The Book Of Abraham--A Spiritual Perspective

[mfbukowski]

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-

In her most provocative book yet, Dr. Laura urgently reminds women that to take proper care of their husbands is to ensure themselves the happiness and satisfaction they yearn for in marriage.

Women want to be in love, get married, and live happily ever after. Yet disrespect for men and disregard for the value, feelings, and needs of husbands has fast become the standard for male-female relations in America. Those two attitudes clash in unfortunate ways to create struggle and strife in what could be a beautiful relationship.

Countless women call Dr. Laura, unhappy in their marriages and seemingly at a loss to understand the incredible power they have over their men to create the kind of home life they yearn for. Now, in The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, Dr. Laura shows you—with real-life examples and real-life solutions—how to wield that power to attain all the sexual pleasure, intimacy, love, joy, and peace you want in your life.

Dr. Laura's simple principles have changed the lives of millions. Now they can change yours.

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0060520612

Edited May 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[DJBrown]

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-

I think the purpose of the Book of Abraham, in addition to specific doctrines like pre-mortal existence, is to re-establish the understanding of the significance of Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant.

Margaret Barker and others argue that there was an apostasy (our language) between the first and second temples in which Abraham's role was diminished somewhat.

With the restoration of the Houe of Israel in process, I think it makes sense for the Lord would reveal the role and importance of the initial covenant with Abraham and some insight as to why it was Abraham that the Lord made this covenant.

I think that covenant is even more significant than we realize.

[wenglund]

I think that covenant is even more significant than we realize.

You are probably right.

Also, because of the Book of Abraham, and first learning of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham at the hand of his father, the story of Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Isaac, for me took on more significance than I had earlier realized. I suspect that the repugnance Abraham felt as a result of that divine command, went beyond the repelling thought of losing his son, and may also have included the revolting thought of being asked to do the very horrific thing that his own father had attempted with him, and who was condemned by God for having so attempted. It is likely that there was no worse thing to Abraham's mind than what he was asked by God to do. And, in a way, it gives us a greater appreciation for what the Father may have experienced because of the redemptive sacrifice of his Son.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 8, 2012 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

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"

The idea that woman use seduction to achieve power and ultimate domination over men is not sexist at all. It's just fact. And efforts to take that power away from women (one of the few powers that they have always had, even under periods of extreme patriarchy) is probably anti-feminist in itself.

[mfbukowski]

The idea that woman use seduction to achieve power and ultimate domination over men is not sexist at all. It's just fact. And efforts to take that power away from women (one of the few powers that they have always had, even under periods of extreme patriarchy) is probably anti-feminist in itself.

This seems so inconsistent with some things you have said about gender roles and equality of the sexes that I don't know where to begin, so I just think I won't.

It is definitely beginning to feel like I am feeding a troll, and I suspect if there are any readers actually left, they would agree. I think we are just a tad off topic and would just cause too much brain damage and waste too much time to pursue this.

Suffice it to say that I don't think this power CAN be taken from them, short of..... well, you figure it out.

But it seems we have come full circle to the idea that indeed women do in fact have power over men. If we want to sleep soundly, we had better become civilized and acknowledge the equality they have or our lives will be miserable.

Anyone in a sustained healthy relationship knows that, it's not rocket science.

Edited May 8, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

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

<ducking for cover yet again>

I am, but I don't quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the natural order of things is for women to be seductive, or submissive? I don't think there is anything natural about women and girls being submissive. Both men and women are sometimes submissive, sometimes dominant. However, patriarchal culture puts pressure on women to submit, and places men in positions of dominance. Seduction is a skill learned by both men and women, but used most effectively by women as a means of achieving limited dominance in an otherwise patriarchal society.

[mfbukowski]

I am, but I don't quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the natural order of things is for women to be seductive, or submissive? I don't think there is anything natural about women and girls being submissive. Both men and women are sometimes submissive, sometimes dominant. However, patriarchal culture puts pressure on women to submit, and places men in positions of dominance. Seduction is a skill learned by both men and women, but used most effectively by women as a means of achieving limited dominance in an otherwise patriarchal society.

Read the post immediately above the one I am quoting

We had better get along or we are all up the creek without a paddle and that requires equality, discussion, and compromise. Anything else is just self-destructive for everyone.

[Minos]

The idea that woman use seduction to achieve power and ultimate domination over men is not sexist at all. It's just fact. And efforts to take that power away from women (one of the few powers that they have always had, even under periods of extreme patriarchy) is probably anti-feminist in itself.

This is insulting to our women posters. You will be removed from the thread if you continue to express demeaning opinions about either sex.

[CV75]

Priesthood is a power delegated to males, and the masculine or feminine traits held by those males (whether they result from biological or social forces), are two different subjects altogether.

Males and females have biologically inherent powers, typically discussed in terms of the power to generate life, but there are others. It would make sense that there are sex-specific spiritual powers that are inherent as well. And there are by far many other, general types of power that members of both sexes can cultivate irrespective of biology or spiritual makeup.

The strongest theme in this thread seems to be the challenge of understanding why the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods are conferred only upon males; why another “order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]” is entered into by a man while the covenant relating to “this order of the priesthood” requires a woman (D&C 131:2), and why this yields the highest blessing mentioned in scripture, the Church of the Firstborn.

From the man’s perspective, the first order is bestowed upon him (with a covenant), the second order he enters into (with a covenant), and the third order he “communes with” in fulfillment of the covenant. The first order requires the man to be called and receive the order; the second for him to seek and enter the order, the third to be chosen into the order through his righteousness. The woman only has to be chosen into the last order, through her righteousness.

Why this difference? If it is because women are more spiritual, it may be that they have, in this particular aspect of pre-mortal / spiritual makeup, already developed the fundamental receiving and seeking skills that men must develop by virtue of receiving and entering into orders of priesthood. Adam had to come to earth alone, fall asleep, and wake up again with a companion; Eve came into the earth with an instant companion. Eve, thus coming into the world with this natural affinity (not alone as Adam was) did not possess natural enmity against the serpent, and so without priesthood was able to get things going.

Edited May 9, 2012 by CV75

[wenglund]

Priesthood is a power delegated to males, and the masculine or feminine traits held by those males (whether they result from biological or social forces), are two different subjects altogether.

Males and females have biologically inherent powers, typically discussed in terms of the power to generate life, but there are others. It would make sense that there are sex-specific spiritual powers that are inherent as well. And there are by far many other, general types of power that members of both sexes can cultivate irrespective of biology or spiritual makeup.

The strongest theme in this thread seems to be the challenge of understanding why the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods are conferred only upon males; why another “order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]” is entered into by a man while the covenant relating to “this order of the priesthood” requires a woman (D&C 131:2), and why this yields the highest blessing mentioned in scripture, the Church of the Firstborn.

From the man’s perspective, the first order is bestowed upon him (with a covenant), the second order he enters into (with a covenant), and the third order he “communes with” in fulfillment of the covenant. The first order requires the man to be called and receive the order; the second for him to seek and enter the order, the third to be chosen into the order through his righteousness. The woman only has to be chosen into the last order, through her righteousness.

Why this difference? If it is because women are more spiritual, it may be that they have, in this particular aspect of pre-mortal / spiritual makeup, already developed the fundamental receiving and seeking skills that men must develop by virtue of receiving and entering into orders of priesthood. Adam had to come to earth alone, fall asleep, and wake up again with a companion; Eve came into the earth with an instant companion. Eve, thus coming into the world with this natural affinity (not alone as Adam was) did not possess natural enmity against the serpent, and so without priesthood was able to get things going.

This is an interesting way to look at the priesthood. I like it, and will study the notion further. And, if nothing else, it seems that the gender questions have encouraged us to explore the priesthood more in-depth. I consider this a good thing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Priesthood is a power delegated to males, and the masculine or feminine traits held by those males (whether they result from biological or social forces), are two different subjects altogether.

Males and females have biologically inherent powers, typically discussed in terms of the power to generate life, but there are others. It would make sense that there are sex-specific spiritual powers that are inherent as well. And there are by far many other, general types of power that members of both sexes can cultivate irrespective of biology or spiritual makeup.

The strongest theme in this thread seems to be the challenge of understanding why the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods are conferred only upon males; why another “order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]” is entered into by a man while the covenant relating to “this order of the priesthood” requires a woman (D&C 131:2), and why this yields the highest blessing mentioned in scripture, the Church of the Firstborn.

From the man’s perspective, the first order is bestowed upon him (with a covenant), the second order he enters into (with a covenant), and the third order he “communes with” in fulfillment of the covenant. The first order requires the man to be called and receive the order; the second for him to seek and enter the order, the third to be chosen into the order through his righteousness. The woman only has to be chosen into the last order, through her righteousness.

Why this difference? If it is because women are more spiritual, it may be that they have, in this particular aspect of pre-mortal / spiritual makeup, already developed the fundamental receiving and seeking skills that men must develop by virtue of receiving and entering into orders of priesthood. Adam had to come to earth alone, fall asleep, and wake up again with a companion; Eve came into the earth with an instant companion. Eve, thus coming into the world with this natural affinity (not alone as Adam was) did not possess natural enmity against the serpent, and so without priesthood was able to get things going.

Note to self: check this out further!

[wenglund]

It is interesting to learn how much the Book of Abraham has to say about the priesthood, particularly given how little the Bible says about it, especially in relation to Abraham.

Which reminds me, I am wondering if anyone here is aware of a study of the Book of Abraham and the Bible that provides an exhaustive list of things that are disclosed in the Book of Abraham that were not disclosed in the Bible?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 9, 2012 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

This is insulting to our women posters. You will be removed from the thread if you continue to express demeaning opinions about either sex.

Respectfully, I don't think you quite understood my posts, so I just want to make clear what I was saying. I'm referring to seduction in the critical theory sense, not in the tawdry sense you might be thinking. This has nothing to do, necessarily, with sex practices. The idea that seduction is a form of female power is a standard feminist idea, and is expressed in countless writings by feminist scholars in many countries. It is empowering to women, and it legitimizes one of the forms of female power that women have always had, no matter how patriarchal the society in which they lived, from Esther in biblical times, to Emma Smith, to lady Diana.

[Cobalt-70]

Priesthood is a power delegated to males, and the masculine or feminine traits held by those males (whether they result from biological or social forces), are two different subjects altogether.

Males and females have biologically inherent powers, typically discussed in terms of the power to generate life, but there are others. It would make sense that there are sex-specific spiritual powers that are inherent as well. And there are by far many other, general types of power that members of both sexes can cultivate irrespective of biology or spiritual makeup.

The strongest theme in this thread seems to be the challenge of understanding why the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods are conferred only upon males; why another “order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]” is entered into by a man while the covenant relating to “this order of the priesthood” requires a woman (D&C 131:2), and why this yields the highest blessing mentioned in scripture, the Church of the Firstborn.

From the man’s perspective, the first order is bestowed upon him (with a covenant), the second order he enters into (with a covenant), and the third order he “communes with” in fulfillment of the covenant. The first order requires the man to be called and receive the order; the second for him to seek and enter the order, the third to be chosen into the order through his righteousness. The woman only has to be chosen into the last order, through her righteousness.

Why this difference? If it is because women are more spiritual, it may be that they have, in this particular aspect of pre-mortal / spiritual makeup, already developed the fundamental receiving and seeking skills that men must develop by virtue of receiving and entering into orders of priesthood. Adam had to come to earth alone, fall asleep, and wake up again with a companion; Eve came into the earth with an instant companion. Eve, thus coming into the world with this natural affinity (not alone as Adam was) did not possess natural enmity against the serpent, and so without priesthood was able to get things going.

I couldn't disagree more with everything you said. First, priesthood power is also delegated to females in the temple ceremony. There are many church authorities who have said that women are given priesthood power, from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Eliza Snow, to most recently, Julie B. Beck. I think it's too late to back-track on that point. They make a distinction between priesthood power and priesthood office.

Second, your reading of D&C 131:1-4 as applying only to men is unwarranted. Like so many other scripture passages, the term "men" is used in its general sense to include men and women. As a fact of history, both men and women were admitted to the Holy Order (the Endowment), and both men and women are admitted to the New and Everlasting Covenant. Women are not passively "chosen" into these priesthood orders any more than men are.

Third, where is your proof that women are more spiritual than men? That is nothing more than a stereotype. It's no better than the idea that men are more naturally leaders than women, or that women are naturally hysterical and less rational. Even if it were true on average that women were more spiritual than men, some women are less spiritual than some men. So why don't these "less spiritual" women get the priesthood?

[CV75]

I couldn't disagree more with everything you said. First, priesthood power is also delegated to females ...

Second, your reading of D&C 131:1-4 as applying only to men is unwarranted. ..

Third, where is your proof that women are more spiritual than men?

First: I expect that; I'll reply to the degree it doesn't detract from legitimate points of discussion. I’m talking about it in context of “why the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods are conferred only upon males,” as mentioned later in the post. In this instance I used the terms “power” and “authority” interchangeably. If something is not conferred one cannot have power in it. This takes nothing away from what women do have regarding the priesthood.

Second: Unless one looks at the progression of the orders of the Priesthood. Men enter what I labeled the second order and make a covenant, while women make a covenant without having the priesthood conferred upon them. Did I really have to explain this?

Third: I said “If…” and "it may be..." Did I really have to point that out?

[CV75]

From the "I don't blog" school of thought, and trying not to be too lengthy:

The “first order”, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, is “the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God (D&C 107:3).” It “was confirmed to be handed down father to son (D&C 107:40).” The patriarchal order is a primary characteristic in the design of this order (“literal descendants of the chosen seed”). God calls (D&C 121:34) and confers (D&C 121:37) this priesthood upon men. Those who hear the call will obtain the priesthood (the “oath and covenant”—D&C 84:33-40). The woman sustains the priesthood as helpmeet (the man needs her help). The oath and covenant of D&C 84 is made individually, between the man and God, and focuses on what is done in one’s own lifetime (84:44). Type: Adam set into the Garden of Eden as a lone man having dominion over the physical earth; Eve was given him because he needed her help.

The “second order” is Eternal Marriage or “this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage] (D&C 131:2).” It is given by temple rite only (D&C 132), regardless of whether the Melchizedek Priesthood had been obtained from father to son, making this order (the patriarchal order) a secondary consideration to the marriage sealing. God invites men into this order (I read D&C 131:1-4 as a choice a man may make), so men have to seek after it, merit it through worthiness and enter into (it is not conferred upon them). The man and the woman in this order commune as one flesh (D&C 49:16, 17). As with the first order, the woman sustains the priesthood as helpmeet. This covenant is made as a couple, and consistent with the Abrahamic covenant this covenant looks forward in time to seed and eternal increase. The couple becomes the primary order, and the patriarchal order, while still established (male children get the priesthood from their fathers) becomes secondary. Type: Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden and began the families of the earth.

The “third order” is the Church of the Firstborn. The Firstborn refers to Christ, Adam (“… the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father (Abr. 1: 3)” and anyone else who keeps the same covenants (“rightful heir” – Abr. 1: 2, 3).” It is given only by the Holy Spirit of promise (D&C 132:7, 19, 26). God thus calls and chooses those who qualify, and fulfills His covenant by bringing them into this order. Both men and women in turn commune with God and the general assembly (D& 107:19). This covenant crosses generations (vis a vis the spirit of Elijah--D&C 110:13-16; JSH 37-39) and looks back in time (“the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers”). The patriarchal order becomes tertiary (Adam returns these keys to Christ prior to the establishment of the Church of the Firstborn); the new and everlasting covenant is held within the Church of the Firstborn; the Fullness of the Father has now become the primary order (throughout D&C 76, especially verses 56, 71, 94; 88:5; 93:22). Type: Adam and Eve received the Gospel and kept all the commandments.

What does priesthood or being a male have to do with Adam’s role and actions?

He accepted dominion over the physical earth, and obeyed the command that could only be done as an individual (not partake of the forbidden fruit). He had a sense of enmity with the serpent, and a keen sense of keeping the dominion (the status quo) he held before falling asleep and waking as a couple.

What does not having priesthood or being a female have to do with Eve’s role and actions?

She was a helpmeet to the one with dominion because he needed help, and initiated obeying the command that could only be kept as a couple (multiply). She had a sense of affinity with the serpent, and a muted sense of keeping Adam’s status quo. As helpmeet, she helped him advance to the next stage.

[Cobalt-70]

The “first order”, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, is “the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God (D&C 107:3).” It “was confirmed to be handed down father to son (D&C 107:40).” The patriarchal order is a primary characteristic in the design of this order (“literal descendants of the chosen seed”). God calls (D&C 121:34) and confers (D&C 121:37) this priesthood upon men. Those who hear the call will obtain the priesthood (the “oath and covenant”—D&C 84:33-40). The woman sustains the priesthood as helpmeet (the man needs her help). The oath and covenant of D&C 84 is made individually, between the man and God, and focuses on what is done in one’s own lifetime (84:44). Type: Adam set into the Garden of Eden as a lone man having dominion over the physical earth; Eve was given him because he needed her help.

If you read D&C 107:40 carefully, it is not saying that the Melchizedek priesthood is "confirmed to be handed down from father to son." What is handed down patrilineally is the Patriarchal priesthood--the order of the priesthood held by the "evangelical ministers" referred to in 107:39. This is the office of Presiding Patriarch, which was given to Joseph Smith, Sr., then to Hyrum, and then to a line of men down to Eldred G. Smith, who will be the last person to hold that office when he dies soon (he's 105 now).

But like the Aaronic priesthood, the Patriarchal priesthood is only an "appendage" to the Melchizedek priesthood, which "has no father or mother," and is "without beginning of days or end of years." It is the Melchizedek priesthood which is ultimately endowed to women in the temple.

Second, when you use the term "helpmeet," you are perpetuating a common misunderstanding of the text of Genesis. Abraham 5:14 says "help meet for the man"--meaning "helper suitable for the man." The word "help" does not imply a dominant-subordinate relationship. If two people are helping each other, that doesn't mean that one is under the "dominion" of the other. I think you are stretching the Genesis narrative beyond its breaking point if you use this to support the idea that men have a natural priesthood superordination over women.

[CV75]

If you read D&C 107:40 carefully ... the Patriarchal priesthood is only an "appendage" to the Melchizedek priesthood

Yes, I can see that. But my intent is to understand the rationale for men being conferred the priesthood and women not, using the three-order framework, which I am not promoting as literal or fundamental doctrine. So if we adopt your clarification, the “first order” would be conceptualized as follows:

The “first order”, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, is “the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God (D&C 107:3).” God calls (D&C 121:34) and confers (D&C 121:37) this priesthood upon men. Those who hear the call will obtain the priesthood (the “oath and covenant”—D&C 84:33-40). The woman sustains the priesthood as helpmeet (the man needs her help). The oath and covenant of D&C 84 is made individually, between the man and God, and focuses on what is done in one’s own lifetime (84:44). Type: Adam set into the Garden of Eden as a lone man having dominion over the physical earth; Eve was given him because he needed her help.

I think it would leave the conceptualization of the other two orders intact.

Second, when you use the term "helpmeet," you are perpetuating a common misunderstanding

If you read carefully, or quit imputing meaning that is clearly not there you would not perpetuate a "culture of misunderstanding" with your posts (which is the sole reason I so often stop replying to you—I‘d just as soon leave you to your own devices). I am not at all saying that Eve’s role as helpmeet is subservient (he needed her help!).