This work was first started from having a curiosity in deciphering the truth about Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David.  Even when I came upon the likelihood that Jesus Christ actually had a descent from Joseph of Egypt, did I little imagine the actual great extent to which all of the corroborating evidence would be found to base this understanding upon.  I little imagined that throughout the scriptures, both those of the Bible and those of the newly revealed latter-day scriptures, as well as other such like references; that the case could be so compellingly supported. And I have yet to find a single unexplainable contradictory aspect to the conclusion that Jesus (Joshua) the Christ (Messiah) is both legally and rightfully of the house of Joseph of Egypt, the Messiah the son of Joseph/Ephraim, as well as Messiah ben David, descendant of Boaz the Jew.

Understandably, Christ is Messiah ben David and through Boaz, who is of the bloodline of Judah, by way of Mary his mother who is of the house of David and scholarly considered to be a cousin of her husband Joseph.  Jesus is also the 'adoptive' son under Jewish common law of Joseph, Mary's husband, who is also of the house of David. But legally, lawfully, and rightfully, Christ is also the raised up seed to the dead, of the house of Mahlon son of Elimelech, who were Ephrathites. Why this fact of rightful descent is surppressed and his descent from the surrogate Boaz the Jew is emphasized in the Jewish compiled Old Testament can only be presumed.  And yet, I have only found it to be the 'imagination', 'contrivance' and 'interpretation' of men that have presented that Christ is not the Messiah son of Joseph of Egypt, the shepherd and stone of Israel which was so proclaimed by Jacob in the patriarchal blessing upon the head of Joseph, that the 'Shepherd and Stone of Israel' was stated to be from 'thence' or of the seed of Joseph (Genesis 49:24). In the revelations of the restoration, Jesus Christ there so identifies himself as 'the good shepherd and the stone of Israel' (D&C 50:44), which ought to bring a pronounced closeness of descent between those of the Seed of Joseph, through whom the covenant of the fathers remained (D&C 27:10), and those early church members who understood themselves to also be of the seed of Joseph and Ephraim in their assumed obligation of taking the blessings of the restored gospel to the nations of the earth in so fulfilling of that Covenant of Abraham. Yet that closeness of relationship which we share with Jesus the Christ has been obscured and not preserved unto our proper understanding.

Various explanations of men attempt to explain this away by various interpretive readings of Genesis 49:24, but the simple straight forward reading of the text, without any such contrived explanation, seems quite simple to understand and obvious to be applicable to Joseph upon whose head the blessing was being given.

Yes, I recall in my youth not understanding why the 'covenant blessings of the fathers' had to be divided between Judah and Joseph. But I fully accepted the teachings that it was and that Christ was a Jew and the Son of God. And it was to be the descendants of Joseph and Ephraim who would be those who would carry forth the fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers through Abraham, that the 'covenant blessings of the fathers' would be made available and come unto all the world. It is but an aside fact that such initial youthful impressions of such a seeming dichotomy of dividing the covenant blessings of the Fathers in two, have been revisited and so noted as being a simpler and more logical course for the Abrahamic Covenant to have remained united than to have divided it into two factions. First impressions are not always the correct impressions, but when they are found to be supported in such an in depth analysis, it is but nature to so note them. And this I have done in this text. Yet that early first impression and consideration was not what initiated, motivated or formed this conclusion. It is but an interesting side note that in the case my youthful first impression it did exist and might well have been the correct.

The extent of this study continues. And I continue to find contributing matters which support this conclusion. Only the contrived interpretations and biased preferences of traditional beliefs of men concernng the ancient scriptural matter support such a concept that Christ by right was not the awaited Messiah son of Joseph of Egypt as well as being Messiah ben David. The stick of Judah as compiled by the Jews seem to prefer it that way, the post Christ era of the Rabbinical writings tend to biasedly interpret it as such, and it has been so written in to the traditional annals of 'modern' Christianity based upon such interpretaions and representations. But I've found no scriptural fact to support that Christ was not Messiah ben Joseph as well as Messiah ben David. And every item I have found which can be scripturally support as truth does but cooborate it to be such. Some may conclude that I am biased in my own opinion on the matter. Read the text and judge. I was not so biased in the beginning but only searching when I began this study. And it is only the facts which I have found from the scriptures which have brought me to my current 'biased' consideration upon the matter.

I've often enjoyed a good jigsaw puzzle. There is only one way the pieces of such a puzzle will fit together to yield an appropriate image. When one begins to find related peices and fit them together a picture begins to take shape which can only do so if the pieces are fitted together properly. And as the many pieces begin to be fitted together, if the proper pieces are so fitted, they do continue to grow and all the other pieces will also begin to fall into place and be able to be fitted into the growing picture. If the pieces are placed together improperly, dead ends set in, fewer and fewer remaining pieces fail to fit as all and begin to conflict with the imerging picture which in no longer attainable because the pieces have been fitted improperly.

In my experience of fitting together the discoverable pieces of the puzzle of Messiah ben David as Messiah ben Joseph, the cooborating pieces do continue to grow. And I am quite amazed that no real misfit has been found. The emerging picture continues to grow and delvelop and the many additional found pieces do continue to fit and develop into a clear finished picture. Little by little, step by step, hear and there, line upon line as it were, the piece continue to be found and they continue to fit. Truth seems to cling unto truth and does well fit together. What are the chances of finding so many pieces ready to be so combined into the finished image of Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David being one and the same, the one and only single Messiah? If it is not so, what accounts for the many, many such contributing facts of the matter which continue to confirm that it is so?

  NOTE: "Many a critic finds fault and exception without objectively and open mindedly hearing out an idea or concept. And based upon their own prejudicial world of bias and limited prided knowledge, they choose to remain in their own little protective shell of skewed perception, which they have condemned themselves to living within. Yet the humility of wisdom will listen to and consider a matter fully before coming to a conclusion upon it. And thus the wise may advance to new levels of learning and understanding, progressing forward while those about them do but damn and end their progression themselves." ~ drh

*Disclaimer: Though I do consider this work to be from an LDS perspective, it should be stated that it is not presently supported by any known official position of the LDS faith. The LDS perspective is based upon three facts:

First, I am LDS and from my LDS up bring I have understandably been molded in thought and process from various LDS positions of thought. I have grown up in an LDS home where the gospel standards have been taught and attended my Church meetings and classes of instruction regularly. I've graduated from LDS Seminary with both 3rd and 4th year certificates, I've served an LDS mission, graduated from LDS Institute and received a additional certificate of attendance of LDS Institue classes in relation to receiving an advanced degree. I've been part of many other LDS religious classes of instruction and follow the teachings of the LDS faith and their General Conference addresses of instruction and do study them frequently. I regularly continue to read and study the LDS scritpures, LDS books, and am well versed in LDS doctrine and belief. I've held a number of LDS positons including being the Gospel Doctrine Instructor for a number of years and High Priest Instructor at times. I've worked for an LDS college of and taught both academic and religious courses there. It is hard to consider my perspective to be anything but an LDS perspective when considering my life long involvement in the LDS Church to which I belong. Thus with this background I do well consider that my perspective in this work to be one that is represented and influenced by and large by my extensive LDS life style.

Second, the LDS religion is a 'restored religion' which brings to the world the lost perspectives of gospel truth. In this sense, many 'traditional Christian' beliefs as held by the evolution of the Christian Churchs through time are not the beliefs and tenents held by the 'Mormon' faith. We indeed are Christian, and Christian of the highest order, being Christ's restored true Church and not one which is molded according to the interpretations of men over time but rather by the direct revelations of God. Therefore the flavor and tone of this work is destinctively more from just such a spirit of LDS perspective of not being bound by the concepts of the secular Christian religions which vary so greatly upon all tenets of belief according to their own historical 'Christian Traditions' and even the evolved Jewish perspectives of tradition which do not recognized Christ as the Messiah can not be consider from whence this work is derived. It is from such a free of 'tradition' perspective that this work does seek the 'truth' not based in the 'traditions of men' but rather in the scriptures and word of God including the additional revealed scriptures held by the LDS religion.

Third, since much of this work is structured out of latter-day scriptural material as translated and presented by modern day prophets beginning with Joseph Smith, it is hard not to consider this work to be of an LDS perspective. And while it is not the 'official' position of the LDS Church, as taken from the words of the LDS scriptures in conjunction with the correctly translated Bible of the Christian world, I must well consider that this work has been prepared very much from an LDS perspective. Thus this work is not stated to be LDS doctrine, and other LDS memebers may or may not view this work as being what they themselves believe upon the subject. But the subject itself has been researched, explored, studied and presented from the very much LDS perspective of which I have just explained.

And thus, though I fell that this 'LDS Perspective' is very supportable and quite likely true, I must claim it but as my own. If the facts eventuate to disprove it, I stand corrected. If there is the truth of the matter in it, I do but consider that my mind has so been enlightened of such beyond my own intelligence from the higher source. I humbly state that I will not take sole responsibility for the truths contained here in, as all truth is of God; I will only bear the burden of the errors which may be of myself as but being a man of mortality.