DiscussMormonism.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephraim

Ephraim was, according to the Book of Genesis, the second son of Joseph and Asenath. Asenath was an Egyptian woman whom Pharaoh gave to Joseph as wife, and the daughter of Potipherah, a priest of On.

Abraham 1 wrote:26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Has there been any attempt, either within the hallowed halls of mopologia or the Church itself, to address this issue?

Before anyone wants to quibble about whether all Egyptians were cursed,

Abraham 1 wrote: 21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the aloins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

This invalidates the authority of the church as the restored church of God. That is, if we really take the idea of authority seriously. Which the church always has. In fact, without the idea of authority, there is really no Mormonism.

I suppose if the church just admitted that the priesthood ban was a mistake AND that the Book of Abraham is not true, all this goes away. But if it wasn't a mistake, and the Book of Abraham is true, then the church is without authority.

Remember that Joseph Smith himself was a pure decedent of the Biblical Joseph, father of Ephraim and Manasseh, per 2 Nephi 3.

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/2-ne/3.6?lang=eng#5

So, in other words, in the "it's us verses the Catholics" authority game Mormons like to play, the Catholics win hands down. No contest.

Buffalo wrote:So, in other words, in the "it's us verses the Catholics" authority game Mormons like to play, the Catholics win hands down. No contest.

Yeah, but that was always a silly game to begin with on account of neglecting the Eastern Orthodox Church. I think all of the "linear authority" claims are historically problematic, but I'd rate the executive order as having the best case. To varying degrees, Anglicans, Baptists, and even Methodists all have authority claims as well.

I have no idea how Mormons would respond to this Asenath stuff. I'd never considered it.

MsJack wrote:

Buffalo wrote:So, in other words, in the "it's us verses the Catholics" authority game Mormons like to play, the Catholics win hands down. No contest.

Yeah, but that was always a silly game to begin with on account of neglecting the Eastern Orthodox Church. I think all of the "linear authority" claims are historically problematic, but I'd rate the executive order as having the best case. To varying degrees, Anglicans, Baptists, and even Methodists all have authority claims as well.

I have no idea how Mormons would respond to this Asenath stuff. I'd never considered it.

Agreed that it's a silly game. But "authority" is always at the heart of Mormon truth claims. Even when prophets get something spectacularly wrong, they're still God's prophets because of the authority thing. This is especially true for anyone who's served a mission. The authority thing is all encompassing.

You're right, no one remembers the executive order Church.

Buffalo wrote:
Agreed that it's a silly game. But "authority" is always at the heart of Mormon truth claims. Even when prophets get something spectacularly wrong, they're still God's prophets because of the authority thing. This is especially true for anyone who's served a mission. The authority thing is all encompassing.

At least some of these other churches can trace their lineage using actual people. The Mormon church can only trace their authority back to Joseph Smith. After that they have to take his word that ghosts gave him the priesthood.

To be honest, if the Church cannot show when the Priesthood was restored (it can't) then it really has no right to claim this authority at all.

DarkHelmet wrote:

Buffalo wrote:
Agreed that it's a silly game. But "authority" is always at the heart of Mormon truth claims. Even when prophets get something spectacularly wrong, they're still God's prophets because of the authority thing. This is especially true for anyone who's served a mission. The authority thing is all encompassing.

At least some of these other churches can trace their lineage using actual people. The Mormon church can only trace their authority back to Joseph Smith. After that they have to take his word that ghosts gave him the priesthood.

Absolutely. And per revealed scripture, Joseph was not entitled to it.

Actually, even post-1978 Mormons weren't entitled to the priesthood, since Kimball would not have had any sort of authority to revoke the ban (which also was invoked without authority).

And poof! Mormonism disappears in a puff of logic.

Well, the church can always claim the Book of Abraham is not doctrine because the papyrus was just a common funeral scroll. That would restore their authority claims and end the Book of Abraham controversy at the same time. 2 birds with one stone.

DarkHelmet wrote:Well, the church can always claim the Book of Abraham is not doctrine because the papyrus was just a common funeral scroll. That would restore their authority claims and end the Book of Abraham controversy at the same time. 2 birds with one stone.

Yup.

Your move, Monson.