Father of many nations

[Seminarysnoozer]

I can understand the temporal benefits of having many children and in particular during biblical times but why is being the "father of many nations" and having everlasting claim to the land in Canaan such an important thing to Abraham from a spiritual perspective? I am having a hard time understanding why it is important to have claim to land after we pass from this life.

And for that matter, how important is it to have literal posterity in this life? It seems that Abraham made a big deal over genetics. Most of us are adopted into the tribe of Israel and even if we aren't why does that matter that we have some genetic link to Abraham or not? So, if it doesn't matter that we are adopted and don't have to have a blood link to Abraham, why was it so important to him that he had an actual blood linked son to become the father of many nations? Why couldn't have been an adopted son as the father of many nations? I am trying to comprehend the importance of genetics.

It seems that genetics are important in other passages of the Bible too, like the fact that Seth carried the image of Adam, whose line is where Jesus eventually comes from.

I think it is most obvious though in the story of Abraham and Isaac, this implied importance to passing on genes in this world. I know of the importance to progress to the point of eventually being able to participate in the procreation of spirits and to be given more responsibility in the life to come but I thought it was almost the opposite here, to not seek after possessions, land, power etc.. Of course, what we are given here we should use wisely and be a good servant, multiply our talents and possessions but why would it be important to be the "father of many nations" or the father of kings or be promised land of this temporal world?

[Dymmesdale]

This has to do with the covenant that God made with Abraham. God not only said that he would make him the father of many nations, but that the whole world would be blessed by them. Not only would he be the father of many nations, but those people would be God's people. God is manifesting His glory. He chose Abraham to be the progenitor of His chosen people.

The reason that we can be adopted as God's children today is because in the days of Israel, God wanted to protect His people from the influence of outside nations and religions. Under the New Covenant, Christ's disciples were commanded to go and preach the Gospel to everyone. In short, we are able to be adopted as God's children because we have the Gospel, when before only the Israelites were able to be God's people (some exceptions, such as slaves and servants, but not many).

[rameumptom]

Actually, Abraham didn't have an issue with a non-DNA son. He asked God to accept the child of his major servant in his household be adopted as his own. God said no. Abraham expected Lot to be his heir, but that didn't happen.

Later, he asked God to accept Ishmael, but God still said no. It was God that had the view of a specific child.

Why? For several reasons tied to the Abrahamic covenant. You are looking at the covenant as just a piece of dry dirt. But it was much more. Abraham sought the priesthood and the blessings of the fathers (Abraham 1). He sought to be a "father of many nations", just like Noah.

But he understood it had several dimensions. First was an earthly dimension, with a small patch of ground in the Middle East. But there was a spiritual dimension as well. Through Abraham and the priesthood, all mankind could receive a fulness of the gospel. Paul speaks of being adopted into Israel, which basically means adopted into Abraham's lineage. LDS also view this, as we seek our patriarchal blessings - so we can receive the Abrahamic Covenant for ourselves, and continue on the blessing of mortal and eternal increase. Abraham was told his seed would be as the stars of heaven, and the sands of the seashore. Well, there countless more stars and sand grains than there are people who have ever lived on earth.

Abraham sought to be a king. According to the ancient texts, Abraham and Israel had the writings of Enoch and Noah. They would know that Enoch was translated and become king of the City of Enoch, a literal heaven. They knew Enoch had become the archangel Metatron, who was clothed in white robes, given a new name (Metatron), and given a seat on God's throne for other angels to worship him! Abraham personally knew Melchizedek and knew he was also translated with his city, and became king of translated Salem. He literally was King/Prince of Peace. So Paul tells us in Hebrews that Abraham and his descendants sought the heavenly city, always thinking themselves strangers in a foreign land. Their promised land represented a heavenly promise more than it did an earthly kingdom. After all, they spent much of their lives outside of the promised land (Ur, Egypt, etc), and sharing the promised land when they were there.

Abraham's Covenant states that God was going to give him all that God had to give. In the beginning, Abraham was promised the best a mortal could receive: lands and posterity. But that was only the beginning, as Abraham understood it also meant spending eternity ruling as one of the "great and noble ones" in God's presence (Abr 3).

[Seminarysnoozer]

Actually, Abraham didn't have an issue with a non-DNA son. He asked God to accept the child of his major servant in his household be adopted as his own. God said no. Abraham expected Lot to be his heir, but that didn't happen.

Later, he asked God to accept Ishmael, but God still said no. It was God that had the view of a specific child.

Why? For several reasons tied to the Abrahamic covenant. You are looking at the covenant as just a piece of dry dirt. But it was much more. Abraham sought the priesthood and the blessings of the fathers (Abraham 1). He sought to be a "father of many nations", just like Noah.

But he understood it had several dimensions. First was an earthly dimension, with a small patch of ground in the Middle East. But there was a spiritual dimension as well. Through Abraham and the priesthood, all mankind could receive a fulness of the gospel. Paul speaks of being adopted into Israel, which basically means adopted into Abraham's lineage. LDS also view this, as we seek our patriarchal blessings - so we can receive the Abrahamic Covenant for ourselves, and continue on the blessing of mortal and eternal increase. Abraham was told his seed would be as the stars of heaven, and the sands of the seashore. Well, there countless more stars and sand grains than there are people who have ever lived on earth.

Abraham sought to be a king. According to the ancient texts, Abraham and Israel had the writings of Enoch and Noah. They would know that Enoch was translated and become king of the City of Enoch, a literal heaven. They knew Enoch had become the archangel Metatron, who was clothed in white robes, given a new name (Metatron), and given a seat on God's throne for other angels to worship him! Abraham personally knew Melchizedek and knew he was also translated with his city, and became king of translated Salem. He literally was King/Prince of Peace. So Paul tells us in Hebrews that Abraham and his descendants sought the heavenly city, always thinking themselves strangers in a foreign land. Their promised land represented a heavenly promise more than it did an earthly kingdom. After all, they spent much of their lives outside of the promised land (Ur, Egypt, etc), and sharing the promised land when they were there.

Abraham's Covenant states that God was going to give him all that God had to give. In the beginning, Abraham was promised the best a mortal could receive: lands and posterity. But that was only the beginning, as Abraham understood it also meant spending eternity ruling as one of the "great and noble ones" in God's presence (Abr 3).

I appreciate your response. You sound quite knowledgeable about these things. These are kind of new subjects for me in Sunday School and I don't think I ever thought about them this much even though I've read through it several times. So, are you saying most of the promises of the covenant were of spiritual nature and not so earthly as it sounds? And, I am still not sure of the significance of lineage in LDS doctrine. I understand the importance of genealogy work etc. but why is it important who your father's father's father .... is?

I guess what I am asking is why is there a covenant in the first place that relates to having earthly children when a lot of us our adopted into the tribe anyways? What is the value of having Abraham have literal offspring from a doctrinal view for God? I know what the value of having children is, I have 4. But I am trying to understand God's desire for Abraham that he had a son through specific genetic lines - Abraham and Sarah. Other than just being part of the promise why did it have to be 'blood', why not say "you will be the spiritual King and ruler over nations" and not make it such a big deal that it had to be from a specific lineage or blood line?

And, I think there can be "great and noble ones" that rule in God's presence that aren't necessarily "fathers of nations" here on this earth. I think if Abraham just thought God was talking about being a father of nations in heaven and not necessarily here on earth that he wouldn't have really cared if he had another son. But, he obviously put a lot of value into having a literal son with Sarah and not just being content with being the father of nations in the eternities.

[Seminarysnoozer]

... The only way that I can put this together in my mind is that there was no other worthy male anywhere in the world at that time to hold the priesthood and to partake of temple marriage. And, so, he had to produce one of a specific lineage to be worthy of the priesthood to go on to temple marriage. But, then this reinforces that idea about lineage and priesthood, which is always hard to comprehend.

[Just_A_Guy]

As I understand it:

Being a "king" is a pretty hollow reward if you have no kingdom.

Brigham Young taught that, generally speaking, no one else is going to build up your dominion for you. As I understand it, if Abraham adopts Lot, Lot's biological parents have no further claim on him. That works, if Lot's biological parents have forfeited their own "kingdom" through sin--but if they haven't, Abraham has no right to go raiding Haran's kingdom to build up his own.

I see adoption as an exception, for the placement of children whose parents' choices have led to their forfeiting their own kingdoms. But it is not the rule. The rule is, your kingdom = your family.

[Seminarysnoozer]

As I understand it:

Being a "king" is a pretty hollow reward if you have no kingdom.

Brigham Young taught that, generally speaking, no one else is going to build up your dominion for you. As I understand it, if Abraham adopts Lot, Lot's biological parents have no further claim on him. That works, if Lot's biological parents have forfeited their own "kingdom" through sin--but if they haven't, Abraham has no right to go raiding Haran's kingdom to build up his own.

I see adoption as an exception, for the placement of children whose parents' choices have led to their forfeiting their own kingdoms. But it is not the rule. The rule is, your kingdom = your family.

So let me understand what you are saying. When it comes to family in the next life, it is a "ruling" over your posterity situation? That seems really strange to me. I can understand that families are forever, or can be forever, meaning we will continue to have relationships with those individuals but I don't see how there would be a need to have a great great great grandmother 'ruling' over me, I would rather just have her as a friend. And I have heard (probably just something that gets passed around a bit) that our chronological age and line-up here may have nothing to do with our chronological line-up in heaven. One example of course is our eldest brother came in the meridian of time. It is hard for me to comprehend too how those that are not fortunate to have children in this life will have no 'posterity' here but I don't think that will affect any of what they are given in terms of responsibilities and kingdoms in the life to come. This would also apply to all those that die before the age of 8 etc. And again, all those that come at the '11:59' hour of earths existence will have very little earthly posterity and yet are described as being the most valiant. I can't wrap my head around the idea that one's earthly posterity relates to 'posterity' in heaven.

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, let me just preface this by saying this is what makes sense to me:

First off, if all "eternal families" are is having "relationships"--does that mean I'll be forever barred from interacting with anyone I wasn't "sealed" to? I don't think so. What, then, does "sealing" actually mean?

For me, the sealing is partially an issue of maintaining the quality of those family relationships; but it's also reinforcing a hierarchy. I think "ruling" is a crude way of putting it--do Celestialized beings really need to be ruled when God's law is written in their own hearts?--but I think there's a system of accountability, prerogatives, and channels through which blessings flow--from bottom to top as well as from top to bottom. For example: I inherit certain qualities and blessings from my parents, by virtue of their own natures as well as choices that they have made. But, as a counter-example: everything good that my descendants do, to some degree, reflects back on me--just as you take pride in the accomplishments of your own children. So I both bless and am blessed by both my descendants and my ancestors. And I think that's the bulk of how God's glory expands--because every new creation, or even a creation of one of His creations--reflects some of its glory back on Him.

And of course, our mortal life is one period where we get to create life. We're also told that children will continue to be born during the Millennium; and then if we are blessed with exaltation--the whole point of exaltation is that you're creating worlds and creating people to live on those worlds.

Anyhoo--again--this is just what makes sense to me. Chew on it a while, and if you find it too big to swallow, there's nothing wrong with discarding the notion and finding another paradigm that works better for you.

[Moksha]

This has to do with the covenant that God made with Abraham. God not In short, we are able to be adopted as God's children because we have the Gospel, when before only the Israelites were able to be God's people (some exceptions, such as slaves and servants, but not many).

Or it could be the ancient Israelites didn't have the full story or gospel. This point would be evident if we believe we are all the children of God.

Much unusual speculation from these questions can be put into perspective best if we observe that what we gain as symbolic meaning, from Sacred Allegory, should make sense in itself and not rely on the convoluted to hammer out some sense.

[marts1]

Donno if this well help at all. I have read that the more obedient pre-existant spirits are placed through the blood lines of Israel to a certain extent.

[rameumptom]

Joseph Smith considered the sealing differently than most LDS do today. He saw himself building a kingdom or dynasty, as some scholars put it. He wanted to be connected closely to friends and associates, and so either adopted them spiritually, or married into their families (including women already married). This is often why ancient earthly kings married into other lines, etc., to extend the dynasty and power.

For Joseph, he was not power hungry. He sought more about expanding his relations and relationships through dynastic sealings. He and Emma offered to adopt Jane Manning as their spiritual daughter. She was a black member, who lived and worked for a time in the Nauvoo Mansion House. Jane was satisfied with being the daughter of her biological mother, and so the sealing did not occur.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young adopted most of the Council of 50 as their sons, as well.

I think the concept is that in the eternities, we will develop new worlds and creations as families. Just as God the Father developed this world through councils that included Jesus and many of his other children, so we will create and expand the cosmos in family units.

Joseph's dynasty went beyond his death. When Heber J. Grant was called as an apostle at the age of 24, he wanted to know why he was called at such a young age (all the other apostles were in their 50s and older). He saw in vision his biological father, Jedediah Grant, and his spiritual father whom his mother was sealed to, Joseph Smith, both pleading before the throne of God to have Heber called as an apostle.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I guess the reason why I question this is because I look at this life as a probationary period where a veil has been placed before us and where we have left the presence of God. We are placed in artificial scenarios to test us and allow us to have experiences that we need for the eternities.

It's like when you take the SAT and there is a question about "if Bob travels 30 miles down the C train at 60 miles an hour, how long will it take to get to the station?" That doesn't mean in the real world (i.e - in the next life) you are going to run into a guy named Bob riding on a "C train". Our situations we find ourselves in are related to the assignments and purposes for this world which are to prove our worthiness in the next. We are given talents here (by the way, that we may not have had in the previous life) so that we can see if we will multiply them and be good servants. For example, Moses not being a good public speaker, in my opinion, was just a part of his earthly situation and test. Likewise, our family situation is just part of this test and opportunity to perform our individual assignments and tests. Just like any test, you can't test for all things, you have to given just a sampling of various questions that represents the full material, so in other words it is select, not complete. This is just a very very short period of time for us. I can't see how all the eternities are based on the genetic hierarchy of this world. And if it is, why? Why base the eternities on a short select artificially altered existence from our true selves?

We are duel beings, spirit and mortal body. How much of you right now is your body versus the spirit? My guess is that our actions and our personalities and our overall 'test situation' is mostly our body and not our spiritual self ... that is the power of the veil. Spiritually, my mother is my sister as well as my great great great grandmother, and so is Emma Smith. In fact Emma Smith is just as much my sister as my mother, why would my relationship in the next life be any different with Emma Smith compared to my earthly mother. I suppose it would be if one thinks this life is more than a quick passing or a test.

[Seminarysnoozer]

... sorry to go on about it, but I had another thought to maybe clarify where I am coming from. I think having 'eternal families' is like the ability of remembering all of your friends from elementary school. When I look back to elementary school, I had a lot of good friends that would come over to my house and we would play for hours and some of them even went on to go to Junior High and High School with me. But, those that didn't go on to High School with me, I didn't really maintain any relationship with them and for the most part have forgotten about them. In fact, now I would say that I don't have any relationship with them even though I had a good relationship with them before. 'Families are Forever' to me is a wonderful blessing in which it is possible to continue those relationships established here and be surrounded by people that you had growing experiences with here, kind of like being around all of your elementary school friends while in High School or college etc. And those that aren't sealed to you will be like the guy you sat next to in second grade that you can't remember his name.

Who is your father and mother in this life, I think, will have the same significance as who was class president in fourth grade, unless that person was you or someone you continue to have a relationship with now, it probably is long forgotten.

[volgadon]

Nobody has really answered the question about the land, so I'll give it a shot.

The land was important for Abraham's POSTERITY to have a place to live, where they were in charge and could live and worship as they aught.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Joseph Smith considered the sealing differently than most LDS do today. He saw himself building a kingdom or dynasty, as some scholars put it. He wanted to be connected closely to friends and associates, and so either adopted them spiritually, or married into their families (including women already married). This is often why ancient earthly kings married into other lines, etc., to extend the dynasty and power.

For Joseph, he was not power hungry. He sought more about expanding his relations and relationships through dynastic sealings. He and Emma offered to adopt Jane Manning as their spiritual daughter. She was a black member, who lived and worked for a time in the Nauvoo Mansion House. Jane was satisfied with being the daughter of her biological mother, and so the sealing did not occur.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young adopted most of the Council of 50 as their sons, as well.

I think the concept is that in the eternities, we will develop new worlds and creations as families. Just as God the Father developed this world through councils that included Jesus and many of his other children, so we will create and expand the cosmos in family units.

Joseph's dynasty went beyond his death. When Heber J. Grant was called as an apostle at the age of 24, he wanted to know why he was called at such a young age (all the other apostles were in their 50s and older). He saw in vision his biological father, Jedediah Grant, and his spiritual father whom his mother was sealed to, Joseph Smith, both pleading before the throne of God to have Heber called as an apostle.

Your response makes me wonder even more why it was important to Abraham (and God for that matter) to have a specific genetic line to create that 'dynasty' as you put it. If Joseph Smith did this with people he wasn't even related to (from a genetic standpoint) why was it so important for Abraham? They couldn't find some other cousin of Rebecca's to marry and pass on the keys and "adopt" into the 'dynsasty.' Or was Isaac the only non-egyptus descendant in the whole world. For some reason, it was almost critical that the son be a genetic offspring of Abraham and Sarah that goes a little unspoken in the scriptures. (at least to my reading)

Edited March 18, 2010 by Seminarysnoozer
typo

[Seminarysnoozer]

Nobody has really answered the question about the land, so I'll give it a shot.

The land was important for Abraham's POSTERITY to have a place to live, where they were in charge and could live and worship as they aught.

Do you think there will be a difference between the people that you bring into the fold through missionary work etc versus those that are brought into the fold by being your son's son's son (i.e. posterity)? In other words, it seems like there is a value placed on posterity that is different than simply converting someone and 'adopting' them into the fold and it seems most obvious with the story of Abraham.

[rameumptom]

Your response makes me wonder even more why it was important to Abraham (and God for that matter) to have a specific genetic line to create that 'dynasty' as you put it. If Joseph Smith did this with people he wasn't even related to (from a genetic standpoint) why was it so important for Abraham? They couldn't find some other cousin of Rebecca's to marry and pass on the keys and "adopt" into the 'dynsasty.' Or was Isaac the only non-egyptus descendant in the whole world. For some reason, it was almost critical that the son be a genetic offspring of Abraham and Sarah that goes a little unspoken in the scriptures. (at least to my reading)

As I mentioned before, Abraham didn't have a problem with adoption. It was God who insisted on it. Why?

I think that had more to do with symbolism. Isaac had to be the begotten biological child of Abraham, so that events such as the sacrifice of Isaac could represent God the Father sacrificing his Only Begotten Son.

Abraham was promised his dynasty through Isaac, even though Ishmael and his other children had many descendants, as well.

[Moksha]

Donno if this well help at all. I have read that the more obedient pre-existant spirits are placed through the blood lines of Israel to a certain extent.

Instead of obedience, would you consider a keen appreciation for pastrami sandwiches with a wedge of kosher dill?

[Seminarysnoozer]

As I mentioned before, Abraham didn't have a problem with adoption. It was God who insisted on it. Why?

I think that had more to do with symbolism. Isaac had to be the begotten biological child of Abraham, so that events such as the sacrifice of Isaac could represent God the Father sacrificing his Only Begotten Son.

Abraham was promised his dynasty through Isaac, even though Ishmael and his other children had many descendants, as well.

Could you explain to me what you know about the significance of an earthly dynasty is in heaven, and what is meant by "dynasty." thanks

[Traveler]

To understand Abraham we need to understand the basics of covenants with G-d. There are three basis benedictions to divine covenants as follows:

1. A promised land

2. A enduring posterity

3. Protection and deliverance from enemies.

These “earthly” promises are symbolic of eternal benedictions. I suggest the following:

A promised land => symbolic of having a place prepared in heaven

Enduring posterity => symbolic of eternal life

Protection and deliverance from enemies => symbolic of redemption and salvation.

There are several parts to understanding covenants. The most important part of covenant is the understanding of loyalty to the covenant Suzerain. The law of the covenant is not near as important as the understanding of loyalty. It may be true that the law is required to demonstrate loyalty but the law alone is not a manifestation of loyalty. The principle of sacrifice can over arch the letter of law.

It is also important to note that the benedictions of covenants are not “individual” but are associated with a society fundamentally rooted in families. No one can be a Father of Nations without a Mother of Nations. The maledictions of covenants, on the other hand are individual. Thus it is that we can be individually excluded but only together can we be blessed.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

To understand Abraham we need to understand the basics of covenants with G-d. There are three basis benedictions to divine covenants as follows:

1. A promised land

2. A enduring posterity

3. Protection and deliverance from enemies.

These “earthly” promises are symbolic of eternal benedictions. I suggest the following:

A promised land => symbolic of having a place prepared in heaven

Enduring posterity => symbolic of eternal life

Protection and deliverance from enemies => symbolic of redemption and salvation.

There are several parts to understanding covenants. The most important part of covenant is the understanding of loyalty to the covenant Suzerain. The law of the covenant is not near as important as the understanding of loyalty. It may be true that the law is required to demonstrate loyalty but the law alone is not a manifestation of loyalty. The principle of sacrifice can over arch the letter of law.

It is also important to note that the benedictions of covenants are not “individual” but are associated with a society fundamentally rooted in families. No one can be a Father of Nations without a Mother of Nations. The maledictions of covenants, on the other hand are individual. Thus it is that we can be individually excluded but only together can we be blessed.

The Traveler

I appreciate your response. I see the covenant mostly in terms of symbolism like you describe. But that is where I have a hard time understanding the significance of it being through a certain line. Ishmael is described as the seed of Abraham in some respects but is not the line through which the priesthood is carried. So why is there a genetic requirement? I guess this falls into the category of Priesthood and genetics that has been discussed many times but I was looking at it more from the "father of many nations" here on earth. So maybe that is referring to the father of many priesthood holding nations? Was the only thing holding Ishmael back genetics? If they knew that ahead of time, why did Sarah offer Hagar as a solution then, she couldn't see what her genetics were?

[Traveler]

I appreciate your response. I see the covenant mostly in terms of symbolism like you describe. But that is where I have a hard time understanding the significance of it being through a certain line. Ishmael is described as the seed of Abraham in some respects but is not the line through which the priesthood is carried. So why is there a genetic requirement? I guess this falls into the category of Priesthood and genetics that has been discussed many times but I was looking at it more from the "father of many nations" here on earth. So maybe that is referring to the father of many priesthood holding nations? Was the only thing holding Ishmael back genetics? If they knew that ahead of time, why did Sarah offer Hagar as a solution then, she couldn't see what her genetics were?

I believe that is there was something personal going on with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael there would be no need to preserve a very old story for thousands of years. I believe because these stories are preserved for us that there must be some symbolism in the classical epoch of benefit and perhaps need even for our generation.

If one is to look at the symbolical nature of the names Isaac and Ishmael – the name Ishmael has the greater significance. There are several elements in this epoch tale. Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, does some rather odd things concerning her covenants – that have an effect on her son Ishmael and his birthright. We can discuss the symbolism if you wish because this epoch tale is rich in covenant symbolism. Both Sarah and Hagar face a very difficult covenantal trial. Sarah makes personal sacrifices even concerning her positions within the covenant for the sake of her covenants while Hagar uses her positions in the covenant to justify personal ambitions. One interesting thing I find in all cases when there is jealously within a family concerning two brothers each with a possibility of obtaining the “greater” right of birth than the other; that in the end the greater birth right is established in the younger of the two brothers (who is more loyal) and the older brother (less loyal) often becomes an “outcast”. With this in mind you may find the scripture in Eccl. 1:9-11 quite interesting.

The Traveler