167 replies to this topic

[Xander]

cinepro, on 25 April 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

I don't know.

Thankfully, it's not "official doctrine", despite being in the scriptures, taught by a latter day prophet, and recently published by the Church in a correlated magazine.

[Hamilton Porter]

I think the Book of Abraham makes the LDS canon more amenable to evolution:

Quote

ordered until they obeyed.

.

I also think the Kolob thingy also fits squarely with Biblical, Canaanite, and Mesopotamian cosmologies, with divine beings represented by heavenly bodies. Kolob is the star closest to God, and represents Jesus.

[epiginosko]

I see the Book of Abraham primarily as a restorative text.  What I mean by this is that we often relate the Restoration to primitive Christianity, or in other words, the early church which Christ himself established.  However, it is apparent that what the Lord was revealing to Joseph Smith was a much bigger idea.  Pre-knowledge of Jesus Christ is clear in the Book of Mormon, but it is very cryptic in the records of the Jews.  If the Jews had not fallen into apostasy, then perhaps the "stick of judah" would have read more like the Book of Mormon, with clear reference to Jesus Christ.  Perhaps the greatest revelation that Joseph Smith received regarding the restoration is that our patriarchal fathers going back to Adam understood the plan of salvation.  What a magnificent revelation!  It circumscribes all things into one great whole.  It declares the universality of the atonement.  It restores the knowledge long lost within Judah of God's plan to redeem His people; the knowledge which fulfills the Abrahamic covenant.

[mfbukowski]

wenglund, on 25 April 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

It has been awhile since there has been active discussion here about the Book of Abraham. I suspect this is because, among other things, the way in which the topic is often discussed here can be quite off-putting to many--in part, I suspect, because of too frequent repelling acrimony and the somewhat esoteric academic approaches employed.

For a change, I would like to have a discussion on this topic that has greater and more wide-spread appeal and mutually beneficial results.

So, while participants are free to discuss here whatever they wish about the Book of Abraham, I desire that the focus be less on academics and more on the spiritual.

What I do not wish to see in this thread are insults, ax grinding, ridicule, dismissals, rancor, grandstanding, or anything of the sort, and I fully intend to resist my own natural inclinations and set a good example.

Let's demonstrate that we can we can actually have a lengthy and  productive discussion on the this topic.

To get things started, let me ask what you think is the intent of the Book of Abraham, and what value may be derived therefrom?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just found the thread- maybe this has been said, but it holds the keys to understanding the endowment.

[mfbukowski]

Cobalt-70, on 25 April 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

Although I don't think the Book of Abraham is actually a translation of the papyri he received from Chandler, I think: (1) that Smith sincerely believed it was a translation (in other words, it was not a fraud), and (2) that Smith believed that the papyri contained esoteric secrets that might shed light on the wisdom of the ancients. I see the Book of Abraham as a continuation of Smith's translation of the bible--effectively as a "lost book" that one might imagine to have been part of the bible but wasn't. Thus, I think the work has the same value as the Joseph Smith translation--as an inspired amplification and variation on biblical themes, with a particularly esoteric bent. From a spiritual perspective, the fact that it is not a real translation of the Chandler papyri is not really important.

Pretty much agree.

[wenglund]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 25 April 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

That's just my interpretation. I don't come at the scriptures thinking that every word in them is God-breathed and inspired and inerrant. They are instead filtered through the biases of each historical figure's culture and personal perspectives and concerns. I don't think Joshua's campaign in which he slaughters innocent children was inspired by God, and I don't think Elisha's supposed cursing of the kids to be devoured by she-bears is some vigorous demonstration of His power, but there's a lot of crazy stuff like that in the scriptures which is never explicitly stated to be a "false tradition."

The point is that we have to judge for ourselves whether historical figures are upholding the works of Justice, or we will have abrogated our personal responsibility to prove all things and hold fast only to that which is Good. In this case, I cannot see any Good reason why God would withhold the cosmological Priesthood from women, since He has elsewhere explicitly stated that it is "without father" and "without mother", a statement which seems to be continually ignored.

However, history is absolutely full of fallible men denying women every conceivable thing one could imagine, while claiming that "God said so" in whatever historical document they've doctored to justify their sins. Since I have never heard a satisfactory reason for why women shouldn't hold the cosmological Priesthood in order to help administer ordinances to others, and since God requires in Isaiah 1:18 that we "come now, and let us reason together" and later goes on to explicitly state that this Priesthood order is without father or mother (ie, there is no gender requirement), and since I have ample evidence that men have treated women unfairly throughout history, and since God explicitly states that if the work of Justice were to be destroyed Gods cease to be Gods, then I simply have to conclude that this is a false tradition. I can't see any way around it.  



No. It is the Kingdom of pharaoh which was imitating the order established by the fathers [plural] in the first generations [plural], in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in [during] the reign of Adam. The pharaohs tried to "claim it from Noah, through Ham" -- "the government of Ham [...] was patriarchal" -- and "therefore [Abraham's] father was led away by their idolatry." Ie, in the reign of Adam ("Many" - "the first generations"), there were men who set up patriarchal (pater, "father" + archein, "to rule") governments.

D&C 121 says that "we have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." The problem is that patriarchal governments set up a system revolving solely around males. It is the exact same problem as matriarchal governments which downplay males. The problem is not which gender is grasping for unrighteous dominion; the problem is that humans are using their mere gender as a pretext to "exercise authority over [others]; and [...] to put heavy burdens upon their backs, and drive them as they would a dumb a$$" (Mosiah 21:3) and "to do all manner of iniquity, [...] to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world." (3 Nephi 6:15)

Pretending that one's gender is the qualifying feature for stewardship responsibilities is wrong; it is only Wisdom and Intelligence which were upheld in the Divine Council. It is an act of unrighteous dominion to claim sole responsibility for the cosmological Priesthood which is "without father, without mother."

Incidentally, if the Dove of the Holy Spirit of Wisdom is, as I've speculated, the Goddess-symbol of Lady Wisdom Herself, we have an interesting moment in 1 Nephi 10:22 where "the Holy Ghost giveth authority that [Nephi] should speak these things, and deny them not." "Tell us, by what authority doest thou these things? or who is he that gave thee this authority?" (Luke 20:2) "And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." Of course, we all remember that Luke 3:22 says that "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." And in the additional scriptures of the Restoration, we also know that Figure 7 of the hypocephalus "represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove."



Of course Abraham thinks that. He's been brought up in a completely patriarchal culture. That doesn't make him correct. He was a good, sincere man. He wasn't perfect.



If we all become Adam in the Temple, we all take on the name of the Firstborn. We all become heirs. We all become Anointed Ones by upholding the works of Justice; if we unjustly withhold the cosmological Priesthood which is without father or mother from women, we will have tried to thwart the workings of justice, which just never goes well.

That is a very creative interpretation. I hope you didn't pull any muscles with that stretch. LOL

For my part, I am not ashamed of being a man or reserving to man manly things, including the epitome of manliness personified in the term "father." I don't see evil or wrong, per se, in a patriarchal priesthood or government because for me the priesthood is more about service than power, but that may just be me. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'm not ashamed of being a man either. I am ashamed of men who think that being a man gives them some sort of exclusive right to a position of service based on nothing but the shape of their genitalia, especially absent any actual argument in their favor.

[Log]

wenglund, on 26 April 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

For my part, I am not ashamed of being a man or reserving to man manly things, including the epitome of manliness personified in the term "father." I don't see evil or wrong, per se, in a patriarchal priesthood or government because for me the priesthood is more about service than power, but that may just be me. To each their own.

Actually, that is the root of the problem here.  The issue that some of the ladies, and some of the more liberal men, have with patriarchy and priesthood is the perception of the priesthood conferring higher status upon someone.

It's all about them power and status issues and such, and not about the ability and duty to serve.

Edited by Log, 26 April 2012 - 09:02 AM.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

False.

[wenglund]

Brian 2.0, on 25 April 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Was the BOA the first instance during the Restoration of the pre-mortal life, specifically that OUR spirits existed before we were born?  Was this a brand new concept for the members?

I can't say for sure, but I did a search of the History of the Church by Joseph Smith, and while I found mention of God as our "Heavenly Father" as early as May of 1829, and God was referred to as the Father of our spirits in January of 1834, it is uncertain whether the saints thought of these things in terms of a pre-existence, or as most Christians thought of them (as at the inception of our mortality).

It wasn't until 1839, several years after the first portion of the Book of Abraham had been translated (at least through the middle of the second chapter and perhaps even through the third chapter) that we find more explicit mention of the pre-existence (this term and its cognates are not found anywhere in the history except for the introduction written by B.H. Roberts), and this not coincidentally in an explanation of the priesthood given by the prophet Joseph: "Our Savior speaks of children and says, Their angels always stand before my Father. The Father called all spirits before Him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by him to others. He will have to give an account of his stewardship, and they to him." (HoC, V.3, Ch 26, p.386)

I suspect that presumably like most Christians in that day, the saints always suspected that their spirits existed prior to mortality, though it wasn't doctrine. So, I don't think it came as much of a surprise when the Book of Abraham was finally published in 1842, to see the notion scripturalized. Even then I am not sure the impact of the scriptural declaration hit them with full force.

But, I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 26 April 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[wenglund]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 26 April 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

I'm not ashamed of being a man either. I am ashamed of men who think that being a man gives them some sort of exclusive right to a position of service based on nothing but the shape of their genitalia, especially absent any actual argument in their favor.

While I believe there is a plethora of evidence in support of my perception (depending upon how one interprets the evidence--see, for instance the quote from Joseph Smith above), I don't wish for this thread to devolve into a battle of the sexes. And, so, I will just say let's respect our differences.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 26 April 2012 - 10:12 AM.

[mfbukowski]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 26 April 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

I'm not ashamed of being a man either. I am ashamed of men who think that being a man gives them some sort of exclusive right to a position of service based on nothing but the shape of their genitalia, especially absent any actual argument in their favor.

So you disagree with this then?

Quote

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

http://www.lds.org/f...mation?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

wenglund, on 26 April 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

While I believe there is a plethora of evidence in support of my perception (depending upon how one interprets the evidence--see, for instance the quote from Joseph Smith above), I don't wish for this thread to devolve into a battle of the sexes. And, so, I will just say let's respect our differences.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry- didn't see this.  My above question clearly has nothing to do with the BOA, so I withdraw it.   Perhaps if Jeremy could answer it in a way which brings us back to the BOA it would be appropriate, with Wade's approval.

[mfbukowski]

wenglund, on 26 April 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

I can't say for sure, but I did a search of the History of the Church by Joseph Smith, and while I found mention of God as our "Heavenly Father" as early as May of 1829, and God was referred to as the Father of our spirits in January of 1834, it is uncertain whether the saints thought of these things in terms of a pre-existence, or as most Christians thought of them (as at the inception of our mortality).

Had they been reading their Bibles, perhaps "most Christians" should have seen it correctly.

Quote

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

(Heb 12:9)

[Cobalt-70]

Log, on 26 April 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Actually, that is the root of the problem here.  The issue that some of the ladies, and some of the more liberal men, have with patriarchy and priesthood is the perception of the priesthood conferring higher status upon someone.

It's all about them power and status issues and such, and not about the ability and duty to serve.

Priesthood is not merely the ability to serve. Anyone can serve. Priesthood is both a mystical power, and a social authority. You can say that those who have the priesthood are only trying to serve people, but that doesn't change the fact that they exercise authority over the people they serve, the same way a king exercises authority over his subjects. The only difference is that while a king may serve his people by enforcing temporal laws, the priest (except in a theocracy such as existed in the Utah territory under Brigham Young, or under Moses) may only serve his people by enforcing ecclesiastical laws. He may excommunicate you, subject you to church discipline, and withhold from you the blessings of heaven.

[Log]

And, that contradicts or clarifies what I wrote... how, exactly?

[wenglund]

calmoriah, on 26 April 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

This one is probably much better:  https://byustudies.b...aspx?title=5879

I just finished reading this article, and it is good and echoes what I stated earlier, though understandably it goes into greater detail on the evolution of LDS beliefs in regards to the preexistence.

Of particular interest was the maturation of Joseph's own beliefs on the subject, which in some respects post-date by months and years some of the revelations he received on the subject--which indicates to me that he wasn't, as some may suppose, the author of those revelations, including the Book of Abraham.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

mfbukowski, on 26 April 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Had they been reading their Bibles, perhaps "most Christians" should have seen it correctly.
(Heb 12:9)

As seemingly self-evident as that passage may appear to you and me, the article posted earlier by calmoriah and quoted in my post above, explains how most Christians, and for a time even LDS, reasonably interpreted passages like this in ways consistent with their dis-belief or lack of belief in the preexistence of mankind. Very interesting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Cobalt-70, on 26 April 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

Priesthood is not merely the ability to serve. Anyone can serve. Priesthood is both a mystical power, and a social authority. You can say that those who have the priesthood are only trying to serve people, but that doesn't change the fact that they exercise authority over the people they serve, the same way a king exercises authority over his subjects. The only difference is that while a king may serve his people by enforcing temporal laws, the priest (except in a theocracy such as existed in the Utah territory under Brigham Young, or under Moses) may only serve his people by enforcing ecclesiastical laws. He may excommunicate you, subject you to church discipline, and withhold from you the blessings of heaven.

I guess you don't give many priesthood blessings.

It's hard to imagine an Elder's quorum president excommunicating anyone.

And boy, visiting the sick and listening to problems- there's a good example of enforcing ecclesiastical laws.   Yessiree.

[Cobalt-70]

mfbukowski, on 26 April 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

I guess you don't give many priesthood blessings.

It's hard to imagine an Elder's quorum president excommunicating anyone.

And boy, visiting the sick and listening to problems- there's a good example of enforcing ecclesiastical laws.   Yessiree.

The Elder's Quorum president is an example of an "all service, no authority" calling within the priesthood. Certainly, a very thankless job. But the Elder's Quorum is still the supreme authority in matters governing the elder's quorum. Also, the Elder's Quorum president, and even a male priesthood holder without a calling, is understood to have more authority within his family than his wife, even if she is the General Relief Society President. Though he is expected to receive counsel from his subordinates in the family, ultimately, he has the final say.

"In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father, and in all home affairs and family matters, there is no other authority paramount." Joseph F. Smith, 1902.

"Let us begin by saying that a Latter-day Saint husband or father presides over his wife and family in much the same way a bishop, stake president, or elders quorum president presides over the specific group to which he is called." (http://www.lds.org/e...e-home?lang=eng)

Edited by Cobalt-70, 26 April 2012 - 12:38 PM.