The Book Of Abraham--A Spiritual Perspective

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

We went over that in the other thread. Personally, I think the "government of Ham, which was patriarchal" was instituted "in the first generations" "by the fathers" (note the plural in both instances; cf. "false traditions of") sometime within the reign of Adam [and therefore Eve] ( Adam & Eve = "Archetypal Firstborn Everyman and Everywoman we all become in the Temple in order to retrace our individual Fall to Mortality and Ascension to Exaltation" = both names meaning "Many" [Moses 1:34, 4:26] = "previous generations of Mankind").

This "government of Ham, which was patriarchal", like so very many cultures, chauvinistically sacralized an exclusively male Priesthood role (cf "philosophies of men mingled with scripture"), despite the equal claims by females to the cosmological Shepherding order (the complimentary "Priestesshood of the Bee" passed down from the beginning of time, yea, even before the foundation of the earth, as evidenced by Deborah, among so many others).

This non-gendered cosmological order was that of the Anointed One (elected by common consent by the multi-gendered Divine Council) whose life was a Template for the path to theosis, who "imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also," which order is explicitly said to be "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life."

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I am curious about what you may make of verses 2 - 4 and 25 - 26 of Abr. 1, which speak of: "the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same...I became a rightful heir, a ^fHigh Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers. It was ^aconferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the ^bfirstborn, or the first man, who is ^cAdam, or first father, through the fathers unto me. I sought for mine ^aappointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the ^bfathers concerning the seed....Now the first ^agovernment of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that ^aorder established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the ^bblessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood" (emphasis mine)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If the Book of Abraham parallels the biblical use of "fathers," then the term should be conceptualized as gender inclusive.

The Greek and Hebrew terms traditionally translated “fathers” (’âbôt, pateres) can refer to actual “fathers” (male parents), to mothers and fathers (“parents”; see Heb. 11:23), or to past generations (“ancestors”). First Samuel 12:6 reads, “It is the LORD who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your ancestors (’âbôt) up out of Egypt” (NIVI). Since Samuel is speaking of many past generations, and since both men and women came out of Egypt, “ancestors” represents an accurate translation. The NASB renders the verse, “It is the LORD…who brought your fathers up from the land of Egypt.” This is less precise because it does not clearly refer to generations of long ago and because it seems to exclude women. The NIV uses “forefathers,” which is better, but still may suggest the exclusion of women. In this case, the inclusive “ancestors” clearly represents the most accurate translation of the Hebrew text.

Source:

http://www.equip.org...language-debate

Edited April 26, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim

[rodheadlee]

Wow. How was it possible that the editors of the Ensign could allow Brigham Young's "wandering earth" theory to feature in an article dated only 15 years ago?

Why is that more outrageous than this? Isaiah 65:

17 ¶ For, behold, I ^acreate new ^bheavens and a ^cnew ^dearth: and the ^eformer shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

or this ? Revelations21:

1 And I saw a ^anew ^bheaven and a new ^cearth: for the first heaven and the first ^dearth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

[Log]

If the Book of Abraham parallels the biblical use of "fathers," then the term should be conceptualized as gender inclusive.

That's a conditional statement with an antecedent that can presumptively be negated both because of the specific references to Adam and Noah, while assigning them the title of Father, and the references to patriarchy.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Log

[wenglund]

We went over that in the other thread. Personally, I think the "government of Ham, which was patriarchal" was instituted "in the first generations" "by the fathers" (note the plural in both instances; cf. "false traditions of") sometime within the reign of Adam [and therefore Eve] ( Adam & Eve = "Archetypal Firstborn Everyman and Everywoman we all become in the Temple in order to retrace our individual Fall to Mortality and Ascension to Exaltation" = both names meaning "Many" [Moses 1:34, 4:26] = "previous generations of Mankind").

This "government of Ham, which was patriarchal", like so very many cultures, chauvinistically sacralized an exclusively male Priesthood role (cf "philosophies of men mingled with scripture"), despite the equal claims by females to the cosmological Shepherding order (the complimentary "Priestesshood of the Bee" passed down from the beginning of time, yea, even before the foundation of the earth, as evidenced by Deborah, among so many others).

This non-gendered cosmological order was that of the Anointed One (elected by common consent by the multi-gendered Divine Council) whose life was a Template for the path to theosis, who "imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also," which order is explicitly said to be "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life."

I couldn't find any mention of the "false traditions" in the first chapter of Abraham. What I found instead, was that the patriarchal government of Ham was an imitation of "that ^aorder established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father" (verse 26).

And, far from being a function of chauvinism, Abraham seems to suggest that government or priesthood or order is a product of "having been myself a follower of ^brighteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great ^cknowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many ^dnations, a prince of peace, and ^edesiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a ^fHigh Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers."( verse 2)

The problem with Ham and Pharaoh wasn't the patriarchal government and/or their priesthood order, or the lack of righteousness (see verse 26), but "that lineage by which he could not have the right of ^aPriesthood," (verse 27)

And, while I understand that the word "Adam" may at times refer to "many," including women, I think in this case it clearly refers to the ^bfirstborn, or the first man, who is ^cAdam, or first father (note the singular of man and father).

So, I am not sure how you came up with your unique interpretation of the first chapter of Abraham, but to each their own.

If it is of any consolation, in the first chapter, verse 18, I think you may find some wiggle room for your notion of a gender-less priesthood, where the priesthood is equated with taking upon the name of Jehovah, which is something that both male and female do in the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If the Book of Abraham parallels the biblical use of "fathers," then the term should be conceptualized as gender inclusive.

The Greek and Hebrew terms traditionally translated “fathers” (’âbôt, pateres) can refer to actual “fathers” (male parents), to mothers and fathers (“parents”; see Heb. 11:23), or to past generations (“ancestors”). First Samuel 12:6 reads, “It is the LORD who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your ancestors (’âbôt) up out of Egypt” (NIVI). Since Samuel is speaking of many past generations, and since both men and women came out of Egypt, “ancestors” represents an accurate translation. The NASB renders the verse, “It is the LORD…who brought your fathers up from the land of Egypt.” This is less precise because it does not clearly refer to generations of long ago and because it seems to exclude women. The NIV uses “forefathers,” which is better, but still may suggest the exclusion of women. In this case, the inclusive “ancestors” clearly represents the most accurate translation of the Hebrew text.

Source:

http://www.equip.org...language-debate

I can see how in various scriptural passages the term "fathers" can be used in the gender inclusive way that you suggest. I am just not sure it is meant that way in the first chapter of Abraham, particularly 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. (I just notice that Log has astutely made a similar point)

However, what you suggest is worthy of consideration.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 26, 2012 by wenglund

[CV75]

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?

I think the intent is to fairly and explicitly testify on several levels exactly how the Gospel (Jesus) and its (His) beneficiaries are not of this world, and yet this world is essential for realizing a fulness of joy in the other world, and that the "other world" has identifiable points of reference relative to this world (before, during, and after this world), and is also eternal in relation to this world. It testifies how heaven and earth are brought together by and through the Priesthood (the Holy Order After the Son of God).

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I couldn't find any mention of the "false traditions" in the first chapter of Abraham.

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.

What I found instead, was that the patriarchal government of Ham was an imitation of "that aorder established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father" (verse 26).

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."

And, far from being a function of chauvinism, Abraham seems to suggest that government or priesthood or order is a product of "having been myself a follower of brighteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great cknowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many dnations, a prince of peace, and edesiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a fHigh Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers."( verse 2)

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.

And, while I understand that the word "Adam" may at times refer to "many," including women, I think in this case it clearly refers to the bfirstborn, or the first man, who is cAdam, or first father (note the singular of man and father).

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.

Edited April 26, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Log]

Without "alternate" voices, this board would be booooorrrrriiiinnnngggg.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

[Edit: On second thought, that image was probably inappropriate. But admit it, you laughed too. ]

Edited April 26, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Brian 2.0]

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 grew up with it obviously, and I thought that it was a shared concept throughout all Christianity. It was only later that I realized that the concept of a Pre-Earth was fairly unique to Mormon doctrine.

I know they generally knew about a War in Heaven and that Jesus and Lucifer offered different plans. But was this the first time people found out that THEY were there during that War in Heaven, and had made choices on who to follow, resulting in their keeping of their 1st Estate?

Don't think anyone has answered this yet. I'm assuming the Book of Abraham was the first time the early saints were made aware of their existence in a pre-mortal realm. Or was Joseph Smith teaching this doctrine before the BoA was translated?

Edited April 26, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[Calm]

Don't know how good this is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existence

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

Perhaps no doctrine has had greater impact on Latter-day Saint theology than the doctrine of preexistence, or the belief in the existence of the human spirit before its mortal birth. Fundamental concepts such as the nature of man as an eternal being, his singular relationship as the offspring of Deity and concomitant brotherhood with all mankind, the talents and privileges with which he is born into the world, and his potential godhood are all inextricably connected to the doctrine of preexistence. This distinctive LDS doctrine was not immediately comprehended by the early Saints in the more fully developed form in which it is understood today.

Like many of the other teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, it was revealed line upon line and adapted to the Saints’ understanding. Moreover, there was a natural tendency to view initial teachings on preexistence in light of previously held beliefs until greater clarity was given to the doctrine. This study traces the early development of the doctrine by examining chronologically the revelations and recorded sermons and writings on preexistence by the Prophet Joseph Smith in light of contemporary commentary by his associates. Seeing how early Saints perceived preexistence enhances our own understanding of the doctrine and leads to a greater appreciation of our theological heritage.

Edited April 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[Cobalt-70]

Just curious, what then do you think it was exactly?

It is the inspired words of scripture that Abraham might have written, had he been the author of the Hor scroll.

[Cobalt-70]

Why is that more outrageous than this? Isaiah 65:

17 ¶ For, behold, I ^acreate new ^bheavens and a ^cnew ^dearth: and the ^eformer shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

or this ? Revelations21:

1 And I saw a ^anew ^bheaven and a new ^cearth: for the first heaven and the first ^dearth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

First, these are talking about future events, not events circa 6000 BC. Second, these are highly symbolic passages, and symbolize the renewal of the world, when the earth's wickedness will burn away as if in a fire, bringing to pass a spiritual utopia of righteousness. This is clear from 2 Peter 3:13, Ether 13:9, D&C 29:23, JST Luke 17:39, and D&C 101:25.

For example, Ether 13:8-12 says that in the last days, the following sequence of events will occur:

1. "the remnant of the house of Joseph shall be built upon this land [the Americas]"

2. "there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new"

3. "then cometh the New Jerusalem"

4. "and then also cometh the Jerusalem of old, and the inhabitants thereof"

So the Book of Mormon teaches that the "new heaven and a new earth" takes place before the building of the New Jerusalem, and also before the restoration of Jerusalem by the Jews. Clearly, this "new heaven and a new earth" is not intended to be a literal astronomical event.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

And, far from being a function of chauvinism, Abraham seems to suggest that government or priesthood or order is a product of "having been myself a follower of ^brighteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great ^cknowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many ^dnations, a prince of peace, and ^edesiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a ^fHigh Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers."( verse 2)

But it is important to note that Abraham received only the Patriarchal priesthood from his fathers. This was not the higher Melchizedek priesthood, which according to Joseph Smith he received from Melchizedek.

The problem with Ham and Pharaoh wasn't the patriarchal government and/or their priesthood order, or the lack of righteousness (see verse 26), but "that lineage by which he could not have the right of ^aPriesthood," (verse 27)

And just to clarify, this was because Shem, not Ham, was the recipient of the single birthright of Noah--not, as in racist doctrines of a generation ago, because the descendants of Caanan were supposedly black.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Xander]

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:

18 And the Gods watched those things which they had ^aordered 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 April 26, 2012 by Log

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

False.

[wenglund]

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 April 26, 2012 by wenglund