Kabbalah And Mormonism

[HiJolly]

Samlam, doesn't Tiphareth represent the Son? I think Leonora Leet was pretty clear on that. And that is very central in the tree of life.

HiJolly

[SamIam]

What that guy said.

I read through post 2 and the link embedded in it. The most important concept for where I anticipate we are going to go was this one that you made:

"The trick in Kabbalah is to remember that all of Kabbalah is a metaphor."

This truly is a significant perpsective.

[SamIam]

Samlam, doesn't Tiphareth represent the Son? I think Leonora Leet was pretty clear on that. And that is very central in the tree of life.

HiJolly

I have to apologize as I am not very familiar with Leonora Leet. I have done a bit of a search on her material and on the surface it does look like she might be an interesting read. However, I am sure that she is not trying to find the correlations that link LDS Theology and Kabbalism. I also have to clarify that in my efforts I do not prefer other people’s interpretations of ancient writings. When I read others writings it is mostly for the quotes of actual ancient texts more than their explanation of ancient texts. I do find explanations by the early Kabbalists of interest. But prefer to read as close to origin as I possibly can get....as long as a translation exists in English.

However, the bottom line of my approach is as I stated in my last major post. When it comes to religious materials and efforts to decipher them it is the patterns that I am looking for and how they match up to LDS theology and then once the connection is made I can extrapolate from the Jewish material other perspectives that magnify and unite LDS principles. My focus is to understand Jesus Christ better and all facets of truth that relate to him. As I stated, it is obvious that the Kabbalah has removed practically any direct reference to anything that might be associated the Jesus Christ. However they retain huge quantities of material that speak to imagery that has to be Jesus Christ. My goal is to re-insert Christ back into the narrative of the Kabbalah and then once he is back in the center see how the imagery magnifies understanding further.

As far as to your question Tiphareth's position as the center sefirot is an ideal imagery. However, from my collective analysis of multiple sources the imagery that Kabbalists use to describe Tiphareths is more like describing an attribute of Christ's but not his whole being. In my opinion there are only two sefirot that can be attributed as possessing a collective imagery of something that can be defined as wholeness. As Volgadon and I and all others who contribute proceed in developing this I am sure we will cover that material and I would like to wait until we can all examine the imagery together to see the thought processes that illustrate conclusions. This will be new ground and likely have many differences compared to non LDS mentalities and their treatment of Kabbalism. For me the Restored gospel has to be the standard to build around.

[DubaDNura]

Not being a Christian, I'm not going to be able to help you very much in assigning Christological significance to the Sefirot. However, I can explain the Kabbalistic significance of the Sefirot.Teferet means beauty. It is the 6th Sefirah, coming after Keter, Chochma, Binah, Chesed, and Gevurah. The 10 Sefirot are grouped into three groups of three. R' Aharon Horowitz called those groups: Muskal, Mutvah, and Murgash. Those three words are the passive voice renditions of Sechel, Tevah, and Hergesh, or Intellect, Nature, and Feeling. The First three Sefirot, Keter Chochma and Binah (sometimes rendered KaCHa''B) are intellectual. Sometimes, for reasons that are beyond this short discussion of the Sefirot, the first three Sefirot are rendered Chochma Binah and Daat (or ChaBa''D, an acronym some of you may have heard of, inasmuch as it is also the name of a large Chassidic sect). Daat means knowledge, but it really means connection in the context of Kabbalah (as in "Adam knew Eve." Nobody understands this verse as meaning that he could identify her; it means that he had sexual relations with her, or that he connected to her). It is the connection between Chochma/Binah and higher than intellect (and is therefore nearly synonymous with Keter in that role), the connection between Chochma and Binah, and the connection between ChaBa''D and the emotional attributes of Chesed Gevurah and Tiferet.

Mutva means nature. It refers to the emotional nature. Chesed means kindness. Gevurah means severity (so we have kindness and stern judgments, opposite sides of the same coin). Tiferet means beauty because it is the combination of two different and opposite attributes. Beauty comes from blending and contrast. A blank blue canvas (Chesed is connected with the color blue), or a blank red canvas (Gevurah is connected with the color red) is not beautiful. A canvas with a combination of colors is beautiful. Tiferet is also connected to Rachamim, or mercy. Mercy means that you understand that a person is guilty and therefore worthy of stern judgment, but that you also appreciate their innate qualities, and their humanity which transcends their actions.

Tiferet is also the crown over the last four Sefirot: Netzach, Hod, Yesod, and Malchut. Those four Sefirot have to do with action, and are connected with putting a given plan into action, or with formulating the practical plan for accomplishing an ideological goal. Tiferet is therefore connected with the heart: the heart governs the entire body by pumping life-blood to all of the body's limbs and organs. On the one hand, Tiferet is inward looking: once the intellect has created an ideological goal, Chesed and Gevurah begin to orient the psyche and the emotions towards commitment to the goal. Love of anything that moves you towards the goal and hatred of anything that stands in your way are both important components to a person's dedication to the goal. Tiferet makes sense out of Chesed and Gevurah in coming up with an outlook that is consistent and that will be effective in carrying out the desired objective. So if a judge wants a criminal who comes before him to become a productive member of society, he will not simply sentence the criminal to the maximum possible sentence. Rather, he will be creative in his application of justice, tempering his sense of justice and recompense with lovingkindess to produce mercy. The merciful thing is to provide the person an education that will affect his life for the better. That will not be accomplished if the criminal learns that his actions will not be met with sanctions (chesed) or if the criminal is forced to be just another cog in the prison system.

This last metaphor provides a good segue into the other component of Teferet: it governs action. Tiferet creates a realistic goal to work towards, so that in formulating the final plan (with all of its boring and irrelevant details), the ultimate goal is always kept in mind.

Tiferet is frequently associated with the 4 letter name of G-d, YHVH. It is called the center of the Midot, or emotional attributes.

[HiJolly]

Thanks for your comments, both of you.

HJ

[SamIam]

Not being a Christian, I'm not going to be able to help you very much in assigning Christological significance to the Sefirot.

Tiferet is frequently associated with the 4 letter name of G-d, YHVH. It is called the center of the Midot, or emotional attributes.

Thank you this is very good information.

Please bear with us as we work through this as, at least my material, is going to depart from some traditional interpretations based simply upon the traditional comments and descriptions of the various sefirot in the literature I have at my disposal. Sometimes the descriptions themselves describe very precise definitons that can be found in scripture and comparisons can be made based on Jewish rules of interpretation. However the Jews cannot interpet them according to how they seem to read since that would sustain Jesus Christ as a focal concept in the sefirot and I am positing that their intent was actually to obscure references to him by replacing mentions of the Messiah and incorporating other scriptural personalities to carry the description.

I am not trying to offend your perceptions of sacred interpretations but LDS theology places Jesus Christ as the center of all things and it is my contention that since that is the case one has to discern where he might have been removed or altered in being represented in Jewish mystical writings.

Another piece I will toss out now and perhaps again later is concerning my personal observaitons of the 10 sefirot. I am hoping that this may resonate with some source that you may be aware of that you might know a reference too as I have never encountered anything that I could construe as such.

I have determined that the sefirot image is layered imagery and may be the most profound for symbolically representing various aspects and complete themes of theological material. However part of the difficulty is not realizing that when speaking to a theme symbolically represented that not all Jewish commentary will relate to one theme but may relate to another. For instance the sefirot contain an entire theology that describes the creative process. From the usage of light as a component in creation to the various roles that each letter and sefirot played in the creation to Keter as a source of that light from a source above it to the Shekinah as Keter's manifestation on earth to represent the traits of the unknowable being that was the source of the light. etc etc. All of this weaves an excellent creation narrative but there are other themes of the male traits of the left side interacting with the female traits of the right side and together forging the highest level of representation below the Keter. While these two concepts can integrate at first it is valuable to recognize that some commentary will reference descriptions of the sefirot that speak to the creative implications while other references may speak to the feminine side and the masculine side. etc

My thoughts are that it is valuable to know that when one is studying these materials one should first categorize the nature of the perspective that is being developed in the commentary of the sefirot as to what overall theological concept is the focus of the descriptions. Otherwise people may not realize that some descriptions seem to oppose others in not speaking to an expected perception because they are actually referencing different descriptions of different themes.

Is there any reference in Jewish writings that gives understanding to the multiple themes illustrated by the sefirot and the value of knowing the perspective to encourage correct interpretation? I don’t know if that makes sense…

[mfbukowski]

Sometimes the descriptions themselves describe very precise definitons that can be found in scripture and comparisons can be made based on Jewish rules of interpretation. However the Jews cannot interpet them according to how they seem to read since that would sustain Jesus Christ as a focal concept in the sefirot and I am positing that their intent was actually to obscure references to him by replacing mentions of the Messiah and incorporating other scriptural personalities to carry the description.

This is precisely the problem I have with Kabbalah studies, especially for believers in Christ.

The basic assumption is that it is a study of objective "realities" of God- that the various interpretations "actually exist" and express "true" propositions about God.

And yet one cannot possibly understand these references without understanding Hebrew and having a pretty good working knowledge of Judaism.

Why would God reveal truths relevant to Christians, which are mostly allegedly about Christianity (at least that is your assumption here) ONLY to Jews who are very familiar with Hebrew and Jewish theology?

I understand studying this for a greater understanding of Jewish theology of course- and of Jewish tradition- all of that makes perfect sense to me, but for a Christian to study it, believing it is somehow relevant to Christianity, revealing "truths" supposed to be esoteric Christian doctrine NOT known generally to Christians but known only to Jewish scholars- THAT I find very hard to understand.

[Nathair/|\]

Apart from those things taught by the church, my mystical practice and studies tend towards the druid revival tradition, including the developments of Iolo Morganwg and Ross Nichols. I'm also taking a course on medieval Christian women mystics and finding much of what I'm learning quite beautiful and useful. However I know little about the Kabbalah and related teachings. I've found a couple of very basic presentations for Latter-Day Saints and I'd be interested on any criticism DubaDNura and Samlam might have. I know some of the ideas presented are original to the presenter or their proximate teachers. In those cases, I'm more interested in how well they fit in the tradition and how useful they are to someone who practices in the Kabbalah tradition.

The Romans destroyed most of our (Druids) ancient lore and the revival tradition has found it useful to steal whatever we can make fit. We tend to be more pragmatic than concerned with how ancient an idea might be or who originated it.

Yours under the cross-polinating oaks,

Nathair/|\

http://themormonmyst...or-mormons.html

(I'm not interested in discussing Druidry in this thread, I only mentioned it to give an idea of where I'm coming from and what I hope to get out of this discussion.)

Edited April 28, 2012 by Nathair

[mfbukowski]

We tend to be more pragmatic than concerned with how ancient an idea might be or who originated it.

This is another pov which makes perfect sense to me, if pragmatically, all this theorizing gives one meaning to one's life and one believes it gives him a better understanding of God which fits with the personal revelations that individual has received- THAT I "get". We all have metaphysical beliefs, some highly tuned which help us to hold our individual worlds together and make our lives meaningful.

For me, I would acknowledge such beliefs to be what they are, and label them "speculative theories" which I find meaningful- I would label them for what they are (and indeed I do hold such beliefs about the meaning of the LDS endowment etc.- so I am not holding myself aloof from such things- I understand the impulse very well)

But I think that may not be the case in this instance. I think that the presumption is that these discourses point to some external objective "truths" about God- not an alternative way of understanding God which may somehow be "correct" or not and if they are correct or not, still valuing them as a mental exercise making sense only for those who find those descriptions valuable in constructing their own world view.

But indeed that is perhaps the case for all religion. Religion and science of course do not have the same purposes.

But I will not monopolize this meta-discussion any more. If anyone wants to respond, I will respond, but perhaps I have said enough about this topic.

For what it is worth- I have seen those Kerry Shirts videos and would have the same questions for him.

Edited April 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[SamIam]

This is precisely the problem I have with Kabbalah studies, especially for believers in Christ.

And yet one cannot possibly understand these references without understanding Hebrew and having a pretty good working knowledge of Judaism.

Why would God reveal truths relevant to Christians, which are mostly allegedly about Christianity (at least that is your assumption here) ONLY to Jews who are very familiar with Hebrew and Jewish theology?

I understand studying this for a greater understanding of Jewish theology of course- and of Jewish tradition- all of that makes perfect sense to me, but for a Christian to study it, believing it is somehow relevant to Christianity, revealing "truths" supposed to be esoteric Christian doctrine NOT known generally to Christians but known only to Jewish scholars- THAT I find very hard to understand.

I see a couple of possibilities that perhaps would help. First Jews and Christian are sub-groups of a main group – Children of God. There is a split in priority from Old testament to the New Testament as to whom the Lord is sent to. However, There is a reason why Christ was sent to the Jews and it is mentioned in 2 Nephi 9: 5. Most people then tie that into 2 Nephi 10:3 as it was because they were the only ones that would kill their God. That is only the surface of the entire reasoning of why the Jews. The greater truth is found in the material surrounding and between those two points and has to do with the covenant. I have spent hours and hours working through that issue, however, to explain it and give it meaning I would have to come through the understanding of the Jews. Interestingly that knowledge would not convince a Jew of what was there as it depends on Christ and the absence of Jewish understandings would prevent the typical LDS person from seeing the point as well. It is a profound point that can only be completed by having both perspectives and the points of knowledge and then having the spirit of revelation.

Now the challenge is that you will note that people are very funny about people making definitive statements about a meaning of a scripture. Most act as if one cannot for sure know anything and if they state it with affirmation they ask you to slip in a “it seems to me” etc. We as a people are fearful of really believing that there is revelation and it does work. It is woefully lacking as an acceptable claim in academic circles such as this predominantly is.

So when you say “you can’t know” I have to beg to differ. You can't know if you believe you can't know however if you believe Nephi you can know. However, just because a person reveals a perspective that he gleaned through revelation to you does not mean you have to believe them. But as a people we should be very respectful of each other’s revelations. Still there are rules to believing and the rule for this is a second witness. If you will not negate the the ability to have something revealed to you by approaching it with a closed mind then the “rule of Nephi” applies. Go ask the Lord and he will reveal it to you – at the appropriate time. Just as a mention, The post on Evolution that I finally put together was a collection of revelations that I have received. I wove them together with bridging material from science really only to make them palatable to this group. Then I did not reference the source of my foundation until now as just that reference alone will shut down a predominantly intellectual thinker. But if you can blend both sides of the fence with the bias always in favor of God, things will open up such as you never imagined.

Why does he reveal to both you inquire? Knowing the things of the Jews and that which has been revealed to Christians is only the same principle as uniting the sticks of Ephraim and Judah into one. The Lord has as part of his goal to unite his children and to make them “talk” so to speak by understanding one another is a beautiful method. I have spent years in my efforts and I have found that though I hardly know a Jewish person in my circle of acquaintances, because of my intense desire to understand them I have developed an profound love of the Jews.

Nephi – Enos through Ether and Moroni have multitudes of references to the language of the fathers. Hebrew is handy and I have gained a rudimentary knowledge of it for my studies, however that is not the only facet of interpretation of the Fathers and I actually have come to see it as a strong second. It also is referencing the language of God or the language of imagery that God communicated to the fathers as they recorded his instructions. It shows how God looks at things, or the descriptive phrasing and ebb and flow that He weaves into his style of communication.

I found understandings of Hebrew to be a short cut to understanding how God weaves language. Most words are roots of three letters, each letter can influence the true meaning of the word – so time cannot allow for contemporary shifts in meaning, Hebrew carries the foundation of meaning just in the influences of each letter. Words of similar reference will have common roots that are similar as well and even the added letters the define the related concept will drive the inferences of meaning that distinguish their definitions. To some degree all languages do some of this but it just seems coincidental – With Hebrew it is clear is was designed to be a language of scripture.

Nonetheless, I look at particular phrasing of Joseph Smiths revelations and realize the language of God is the priority. His statement that truth is things as they were, are and will be from the D & C is so Jewish it is astounding to see the crossover. However, what that statement is truly saying is powerful and remarkable and can only be gleaned by revelation not Hebrew. This principle was the basis of my thoughts on the evolution post. I’m only using that as a reference to a common thread we both have knowledge of but as far but as far as why study the manner of the Jews? I could never have put that together accept that I have in some small way learned how the Jews think-and through that I have learned more of the language of the Fathers or how God weaves his truths in scripture. The Jews are the best religious scientists that I can imagine. Not that they are always right but their methodologies expand the minds ability to come at a question from angels that escape those who lack that understanding. It is required for advancement spiritually – not necessarily at all, but if you love to learn the language of God – so far in my life they have been the teachers and I the student.

Edited April 29, 2012 by SamIam

[SamIam]

However I know little about the Kabbalah and related teachings. I've found a couple of very basic presentations for Latter-Day Saints and I'd be interested on any criticism DubaDNura and Samlam might have.

Most of us that have spent time in cyber space have run into Kerry Shirts from time to time. I always find his material very interesting and thought provoking. He provides some reasonable scholarship and can be a nice source for information.

One of the things I do on the side is I am a bee inspector for a Utah county. When I go out, especially when I am visiting the "newbies" to the bee scene is I tell them that I will explain what I know and do everything I can to assist them be successful, but I caution that every beekeeper out there does it a little bit different and everyone of them thinks he knows bees best. I then mention that the only constant is the bees are smarter than we are and simply adapt to our efforts and make us look like we know more than we know.

It is a poor comparison at best, but what I am trying to encourage is learn what you can from what others offer but realize the constant is to be taught by the spirit. Trust no source until you feel like the spirit confirms your understanding. Never, criticize or undermine the leaders of the Church in any way whatsoever as that is the surest indicator a person is not half as bright as they think they are. For myself, I appreciate intellectual discourse but am cautious about those that manifest a priority for looking smart over being spiritual. Otherwise study a way and let the spirit guide the path. I can't speak to druidism as I have only the slightest exposure. I find Jewish Mysticism significant as a means of giving me a venue from which to study the scriptures that is interesting, compelling and captivating. Look forward to your interactions with us.

[Robert F. Smith]

This is precisely the problem I have with Kabbalah studies, especially for believers in Christ.

The basic assumption is that it is a study of objective "realities" of God- that the various interpretations "actually exist" and express "true" propositions about God.

Volgadon emphasized the figurative or metaphorical nature of Qabbala.

And yet one cannot possibly understand these references without understanding Hebrew and having a pretty good working knowledge of Judaism.

Why would God reveal truths relevant to Christians, which are mostly allegedly about Christianity (at least that is your assumption here) ONLY to Jews who are very familiar with Hebrew and Jewish theology?

I understand studying this for a greater understanding of Jewish theology of course- and of Jewish tradition- all of that makes perfect sense to me, but for a Christian to study it, believing it is somehow relevant to Christianity, revealing "truths" supposed to be esoteric Christian doctrine NOT known generally to Christians but known only to Jewish scholars- THAT I find very hard to understand.

I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things

which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews.

II Nephi 25:5

What you say is certainly true, and it does create a dilemma for us. On the one hand, we should appreciate the simplicity (peshat) and directness of the Gospel message. On the other, Jesus was a Jew enmeshed in a Jewish cultural milieu. His followers were Jews who well understood the nature of that milieu. The early Christian Church was a Jewish sect very much like the Qumran covenanters.

The OT & NT scriptures are Jewish (or Israelite and Abrahamic in full context). We can read them in translation, and examine the footnotes, and follow out the references and maps as best we can. We can pray for assistance in that process, and hope for enlightenment about a very foreign world -- a strange world which we also find in the Book of Mormon and in the Pearl of Great Price.

What has become apparent to scholars (and probably not to the rest of us) is that understanding Jesus and the Holy Scriptures requires that we do the best we can to understand the strange world they come from, i.e., Amy-Jill Levine now says what many Jewish scholars now say,

"Christian scholars and teachers now emphasize that Jesus cannot be understood apart from Judaism. If you want to understand Jesus, you must understand the Jewish world in which he lived." Levine, “Jesus Who?” Moment, 27/4 (Aug 2002), 75.

"To wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity, the religion that grew out of his teachings. Even Jesus' most familiar role as Christ is a Jewish role. If Christians leave the concrete realities of Jesus' life and of the history of Israel in favor of a mythic, universal, spiritual Jesus and an otherworldly kingdom of God, they deny their origins in Israel, their history, and the God who has loved and protected Israel and the church. They cease to interpret the actual Jesus sent by God and remake him in their own image and likeness."

Anthony J. Saldarini, "What Price the Uniqueness of Jesus?" Bible Review, XV/3 (June 1999), 17.

" . . . the discussion shows us plainly that the corner has been turned, and that Jesus can no longer be marginalized from his own Judaism. The historicity of this rabbi has been recognized, and here we are shown that his history can only make sense to us when we locate his actions and teachings within his Jewish religious and cultural context."

Bruce Chilton, Bible Review, XVI/4 (August 2000), 54-55.

Indeed, Jewish scholars now readily admit that the Messianic notions of Christianity (especially the Suffering Servant of Isaiah) were an integral part of Judaism before the birth of Jesus and before the rise of Christianity:

Michael O. WIse, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).

Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000).

Judaism is an integral part of Christianity. Unless we understand it, we are going to miss a great deal within Holy Scripture and its interpretation.

[volgadon]

Volgadon emphasized the figurative or metaphorical nature of Qabbala.

Perhaps you meant DubaDNura.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed, Jewish scholars now readily admit that the Messianic notions of Christianity (especially the Suffering Servant of Isaiah) were an integral part of Judaism before the birth of Jesus and before the rise of Christianity:

Michael O. WIse, The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ (S.F.: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999).

Israel Knohl, The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000).

Judaism is an integral part of Christianity. Unless we understand it, we are going to miss a great deal within Holy Scripture and its interpretation.

Totally agree.

BUT

Are you saying that Jesus was a Kabbalah scholar?

The question for me is, how much additional understanding of HIS message can we find here? I suppose the question becomes how much of Kabbalah is of medieval origin? I suppose it is analogous to studying Masonry to learn about the LDS temple. In that case there are limits.

Arguably both Masonry and temple rites come from the same sources, but the question remains- how much can one learn of the "true origins" can one discover by studying an admittedly apostate branch? And the other practical consideration- is that what LDS who teach and learn Kabbalah have as a major consideration, or do they just get involved in all the cool symbology? I could totally immerse myself in it because I just think it is so cool! The question becomes- will it actually advance my understanding of the "true" nature of God as we LDS understand it?

I am having trouble seeing how the investment of time would prove worthwhile to truly understand God from an LDS perspective.

To me it is kind of like studying Aquinas to deepen my understanding of LDS doctrine. Since I have indeed studied Aquinas, I would discourage anyone from thinking there is anything relevant to LDS doctrine there whatsoever. I mean if you are a Medievalist and into that stuff- great! But for understanding LDS doctrine and the nature of the LDS God- there's nothing there.

Edited May 1, 2012 by mfbukowski

[SamIam]

Are you saying that Jesus was a Kabbalah scholar?

The question for me is, how much additional understanding of HIS message can we find here? I suppose the question becomes how much of Kabbalah is of medieval origin? I suppose it is analogous to studying Masonry to learn about the LDS temple. In that case there are limits.

Arguably both Masonry and temple rites come from the same sources, but the question remains- how much can one learn of the "true origins" can one discover by studying an admittedly apostate branch? And the other practical consideration- is that what LDS who teach and learn Kabbalah have as a major consideration, or do they just get involved in all the cool symbology? I could totally immerse myself in it because I just think it is so cool! The question becomes- will it actually advance my understanding of the "true" nature of God as we LDS understand it?

I am having trouble seeing how the investment of time would prove worthwhile to truly understand God from an LDS perspective.

First - Jesus was the Kabbalah source - probably makes him a master.

I can add only from my experience as a “gentile” who has accepted and not discounted the significance of the references in the Book of Mormon the value of the things of the Jews. Kabbalah is one venue but I have tried to approach from others as well. I have two perspectives on these materials.

I started with some material in the introduction of Understanding Isaiah using Book of Mormon Textual Clues by Avraham Gileadi, and a Book by an author Joe Sampson – Written by the Finger of God. These both were stepping stones but each pointed me towards purer Jewish sources. The Sefir Yetzirah, Bahir, Zohar become further guides which I still refer to. I have spent years trying to grasp the principles of PRDS and only feel some real success in the past 3 or 4 – It has been the most valuable paradigm changing device for altering how I view scripture. . I started studying Hebrew, not just the language but several years on the meanings of the letters themselves and how they influence definitions etc. Finally, more esoteric material like Yikra bi Shami by Ariel Bar Tzadok. I have spent a great deal of time in Jewish Law , The Code of Jewish Law is a favorite source and a much larger Tome that I cannot remember. I have multiple books on Jewish Symbolism and I reference them often. I love targums, and I include as part of my efforts Pseudopegriphical writings and Apocryphal writings recommending the R. H. Charles 2 volumes The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament books and several others.

After all of these years here is my basic take. Each of us has methods that enable us to learn the gospel. I sometimes admit to myself that my efforts have been a crutch that appealed to my need to give me somewhere to focus from a venue that was captivating and immensely interesting. As captivating as these were it enabled me to develop habits of study that have been consistent and dependable. The benefit has been the journey. As I look back from my current perspectives and knowledge I could have gotten to where I am only on one principle. In all of my efforts I sought diligently for the spirit to direct my learning. Now did the spirit need all of my resources to teach me. No I suspect and genuinely feel that the scriptures alone could have been adequate resource. I can say that because for the past 3-4 years they have become almost exclusively what I depend on to direct my understandings. However, the wealth of exposure I have had to Jewish material is a constant filter when I study. So…I needed those resources just to help keep me engaged long enough that I could grow to depend on the scriptures. This is my first perspective.

My second perspective is that what I own to the Jews is not the material itself but knowledge of how they would study it. They are the spiritual scholars of religion. They apply rules of study that typical gentiles will never grasp because they overlook the merit. Nobody can grasp, LDS included, spiritual imagery like the Jews. They think in a much more open fashion. As dependent as our western culture is on tangibles and proofs the Jews are in their acceptance of the tangible proofs being in the spiritual realm. The Torah, or the law is the proof. If it claims an event occurred they simply build from there. As they have done so they have built an entire structure of how to evaluate the scriptures and attempt to maintain integrity of thought and continuity. So in the study of application of tenants of spiritual study, I think they excel. Their entire culture has been based on knowing and defining means of knowing God. Now do not mistake my perspective. I am not saying that they in their efforts came to correct conclusions. The moment you stop pondering upon Jesus Christ as the center of your religious study you will go astray…and they did. However, the techniques, the manner and insight that can be gleaned has been for me priceless.

[Tacenda]

In another thread, they are discussing the King Follett Discourse or Sermon. I had no idea that JS had a friend that may have taught him a religion that teaches similar things that are portrayed in the sermon. Interesting to me is the timing of it. Forever learning, it never stops.

http://gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm

"Through his associations with ceremonial magic as a young treasure seer, Smith contacted symbols and lore taken directly from Kabbalah. In his prophetic translation of sacred writ, his hermeneutic method was in nature Kabbalistic. With his initiation into Masonry, he entered a tradition born of the Hermetic-Kabbalistic tradition. These associations culminated in Nauvoo, the period of his most important doctrinal and ritual innovations. During these last years, he enjoyed friendship with a European Jew well-versed in the standard Kabbalistic works and possibly possessing in Nauvoo an extraordinary collection of Kabbalistic books and manuscripts. By 1844 Smith not only was cognizant of Kabbalah, but enlisted theosophic concepts taken directly from its principal text in his most important doctrinal sermon, the "King Follett Discourse."

Smith's concepts of God's plurality, his vision of God as anthropos, and his possession by the issue of sacred marriage, all might have been cross-fertilized by this intercourse with Kabbalistic theosophy--an occult relationship climaxing in Nauvoo. This is a complex thesis; its understanding requires exploration of an occult religious tradition spanning more that a millennium of Western history, an investigation that begins naturally with Kabbalah."

[volgadon]

In another thread, they are discussing the King Follett Discourse or Sermon. I had no idea that JS had a friend that may have taught him a religion that teaches similar things that are portrayed in the sermon. Interesting to me is the timing of it. Forever learning, it never stops.

http://gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm

"Through his associations with ceremonial magic as a young treasure seer, Smith contacted symbols and lore taken directly from Kabbalah. In his prophetic translation of sacred writ, his hermeneutic method was in nature Kabbalistic. With his initiation into Masonry, he entered a tradition born of the Hermetic-Kabbalistic tradition. These associations culminated in Nauvoo, the period of his most important doctrinal and ritual innovations. During these last years, he enjoyed friendship with a European Jew well-versed in the standard Kabbalistic works and possibly possessing in Nauvoo an extraordinary collection of Kabbalistic books and manuscripts. By 1844 Smith not only was cognizant of Kabbalah, but enlisted theosophic concepts taken directly from its principal text in his most important doctrinal sermon, the "King Follett Discourse."

Smith's concepts of God's plurality, his vision of God as anthropos, and his possession by the issue of sacred marriage, all might have been cross-fertilized by this intercourse with Kabbalistic theosophy--an occult relationship climaxing in Nauvoo. This is a complex thesis; its understanding requires exploration of an occult religious tradition spanning more that a millennium of Western history, an investigation that begins naturally with Kabbalah."

 

Tacenda, I've been studying both Kabbalah and the possibility of Joseph knowing it, for quite some time. I've even presented on the topic once. So far, I've not seen any good evidence that Alexander Neibaur was a Kabbalist, and there is no indication that he had anything close to the largest, most valuable collection of Jewish books in the western states as Owens has suggested. The books referenced in the Times and Seasons could easily have come from an anthology, or from quotations in a single book.  Now, he was speaking with me informally and off the cuff, but Eliot Wolfson, one of the top academic experts in Kabbalistic studies, didn't seem to think that there was anything of a direct Kabbalistic presence in America of those years. It is also interesting to me (unless I have overlooked something) that one of the most Kabbalistic elements in the KFS is absent from all of the books in the Times and Seasons editorial. Not only that, but there are elements which could be read Kabbalistically in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, and they were printed long before Neibaur appeared on the scene.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, I've been studying both Kabbalah and the possibility of Joseph knowing it, for quite some time. I've even presented on the topic once. So far, I've not seen any good evidence that Alexander Neibaur was a Kabbalist, and there is no indication that he had anything close to the largest, most valuable collection of Jewish books in the western states as Owens has suggested. The books referenced in the Times and Seasons could easily have come from an anthology, or from quotations in a single book.  Now, he was speaking with me informally and off the cuff, but Eliot Wolfson, one of the top academic experts in Kabbalistic studies, didn't seem to think that there was anything of a direct Kabbalistic presence in America of those years. It is also interesting to me (unless I have overlooked something) that one of the most Kabbalistic elements in the KFS is absent from all of the books in the Times and Seasons editorial. Not only that, but there are elements which could be read Kabbalistically in both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, and they were printed long before Neibaur appeared on the scene.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/person/joshua-seixas

The friend mentioned is Joshua Seixas isn't it? Do you know what his religion was at the time? ETA: Oops, dumb question, it states in the quote he is Jewish. The website below has more info on him below. You are probably already familiar with the guy.

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Joshua-Seixas/466154701

Edited August 19, 2013 by Tacenda

[volgadon]

http://josephsmithpapers.org/person/joshua-seixas

The friend mentioned is Joshua Seixas isn't it? Do you know what his religion was at the time? ETA: Oops, dumb question, it states in the quote he is Jewish. The website below has more info on him below. You are probably already familiar with the guy.

http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Joshua-Seixas/466154701

 

 

No, the friend is Alexander Neibaur. Lance Owens' article is worth reading in full. As for Joshua Seixas,  he had converted to Christianity by the time he was hired by the church to teach Hebrew. There is no indication that he was a Kabbalist, either, and even in his famed grandfather's sermons there is barely the slightest trace of such.

[Tacenda]

No, the friend is Alexander Neibaur. Lance Owens' article is worth reading in full. As for Joshua Seixas, he had converted to Christianity by the time he was hired by the church to teach Hebrew. There is no indication that he was a Kabbalist, either, and even in his famed grandfather's sermons there is barely the slightest trace of such.

Is there a reference you can provide? I was reading on the "A Thoughtful Faith" FB page where they discuss this and someone postes that it was Joshua. I'd like to correct them if it is wrong. Just as I might have done, I don't want that info to go out in cyberspace as fact. ETA: Sorry Volgadon, I didn't read clear through, lazy person that I am. Thanks for letting me know below. Edited August 20, 2013 by Tacenda

[volgadon]

Is there a reference you can provide? I was reading on the "A Thoughtful Faith" FB page where they discuss this and someone postes that it was Joshua. I'd like to correct them if it is wrong. Just as I might have done, I don't want that info to go out in cyberspace as fact.

 

 

That the Owens article posits that Neibaur, not Seixas, taught JS Kabbalah? It is in Owens's article which you linked. He devotes a lot of space to it.