So The Book of Mormon contains a prophesy about how in due time it would come to light via the Gentiles, but we know that Joseph Smith Jr. was a pure Ephraimite. How is someone who is totally an Israelite a Gentile? Bruce McConkie tried to clear things up by pointing out that Joseph wasn't from the tribe of Judah, therefore he qualifies as a Gentile. But the line being drawn in these verses is between the House of Israel and Gentiles, not Jews and Gentiles. The Lehites also qualify as Gentiles if we take Bruce's explanation and the scripture hardly seems to allow for that.
Thankfully there are a lot of other unofficial explanations out there from our more doctrinally-inclined membership. What are we to understand? Whatever the hell we want, except that this prophesy doesn't make much sense. Doubt that doubt. Doubt that Joseph wrote something about himself as a Gentile because it felt good and important, then years later forgot the specifics of what he wrote, and finally came around to telling people we was an Israelite because it felt good and important. You'll straighten things out eventually.
Even awesomer than believing in the truth because you've got a lot of Hebrew is that if you're of the tribe of Ephraim you won't rebel!
"And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land.For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out." (D&C 64:35-36, emphasis added)
So Ephraim just might be the least rebellious of all the believers of Israel. Very cool stuff (even if it's total nonsense).
It really gives you a sense of what the world lost when the blood of Joseph Smith, a pure Ephraimite, a pure non-rebellious believing blood type, was spilled at Carthage. What a fucking waste of the "best blood of the nineteenth century" (D&C 135:6)!
Joseph Smith III, half Ephraimite, half Moggle.
What's worse is that obviously Emma contaminated that blood because otherwise Joseph Smith III would have surely reunited with the saints in Utah. If only we could once again breed the purest of believers...
The very most important thing we can possibly learn during our sojourn on planet Earth is that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, came to Earth as a Man and died for the sins of all Mankind. This is the one truth that can set us free. Believe and be saved!
But how does killing a man like Jesus, the Lamb of God, change anything for anyone anywhere at any time in history? When has physical punishment ever righted any wrong at any point in history?
Does spanking a child undo the goose egg on his little brother's head? Does washing your mouth out with soap undo the bad words you said? Does chopping off a thief's hand unsteal what's been stolen? Does whipping a disobedient person undo previous insubordination? Does killing a murderer bring a victim back to life? How does physical punishment improve the situation rather than merely add more pain to what already been suffered?
Is it possible that the physical punishment and death required by the Atonement have nothing to do with undoing past offenses and more to do with "paying" for them as though God has some kind of price index for offensive behavior? What's the cost in beads of blood for a sip of prohibited coffee? What's the cost for treating your car like an idol? What's the cost for loving your faithful dog more than your dishonorable father? What's the cost of sleeping through 20 minutes of sacrament meeting? What's the cost of neglecting to tell your children you love them? What's the cost of not sharing the Gospel with your asshole neighbors? What's the cost of calling someone an asshole? And why does the law requiring the Atonement seem to be based on earthly laws of economics?
It seems like we should maybe have some answers for these questions. We often pose the rhetorical question "how much blood was shed for me?" but we've never been given the formula to calculate our contribution to Jesus' suffering.
What if our misbehavior actually contributed to something good? Does it still count against us? What if our calling someone an asshole caused that person to reconsider his assholeishness and eventually repent of his ways? What if our obvious boredom in church encourages the teacher to actually put some effort into preparing his next lesson? What if our neglect to show affection teaches someone to be more affectionate? What if our act of murder saves an entire nation from dwindling in unbelief? Do we get bonus points?
Should we even consider the cost in blood of shortcomings? Jesus suffered for our shortcomings, right? How much does being a bad speller cost? How much does knowing nothing about coding cost? How much does being a slow runner cost? How much does being a horrible lover cost? How much does not capturing even one Pokemon cost?
Why do we have to kill someone over any of this? I struggled a lot with this question. Why a blood sacrifice of a perfect god-human? How does this make sense to anyone?
How does an hour in the Garden of Gethsemane and a few hours on the cross by one person cover the sins of billions of people who lived over the course of thousands of years? How is an "infinite" atonement made in finite time? Why do we even need an "infinite" atonement to cover a finite number of sins performed by a finite number of people? How many sins per minute did Jesus suffer? Did he take on the big ones first and save all the little sins for last so he could manage his time more wisely, kind of like in the object lesson of the jar of rocks and sand?
The more I thought about it, the more ridiculous the Atonement became. (On the topic of the ridiculousness of the Atonement, I also recommend reading this essay by Robert Price.) I realized that I do not believe causing one person to suffer makes someone else better. I do not believe that anyone's blood can spiritually cleanse anything. I do not believe physical punishment has the power to repair or repay. I do not subscribe to such out-dated concepts of justice.
