The Book Of Abraham--A Spiritual Perspective

[mfbukowski]

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-

What strikes me about this passage is the pro-active role God is taking in organizing all this biological activity which one might see as being either random or decided by agents other than God- ie: we humans.

I will make thee

I will bless thee

make thy name great... among all nations

seed shall rise up

bless them that bless thee curse them who curse thee

promise that this right shall continue

all the families of the earth shall be blessed...(with) life eternal.

Wow.

This has vast implications for the way we view God, the plan of salvation and the unfolding of even biological reproduction which we may be tempted to think has little to do with God's hand directing it.

Guess again!

[mfbukowski]

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.

As usual, we seem to be on the same wavelength. Your point about the spirit of Elijah in this whole unfolding of the biological plan is brilliant. Never noticed that before

[Log]

This has vast implications for the way we view God, the plan of salvation and the unfolding of even biological reproduction which we may be tempted to think has little to do with God's hand directing it.

Guess again!

Have you never heard that God createst the bodies of the children of Adam and Eve? Of course, I doubt all take it literally as I do, but...

At least now I know I'm not the only one who noticed that sex symbolizes Temple worship - or is it the other way around?

Edited April 30, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Have you never heard that God createst the bodies of the children of Adam and Eve? Of course, I doubt all take it literally as I do, but...

At least now I know I'm not the only one who noticed that sex symbolizes Temple worship - or is it the other way around?

Hey that's one direction I am definitely NOT going, hereabouts.

That sounds like a job for Jeremy.

Edited April 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Oh yeah.

[wenglund]

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.

This is great.

However, I was speaking to some of the "other symbolism"--i.e. the role of the man as differentiated from the role of the women in relation to producing "seed," and possible implications therein for the priesthood. The High Priest (man) has need of the priesthood to perform his duties, whereas the temple (woman) does not--though the latter may be dedicated by the former.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

As usual, we seem to be on the same wavelength. Your point about the spirit of Elijah in this whole unfolding of the biological plan is brilliant. Never noticed that before

To me, the terms “Father”, “seed” and “children” have so many symbolic spiritual (as well as literal) applications in the Gospel, none of which seem to contradict each other. I think we could go on forever on this one!

[mfbukowski]

This is great.

However, I was speaking to some of the "other symbolism"--i.e. the role of the man as differentiated from the role of the women in relation to producing "seed," and possible implications therein for the priesthood. The High Priest (man) has need of the priesthood to perform his duties, whereas the temple (woman) does not--though the latter may be dedicated by the former.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Blessed bovine! Never quite saw it that way either. I am learning a lot on this thread.

[CV75]

However, I was speaking to some of the "other symbolism"--i.e. the role of the man as differentiated from the role of the women in relation to producing "seed," and possible implications therein for the priesthood. The High Priest (man) has need of the priesthood to perform his duties, whereas the temple (woman) does not--though the latter may be dedicated by the former.

RE: the differentiation between the role of men and women in producing "seed" with regards to priesthood and offspring:

I see the “seed of the body” as the male contribution directly aligned with priesthood; the “fruit of the body” as the female contribution, also aligned with the priesthood but in a different way. The "seed of the body" refers to the offispring with priesthood, and the "fruit" refers to either offspring (with or without priesthood). And then either type of fruit acts as a seed for the next stage of eternal progress.

It could also be that this seed/fruit dynamic plays out in the Creation, where the priesthood set the seeds and made the command but “mother earth” brought forth the abundance as the elements obeyed once the ground was watered. Not to be taken too far, but perhaps the commanding attribute can be construed as "male" and the obeying attitbute as "female." Perhaps this is why some may say that women are more spiritual as far as the dynamics of these two forms of power (at least in this world) are concerned.

Moses 4:21 indicates that the enmity between good and evil is a “priesthood – anti-priesthood” tension, since the enmity is between the warring seeds (priesthoods) and not specifically between the woman and the serpent. The “seed of the woman” is Christ’s priesthood in His person the second estate, and the serpent’s seed is Satan’s false priesthood, since it enjoys no realization in a body / second estate. Maybe this is another basis for people to generalize that “women are more spiritual.” If she (Eve) had the capacity for enmity that priesthood (Adam) does, she would not have partaken of the fruit.

Moses 5:11 might be a very early indicator of the spirit of Elijah in operation: Eve’s rejoicing over “seed” (or priesthood in their descendants) is an example of a father (mother) turning her heart to the children, knowing that only the power of their righteous priesthood (thus enabling them to turn their hearts to the fathers) will keep them bound in the eternities, and thus fulfill the measure of their creation (joy in their posterity, exalted families, etc.).

Edited May 1, 2012 by CV75

[wenglund]

RE: the differentiation between the role of men and women in producing "seed" with regards to priesthood and offspring:

I see the “seed of the body” as the male contribution directly aligned with priesthood; the “fruit of the body” as the female contribution, also aligned with the priesthood but in a different way. The "seed of the body" refers to the offispring with priesthood, and the "fruit" refers to either offspring (with or without priesthood). And then either type of fruit acts as a seed for the next stage of eternal progress.

It could also be that this seed/fruit dynamic plays out in the Creation, where the priesthood set the seeds and made the command but “mother earth” brought forth the abundance as the elements obeyed once the ground was watered. Not to be taken too far, but perhaps the commanding attribute can be construed as "male" and the obeying attitbute as "female." Perhaps this is why some may say that women are more spiritual as far as the dynamics of these two forms of power (at least in this world) are concerned.

Moses 4:21 indicates that the enmity between good and evil is a “priesthood – anti-priesthood” tension, since the enmity is between the warring seeds (priesthoods) and not specifically between the woman and the serpent. The “seed of the woman” is Christ’s priesthood in His person the second estate, and the serpent’s seed is Satan’s false priesthood, since it enjoys no realization in a body / second estate. Maybe this is another basis for people to generalize that “women are more spiritual.” If she (Eve) had the capacity for enmity that priesthood (Adam) does, she would not have partaken of the fruit.

Moses 5:11 might be a very early indicator of the spirit of Elijah in operation: Eve’s rejoicing over “seed” (or priesthood in their descendants) is an example of a father (mother) turning her heart to the children, knowing that only the power of their righteous priesthood (thus enabling them to turn their hearts to the fathers) will keep them bound in the eternities, and thus fulfill the measure of their creation (joy in their posterity, exalted families, etc.).

...and the light of spiritual knowledge and wisdom keeps getting brighter. Or, as mfb kindly put it: "Blessed bovine! Never quite saw it that way either."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 1, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Great stuff!

[CV75]

The High Priest (man) has need of the priesthood to perform his duties, whereas the temple (woman) does not--though the latter may be dedicated by the former.

Picking up on this thought with the verse you cited from Abraham 2, the “literal seed” is the temple (or house, tabernacle, body of clay, the physical seed) is likewise necessary for the priesthood (the power of God) to operate in the second estate and onward.

The verse speaks of literal seed and, for lack of a better term, non-literal seed. The literal seed is of the body, or offspring comprised of spirit and body, or a soul (D&C 93:33), coming forth in the second estate and resurrection. The non-literal seed is a power, or the Priesthood, or power of God, generated by way of one’s righteousness in the covenant. “Man is spirit” (D&C 93:33) so this type of seed can occur in both the first and second estates and comes forth by way of “non-literal” means such as covenant, birthright, rebirth and adoption.

In both cases, “seed” and “Priesthood” seem to be interchangeable terms only under the terms of the covenant, or when heaven and earth are brought together. In such a circumstance, both male and female are needed and benefited

[Maidservant]

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. . . . . .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.

I suppose if we want to go farther on the idea of "word definitions" or on "the firstborn", that should be another thread. But I just wanted to thank you for sharing this. I, too, probe "definitions" of scriptural terms, although I would never be able to express it as lovely as you have. For example, it's one of my personal mini-missions to try to challenge people's (and my) definition and understanding of faith, because in my opinion so much error and contention is perpetuated on mis-understandings. I only give that as an example; "faith" itself would be another thread, of course. Yes, D & C 76 begs for an expanded understanding of the firstborn; and you have given me an abundant place to start from in my own thinking, in describing some of the Hebrew culture implications in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere (in the Book of Jasher, Abraham is also not the oldest son of his father, although he is the only son of his mother; i.e. Terah is polyganous; and which also tends to resonate with the Ismael-Sarah/Isaac set up; as well as with the "seed of the woman"=Eve/Christ set up; there are also some "female" versions of this in, say, the Rachel, Leah story). Also, and I'm sure you've noticed this too, in our LDS story of the pre-mortal council, Jehovah is actually presented as the second son also, or as I see it. Of course, I take this story as a template rather than a history, per se, which for me makes it's implications even more powerful. Anyway, thanks again.

[wenglund]

Of course, I take this story as a template rather than a history, per se, which for me makes it's implications even more powerful.

I certainly agree that it is a powerful template, or type and shadow, if not also a history of sorts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

This discussion still makes me ask, “Why are “seed” and “Priesthood”, synonymous terms within the covenant, which are also “male” in both the literal and non-literal sense?”

It must have to do with the “Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.” There is no escaping the fact that the Son of God is male. His Order of Priesthood of necessity requires or includes that feature so as to reflect and testify of all that He is, does, and how He is and how He does it. His purpose is to bless all God’s children with all spiritual blessings (2 Nephi 26:33, Alma 11:44, D&C 107:18, 19).

Just an idea of what the “order” of the Son of God might entail is found in John 5:19 (“The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do…”) and Moses 4:2 (“Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”). The phrase “…my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning…” also indicates that the literal and non-literal maleness of priesthood seed and the father-son relationship is there by design as well as in practice.

As indicated in earlier posts, none of this would have any meaning without the “fruit” thereof, which is impossible without complete unity with the female component. In that sense, we will all be engaged in another, new order (“…this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage],” D&C 131:2) and then another “new order” as members of the “Church of the Firstborn” where “firstborn” not only refers “Christ” (D&C 93 21, 22) but to all those men and women who are like Him by keeping their covenants (D&C 76:50-70; 88:1-5 and onward).

[mfbukowski]

This discussion still makes me ask, “Why are “seed” and “Priesthood”, synonymous terms within the covenant, which are also “male” in both the literal and non-literal sense?”

It must have to do with the “Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.” There is no escaping the fact that the Son of God is male. His Order of Priesthood of necessity requires or includes that feature so as to reflect and testify of all that He is, does, and how He is and how He does it. His purpose is to bless all God’s children with all spiritual blessings (2 Nephi 26:33, Alma 11:44, D&C 107:18, 19).

Just an idea of what the “order” of the Son of God might entail is found in John 5:19 (“The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do…”) and Moses 4:2 (“Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.”). The phrase “…my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning…” also indicates that the literal and non-literal maleness of priesthood seed and the father-son relationship is there by design as well as in practice.

As indicated in earlier posts, none of this would have any meaning without the “fruit” thereof, which is impossible without complete unity with the female component. In that sense, we will all be engaged in another, new order (“…this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage],” D&C 131:2) and then another “new order” as members of the “Church of the Firstborn” where “firstborn” not only refers “Christ” (D&C 93 21, 22) but to all those men and women who are like Him by keeping their covenants (D&C 76:50-70; 88:1-5 and onward).

Yeah but don't tell that to the folks on the gender thread

[Cobalt-70]

RE: the differentiation between the role of men and women in producing "seed" with regards to priesthood and offspring:

I see the “seed of the body” as the male contribution directly aligned with priesthood; the “fruit of the body” as the female contribution, also aligned with the priesthood but in a different way. The "seed of the body" refers to the offispring with priesthood, and the "fruit" refers to either offspring (with or without priesthood). And then either type of fruit acts as a seed for the next stage of eternal progress.

I think "seed" in the Joseph Smith Genesis-related passages just means offspring. The only special definition of seed is in the Book of Abraham, where "seed" is used once metaphorically for the patriarchal priesthood carried by his firstborn patrilineal line. The rest of the time, seed just means offspring, and I don't see any justification for esotericizing the term, or using it to reinforce the modern patriarchy and gender roles. Besides, the Genesis passages (including the temple ceremony) say "seed of the woman," which means that it isn't just the male, or the male body, that can produce "seed."

It could also be that this seed/fruit dynamic plays out in the Creation, where the priesthood set the seeds and made the command but “mother earth” brought forth the abundance as the elements obeyed once the ground was watered. Not to be taken too far, but perhaps the commanding attribute can be construed as "male" and the obeying attitbute as "female." Perhaps this is why some may say that women are more spiritual as far as the dynamics of these two forms of power (at least in this world) are concerned.

Dominance is certainly masculine as those terms have been defined and perpetuated in western secular and religious thought, and submission is certainly feminine. However, you are mistaken to link dominant masculinity to biological maleness and submissive femininity to biological femaleness. The unspoken assumption that male==masculine/dominant and female==feminine/submissive is the essence of patriarchy and antifeminism.

Moses 4:21 indicates that the enmity between good and evil is a “priesthood – anti-priesthood” tension, since the enmity is between the warring seeds (priesthoods) and not specifically between the woman and the serpent. The “seed of the woman” is Christ’s priesthood in His person the second estate, and the serpent’s seed is Satan’s false priesthood, since it enjoys no realization in a body / second estate. Maybe this is another basis for people to generalize that “women are more spiritual.” If she (Eve) had the capacity for enmity that priesthood (Adam) does, she would not have partaken of the fruit.

I don't see how Moses 4:21 says or implies that.

Moses 5:11 might be a very early indicator of the spirit of Elijah in operation: Eve’s rejoicing over “seed” (or priesthood in their descendants) is an example of a father (mother) turning her heart to the children, knowing that only the power of their righteous priesthood (thus enabling them to turn their hearts to the fathers) will keep them bound in the eternities, and thus fulfill the measure of their creation (joy in their posterity, exalted families, etc.).

I think the "seed" in Moses 5:11 clearly means offspring. There is no hint that the term has any metaphorical meaning in that passage.

[CV75]

However, you are mistaken to link dominant masculinity to biological maleness and submissive femininity to biological femaleness. The unspoken assumption that male==masculine/dominant and female==feminine/submissive is the essence of patriarchy and antifeminism.

However, you are very much mistaken to charge that I “link dominant masculinity to biological maleness and submissive femininity to biological femaleness.” The divine power to command and the divine power to obey are equally powerful. That one is more aligned with male “literal and non-literal” inclinations and the other with “literal and non-literal” female inclinations has been pointed out. But let’s not get into that here as I don’t want to negotiate through your assumptions about my assumptions and detract from legitimate points. It seems this thread has just about run its course (for me, anyway!). For your edification, these themes have been picked up in more detail in the “Unintended Consequences” thread and I refer you there (where I have also made a few comments).

[mfbukowski]

Dominance is certainly masculine as those terms have been defined and perpetuated in western secular and religious thought, and submission is certainly feminine. However, you are mistaken to link dominant masculinity to biological maleness and submissive femininity to biological femaleness. The unspoken assumption that male==masculine/dominant and female==feminine/submissive is the essence of patriarchy and antifeminism.

Uh huh.

I hate it that there are women rapists running around forcing their dominance over those poor, weak, submissive males.

Edited May 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

Uh huh.

I hate it that there are women rapists running around forcing their dominance over those poor, weak, submissive males.

Your point is apparently that almost all rapists are biologically male. I agree. And rape is just one of the many symptoms of the link between biological maleness and masculinity/dominance. Women, even when expressing their dominance/masculinity, are almost never rapists.

[Cobalt-70]

However, you are very much mistaken to charge that I “link dominant masculinity to biological maleness and submissive femininity to biological femaleness.” The divine power to command and the divine power to obey are equally powerful. That one is more aligned with male “literal and non-literal” inclinations and the other with “literal and non-literal” female inclinations has been pointed out. But let’s not get into that here as I don’t want to negotiate through your assumptions about my assumptions and detract from legitimate points. It seems this thread has just about run its course (for me, anyway!). For your edification, these themes have been picked up in more detail in the “Unintended Consequences” thread and I refer you there (where I have also made a few comments).

You can characterize obedience as a "power," but it is in any event a form of submission and femininity. For example, Jesus was a paragon of femininity while he was hanging on the cross.

[wenglund]

However, you are very much mistaken to charge that I “link dominant masculinity to biological maleness and submissive femininity to biological femaleness.” The divine power to command and the divine power to obey are equally powerful. That one is more aligned with male “literal and non-literal” inclinations and the other with “literal and non-literal” female inclinations has been pointed out. But let’s not get into that here as I don’t want to negotiate through your assumptions about my assumptions and detract from legitimate points. It seems this thread has just about run its course (for me, anyway!). For your edification, these themes have been picked up in more detail in the “Unintended Consequences” thread and I refer you there (where I have also made a few comments).

This remarkable precept will be incomprehensible to the overly-literalistic and fundamentalist mind. Just watch. [Oops...I see that Cobalt-70 has already posted]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 3, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

You can characterize obedience as a "power," but it is in any event a form of submission and femininity. For example, Jesus was a paragon of femininity while he was hanging on the cross.

And yet femininity is not submissive

However, you are mistaken to link dominant masculinity to biological maleness and submissive femininity to biological femaleness. The unspoken assumption that male==masculine/dominant and female==feminine/submissive is the essence of patriarchy and antifeminism.

I give up.

[Cobalt-70]

And yet femininity is not submissive

You are correct. Submission is feminine. You just got it backwards.

[mfbukowski]

You are correct. Submission is feminine. You just got it backwards.

Oh I got it now,

A=A NOT A=A. That makes it perfectly clear.