Is the Sunday School Manual Off Base Here?

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with you on this, though I suspect that those following the truth gospel were hard to find--it seems like this was a time of apostasy and with Abraham, God was setting his gospel back in order and doing so by establishing his covenant with Abraham and his 'seed' (those of his lineage and those who would become his 'seed' through adoption).

I do not have a problem with the manual wanting to use this example to suggest that Abraham wanted a wife for his son who shared their faith, but I would also point out to the class that this was not the only reason--lineage was important to them.

Lineage was important because the covenant was handed down through lineage. Then, as now, the covenant was the important thing.

We do not concern ourselves with bloodlines today, but we do try to find mates who can take us to the temple.

We're still concerned with patriarchal lineage today, hence the declaration of lineage that is an integral part of every patriarchal blessing. By virtue of the principle of adoption, however, any righteous individual can be adopted into the covenant lineage.

It's my belief, however, that it would be rare that the principle of adoption would need to be invoked these days, as virtually every living person on the earth today likely descends from Abraham.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's your opinion. I do not happen to share it.

It's an opinion and understanding that I feel conforms to what the Church teaches. If not, I would want to be shown in what way it diverges.

Do you disagree that the Book of Abraham came via direct revelation?

[alter idem]

Do you disagree that the Book of Abraham came via direct revelation?

I assume it came through revelatory process, but exactly how, I'm not sure. There seems to be a lot of controversy over how it was done. Some seem to think he was translating the Egyptian hieroglyphics, but it seems it was not that cut and dried. IMO, if he was just translating the Egyptian, the 'revelatory process' wasn't necessary.

The distinction I make is this:

Excerpts he had translated were published in the Times and Seasons, but Joseph Smith was not finished with the papyrus when he was martyred. Also, the book was not added to our scriptures until years after his death.

Even though it is 'modern revelation', it is not 'modern revelation' like the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith declared was the 'most correct' book. As far as I know, he never said that about the Book of Abraham.

Because of this, I believe I do not have to give it more weight than the Genesis version.

[katherine the great]

But I was addressing Consiglieri's assertion that Abraham's faith was sui generis, a Latin expression meaning "of its own kind" or unique. I disagree that Abraham's religious faith was unique, and I cited the passage in Abraham to show it had been handed down from Adam and that there were likely other people on the earth at the time who adhered to his faith and from whom a suitable mate could be selected for Isaac.

Okay.

[consiglieri]

Lineage was important because the covenant was handed down through lineage. Then, as now, the covenant was the important thing.

I think the example of Ishmael not being adopted into the priesthood/covenant lineage indicates the principle of adoption was not in effect during this early stage.

Isaac seems to be the important person, the one with whom God renewed the Abrahamic covenant, the one through whom it descended, and the one who was a direct and literal descendant of both Abraham and Sarah.

If lineage were not important, I would expect Isaac could have married some local woman with a lot less effort.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

I assume it came through revelatory process, but exactly how, I'm not sure. There seems to be a lot of controversy over how it was done. Some seem to think he was translating the Egyptian hieroglyphics, but it seems it was not that cut and dried. IMO, if he was just translating the Egyptian, the 'revelatory process' wasn't necessary.

The distinction I make is this:

Excerpts he had translated were published in the Times and Seasons, but Joseph Smith was not finished with the papyrus when he was martyred. Also, the book was not added to our scriptures until years after his death.

Even though it is 'modern revelation', it is not 'modern revelation' like the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith declared was the 'most correct' book. As far as I know, he never said that about the Book of Abraham.

For the purpose of this discussion, I do not concern myself with the precise mechanism of translation. I accept as a matter of faith that the Book of Abraham came forth by direct revelation. Again, I feel this conforms to what the Church teaches.

Because of this, I believe I do not have to give it more weight than the Genesis version.

I accept both as holy scripture. But if by this you mean that, in instances where one might conflict with the other, you don't place any more credibility in the Book of Abraham than you do in Genesis, then I'm afraid we do clash.

[consiglieri]

I accept both as holy scripture. But if by this you mean that, in instances where one might conflict with the other, you don't place any more credibility in the Book of Abraham than you do in Genesis, then I'm afraid we do clash.

I think the idea of having to decide which of two conflicting accounts is "true" may be viewing these ancient texts through the lens of 20th century historical methodologies with which the original authors were unacquainted and may have found a bit odd.

Differing accounts give us more opportunities to learn and be edified.

Insisting that only one account can be correct limits those opportunities.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the example of Ishmael not being adopted into the priesthood/covenant lineage indicates the principle of adoption was not in effect during this early stage.

Isaac seems to be the important person, the one with whom God renewed the Abrahamic covenant, the one through whom it descended, and the one who was a direct and literal descendant of both Abraham and Sarah.

It's not clear to me from the record whether his not being adopted into the covenant lineage was due to his and his descendants' own choice in the matter, intermarrying with heathens nations, etc. The prophecy from the angel, "And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him" (Gen. 16:12)is a clue, perhaps, that it may have been a matter of choice on his/their parts.

I think, from the scriptural record here, we lack information and clarity on which to draw a solid conclusion.

[consiglieri]

I think, from the scriptural record here, we lack information and clarity on which to draw a solid conclusion.

You may be right about this.

In the meantime, I would like to thank you (and alter idem and KTG, et al.) for your contributions to making this thread what I consider to be a worthwhile exercise.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[alter idem]

I accept both as holy scripture. But if by this you mean that, in instances where one might conflict with the other, you don't place any more credibility in the Book of Abraham than you do in Genesis, then I'm afraid we do clash.

Are there any areas where the Book of Abraham and Genesis conflict? I don't think I can think of any.

What I see are two versions which are very similar but may offer more or less information and emphasis, depending on what the authors chose to include.

[katherine the great]

"And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him" (Gen. 16:12)is a clue, perhaps, that it may have been a matter of choice on his/their parts.

I can't help but think that if my father sent my mother and I away to wander in the desert with only a loaf of bread and a skin of water, I might grow up with a bit of a chip on my shoulder too.

[katherine the great]

You may be right about this.

In the meantime, I would like to thank you (and alter idem and KTG, et al.) for your contributions to making this thread what I consider to be a worthwhile exercise.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Be sure to mention us all by name in class Sunday.

[Scott Lloyd]

Are there any areas where the Book of Abraham and Genesis conflict? I don't think I can think of any.

Off-hand, I can't either. Perhaps there are none.

What I see are two versions which are very similar but may offer more or less information and emphasis, depending on what the authors chose to include.

I think there is a great deal of information, light and knowledge in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham, taken together, that is not in Genesis. I am grateful for that additional scripture.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can't help but think that if my father sent my mother and I away to wander in the desert with only a loaf of bread and a skin of water, I might grow up with a bit of a chip on my shoulder too.

LOL, undoubtedly!

There's a great deal I don't grasp here, and I readily acknowledge that.

[Brenda]

All of the above seems to assume that the priesthood had been lost from the earth prior to Abraham. I don't believe it was.

No, of course it wasn't. Because of Melchizedek, from whom Abraham received the priesthood. Melchizedek was the king of Salem, a city that was taken up like the City of Enoch. So one would assume that many of his people were gone. But in his lifetime of 600 years, surely he influenced some people who were following the faith, or at least receptive to it.

[Droopy]

Lesson 10 of the Old Testament teacher's manual has the following segment which I am not sure about:

The Old Testament presents Abraham as sui generis of his faith; there seems no reason to believe that women of his kindred back in Mesopotamia would be "of his own faith," and ample reason to think otherwise.

Nor is there any reason to think that marrying Isaac to someone of his own kindred would somehow equate to marrying "in the covenant."

Is the bolded portion from the manual a correct sentiment to derive from Genesis 24?

If this sentiment is different from the scriptures, should a consciencious teacher follow the manual or the scriptures?

Is it permissible to misuse a Bible story to teach a true doctrine?

What do you think?

--Consiglieri

I think that, given time, the September Six will at some point have a seventh member.

Droopy: That's crossing the line.

[Senator]

I think that, given time, the September Six will at some point have a seventh member.

And, given your obvious need to make such a comment, suggests that you would actually like to be there to make sure the door hits him in the butt.

[volgadon]

Lineage was important because the covenant was handed down through lineage. Then, as now, the covenant was the important thing.

Lineage though was through the father.

[Scott Lloyd]

Lineage though was through the father.

True, but the covenant blessed all members of the family. Indeed the intent, as expressed on several occasions by the Lord was that through Abraham and his seed "all the families [or "kindreds" or "nations") of the earth would be blessed."

That's why I say that I say that the importance of lineage was that it was the means by which the covenant was to be perpetuated.

[volgadon]

I can't help but think that if my father sent my mother and I away to wander in the desert with only a loaf of bread and a skin of water, I might grow up with a bit of a chip on my shoulder too.

I don't think though that Sarah was callous or capricious in insisting Abraham banish them. Whatever she saw Ishmael doing, it was obviously very disturbing.

[Calm]

I don't think though that Sarah was callous or capricious in insisting Abraham banish them. Whatever she saw Ishmael doing, it was obviously very disturbing.

And it wasn't like he was just a young boy either....at least not consider thus in that time since he was 13 when Isaac was born and was sent away with his mother due to whatever he did after Isaac was weaned (at what age did women of that time period usually wean their children, I remember vaguely sometimes it was two years or even more as breastfeeding acts for some as a birth control method?)

So Ishmael was old enough to both know the consequences of Isaac being there, displacing him, etc. etc. as well as the inappropriateness of his behaviour, though he may have felt protected from his many years as the apparent heir. He was also still young enough that though the Lord responded to his cries, the Lord still directed his mother, not him, as to what to do, though this may have been due to receptiveness to the Spirit and not about maturity or leadership capability or whatever.

In skimming some sites, I came across one that suggested that God instructed Abraham to agree to Sarah's wishes because God wanted Abraham without a "backup plan". If Ishmael had still been around to assume his former place if anything happened to Isaac, while the sacrifice of Isaac would still have immense personal consequences, Abraham might not have perceived the threat to the covenant in the same vital way. I had not considered it that way before, it has interesting possibilities.

[Calm]

I am curious as to what the Hebrew word that is translated as "mocking" or "playing" by Ishmael generally refers to, as in is it something serious or more in line with lighthearted or childish teasing or does it include a range of behaviours?

Are we supposing that it must be something serious because of Sarah's reaction or does the text indicate it was serious by its 'tone'?

[Nofear]

I find the Old Testament mildly frustrating at times. It seems painfully obvious that a great deal has been excised from the accounts and we are just reading between the lines (for example Genesis really gives us know idea why Abraham is such a monumentally good figure). That's partly why we get all those Midrashic stories.

But, as for Abraham being the head of the faith, if one subscribes to dispensationalism then Mormonism traditionally places Abraham as a head of a dispensation and a fresh renewal of the Gospel. So, while there may have been the Gospel among some (like Melchizedek) it would be Abraham's job to dispense the Gospel to the rest of the "world". This makes the idea that Sarah was already a full fledged worshiper of Yahweh unlikely. But, she may have well had some basic concepts lacking the greater truths that Abraham was charged with dispensing.

In short, I would read "someone of his own faith" only loosely or use katherine the great's kin argument.

[volgadon]

I am curious as to what the Hebrew word that is translated as "mocking" or "playing" by Ishmael generally refers to, as in is it something serious or more in line with lighthearted or childish teasing or does it include a range of behaviours?

Are we supposing that it must be something serious because of Sarah's reaction or does the text indicate it was serious by its 'tone'?

The verb can mean to laugh, and by extension to tease, but it can also mean to fondle, to make out. The LXX and the Vulgate have a fuller verse, that Ishmael was [playing] with Isaac. The wording is identical to what Isaac was doing with Rebbecah later on, in Gen 26:8.

If we don't approach Sarah as the heartless harpy-from-hell, and assume that she had Abraham cast out a mother and son into the desert over a 15 year old taunting a 2 or 3 year old, then whatever it was she saw must have deeply disturbed her.

[consiglieri]

The verb can mean to laugh, and by extension to tease, but it can also mean to fondle, to make out. The LXX and the Vulgate have a fuller verse, that Ishmael was [playing] with Isaac. The wording is identical to what Isaac was doing with Rebbecah later on, in Gen 26:8.

If we don't approach Sarah as the heartless harpy-from-hell, and assume that she had Abraham cast out a mother and son into the desert over a 15 year old taunting a 2 or 3 year old, then whatever it was she saw must have deeply disturbed her.

And as disturbing as this may have been, it also works into the cycle yet another reason for Isaac's name to mean "laughter."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri