Lost Tribes
May 14th, 2007 by Stephen Erastus Knudsen III
Since my last exchange with the valiant Brother Nathan Steed (a direct descendant from the historical Nathan Steed), I have been thinking a lot about the Lost Tribes of Israel. Although I hate to admit it (don’t worry, I will of course confess to the bishop on Sunday and will probably include it in my next weekly letter to my former mission president), I have been very tempted to fast until their true location is revealed to my mind, but the missionary handbook prohibits excesive fasting, and I have followed it dilligently these past ten years since my return, so I will just have to be patient and wait for the Lord to reveal this to me in His own due time, as he usually does.
But despite my great long-suffering and faith, I can not help but feel a little antsy. I am sure you do, too. Especially in light of President Talmadge’s beautiful prophecy during the Oct 8, 1916 General Conference talk (which I have committed to memory):
“The [ten lost] tribes shall come: they are not lost unto the Lord; they shall be brought forth as hath been predicted; and I say unto you there are those now living - aye, some here present - who shall live to read the records of the Lost Tribes of Israel…”
So, where do you think they are? What have you heard? Have you spent as much time pondering this as I have? I will admit, have some ideas that have come to me at the end of an especially good prayer, but I’d really like to know what other people think. It’s the kind of static that always helps me to refine my tune. So please, won’t you help me?
I still can’t tell whether you really take yourself this seriously or this is a joke. I have always wondered about that Talmadge quote. How old would someone have to be at this point who was there? At least 91, if they were a baby. Unless he meant “here in spirit” which would actually be kind of lame — unless this is one of those things that fits into the press release “Approaching Mormon Doctrine” from lds.org. I, for one, have always believed it will happen and that I’ll see it in my lifetime. But I haven’t heard too much buzz about it lately although I heard a lot while I was growing up, it was one of my favorite church topics, and of course I heard a lot about it on my mission. Does anyone else know anything about it?
Don’t mind brother nudeson, he’s just a big windbag. I collected a lot on it regarding Japan for my MA Thesis. You can see a few of those stories here but most of them I pulled off the old website because I used them in my Thesis. I have been toying with the idea of making some mini video podcasts on the different stories here on this site. Maybe over the next few weeks. What were some of the stories you heard on your mission?
My Dear Brother Knudsen,
I certainly hope you will take what follows in the spirit of meekness and truth. After fasting and praying about the significance of your name, which you so pridefully refused to reveal unto me, and then after opening the Sacred Scriptures at random to Mosiah 26:36, I feel that the Lord has made known unto me that you are in grave spiritual danger of having your name blotted out as you seek strong meat before milk. I, personally, in my immense righteousness, have received a revelation of the location of the Ten Tribes, but I cannot make it known unto you until you confess and forsake your sins before the world and the Bloggernacle.
I await your confession in next month’s Fast and Testimony Meeting. (I’m sure the bishop won’t mind if you go into some detail. You might even think about reading some of those letters to your formal mission president aloud. I’m sure we’d all be edified.)
Eve,
My only sin is being too proud of my righteousness, but that is easily forgiven as I bring souls to the Lord through my example. I am sad to say that I also have fasted and prayed about your name, which I know to be false, and I am in fear for your eternal soul. By their fruits ye shall know tham, and that is a quite condemning bud you are growing, especially coming from someone so blatently proud of being associated with she who was solely responsible for the fall of Monkind.
If, however, you are willing to compare revelatory notes on the Lost Tribes, I could perhaps be persuaded to visit your congregation and bare my testimony for the whole ward to see.
“fall of Monkind”
Is that the gospel according to Bob Marley?
So what you’re saying, Stephen Erastus Knudsen III, is that Eve perpetuated Original Sin? Hogwash! The church teaches that original sin is a FALSE doctrine not a true one. Any self-respecting true blue latter-day saint knows that. I’ve been fasting and praying myself and I have received a witness that you, Stephen Erastus Knudsen III, are trying to lead all reading this blog astray?
Seriously, are you an evangelical in Mormon clothing? Or were you, as I suggested in another post, a brainwashed POW in the war in heaven?
My Dear Brother j-t,
I am sorry that you are so angry at me. There’s no need to get snippy. But it’s not just what I’m saying, it’s what Adam told Heavenly Father, too, “The woman thou gavest me, and commanded that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree, and I did eat.” And because of that, Adam fell (that man might be). I saw it on film, word-for-word as it actually happened. Eve was decieved by Satan and she sinned by eating the fruit — she gave it to Adam — Adam knew that he couldn’t stay with Eve as he had been commanded unless he knowingly sinned as well — and mankind fell into a mortal state. Are you saying that is not doctrinal?
By the way, since you asked me if you have fasted and prayed for the confirmation if I am leading people astray with this blog, the answer is no — you clearly haven’t, and I am not.
I quote the second article of faith: “We believe that man is punished for his own sins and not Adam’s transgression.”
Eve did not sin. Adam did not sin. It was a transgression and a necessary part of the plan of salvation. If you read in the Book of Moses, you will discover that Eve understood that the fall was necessary for them to bear children and to know good from evil so they could progress and attain exaltation if they remained faithful to the gospel.
The atonement of Christ erases the effect of the fall in that all who accept him as their Savior and live according to his teachings can return to the presence of God.
Eve should be honored, not condemmed as a sinner. Condemning her as a sinner is not doctrinal.
Philosophies of man, mingled with scripture. I never said man was punished for either Adam’s transgression or Eve’s sin. I know the articles of faith like the back of my hand, and can play all the songs on the piano (and recorder) without even looking at the sheet music. Don’t be yourself beguiled by the enticing sweetness of downgrading sin to the more palatable “transgression.” You go against God, you sin — no matter what you call it. And yes, I am well aware of Christ’s redeeming atonement. That’s why I don’t condemn Eve. But I’m not foolish enough to think that her sin should be celebrated because “there was no other way” — that was the talk of the Father of Lies.
I’m going to have to go with brother Knudsen on this, j-t.
Perhaps you want to add words to the article of faith that are not there, but the verse does not read, “We believe that women will be punished for her own sins and not for Eve’s transgression.”
Careful reading of the pearl of great price and 1 Tim 2:14-15 (see below) support the possibility that women are indeed punished for Eve’s transgression, at least in this life.
“14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. “
As for the original question about the 12 tribes, I really think I side with Bro. Skousen on this one. They’re in outer space.
The other possibility is that we have to remind people about them so they can discover for themselves which tribe they are originally from. This is the main reason I named my son Asher. So, all of you from the tribe of Asher, stand up!
Jessawhy and Stephen Erastus Knudsen III:
You are both wrong and I will use the scriptures and words of modern prophets as my evidence that what I have shared in earlier posts is in line with the true doctrines of the church.
1) Lehi taught the fall was a necessary component in the plan of salvation:
“If Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
“And [Adam and Eve] would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
“But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
“Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (2 Nephi 2: 22-25)
2) Adam and Eve understood the necessity of the Fall:
“Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.
“And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:10-11).
3) Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, everyone will be redeemed from the effects of the Fall. We will be resurrected, and we will be brought back into the presence of the Lord to be judged (see 2 Nephi 2:5–10; Alma 11:42–45; Helaman 14:15–17).
As Alma taught: “There was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God; a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by us, which is after the resurrection of the dead” (Alma 12:24).
4) Finally I take a section from Elder Dallin H Oaks talk in the October 1993 General Conference:
“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).
Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall (see Bruce R. McConkie, “Eve and the Fall,” Woman, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979, pp. 67–68). Joseph Smith taught that it was not a “sin,” because God had decreed it (see The Words of Joseph Smith, ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980, p. 63). Brigham Young declared, “We should never blame Mother Eve, not the least” (in Journal of Discourses, 13:145). Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:114–15).
This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall.
Modern revelation shows that our first parents understood the necessity of the Fall. Adam declared, “Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God” (Moses 5:10).
Note the different perspective and the special wisdom of Eve, who focused on the purpose and effect of the great plan of happiness: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11). In his vision of the redemption of the dead, President Joseph F. Smith saw “the great and mighty ones” assembled to meet the Son of God, and among them was “our glorious Mother Eve” (D&C 138:38–39).”
The lost ten tribes are probably inside of the earth and will come in their flying ships from under the ocean when the time is right.
There are so many things that are beautiful about this exchange, but not the least of them is the variety with which we can find ways to support the beliefs we choose to support with the words of revered gospel figures, both ancient and modern day. I could go through this and demonstrate why I interpret these things in a different way, but what would be the point? You can pretty much support anything you choose to believe — which begs the question — “why” do you choose certain things and reject others?
I choose to think of the Adam and Eve story as highly allegorical and as a part of our cultural mythology (and I am very aware of the reasons why I make this choice). I believe the story contains themes that can better help us understand the human condition, and one of those themes is the pitfalls of agency, the inevitability of failure, and the ability to overcome that failure as a gift from God.
I choose to think that God would not require Eve to transgress any more than he would require Lucifer to rebel – that there must have been another way. Again, it’s my choice, and I am aware of why I make it, and I could point to outside “authorities” to support my interpretation, but it doesn’t really matter. I respect your right to believe differently (article of faith 11, by the way) and will continue to believe what I am comfortable believing.
Interesting direction, this thread. Not exactly what I anticipated when I first saw Stephen’s post, but fun nevertheless. If there are other Lost Tribes theories, I’d be interested to hear them. I think I am pretty close to being able to promise a video podcast coming soon, but I’ll have to see how busy I am over the next several days.
Rob,
Wow — that jarred a previously sleeping memory. My highschool seminary teacher — who grew up in St. George and may still be teaching in the Mesa/Gilbert area — told us about two times he thought he saw a UFO when he was a kid. Both times, the UFO descended and dissapeared into the mountains, which led him to believe that they were coming from inside the earth rather than from somewhere above it.
Also, both times he saw this he was on the road from Salt Lake coming home from General conference, which led him to believe that the “aliens” were interested in conference — perhaps, he speculated, they were the Lost Tribes coming from the center of the earth to attend conference. I totally forgot he told us that until I saw your post. Thanks for awakening that memory.
If the Lost Tribes are interested in the Conference proceedings, why don’t they just wait for the Ensign to be delivered?
I would send you my advance copy of the Lost Tribes records, but I seem to have misplaced it.
Yes, this is my real name. Although it was changed from *der Wunderhund* when we came over from Germany.
I just wanted to resond to j_t, (btw, it’s not fun to start a long comment by, “you’re wrong,” it makes a person not want to keep reading
I am not ignorant of any of those ideas or quotes about Eve. They are well accepted by many in the church, and I think represent a hopeful view of the way we understand the fall. Glenn, has a good point, however, that we can find support for nearly any doctrinal position we want to take, that feels or sounds reasonable to us. As for my reasons for thinking this way (or at least entertaining the idea that Eve was wrong, and women are punished in her behalf as unequal to men and cut off from God), I am definately aware of where I stand. I have two reasons. First, if I’m wrong, and you’re right, I’ve lost nothing. In your scenario, women are honored because of Eve’s brave choice. That’s great, I’d love it if that were true, but I can’t bet the farm on it, and I can’t handle that kind of disappointment if it’s not true (assuming I can determine the capital “T” truth in the next life). Secondly, based on the inequality I see in this life, and in the church, I want to believe that there is a reason behind it, that God is holding us back from our full potential here, but that we will have full equality, privileges, and access to God in the next life. Because, if the way women are treated now is the way God honors women (as a result of Eve’s choice), I’m not sure I want to be honored.
Regarding the actual question, I would point out that there has been a shift in thinking about the return of the lost tribes of Israel. In Joseph Smith’s time and earlier there was a lot of speculation about the location of the tribes, notably in Elias Boudinot’s Star of the West, published in 1816, which asserted—using a scattershot, semi-ethnographical comparative look at “Hebrew” and “Indian” customs—that the Indians were the lost tribes. What was notable was that there was the pre-LDS belief in their existence as corporate entities (not in the modern business sense, but in the etymological sense) that were somewhere on the earth, in some place as yet undiscovered.
This belief persisted into the twentieth century, but then it became apparent that there was nowhere left for them to exist as distinct peoples that would be recognizably “Hebrew.” There were two responses to make sense of this finding in light of the Articles of Faith. One was to assert that they had gone to another planet or to the center of the earth (I had a seminary teacher who believed in the hollow earth theory because it was the only way she felt she could hold on to the notion of the return of the tribes). The other was the now-dominant notion that the tribes were dispersed throughout the world and no longer knew how they were.
Neither position really helps make sense of Talmage’s statement, which pretty clearly has not come true, unless one wants to indulge in speculations about Slavic Enoch apocrypha and the such. I guess I would just chalk it up to Talmage’s time: he was still a product of an age with an intense millenarian spirit that saw Jesus’ return as just around the corner. If you accept that near-term return as a given, then the restoration of their records would seem a necessary corollary, so he could make such a statement.
While there is still a similar strain of thought in the church (it comes and it goes), I think it is not nearly as dominant at this moment in time, so we see a shift to a more allegorical interpretation of the gathering or emphasize patricarchal blessings and such. In the 1980s, however—with their expectation of nuclear war and Jesus’ return to save a world destroyed—there was a lot of speculation about the Ten Tribes’ location then that I just don’t hear now.
Interesting questions. As a folklorist I think that stories and speculation concerning the Ten Tribes are ways of exploring our attitudes to prophecy and millenarianism in general.
I got in touch with my former seminary teacher. He had a few corrections to make on the details of this story:
Your e-mail brought back a lot of memories. I am a much older and wiser teacher now, and do not share many or any of those stories anymore. (But they are true.) By the way, it wasn’t general conference, it was traveling home from Stake General Priesthood meeting. (From Nyssa, Oregon to Ontario, Oregon.)
So there you go.
Fenevad,
Great post. When I was researching this for my MA Thesis I found many examples of this western colonial idea that newly encountered peoples were connected to the Lost Tribes. There were hints of it with Marco Polo, Christopher Columbus, possibly even Captain Jack Sparrow (although he may have been bible illiterate). But it is undertandable that there would be a strong desire to find physical evidence of biblical themes. The early American theologian Roger Williams (1603-1684) wrote that he noticed traces of Hebrew among the Narragansett Indians. There is a lot of this stuff out there.
The recentl press release from the church Approaching Mormon Doctrine gives Talmadge a nice pass on his 1916 prediction (much to my dismay — I got chills when I first read that prophesy and strongly believed that I would see it happen very soon — I still don’t really want to let it go).