Egypt to be from 'thence the shepherd and rock of Israel shall come.' Now the items in brackets [...] are added by myself, but the statement in parenthesis is part of the original text of the inspired translation of the Bible in the book of Genesis by Joseph Smith. I've also added the underscore to emphasize some of the text.

" . . . the Lord hath visited me, and I [Joseph] have obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of my loins, the Lord God will raise up a righteous branch [which becomes Lehi's Book of Mormon seed] out of my loins; and unto thee [the house of Jacob], whom my father Jacob hath named Israel, a prophet; (not the Messiah who is called Shilo;) and this prophet shall deliver my people out of Egypt in the days of thy bondage." ~ JST Genesis 50:24

Now Lehi's paraphrased understanding in the Book of Mormon, as he likely refers to these same promises and prophecies of Joseph in the first book of Moses of the brass plates of Laban, is even more revealing. It illustrates that the clarification statement concerning the Messiah was a part of the ancient record under Moses' own hand and not later added. And illustrates that it did apply to the seed of Joseph as clarifying that it was not the Messiah, the shepherd, the stone of Israel being spoken of, though He was so understood to be of the House of Joseph also. Now that clarification is mute and totally unnecessary if the Messiah was solely understood to be of the House of Judah. The qualifying clarification statement is only required if it is clarifying that Messiah is not the righteous branch in Lehi's statement. It states with bracketed explanation added by myself here and also with emphasizing underscores:

" . . . Joseph truly saw our day [Lehi's day in the promised land]. And he obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of his [Joseph's] loins the Lord God would raise up a righteous branch unto the house of Israel; not the Messiah [not to be confused with the Messiah who was understood by the ancient Jew and Lehi to be of the House of Joseph, that is Messiah Ben Joseph], but a branch which was to be broken off [scattered], nevertheless, to be remembered in the covenants of the Lord that the Messiah [who was indeed of Joseph of Egypt] should be made manifest unto them in the latter days, . . . " ~ 2 Nephi 3:5

Unlike the doctrine of the 'Infallible Catholic Pope,' prophets and men are human. They are prone to error. God reveals and men and prophets are left to their own understanding of what God has revealed. Joseph understood that Moses and Joseph Smith were to be considered of the House of Joseph as we have just established in verse Genesis 50:29 in the case of Moses. Therefore in verse 24, when Joseph relates to his brethren that a prophet would be raised up 'of the fruit of my loins,' he assumes Moses to be of his bloodline, which of course we understand that Moses was not, being a pure Levite and only adopted by the king's daughter who was of Joseph's house. Moses by this 'adoption' into the king's house of Egypt became to be legally of the House of Joseph. Which of Joseph's descendants married into the house of Pharoah and thereby became the ancestor to this King of Egypt is not given in detail, but it is well implied to be the case as set out in JST Genesis 50:29.

Now, why mention that Moses of the house of Joseph in that he was rasied up in the house of Joseph, was not to be the Messiah if the Messiah was not involved with the House of Joseph at all? If the Messiah was already well understood not to be of the House of Joseph, then why bother to clarify that Moses, who was considered of the House of Joseph, was not the Messiah? This clarification seems to be quite enlightening. The 'Classical Jew' who buys into the traditions of the Jews, believes in the coming of a Messiah Ben Joseph. This Messiah ben Joseph was stated in Genesis 49:24 in the blessing of Joseph by Jacob to be thence from him as the 'shepherd and stone of Israel'. And here Joseph Smith in his inspired translations of the Bible has written the words of Moses from Genesis as once clarifying that this great Moses promised to deliver Israel is not to be confused with the Messiah which is also eventually suppose to come and deliver his people, even Shiloh the Messiah, the Messiah ben Joseph.

Now Joseph Smith was raised on a farm and had very little formal learning. How is a farm boy of low education suppose to know that Christ was to be considered as being of the house of Joseph as the Classical Jews taught of a Messiah Ben Joseph? Certainly even the learned theological scholars of Christianity were but clarifying that the Classical Jewish interpretation was incorrect in their interpretation of the blessing of Joseph as recorded in Genesis chapter 49. And Christ was purely of Jewish, King David descent. Nowhere does traditional sectarian Christianity even suggest that Christ was anything but Jewish except for the Classical Jewish interpretation of there being a Messiah Ben Joseph.

What is interesting to contemplate is if Joseph Smith himself even realized what he had written under the inspiration of the spirit? Did Joseph Smith realize that he had just written that Moses because of being the king's daughter's adopted son was of the House of Joseph? Did Joseph Smith realize that the words he wrote also corresponded with the belief in Messiah Ben Joseph as being the shepherd and rock of Israel since Joseph of Egypt by a statement of exception in clarifying that Moses was not the Messiah called Shiloh who was also to come from his own seed? And if so, how could Joseph Smith's inspired translation be but anything but inspired of the spirit to have made such an allowance and statement of exception? Here in lies a sure testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God for no where else was such being allowed for as it was by Joseph Smith's inspired translation.

Such a qualifying by exception statement concerning the Messianic seed of Joseph of Egypt was not and would not be required if indeed it was clearly established that Christ was never to be of Joseph but solely of Judah anyway? This is the positional qualification raised by Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible that the Messiah called Shiloh was to be of the House of Joseph but Moses was not him. And in addition this is the same positional qualification held by the Classical Jew as obtained from the blessing of Joseph of Egypt by his father Jacob in the Bible. Now that takes some degree of explanation which allows one to conclude that there was to be Messiah Ben David/Judah and Messiah Ben Joseph/Ephraim and that he is one and the same person, Jesus Christ even Jehovah But that is what this appendix has been all about..

Orson Pratt's Division into Scriptural Verses the
Original 1830 Book of Mormon

The original Book of Mormon was not printed in scriptural style of verses. It was instead printed in standardized sentences and paragraphs which were reviewed and sanctioned by the Prophet Joseph Smith. While there had been various spelling and gramatical errors partly the fault of the printer which had been corrected, it was Elder Orson Pratt who took further liberties to rearrange sentence and paragraph structure into scriptural type verses. At initial consideration one might conclude that the arrangement into verses really did not much in effecting the emphasis, logic and meaning built into the sentence and paragraph organized arrangement of the original 1830's text. A detailed review and analysis of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon when compared to the 1879 edition of Elder Pratt's division into scriptural verses yields that there have been division changes though not many, which do effect intents and meanings. And a further analysis with today's LDS Book of Mormon even further effects some of those changes Elder Pratt maked.

There are three things which Elder Pratt did in his divisions which do tend to effect emphasis and meanings. A well written and organized text uses chapter, paragraph and sentence divisions to aid in its logical organization of thoughts and ideas and meanings. When one disrupts that chapter, paragraph and sentence sturcture, ideas, concepts and emphasis can be effected, obsured and even change the meanings, or what might otherwise have been deduced from the original logic of the author's chapter's, paragraphs and sentences. Elder Pratt not only divided the fewer number of chapters of the original Book of Mormon into substancially more chapters but he also made a number of seemingly awkward divisions of paragraphs in so doing where one part of a paragraph will be in one of his chapters at its end while the other part of that same chapter will be placed at the beginning of the next chapter at its beginning. This type of artifically dividing of a single paragarph into two separate chapters in not the type of error and change of meaning which we will deal with here, though there are a number in the 'Pratt' edition of the Book of Mormon which do seem to have an effect on ephasis and meanings to be gained from the original text which are lost or obscured in the currect 'scripturally divided' Book of Mormon.

The types of changes which Elder Pratt made when organizing the text into scriptural verses which we are concerned with here are those which effect sentence structure itself, where a part of a sentence is removed from the other part of the original sentence. Which in our review will even further be effected by the subsequent changes in today's LDS Book of Mormon editions. We are here concerned with the Book of Mormon's rendering of Joseph of Egypt's promises, covenants and prophecies given by the Lord, particularly those given in the Second Book of Nephi Chapter 2 in the original 1830 edition and in chapter 3 of the post Orson Pratt 'scripturized' Book of Mormons. To Elder Pratt's credit he left the Chapter 2 of 1830 in tact as his chapter 3, they are equivilant as to chapter content concerning Lehi's blessing of his son Joseph and those promises, covenants and prophecies of Joseph of Egypt as they were in the original Book of Mormon.

What will be done next is to compare in table form the contents of the first paragraph of the 1830 Book of Mormon of the Second Book of Nephi, its Chapter 2 with the 1879 edition of Elder Pratt's divided into verses Book of Mormon; and further in a third colomn with today's Book of Mormon. Though this paragraph to verses analysis will be subdivided into sections in order to insert meaningful and significant commentary relavent to this text, it will be important to understand that the whole of it is but one continuous and related paragraph as to its line of logical thought and meaning. It will be particularly noted when appropriate that Elder Pratt has taken to divide sentences placing a part of a sentence at the end of one verse and then finishing it at the beginning of the next verse. And by the current Book of Mormon text what Elder Pratt divided by verse, the currect Book of Mormon has made into separate and perhaps seemingly unrelated sentences that which was in the same single sentence in 1830.

Note: In the following table a slash '/' mark has been placed in the paragraph of the 1830 edition to show where it was that Elder Orson Pratt did divide the long paragraph into verses. Also those two sentences which Elder Pratt did divide and place a part of the sentence at the end of one verse and the ending part of the sentence at the beginning of a following verse is marked in red with any significant change in punctuation marked in blue bolded and underlined for easy comparison. While the 1830 edition is one long paragraph, which ought to be remembered, for explanation purposes the table has been segmented into seven sections to allow for purposeful analysis, explanation and commentary at appropriate points. The first segmented section begins with Lehi's introduction of his blessing of Joseph and those blessing, promises, covenants and prophecies of Joseph of Egypt which he references as a part of Joseph's blessing.

It will be noticed that at the end of this first section, Elder Pratt has separated the single sentence, 'And great was the covenants of the Lord, which he made unto Joseph; wherefore Joseph truly saw our day.' By dividing this sentence placing a part at the end of his verse 4 and the rest at the beginning of verse 5, Elder Pratt has initially casued a potential deduced pattern in which the Lord makes covenants, promises and prophecies unto man. Lehi and Nephi both received visions accompanied by visions which also presented prophetic understanding concering the future. With the sentence in tact it can be deduced and understood that this was part and partial of how Joseph of Egypt also received his covenants, promises and prophecies. He had truly seen the futuristic vision including the day of Moses, the day of Lehi and his people and so on down until the last days and Joseph Smith. This vision of 'all' was not unlike that received by the brother of Jared, Ether, John the Beloved, Lehi, Nephi, Isaiah and many of the other prophets. And with this vision came understanding, covenants, promises and prophetic knowledge of future events. Divide this sentence and the coupling of that process is somewhat lost and obsured.

But this is not all. By placing the ending of the sentence at the beginning of the next verse it does tend to obsured what that next 'verse' or sentence is about itself. And in addition, where Elder Pratt did leave the punctuation in tack our current editions have not. They have altared the semicolon into a full stop period. making an additional complete thought sentence which has been artificially placed at the beginning of verse 5 and does obsure the stand alone nature of the next long sentence's meanings. It is better to read and understand that sentence unobsured by any such verse leading separate partial sentence left over from a previous complete thought and sentence. Just what has been obscured is better explained after one reads that sentence on its own without the 'wherefore' artificial leadin.

Standing alone, this sentence parallels Joseph patriarchal blessing under the hand of Jacob found in Genesis 49:22-26. There it states that Joseph is a fruitful bough whose 'branches', plural, run over the wall. Lehi's and Ishmael's families may be so considered as some of these branches, but also may we in conjunction with this text's presentation come to understand that also Mulek's party was also one such 'branch' of Joseph which had ran over the wall, the ocean, to the land of promise. We ought to also understand that in 'remnant form' those of the latter days also are a part of these branches of Joseph who have also transversed the 'wall', coming to the Americas. Now the Lord's purpose for bringing the branch or branches of Joseph to the land of promise is to raise up a 'righteous branch' unto the Lord. Lehi sees in this his people in their time as a righteous branch as well as their being included in that 'righteous branch' of the latter days.

What becomes significant with this section is that for a real meaningful purpose the Lord stipulates that this 'righteous branch' of the Americas is not to be considered the Messiah. Now without being redundant and totally unnecessary, there is only one reason for which the Lord would have to so stipulate that the 'righteous branch of Joseph' was 'not the Messiah'. And that is if the Messiah was to be descended from the covenant house of Joseph. And again, Joseph blessing under the hand of Jacob in Genesis 49 verse 24 so confirms this that 'from thence', that is from Joseph, 'is the shepherd, the stone [or rock] of Israel.' And that is the design of this text to so show this to be the fact of the matter, that Jesus Christ was that Messiah ben Joseph. And so Joseph of Egypt had to be told that the particular branch being spoken of as being raised up in the land of promise WAS NOT that more specific BRANCH, THE MESSIAH, who would also be raised up as heir to that covenant of the fathers which remained in and through Joseph (D&C 27:10).

Now when this parallel with Joseph's patriarchal blessing is made, then the rest of this particularly long sentence in 2 Nephi 3:5 takes on even deeper understanding and appreciation, that the Messiah will be made manifest unto that latter day righteous branch bring them out of darkness unto light and unto freedom; even to the extent that the blessings of the fathers will prevail to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills, and they all will be upon the head of Joseph, he that was separated unto such from his brethren Genesis 49:26. It all fits nicely together, Lehi's rendition, Joseph's patriarchal blessing, the latter day restoration by the hand of the righteous branch of Joseph even down to the Messiah being manifest unto them. And the day will come that they will be given to understand that the Messiah rightfully stands at the head of Joseph, having so come down under that covenant blessing of Joseph.

Now for substantiation and completion we will take our analysis to the end of the long paragraph of the original 1830 text. Though we have now set forth the main purpose in relationship to this text of Messiah ben David ~ Messiah ben Joseph. This that we may seen not to take out of context, nor pretend matters which cannot also be further seen and appreciated such as Elder Pratt's versafication and what his changes may have caused. Let it be said that more good has come of Elder Pratt's effort in the aiding of the study and acceptance of the Book of Mormon as modern day scripture. But in that it has obsured some things in is matter of taking a many steps forward at the expense of having taken a few steps backward.

This next separated section, so separated mainly to set forth our previous point, now may be seen as a further prophetic vision and understanding which Joseph of Egpyt was given seeing the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Dispensation of the fulness of times in which all would come to an apex or restoration and fulfillment. That is that the covenants of the fathers would come to their fulfillment in conjunction with this great latter day work under this great latter day prophet who would also be a descendant of Joseph of Egypt; as Brigham Young would say, 'a pure Ephraimite'. The reading of these sentence in concert with the whole of the paragraph ought to give an abundance of understanding and insight dependant somewhat on one's own particular degree of understanding and background in the matter at hand. But be assured that verses 6 through 9 do specifically speak of that 'choice seer' even Joseph Smith, as do others of the following verses.

In verses 10 through 13 Lehi continues his presentation concerning the prophecies of Joseph and in verse 12 Nephi's abridgment of Lehi's rendition of the promises of Joseph in relation to his blessing of his son Joseph, may have slipped into reciting Joseph of Egypt as speaking in the first person where it states 'the fruit of my loins'. This ought to be understood as the weakness of men in the process of writing abridged records of events. Today's edition clarifies the 'slip' into Joseph speaking in first person, though Lehi in full event context may have so qouted Joseph, by rendering the 'my' into 'thy' loins, as the Lord would have stated it to Joseph or as Joseph would have received it in vision. What is of great significants is that Joseph received the 'commandment' or prophetic insight to understand that his seed would write as well as those of Judah would write. What Joseph's seed has written is the 'plates of brass', the Book of Mormon and in latter days such additional records as the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, though it is through revelation, translation and inspiration of even early writings of Abraham, Enoch and so forth. Not all these records have come forth even yet. But we do hold up the Book of Mormon as an abridged representation of the 'record of Joseph', though certainly more of those records will come forth in due time also fulfilling the stated purposes in this section.

Now we move into another of Elder Pratt's dividing of a sentence, which will confirm that doing such does obscure from view the intentions and menaings otherwise available. Thus this supports our treatment of the other such dividing of a sentence into verses as we have done just previous to support the premise of this text. When a speaker quotes material from an authoritative source we will say 'I qoute' and 'un-quote' to mark its beginning and end. We thus 'bookend' it. In writing it we will use quotation marks '"' at the beginning and end of so directly qouted material. Lehi, at recorded by Nephi had done the same, and Elder Pratt's sentence division of placing a part of a sentence in one verse and the other part in the next verse had twarted that 'quotation' process. In the original text of 1830, Lehi begins his direct quote from Joseph of Egypt by by stating 'And thus prophecied Joseph,'. That is the beginning quotation. Lehi then also indicates when this directly quoted material ends by again stating, 'thus prophesied Joseph'. These are beginning and ending bookend quotes surrounding the material presented in this next section of verses 14 and 15. As seen as a directly quoted delivery it is easily seen and understood. What is not so easily seen and understood is what is lost and obsured when the 'ending quotation' indicator is truncated from the end of the quote and artificially placed as the beginning of the next set of though and material. We will present this change of meaning caused by this artificial division in the next section segments.

In Elder Pratt's initial division, he does maintain the punctuation though he divides the sentence between two separate verses. Based upon his division, today's edition has gone even further in changing the punctuation, replacing a semi-colon with a full stop period and changing a full stop period to a colon. This in effect takes the ending quote from Joseph's quoted statement and erroneously indicates that Joseph of Egpyt is still talking when in fact Lehi has ended his quotation of Joseph and is now speaking again himself in his own first person. This robs us of Lehi great testimony to the coming forth of Joseph Smith which he so eloquently gives. Consider this next section as Lehi speaking it as it is properly separated from any beginning quote from Joseph of Egypt.

Lehi testifies that he is as sure of the coming of the Prophet Joseph Smith he is of the past fact of the coming of Moses. Now that is beautiful. Lehi's faith is just as sure about a future prophetic event which Joseph of Egypt has testified of and as Lehi has also likely seen in vision himself, as he is as sure of past historical events such as the coming of Moses. Also, not only had Joseph of Egypt been told that his seed would be preserved but Lehi had also been told of the Lord that his seed would be preserved as well. Then Lehi reports the prophecy made concerning Moses who had come already and that Moses gave the law but that he had to have a spokesman in Aaron to so assist him. This would be known facts to Lehi. What is not even more beautiful is that the Lord had revealed unto Lehi directly that such would be a similar situation in respect to the fruit of his loins. Read verses 18 through 21, the end of Nephi's long paragraph which contains much about Lehi's blessing to Joseph from the standpoint that it is Lehi who is speaking and see if it does not make sense that Lehi is speaking specifically about the fruit of Lehi's loins in these verses.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie has gone as far as specifying that it is Mormon, Lehi's descendant who it the writer which Lehi is speaking of here. (See 'A New Witness for the Articles of Faith') Yet he does not take it far enough to also specify that Mormon's spokesman, also a descendant of Lehi, is Moroni as further confirmed by Revelation 14:6. Certainly it is Lehi's descendants as represented by Mormon and Moroni who have spoken out of the dust as Lehi so further specifies. The whole of it goes to show what can be obsured by such a division of a sentence. In Church History it has been presumed that Joseph Smith would qualify as the writer of the Book of Mormon. He was not. He was its translator. In Church history the identity of Joseph Smith supposed 'spokesman' has varied from such as Oliver Cowdery to Sydney Rigdon to even Joseph's brother Hyrum, etc. When clearly seen as Lehi speaking of his descendants, it plainly becomes Mormon and Moroni, the writer and his spokesman. Mormon was for the most part prohibited from speaking out to the Nephites. And it was Moroni who in the days of Mormon, who would work with the Chruch and the people while his father was at war at the head of the army. And certainly the angel flying through the mist of heaven is Moroni, who declared the Book of Mormon unto this generation, the words of the book from the dust of his people, and not such as Oliver Cowdery or Sydney Rigdon.

So what of all this. It has been shown here that the Book of Mormon as well as the JST Bible, in Genesis 50, does set forth the prophecies of Joseph. It has been shown that the only reason that a statement clarifying that a particular 'branch' from Joseph would 'not be the Messiah', would be if in fact that the Messiah was to come of Joseph. Otherwise it was unnecessary and redundant. It has been shown that the division of the Book of Mormon text into verses by Elder Orson Pratt does obscure in part this understanding that the Messiah was considered to be of Joseph and thus needed such clarification. It has also been shown that other such division of Elder Pratt does also similiarly obscure such Book of Mormon meanings and understandings. In short, the pieces of the puzzle continue to fit and the picture continues to be formed that indeed Jesus Christ is the rightful descendant and heir of Joseph, even being none other than Messiah ben Joseph.

As one additional side note, it ought to me made clear again that Joseph Smith is not the same as Messiah ben Joseph, as that is Christ. And as the Book of Mormon clearly teaches both directly in 2 Nephi 25:18 and indirectily here in Nephi's rendition of Lehi's blessing of Lehi's son Joseph, that no other branch of Joseph, particularly those which have been brought to America, the land of promise, ought to be so confused as being the Messiah, even Messiah ben Joseph. And that Messiah which was to come from Joseph of Egypt as stated in Genesis 49:24 and also implied by the qualifications in 2 Nephi 3:5 is none other than Jesus Christ himself and no one else.