The Book Of Abraham--A Spiritual Perspective

[mfbukowski]

One can live without emotion, but can one live without thought (in the sense of actually functioning).

However, what gives value to any experience is the emotional or affective content so who would really want to live without emotion?

(The Vulcan choice to promote logic over emotion was an emotional choice...... )

Yes, that first part represents an interesting but perhaps false dichotomy. I think thought and emotion are actually inseparable. I think that one could not survive without emotion- it is hard to evaluate logically about whether or not life is worth living while one is running, rather emotionally from a bear attack, screaming for one's life!

I suspect that everyone ultimately has an emotional "axe to grind" which is probably what actually generates most "intellectual" agendas.

Edited April 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

Both a 300 lb man and a 100 lb man may be weighed by the same scale. Using the same scale doesn't make them equal, certainly not in terms of weight. But, I am familiar with the way in which you seem to interpret statements that clearly say up, to mean down, metaphorically speaking. How you can read equality into a passage filled with expression of divergent governance, divergent times and manor of reckoning, greater and lessor, above and below, etc. is a mystery to me. But, as always, to each their own.

Not "scale" in the sense of weighing. "Scale" in the sense of a graduated line for measurement--think in terms of an axis or tape measure.

I don't think you are reading Abraham 3 in its Christian context, and are not appreciating how radical it was. The key to this chapter is the word "notwithstanding" in verse 18.

It says that heaven and earth are of the same species, as are God and humanity. It's an allegory. It notes that some planets (like the moon) are higher and slower than others (like the earth), and that just because the moon is higher and slower than the earth doesn't mean that there isn't a planet (the sun) still higher and slower. Likewise--and this is the moral of the story--"notwithstanding" that God may be more intelligent than we are, he and we are both spirits, and are both eternal and were coeternal in the beginning. What's more, just because someone (including God) is more intelligent than we are, doesn't mean that there is not yet another more intelligent than he. So we are all ultimately equal--just standing in different places. The chapter makes a point to say that God spoke with Abraham "face to face," meaning on equal terms.

So that fundamental equality is what drove God, despite his vastly superior intelligence, to come and stand among his less-intelligent spirit friends and organize them according to his plan. The great and noble ones, like Abraham, were called to rule over the less great and less noble, just as God rules over the heavens and the earth. But by the time Abraham had reached this part of his vision, he had already been taught that despite his nobility, Abraham, like God, was fundamentally equal to the other spirits of the universe, all of whom are eternal.

As far as I can recall, God doesn't say he wishes for us to become equal to him. Instead, he says he wishes for us to become one with him. Two very different, non-equal, precepts in my estimation.

It's more like we already are equal to God in an eternal sense, and God wants us to recognize that, and become even more like him, because the recognition that we are like God gives us hope. See Moroni 7:48: "Pray unto the Father...that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure."

Edited April 27, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Calm]

Yes, that first part represents an interesting but perhaps false dichotomy. I think thought and emotion are actually inseparable. I think that one could not survive without emotion- it is hard to evaluate logically about whether or not life is worth living while one is running, rather emotionally from a bear attack, screaming for one's life!

I suspect that everyone ultimately has an emotional "axe to grind" which is probably what actually generates most "intellectual" agendas.

For normal human beings, it is definitely a false dichotomy, due to the way the brain communicates with itself, affect does not exist separately from cognition nor does cognition exist separately from affect. It is merely a convenient way to discuss different aspects of the same internal event, just as one can discuss position by breaking it down into length, width and height.

[Maidservant]

is passed down from father to (usually) firstborn son

You know, this is something that is on my mind these days. In the scriptures, both Bible and Book of Mormon, it seems to me that a great deal of effort is taken to over and over (in taking the storis as templates), to show the heirship going to the younger son. As I said, I am thinking through this.

parrticularly given the singular use of the word "father" and the specific mention of male names (Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc.) in relation to the fathers, and the conspicuous absence of female names in relation to the same.

Do you (not just you, all men) know what it's like to be female and to have to listen to the "male portion" of all teachings and to draw the mirrored "female portion" out of it (silent but THERE)? As a woman, everytime I hear or read on the male, I cannot say, That is not for me. I have to say, What does this say about me? I have to understand the female gender teaching from the stuff that is said out loud for the male. I don't think men have to do this, they can just listen plainly. EVEN if this passage of scripture really is about MEN leading PATRIARCHALLY and whatever that would apply on a day-to-day basis, as a women, I cannot simply pass by this passage and say, This is not about me. Where it says "Noah", I have to hear "Noah's wife" and I have to ask myself what she is doing (not leading? leading along with? cooking something nice for dinner? etc? etc? etc?) Where it says "Abraham" plainly for you, I have to hear "Sarah" and ask myself what THAT passage says about HER. I have to take the mirror out of all these passages. I don't think you realize that LDS and other religiously seeking females have to do this--do you know what it's like? I'm not saying I mind it. I rather like it actually. I used to think that the scriptures were silent on women, and I have come to see that they are not (for a variety of reasons), and that every place they mention on men, there is a woman there and I have to ask myself who she is and what she is doing while the man in the scripture is doing what has been recorded? Men don't have to do this in order to obey, and I don't think they realize the effort and the--I'm searching for a word--WAY--that women have to do this in order to know what to obey.

To answer the OP, one of the important things I find in the Book of Abraham is the way that the 4 Genesis accounts: Genesis, temple, Book of Moses and Book of Abraham--do NOT match. And I think there is a reason for this; that, in a word, it is meant to be a mash-up in order to get the full lens of truth.

I don't know if I have an overall takeaway from BofA, I like what has been suggested already in this thread. BofA for me is in the details, the clues.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

A quote about Gods from Orson Scott Card's Xenocide, one of his best sci-fi books:

"You can't be scornful because you don't know her," said Wang-mu. "But she is brilliant and good and I can never be like her."

"Gods again," said Wiggin.

"Always gods," said Ela.

"What do you mean?" said Wang-mu. "Qing-jao doesn't say that she's a god, and neither do I."

"Yes you do," said Ela. "'Qing-jao is wise and good,' you said."

"'Brilliant and good,'" Wiggin corrected her.

"'And I can never be like her,'" Ela went on.

"Let me tell you about gods," said Wiggin. "No matter how smart or strong you are, there's always somebody smarter or stronger, and when you run into somebody who's stronger and smarter than anybody, you think, This is a god. This is perfection. But I can promise you that there's somebody else somewhere else who'll make your god look like a maggot by comparison. And somebody smarter or stronger or better in some way. So let me tell you what I think about gods. I think a real god is not going to be so scared or angry that he tries to keep other people down. For Congress to genetically alter people to make them smarter and more creative, that could have been a godlike, generous gift. But they were scared, so they hobbled the people of Path. They wanted to stay in control. A real god doesn't care about control. A real god already has control of everything that needs controlling. Real gods would want to teach you how to be just like them."

"Qing-jao wanted to teach me," said Wang-mu.

"But only as long as you obeyed and did what she wanted," said Jane.

"I'm not worthy," said Wang-mu. "I'm too stupid to ever learn to be as wise as her."

"And yet you knew I spoke the truth," said Jane, "when all Qing-jao could see were lies."

Edited April 29, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[SamIam]

As the JST version of Hebrews 7:3 states, the Priesthood is "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life."

Only specific offices within it have traditionally been based on gender, as in Hyrum Smith's case, and those that followed.

(Hebrews 7:3.)

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

This is one of those issues that I am always trying to remind people of. In order to understand this material properly we have to understand the people to whom it is written. We have to think like they think and interpret as they interpret. When we fail to do so we are prone to shift our paradigms of thought and overlay current societal implications on a people who had no such burden. The gender issue as some would overly here has nothing to do with the gender issue of our current historical model. A little Jewish understanding as it is explained in the Old Testament helps this have more meaning.

To the average Jewish person of traditional instruction it would be readily understood to be a comparison between the priesthood that the Levites of the House of Israel were given and that which was held by Melchizedek and Moses, Jesus Christ and a few others. Those who were the high priests of the Levitical priesthood were specifically limited to the descendants of Aaron as clarified in Exodus 28 and Exodus 40:

Exodus 28:1

1 “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests.

Exodus 40:13-15

13And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

14And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats:

15And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

These two verses define the lineage requirement for continued access to the Levitical Priesthood.

There were 3 other families, all of the tribe of Levi, who were assigned to assist the high priests in their duties. Defined in Numbers 4 these families are the kohathites, who maintained the furniture, vessels and veil of the Tabernacle; the gershonites, who maintained the coverings, hangings and doors of the Tabernacle; the merarites, who maintained the supports, including the planks bars and cords, of the Tabernacle. The point of this being, that when the House of Israel rejected the priesthood by their idolatry and other wickedness in Exodus 32, it was the Levites that stepped forward and sustained God in righteousness.

(Exodus 32:7- 8

7 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:

8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

(Exodus 32:26.)

26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

For this cause, the Levites were the chosen tribe to bear the Levitical Priesthood. However, at first there was an entirely different objective of the Lord referenced in Exodus.

(Exodus 19:3, 5-11.)

3 And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord ^acalled unto him out of the ^bmountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel….

7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people…

In these verses he is speaking to the entire House of Israel and covenants with them that if they are obedient and keep his covenant the priesthood will be shared amongst all the tribes. However, on a least one count (and a couple of others if you look carefully), the people failed to keep his covenant. The capstone being their rejection of the commandment to make no graven image which they insisted Aaron make for them in Exodus 32. The very issue that became the selection criteria for the Levites became the rejection criteria for the rest of Israel - idolatry. The point of all this development was to illustrate the verse you referenced in your comment:

(Hebrews 7:3.)

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

While the statement itself is defining the Melchizedek priesthood, it is defining it in terms that draw the clearest of distinctions to the Jews and to those who understand the history and culture of the House of Israel. They are very aware that to be a holder of the Levitical priesthood it is only by virtue of who is your Father and who is your mother. This priesthood descends, from one generation to the next, only through the male children of one who possesses the Levitical Priesthood. There is one more piece that is not obvious to the average non – Jewish person. While the right of priesthood is attached to whom is the father, the lineage follows the mother. For instance, if a Levite man marries a gentile wife the offspring are no longer counted as of the tribe of Levi. They are gentile and are considered outcasts. Therefore, even if the father has the right to pass on his priesthood, the child is gentile and no longer can receive it. If the reverse occurs and the Levite women marries a gentile man, the children are considered of the house of Levi but the Father has no priesthood to pass down. Therefore the Levitical priesthood requires both father and mother be of pure Levitical descent before the offspring are even considered to have the opportunity for the priesthood.

The Hebrews 7 verse above is drawing a clear and unmistakable distinction to a person of Jewish descent. However, to Christians unlearned in the ways of the Jews, the meaning is seldom connected to the proper Jewish understanding and thus they often make wrong conclusions. The Jewish people of Paul’s time were very aware of the strictness involved in selecting those who were to serve as a Levitical priesthood holder – their entire lives were steeped in the rules and regulations of their religion. However, in Hebrews, Paul is describing something totally different – a priesthood – the same priesthood held by Christ himself – that He has the right to hold because this is his priesthood and it is not restricted to only those of a certain lineage. In the words of the verse “Without father, without mother,…”

Why is this significant to the Jews of Pauls time, the audience to whom he is speaking? Why does he need to explain it to them in this fashion. Is it possible because he being Jewish understands the the priesthood culture of these people?

It exists as another great affront to the Jewish people that not only does Jesus Christ claim to be the Son of God but that he lays claim to having the high priesthood which was denied them in the times of Moses when they even failed to merit the lesser Levitical priesthood. He is of the House of Judah and lays claim to a priesthood authority when he is not of the house of Levi. Since Sinai, 1700 years earlier, no general male member of the population could hold the lessor Levitical priesthood unless he was of the House of Levi. Paul is explaining that the Melchizedek priesthood is not dependent on who is ones father or mother. It was available to all those chosen to bear off this priesthood.

Finally, the proper perspective on the gender thing as a Jew might understand it:

Matthew 19:6-8

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath ^ajoined together, let not man ^bput asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a ^awriting of ^bdivorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the ^ahardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your ^bwives: but from the beginning it was not so.

There is no need for a single entity to be described in terms of separate qualities. God never had an idea of separation in a sealed couple and does not speak in those terms concerning it when speaking to the ideal state of existence. No priesthood holder has anything without his wife in the eternities, no wife has anything without the priesthood holder in the eternities. One does not gain eternal life without the other. When all is said and done those very few men that realize they are one with their wives and those very few wives that realize that all that they have is shared with all that he (their husband) has get it. They get it. They understand this is not a gender war of separation but a gender expectation of God to be united.

Edited April 30, 2012 by SamIam

[wenglund]

(Hebrews 7:3.)

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

This is one of those issues that I am always trying to remind people of. In order to understand this material properly we have to understand the people to whom it is written. We have to think like they think and interpret as they interpret. When we fail to do so we are prone to shift our paradigms of thought and overlay current societal implications on a people who had no such burden. The gender issue as some would overly here has nothing to do with the gender issue of our current historical model. A little Jewish understanding as it is explained in the Old Testament helps this have more meaning.

To the average Jewish person of traditional instruction it would be readily understood to be a comparison between the priesthood that the Levites of the House of Israel were given and that which was held by Melchizedek and Moses, Jesus Christ and a few others. Those who were the high priests of the Levitical priesthood were specifically limited to the descendants of Aaron as clarified in Exodus 28 and Exodus 40:

Exodus 28:1

1 “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests.

Exodus 40:13-15

13And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

14And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats:

15And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

These two verses define the lineage requirement for continued access to the Levitical Priesthood.

There were 3 other families, all of the tribe of Levi, who were assigned to assist the high priests in their duties. Defined in Numbers 4 these families are the kohathites, who maintained the furniture, vessels and veil of the Tabernacle; the gershonites, who maintained the coverings, hangings and doors of the Tabernacle; the merarites, who maintained the supports, including the planks bars and cords, of the Tabernacle. The point of this being, that when the House of Israel rejected the priesthood by their idolatry and other wickedness in Exodus 32, it was the Levites that stepped forward and sustained God in righteousness.

(Exodus 32:7-

7 ¶ And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:

8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

(Exodus 32:26.)

26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

For this cause, the Levites were the chosen tribe to bear the Levitical Priesthood. However, at first there was an entirely different objective of the Lord referenced in Exodus.

(Exodus 19:3, 5-11.)

3 And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord ^acalled unto him out of the ^bmountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel….

7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people…

In these verses he is speaking to the entire House of Israel and covenants with them that if they are obedient and keep his covenant the priesthood will be shared amongst all the tribes. However, on a least one count (and a couple of others if you look carefully), the people failed to keep his covenant. The capstone being their rejection of the commandment to make no graven image which they insisted Aaron make for them in Exodus 32. The very issue that became the selection criteria for the Levites became the rejection criteria for the rest of Israel - idolatry. The point of all this development was to illustrate the verse you referenced in your comment:

(Hebrews 7:3.)

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

While the statement itself is defining the Melchizedek priesthood, it is defining it in terms that draw the clearest of distinctions to the Jews and to those who understand the history and culture of the House of Israel. They are very aware that to be a holder of the Levitical priesthood it is only by virtue of who is your Father and who is your mother. This priesthood descends, from one generation to the next, only through the male children of one who possesses the Levitical Priesthood. There is one more piece that is not obvious to the average non – Jewish person. While the right of priesthood is attached to whom is the father, the lineage follows the mother. For instance, if a Levite man marries a gentile wife the offspring are no longer counted as of the tribe of Levi. They are gentile and are considered outcasts. Therefore, even if the father has the right to pass on his priesthood, the child is gentile and no longer can receive it. If the reverse occurs and the Levite women marries a gentile man, the children are considered of the house of Levi but the Father has no priesthood to pass down. Therefore the Levitical priesthood requires both father and mother be of pure Levitical descent before the offspring are even considered to have the opportunity for the priesthood.

The Hebrews 7 verse above is drawing a clear and unmistakable distinction to a person of Jewish descent. However, to Christians unlearned in the ways of the Jews, the meaning is seldom connected to the proper Jewish understanding and thus they often make wrong conclusions. The Jewish people of Paul’s time were very aware of the strictness involved in selecting those who were to serve as a Levitical priesthood holder – their entire lives were steeped in the rules and regulations of their religion. However, in Hebrews, Paul is describing something totally different – a priesthood – the same priesthood held by Christ himself – that He has the right to hold because this is his priesthood and it is not restricted to only those of a certain lineage. In the words of the verse “Without father, without mother,…”

Why is this significant to the Jews of Pauls time, the audience to whom he is speaking? Why does he need to explain it to them in this fashion. Is it possible because he being Jewish understands the the priesthood culture of these people?

It exists as another great affront to the Jewish people that not only does Jesus Christ claim to be the Son of God but that he lays claim to having the high priesthood which was denied them in the times of Moses when they even failed to merit the lesser Levitical priesthood. He is of the House of Judah and lays claim to a priesthood authority when he is not of the house of Levi. Since Sinai, 1700 years earlier, no general male member of the population could hold the lessor Levitical priesthood unless he was of the House of Levi. Paul is explaining that the Melchizedek priesthood is not dependent on who is ones father or mother. It was available to all those chosen to bear off this priesthood.

Finally, the proper perspective on the gender thing as a Jew might understand it:

There is no need for a single entity to be described in terms of separate qualities. God never had an idea of separation in a sealed couple and does not speak in those terms concerning it when speaking to the ideal state of existence. No priesthood holder has anything without his wife in the eternities, no wife has anything without the priesthood holder in the eternities. One does not gain eternal life without the other. When all is said and done those very few men that realize they are one with their wives and those very few wives that realize that all that they have is shared with all that he (their husband) has get it. They get it. They understand this is not a gender war of separation but a gender expectation of God to be united.

Excellent post. I very much appreciate the illumination.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Nope. As I noted above: "The saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him." (D&C 88:107) "They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace; and he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion." (D&C 76:94)

Good point!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

Good point!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The first is a reference to Christ and not necessarily the Father; the second does not say that the Father makes them equal in power &c. with him.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

The first is a reference to Christ and not necessarily the Father; the second does not say that the Father makes them equal in power &c. with him.

Yes, but one could reasonably extrapolate that since the Son is made equal to the Father (Jn. 5:18), then for the saints to be made equal to the Son, is to also make them equal to the Father.

It just isn't made clear in what all ways the saints will be made equal to the Son and/or the Father.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 29, 2012 by wenglund

[Log]

Yes, but one could reasonably extrapolate that since the Son is made equal to the Father (Jn. 5:18), then for the saints to be made equal to the Son, is to also make them equal to the Father.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That citation, however, in the context it was given, does not apply.

" 18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. "

[wenglund]

That citation, however, in the context it was given, does not apply.

" 18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. "

How does the context make it not applicable?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

How does the context make it not applicable?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How do you perceive that the text of John 5:18 indicates that Jesus is equal in power, might, and dominion to God the Father?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Log

[altersteve]

The first is a reference to Christ and not necessarily the Father; the second does not say that the Father makes them equal in power &c. with him.

I think that's just being nitpicky.

[wenglund]

How do you perceive that the text of John 5:18 indicates that Jesus is equal in power, might, and dominion to God the Father?

Since the term "equal" in John 5:18 wasn't qualified or specific to any particular thing (such a power, might, dominion), I see no reason to conclude that this passage wasn't inclusive of power, might, and dominion. What reason do you have to suppose this passage was exclusive of those things, and thus not applicable?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

Since the term "equal" in John 5:18 wasn't qualified or specific to any particular thing (such a power, might, dominion), I see no reason to conclude that this passage wasn't inclusive of power, might, and dominion. What reason do you have to suppose this passage was exclusive of those things, and thus not applicable?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have no reason to suppose that it referred to anything but an accusation the Jews made against Christ, actually, which is why I am extremely curious why you should bring it up in this context of discussion.

[wenglund]

I have no reason to suppose that it referred to anything but an accusation the Jews made against Christ, actually, which is why I am extremely curious why you should bring it up in this context of discussion.

To me, the Jews weren't accusing Christ, but rather taking Christ at his word. Christ is the one who implicitly made himself equal to Father, and this by way of not only declaring his Sonship (with all the rights that entailed, particularly in the minds of the Jews--as touched on by Samlam above), but also by indicating from whence he derived his power and authority to heal the sick, to do so on the sabbath, and to do the work of the Father (i.e. raising, quickening, and judging the dead--see verses 14 - 27).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

To me, the Jews weren't accusing Christ, but rather taking Christ at his word.

I would be surprised to find anyone else agreeing with you that John 5:18, in its proper, contextual setting, establishes that Jesus is equal in might, power, and dominion with God the Father. Nevertheless, wildly varying positions are taken on sundry topics around here, so I'm not saying it's impossible that someone might agree with you.

[mfbukowski]

There is no need for a single entity to be described in terms of separate qualities. God never had an idea of separation in a sealed couple and does not speak in those terms concerning it when speaking to the ideal state of existence. No priesthood holder has anything without his wife in the eternities, no wife has anything without the priesthood holder in the eternities. One does not gain eternal life without the other. When all is said and done those very few men that realize they are one with their wives and those very few wives that realize that all that they have is shared with all that he (their husband) has get it. They get it. They understand this is not a gender war of separation but a gender expectation of God to be united.

Amen.

Each of us owe our biological existence to two very diverse cells becoming one- each of us owes our spiritual existence to Christ becoming one with his Church.

If we were all the same, we could never BECOME one- we would already be. The Godhead itself is comprised of different Gods becoming ONE in love.

It is the natural order of things, it is the central law of the universe recognized by many names- "opposition in all things", "yin and yang" or "The Tao" or even the Hegelian dialectic.

Wishing this was not the order of the universe will not make it so.

[wenglund]

I would be surprised to find anyone else agreeing with you that John 5:18, in its proper, contextual setting, establishes that Jesus is equal in might, power, and dominion with God the Father. Nevertheless, wildly varying positions are taken on sundry topics around here, so I'm not saying it's impossible that someone might agree with you.

I am surprised that you don't agree that Christ was making himself equal (in a non-qualified or unspecified way) to the Father, particularly given the proper context, though I am amused that you think my interpretation is the rare exception rather than your own--not that appeals to majority is a valid counter-argument in this case. Evidently, the Jews at the time interpreted Christ in that way. So, I am not alone.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 29, 2012 by wenglund

[SamIam]

You know, this is something that is on my mind these days. In the scriptures, both Bible and Book of Mormon, it seems to me that a great deal of effort is taken to over and over (in taking the stories as templates), to show the heirship going to the younger son. As I said, I am thinking through this.

If you don’t mind, questions of firstborn is a tangent of your post concerning the Book of Abraham and priesthood blessing and temple blessings as well. Your question concerning firstborn status is hugely significant in the receipt of the Abrahamic blessing which is a point of focus in the Pearl of Great Price. I wrote this up months ago in some of my personal studies and have used portions of this material on another site on the net for some discussion and by massaging the material, I can make it work here. I have deleted a lot just to stay with the specifics of your point but it is still a tad long. I deal in the details and that makes for a few words…

D & C 19:6-12.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore

it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you

this mystery

,

for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles

.

9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

10 For, behold

, the mystery of godliness

, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name

. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

To get to the concept of firstborn it is very helpful to analyze this exchange in the Doctrine and Covenants. This very small sample of God explaining in detail an expansion of the definition of a word, I believe to be a pattern for practically everything we know in the Gospel. The pattern I am considering is that until we know what God means when he states something we do not know enough to make statements of surety.

In the case of “eternal” it is perceived by the masses to be simply forever in the sense of eternal as a range of time. We are after all time-based thinkers as a result of mortality and tend to evaluate perceived time element statements against a paradigm of relativity to a time line. However, when God explains the definition of eternal it morphs from a time based definition to a status based definition with absolutely no overlay of a time constraint at all. This principle is potentially applicable to any time referencing perspective including the term firstborn. I am convinced that the terms that describes deity and in fact probably any gospel principle has layers of understanding - line upon line – precept upon precept layers of understanding. Just as God clarifies the “why” for the reason he is expanding upon their understanding, I believe is applicable for every person who seeks to understand more than early precepts. Definitions of necessity will expand and if they do not you are not advancing.

As mentioned the nature of the term eternal is modified from a chronological perspective which is the natural manner of mortal man to comprehend anything linear to a term of status or standing. Punishment is not eternal in duration but is eternal by the constraints of the nature of the being that enforces whatever length of punishment he determines is required. The thing that occurs to me now revolutionizes multitudes of understanding which are currently changing as I think upon them. It is not eternal because it is never ending but is eternal because its neverendingness is embraced by the status of an eternal being. It is not “when” we are in the timing of events that matters, it is “who” you are that matters and who you are defines what you are.

Eternal by God’s definition falls into the category of I am that I am. It is a comprehensive statement of wholeness that embraces all the actions of God. I do not posit that “time” is not what God meant, but am stating that he took the temporal principle of time that weighs heavily on mortal minds and he embraced it completely within the expansion of Who he is. Once I realized this principle the first place that opened up to me is in terms of a concept of firstborn. I felt it best first to explain why I have come to see this the way I not do to move on into the principles that define firstborn. Clearly there is a pattern in terms of privilege of the firstborn son and by moving away from the burden of first as a timeline imperative we can see what it truly means to be Firstborn.

The problem with the pattern is that all of the instances I have noted in scripture, though I will make a more exhaustive search from here on out, all of the instances have the physical firstborn failing to a younger more righteous son being elevated up above the chronological firstborn. Cain is the elder of he and Able but Able is the firstborn. Rueben is the Elder of the 12 sons of Jacob but the firstborn becomes Joseph and passes to Ephraim his grandson who is the younger to Manassah of Joseph’s sons. Nephi is junior to Laman and Shem is younger than Japeth. Abrahams firstborn is Ishmael but Isaac is elevated above him. The Brother of Jared is younger than Jared and Aaron is older than Moses. Yet in all of these instances and many more the younger sibling takes the role of Firstborn ahead of the biological firstborn. Why?

Long I have wondered if there was an eternal pattern here in this consistency that is played out over and over through scripture as a point to capture the mind to cause us to ponder the implications. I will proceed to develop the points that proceed where this is going to go first and then see if it works in a reasonable fashion.

I am going to use a Book of Mormon story which is so filled with firstborn imagery that it astounds me. However we would miss this imagery for the most part not possessing that sense of how would a member of the House of Israel steeped in Jewish culture interpret the subtle clues in this narrative. This example amongst others is why I shake my head in sorrow when people want to blithely ignore the scriptural implications of an understanding after the manner of the Jews.

The story is that of the return of the sons of Lehi when they go to retrieve the plates. In 1 Nephi 3:11 it starts “And we cast lots…”Lots is not a superstitious method for determining God’s intent. Of course it can be if the intent of the heart and faith are not adequate but it was the same technique used to divide the lands of the Children of Israel when they reached the Promised Land and that was accepted by God. So the question to build upon is why would God choose Laman?

This process of retrieving the plates has many important teachings but the one in question is that this is a legitimate rejection and acceptance of Firstborn heirship blessing and duties. It is patterned similar to the Jacob and Esau transfer of firstborn heirship. God chooses Laman as he has the right to firstborn heirship by his chronological position as firstborn. God does not take this standing lightly. It is Laman’s right to claim. However, firstborn is more than a chronological position it also is a position of being or perhaps status just as the word eternal was in the Doctrine and Covenants 19 verses we discussed earlier. It is a status that embraces the chronology but is not defined within its constraints of order in terms of birth. Instead, to fulfill the right to heirship one must possess other qualifications that are genuine constraints to the receipt of the blessing of firstborn status. .

God chooses Laman specifically to allow him to prove his claim. Laman goes into Laban and fails to secure the plates. He fails. Technically for the moment, that really is no biggie. However, if you will look at 1 Nephi 3:14 the very last sentence is the biggie. Laman forfeits claim to firstborn priority when he gives up and prepares to return to his father in the wilderness.

Now Nephi initiates his claim to firstborn heirship and the transfer of that blessing to him when he states that they cannot return until they “have accomplished the thing which the Lord hath commanded us.”

This however is only making a claim on the now abandoned firstborn right – it is not receipt of the right.

When the sons return the second time and fail again this serves at least two purposes that I can see at the moment. One is that this fulfills what I call a final judgement cycle for Laban. This is a point that has not been developed in this series of comments and I won’t go into it for now but it also fulfills a second requirement which is germane to the transfer of firstborn privilege. By failing Nephi is now provided with the conditions that enable him to distinguish his claim to heirship as unique from Laman’s claim.

Nephi has failed in this second effort and again that is no biggie. However, what is a biggie is alluded to in verse 3:29. The Lord has chosen Nephi to be a ruler over his brethern. This was initiated with Nephi’s covenant which bound him to the Lord to succeed in this endeavor in verse 3:15. Now he has not yet technically fulfilled the requirement to obtain the right but the Lord knows an heir when he sees one and Nephi is that heir.

Nephi is at a point of measurement. I mentioned this is a transfer of first born privilege to a rightful heir. Nephi has initiated a claim on Laman’s firstborn position, not knowingly but simply by the force of his character and his overwhelming need to be obedient to God. Christ also is fulfilling the requirements of his firstborn status. In this instance, I can see where I am tossing around the term firstborn without showing all of the parallels that clearly unite what is going on in this situation that properly identifies it as a Firstborn scenario. These things appear more speculative to some, not understanding the strictures of Jewish Hermeneutics upon which they are based. It is common for people to dismiss entirely the need to consider things from a Jewish perspective.

Nephi fulfills the claim in 4:18 when he is “obedient to the voice of the spirit”, which results in Laban’s "absent-mindedness". This obedience to the voice of his Father (as in Jesus Christ through the voice of the spirit) qualifies him for the selection in 3:29 of Nephi as his heir. Now all of the requirements have been met for a legitimate transfer of firstborn heir ship from Laman to Nephi.

A little more background may fill this out. The Hebrew term is mishpat ha-bekhorah and refers the text in verse 17 “the right of firstborn” and is translated as “the rule of the birthright”. Bekhor is the term for Firstborn and Gen 49:3 indicates its definition and constraints. Reuben is the “beginning of my strength” which is directly translated as “the first fruit of vigor”. Reuben looses the firstborn right in Jacob’s blessing to his 12 sons as a result of being “unstable as water”, or undependable, untrustworthy etc. Apparently sleeping with one of your step mothers is deemed such. Laman displays his instability as mentioned by failing in his duty – he forfeits the birthright.

The term yakkir is the Hebrew term for the responsibility for the father to finalize the firstborn blessing and means “he shall acknowledge” which is referenced in verse 17 as well.

Part of the code of first born understanding is extrapolated using these two elements of firstborn from the Deuteronomy verses referenced above The mishpat ha-bekhorah , “the right of firstborn” is the reason Laman is first chosen to go into Laban. (The Stone Edition Chumash page 1047 commentary on Deut 21:15-17. The Torah teaches that a firstborn son may not be deprived of his rightful share in his father’s inheritance.) It is his right, however in order for it to be completed he must be acknowledged by the father as an accepted firstborn heir. I mentioned earlier that Laman relinquishes claim in 1 Nephi 4:14 where he gives up and the other brothers desire to return to their father. (note: to return to their father shows them as failures and invalidates Laman’s claim – i.e. his father (earthly and heavenly) will reject his firstborn status as he fails to be obedient to the commandments of the father / Father)

It should be noted that in Exodus, the Lord is in the process of redeeming Israel. Redeeming is an entire side subject relative to firstborn status that only indirectly applies so I am going to pass it by, only to mention that when the Lord redeemed Israel from Pharaoh, he identified all of Israel as His firstborn. This is significant in that this sustains the Lord’s privilege to select a new firstborn of other available options should he reject the literal firstborn. Which is what he does when he finally rebukes the men of Israel at the incident of the golden calf and chooses the tribe of Lehi to be his new first born.

Exodus 4:22

22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Nephi initiates his claim, in 1 Nephi 4:15 where he takes up the completion of his father’s request. Now we need to look to the Nephi narrative to compare to see if the conditions are met. We have covered Nephi’s initiation of claim earlier as 1 Nephi 4:15. He takes up the task required of his father (both God and Lehi and analogous to the Jacob request, bring me venison). In 1 Nephi 3:29 he receives the second requirement - the public declaration of the Lord to his brothers concerning Nephi’s selection as the Firstborn, “Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen him to be a ruler over you, and this because of your iniquities?” At this point he has completely fulfilled Jewish requirements.

However, there are still a few other remarkable confirmations that this is a clear process of transfer of firstborn rights to the chosen firstborn heir. One is the blessing and the other is the receipt of the two portions and still another is found in the conditions of first born responsibility to preside as a patriarch in place of the previous Firstborn heir. . The blessing is viewed as a superior evidence of firstborn selection over the adequate public declaration. Once the heir selection is made then the heir must wait until the father doles out the inheritance at which time the heir receives a double portion. The firstborn heir designation comes with the receipt of not only the equal portion given to all of the heirs but an additional portion so that he receives double. This inheritance of the two portions is measured from the possessions of the father at the time of his death. There is more tedium about what is measured by the law but as we are concerned with the spiritual receipt of the double portion I will focus on that.

In 2 Nephi 1:28, Lehi is leaving his final blessing upon all of his children. In verse 31, Lehi prepares to distribute the inheritances. This is typed after the reference to Joseph of Egypt in Gen 48:22 where as Israel was giving his final birthright blessings to each of his sons and the reference to the double portion which he gave to Joseph:

Genesis 48:22

22 Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.

The additional portion is noted in verses Gen 48:8-9

8 And Israel beheld Joseph’s sons, and said, Who are these?

9 And Joseph said unto his father, They are my sons, whom God hath given me in this place. And he said, Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them.

Note that as Nephi is a descendant of Joseph of Egypt and the pattern is identical to Josephs designation where he inherits positions for two tribes so also does Nephi receive designations for two groups of people to be included as his own. (Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge 1890, pg 339, The Eldest-Son [or other firstborn heir] received a double portion of the fathers inheritance.) One should also note the usefulness of the phrase, “Whom God hath given me in this place” as another tying concept to Lehi’s oft stated reference to his last two sons mentioned in 1 Nephi 18:7. Thereafter, he always references them as his sons born in the wilderness, which I believe to be one more connection to the overlay of the Joseph of Egypt story to the Lehi story. Now back to Nephi’s double portion:

The first is reflected at the beginning of the blessings in what is said to Zoram:

2 Nephi 1: 31-32

…and I know that thou art a true friend unto my son, Nephi, forever.

31 Wherefore, because thou hast been faithful thy seed shall be blessed with his seed, that they dwell in prosperity long upon the face of this land;

The second is found at the end of the blessings:

2 Nephi 4:11

11 And after he had made an end of speaking unto them, he spake unto Sam, saying: Blessed art thou, and thy seed; for thou shalt inherit the land like unto thy brother Nephi. And thy seed shall be numbered with his seed; and thou shalt be even like unto thy brother, and thy seed like unto his seed; and thou shalt be blessed in all thy days.

Earlier I mentioned that there were other additional issues that weigh into validating that the Lord has chosen Nephi as the firstborn heir. Careful comparisons with the Old Testament blessing patterns actually identifies several common elements that are met in the Nephi and Lehi tree of life Visions. Even the common reference of “Tree of Life” brings us back to the Adam and Eve imagery, that to partake of its fruit was to have eternal life. One non-LDS Biblical scholar does a fine job of defining her observations on the key elements of the Firstborn birthright blessing:

The Hebrew Scriptures portray the birthright as bestowing not only a double portion of inheritance but also a special blessing, priestly office, the position and authority of lordship, and procreative power. However, inheritance of the birthright, which is distinct from the inheritance bestowed on other members of the family, requires a commitment to serve and obey God, possibly for a future prophetic role. (Israel’s Inheritance: Birthright of the Firstborn Son, Davis, Anne K. CTS Journal 13, Spring 2008)

It is a confirming and sustaining point that all of these conditions are met in Nephi and that the observations of these blessings support conclusion of his receipt of the Firstborn blessing. Also, interesting is that all of these points are met within our own temple ordinances of the restored church. Naturally, due to the sacred nature of these common points, they must be left to be observed in some degree within our own perceptive talents. While, for Nephi, this is a live experience and full of additional information it still represents the gift of further light and knowledge that Nephi was seeking. Still the receipt of the endowment is analogous to the specifications of the blessings of inheritance such as the Old Testament Patriarchs grant unto their children in the sense of a spiritual equivalent.

Finally, the final element of the firstborn role that I have noted, that of Patriarch of the surviving family members, is captured in 2 Nephi:

(2 Nephi 5:6.)

6 Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words.

With this seeming casual description of moving the family, the Lord has encouraged Nephi to record a decisive and final indicator of complete receipt of the firstborns role.

With that observation, my conclusion is that not only does the Nephi / Laban story demonstrate a perfect fit having all the requirements of having received the firstborn blessing but that he does so not only by covering the minimums of requirement but by symbolic presence of every facet that validates the receipt of the firstborn status consistent with the “learning of the Jews” that Nephi advocates is of significant value in understanding his writings.

Now to tie this in tighter to the Pearl of Great Price by going through the Doctrine and Covenants:

(Doctrine and Covenants 76:51-58.)

51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—

52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—

To conclude, exactly according to the principle that God reveals in Doctrine and Covenants 19 to understand eternal we must not think in terms of linear placement in time – that view of eternity-limiting general tendency of mortal men, but instead we must look to eternity to find a fullness of implication. By the vehicle of adoption and independent of their chronological birth order, all who become the sons of God become his Firstborn sons and daughters by being everything that it is to be firstborn, and as such become partakers, with his Firstborn Son Jesus Christ in all that the father hath.

Edited April 30, 2012 by SamIam

[wenglund]

Amen.

Each of us owe our biological existence to two very diverse cells becoming one- each of us owes our spiritual existence to Christ becoming one with his Church.

This sacred precept is further reinforced by the biblical metaphor of the High Priest entering the temple, past the veil, and into the holy of holies, there to perform various atoning, or dare I say creative, rites.

And, while the respective role of the High Priest and the Temple are obviously distinguishable on a number of levels (as man is distinguishable from the woman), they are in some respects equal in importance.

In light of what has been said on this thread and others regarding gender issues, this metaphor of the High Priest and the temple may provide layers of insight into the function of the priesthood, and why it may be that in the past, and at this time, and perhaps even into the eternities, men have reasons, symbolic or otherwise, to hold the priesthood and/or offices therein, whereas the women need not.

But, again, this is heading a bit afield of the topic, and that is okay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 30, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

But, again, this is heading a bit afield of the topic, and that is okay.

Perhaps I can bring this back on topic by quoting the following Book of Abraham passages that speak of the priesthood and "seed":

"I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed." (Abr. 1:4)

"...And I will make of thee a great ^anation, and I will ^bbless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations;...And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father; And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal." (ibid. Chapt. 2 vs 6, 10 - 11)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Perhaps I can bring this back on topic by quoting the following Book of Abraham passages that speak of the priesthood and "seed":

"I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed." (Abr. 1:4)

"...And I will make of thee a great ^anation, and I will ^bbless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations;...And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father; And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal." (ibid. Chapt. 2 vs 6, 10 - 11)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To focus more on the spiritual intent and value of the Book of Abraham, and to bridge my first post with your last post (# 98, assuming you are promoting this verse as conveying the intent):

The book is a testimony that Christ will bring heaven and earth together through the priesthood, emphasizing that the earth (and by extension heaven) means all the families or all the children of God.

If you intended to bold the word “seed” as a means to guide the discussion, it seems that heaven could be considered the “seed” for the earth (heaven is like a seed, since it is where and how our current existence, under God’s nurturing, began), and the earth is the “seed” for exaltation (where and how exaltation, though our joint nurturing with God, begins). I won’t go into all the symbolism the “seed” can stand for, but as Christ is the “seed” of the Father, the word seems to stand for both "the beginning and the end" in both heavenly and earthly things, just as Christ is, since a singlw seed contains an eternal round of birth (beginning), death (ending) and rebirth (new beginnings with new seeds with their own eternal rounds), as do all the people and families of the earth.

Bringing the two seeds together allows the past, present and future seeds, both heavenly and earthly, to operate together for their mutual benefit (for example, turning the hearts of the fathers to the children and vice-versa, a focal point for accomplishing the work and glory of the Father, whose heart is turned to us). The “seed” value of the testament of Abraham (or Elias—bearing the gospel promise of familial salvation/exaltation from heaven to earth) is to prepare us for the testament of Elijah (the promise of sealing those families upon the earth into that gospel), as indicated in what occurred in the Kirtland Temple.

[mfbukowski]

In light of what has been said on this thread and others regarding gender issues, this metaphor of the High Priest and the temple may provide layers of insight into the function of the priesthood, and why it may be that in the past, and at this time, and perhaps even into the eternities, men have reasons, symbolic or otherwise, to hold the priesthood and/or offices therein, whereas the women need not.

We are going to have to get together one of these days.