The Book Of Abraham--A Spiritual Perspective

[Log]

I thought the same thing, but I realized I was taking the word "is" too literally. Bill Clinton, anyone?

Edited May 4, 2012 by Log

[Cobalt-70]

Oh I got it now,

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

Sorry for the Clinton impression, but this actually does make a difference. When you have the word pattern X is Y, where X is a noun and Y is an adjective, "X is Y" does not mean the same thing as "Y is X." Thus, when you say, "Life is beautiful," you mean something quite different than if you said, "Beauty is living."

[mfbukowski]

Sorry for the Clinton impression, but this actually does make a difference. When you have the word pattern X is Y, where X is a noun and Y is an adjective, "X is Y" does not mean the same thing as "Y is X." Thus, when you say, "Life is beautiful," you mean something quite different than if you said, "Beauty is living."

That's nice but it doesn't clarify anything.

The phrase you used was "Submission is feminine"

I presume the noun is "submission" and the adjective is "feminine".

http://dictionary.re...se/feminine?s=t

fem·i·nine

   [fem-uh-nin]

adjective

1.

pertaining to a woman or girl: feminine beauty; feminine dress.

2.

having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, as sensitivity or gentleness.

3.

effeminate; womanish: a man with a feminine walk.

4.

belonging to the female sex; female: feminine staff members.

5.

Grammar . noting or pertaining to that one of the three genders of Latin, Greek, German, etc., or one of the two genders of French, Spanish, hebrew, etc., having among its members most nouns referring to females, as well as other nouns, as Latin stella “star,” or German Zeit “time.”

So taking the first definition we have your phrase becoming

"Submission pertains to women"

I don't think that helps your case much.

Edited May 4, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

The phrase you used was "Submission is feminine"

I presume the noun is "submission" and the adjective is "feminine".

http://dictionary.re...se/feminine?s=t

So taking the first definition we have your phrase becoming

"Submission pertains to women"

I don't think that helps your case much.

You can't just mechanically choose one or another of the above definitions, because all the definitions are true, but only part of the story. Femininity does indeed pertain to woman and girls, and is "traditionally ascribed to women, only because we historically view women and girls as having feminine traits such as submission, objectification, and hysteria. Feminine beauty and dress is full of the indicia of submission and especially objectification. Sensitivity and gentleness are forms of submission (whereas insensitivity and force are forms of dominance). Etc.

Femininity is, ultimately, any form of invagination or objectification. Submission is an invagination in the sense that the feminine actor (who may be biologically male or female) creates a space herself to accept the force of a dominant actor (who also may be biologically male or female). Submission is a hole that may be filled by the will or desires of another.

[mfbukowski]

Femininity is, ultimately, any form of invagination or objectification. Submission is an invagination in the sense that the feminine actor (who may be biologically male or female) creates a space herself to accept the force of a dominant actor (who also may be biologically male or female). Submission is a hole that may be filled by the will or desires of another.

Well, you've finally gotten me speechless.

I think I will just let this one be. It certainly stands on its own..... merit.

[sethpayne]

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-

I have no idea what the intent of the Book of Abraham so I won't attempt ot address that question.

Without a doubt, chapter 3 is the most theologically significant.

I believe very strongly that the value of the Book of Abraham is he sense of purpose it instills in people's lives. The BoA makes clear statements about our existence before Earth and our nature as sentient beings prior to becoming mortal humans. A big part of the message here is that we lived extraordinary lives in the pre-mortal world and proudly defended what we believed in. This message gives hope. "If I made it through that life (and may have even been considered "noble and great" then I'm going to do the same in this life....).

Also, the notion of a pre-existence sentient beings underscores our nature as true brothers and sisters. Makes it a much more "real" or "down to earth" concept.

[DarkScythe]

yet the submissive has the more power.

[wenglund]

I have no idea what the intent of the Book of Abraham so I won't attempt ot address that question.

Without a doubt, chapter 3 is the most theologically significant.

I believe very strongly that the value of the Book of Abraham is he sense of purpose it instills in people's lives. The BoA makes clear statements about our existence before Earth and our nature as sentient beings prior to becoming mortal humans. A big part of the message here is that we lived extraordinary lives in the pre-mortal world and proudly defended what we believed in. This message gives hope. "If I made it through that life (and may have even been considered "noble and great" then I'm going to do the same in this life....).

Also, the notion of a pre-existence sentient beings underscores our nature as true brothers and sisters. Makes it a much more "real" or "down to earth" concept.

Beautifully said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

yet the submissive has the more power.

That is one of those marvelous mysteries that few seem to allow themselves to fully comprehend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 6, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

I have no idea what the intent of the Book of Abraham so I won't attempt ot address that question.

Without a doubt, chapter 3 is the most theologically significant.

I believe very strongly that the value of the Book of Abraham is he sense of purpose it instills in people's lives. The BoA makes clear statements about our existence before Earth and our nature as sentient beings prior to becoming mortal humans. A big part of the message here is that we lived extraordinary lives in the pre-mortal world and proudly defended what we believed in. This message gives hope. "If I made it through that life (and may have even been considered "noble and great" then I'm going to do the same in this life....).

Also, the notion of a pre-existence sentient beings underscores our nature as true brothers and sisters. Makes it a much more "real" or "down to earth" concept.

Agreed.

I like Chapter 4- it is one of the most amazing statements of linguistically constructive theology ever.

Edited May 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

Also, the notion of a pre-existence sentient beings underscores our nature as true brothers and sisters. Makes it a much more "real" or "down to earth" concept.

One part says about the intelligences that were organized - "God saw these souls that they were good, and

he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were

spirits, and he saw that they were good ..."

What does good mean in this context? Does it mean those who used their agency to always choose good

over evil in the pre-mortal existence?

Thanks,

Jim

[wenglund]

What does good mean in this context?

That is a "good" question.

I can't see where the word is specifically defined in the Book of Abraham, though I get the sense that it entails that which is on the opposite side of the spectrum from bad or evil. The word appears to be used in a similar sense in relation to the plan of salvation (Abraham 4:21).

I, personally, have no idea whether it is measurement on balance (where there is a preponderance of good) or an absolute (where one always chose good),

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

Good means potentially able to bear fruit, I believe.

[wenglund]

Good means potentially able to bear fruit, I believe.

I like that interpretation.

However, to further clarify, do you think the potential fruit must be good in order for something to be called "good," or would the potential bearing of any kind of fruit still qualify?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

I like that interpretation.

However, to further clarify, do you think the potential fruit must be good in order for something to be called "good," or would the potential bearing of any kind of fruit still qualify?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, you know, I thought that too, but I really don't like using a word in its own definition. But yeah, the fruit would have to likewise be good.

[Cobalt-70]

Well, you've finally gotten me speechless.

I think I will just let this one be. It certainly stands on its own..... merit.

Obviously you aren't familiar with critical feminist theory.

[Cobalt-70]

yet the submissive has the more power.

What "power" is there in being submissive? Had Jesus used his power over the Romans who crucified him, he would not have been submissive. He gave up his power and became submissive and therefore feminine--allowed himself to be penetrated by the Roman spikes, and objectified by hanging on the cross. If there is power in submission, it is a power that is unused, and held in reserve--and therefore no power at all. If the reserve power is then used later, the use of that power will not be an act of submission when it is used. Thus, Jesus' second coming is an act of domination. Jesus, in effect, died as a woman, but will return as a man.

[wenglund]

What "power" is there in being submissive?

That is a mystery not to be understood by the fundamentalist and prideful mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

What "power" is there in being submissive?

Ask Lady Diana.

She perfected it.

[mfbukowski]

Obviously you aren't familiar with critical feminist theory.

Wrong again, Habermas is one of my boys.

[Calm]

Ask Lady Diana.

She perfected it.

Went over my head, please direct me to a link that explains.

[wenglund]

Went over my head, please direct me to a link that explains.

I don't know about Lady Diana, but Dr. Laura touched on it in her book, "The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Ask Lady Diana.

She perfected it.

Diana's power was seduction, which is not simply a form of submission. Seduction is submission followed by domination: access followed by withdrawal of access. It is what is behind allure, teasing, and enchantment. During the submission phase, she temporarily gives up her power, only to wield it later. Her true power was in the domination phase. Had she simply been submissive always, she would have had no power. She would have remained merely an object--like a Playboy bunny. But she used her power in a dominant way once the people were "hooked" by her enchantment.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

Went over my head, please direct me to a link that explains.

It wasn't all that profound a point- maybe it's a guy thing- Cobalt and Wade seem to get it. Probably it is now counted as "sexist" but it is the idea that women can get power by "batting their eyelashes"- in her pictures Lady Di almost always is looking downward with her eyes looking upward which to males indicates a kind of seductive submission, which ultimately results in "power through submission"

This kind of thing from "Gone with the Wind"

Scarlett Hamilton: What trouble are you talking about? Mammy: You know what trouble I's talking about. I's talking about Mr. Ashley Wilkes. He'll come to Atlanta when he gets his leave and you're sitting there waiting for him like a spider!

Spiders of course eat their prey.

And then this:

[mfbukowski]

Diana's power was seduction, which is not simply a form of submission. Seduction is submission followed by domination: access followed by withdrawal of access. It is what is behind allure, teasing, and enchantment. During the submission phase, she temporarily gives up her power, only to wield it later. Her true power was in the domination phase. Had she simply been submissive always, she would have had no power. She would have remained merely an object--like a Playboy bunny. But she used her power in a dominant way once the people were "hooked" by her enchantment.

Are you married? I think it goes far beyond Playboy- it is the natural order of things.

<ducking for cover yet again>